Prescriptivism
and descriptivism both coexist regardless of their differences. Over centuries,
people had been split into three different groups (Prescriptivist,
Descriptivist and those who sit somewhere in the middle) in regarding which
they believe and support. Descriptivism is regarded as the creative side of the
language, but without the grammar-bidding prescriptivism, its creativeness
would most likely get out of hand.
However in contrast, if prescriptivism only exists, would the language,
English, be evolved and improve as it is today? Due to this situation, there
has been disagreement and debate regarding the existence between them.
Although, despite the ongoing war, history has proven that both prescriptivism
and descriptivism had been coexisting ever since this language had developed
over the years. Therefore both of them do coexist and without one or the other,
then language simply wouldn’t work.
Figure 1.0 Key words relating to the debate
Source: http://hoydenabouttown.com
Both
prescriptivism and descriptivism must exist in order for language to
efficiently work. If descriptivism only existed, who would be there to control
the expansion of this language; this is when prescriptivism comes in.
Prescriptivists (refer to figure 2.0) are a group of people who believe in
rules that point out what is allowed and preferred in language. These rules do not just pertain to grammar,
but also extends to concerns such as spelling and formatting. They generally
point out English mistakes which results when the rules of English grammar had
been broken. Metaphorically speaking, the prescriptivists are the police of the
language; they control the language from linguistic chaos due to the linguistic
liberals (the Descriptivist). So, to sum
it up, a world without prescriptivism, would be a linguistic world without laws.
For example, the correct syntax structure in Standard English is
Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). Native English speakers would not say something
like, “I a book read”. However, without any linguistic conservatives, if enough
people started using a new syntactical trend, then there would be a change in
syntax structure. The problem with this is that it could lead to an inefficient
communication with other people as they would not be able to understand the underline
meaning of the message. Without any boundaries in language, descriptivism could
leads to social alienation from different age generations. For example, with
the increasing usage of internet and technology, many new lexemes had been
added to society’s everyday vocabulary (e.g. yolo and iPhone), as well as an
increase in, somewhat acceptable, grammatical mistakes, such as not typing
commas, apostrophes and/or quotation marks in messages, along with using
lexemes that were either shortened from their former selves (‘wev’ for
whatever) or created through affixation (‘lolling’ from the acronym, LOL).
Figure
2.0 The development of a new lexeme through the process of affixation Source: http://snag.gy/7qEwd.jpg
Figure 2.1 Breif introduction of Prescriptivism and Descriptivism
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukYRvOQw_B4
Figure 2.2 shows
a typical text message between two people. The messages that were sent from the
sender shows a lot of broken rules. For
example the lexeme ‘lien’ is spelt incorrectly. In phonology, it had undergone
a change from ‘lying’ to ‘lien’. The sender had changed the Velar Nasal /ŋ/ to
an Alveolar Nasal /n/. With messages like this, receivers would found it
confusing to read. So without the idea of prescriptivism, who decides what is
right? If the language didn’t have a so called authority on language, then
mispronunciations and misspellings will result in difficultly in interacting
with other people; therefore prescriptivism is required.
Source:http://noadventure.com/
"The reason it’s worth
standing up for punctuation is not that it’s an arbitrary system of notation
known only to an oversensitive elite who have attacks of the vapors when they
see it misapplied. The reason to stand up for punctuation is that without it
there is no reliable way of communicating meaning.’’- (Lynne Truss, “Eats, Shoots
and Leaves”)
On the other
hand, without descriptivism, English would never be as advanced as it is today;
Modern English would probably still be Old English with less than half of the
lexemes in today’s vocabulary list. Descriptivism encourages creativeness and change
in order to better represent the society and individuals. It is considered that
the idea behind descriptivism is that a language is defined by what people do
with it. Descriptivism allows flexibility in language, because without this
idea, no change will be made. Prescriptivism supports in one language being
standardized; it eliminates linguistic diversity. Prescriptivists are very
conservative and do not support in the change of language. Due to this they
tend to make a lot of judgements about people regarding to the standard of the language
they use. Figure 3.1 shows an interaction between a Nazi solider and a
commoner. In the interaction, many English rules regarding double negative,
mispronunciations (juice and Jews), and the placement of subject, verb and
object, show up which effects the duration and the main idea of the
interaction. During the interaction the commoner was clearly annoyed and
uncomfortable as the solider corrects every mistake he makes. Prescriptivists
generally correct people because they believe that native speakers should use ‘proper’
English. This may be caused by the ‘correct’ use of language that was taught in
schools which had created this stigma that non-standard varieties of English
are inferior to the standard. With the philosophy of descriptivism, evolution
of the language is occurring. Since it had, many changes had taken place in the
language subsystem. Lexemes have developed and changed through linguistic
processes such as acronyms (LOL), commonisations (Google), obsolescence
(lunting), weakening (snapper) and more, to enable English speakers to have a
wider range of lexeme choices for their usage. This shows English had been developing
significantly over the years, to be simplified for English speakers to use.
Descriptivism allows English speakers to observe the linguistic world as it is
without any factors affecting these observations, in other words, without
judging a book by its cover.
Figure 3.0 A coversation between a prescriptivist and descriptivist
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
‘’It’s prescriptivism without descriptivism
that must die...’’- (Gabe
Doyle, graduate student and doctoral candidate in Linguistics at the University
of California, San Diego.)
The differences
between prescriptivism and descriptivism is the reason of the ongoing war
sparked between the supporters of each. Many people see the two as one is right
and the other is wrong; one improves language while the other does not. They do
not see that both of them can work with each other to some degree as they had been
ever since the rules ‘correct’ spelling and pronunciation of English words had
develop. As history has shown, the coexistence of prescriptivism and
descriptivism had occurred ever since the development of the English language
from its proto-language. Throughout the English eras (Old English, Middle
English, Early New English and Modern English), each subsystem had undergone
changes while still maintaining certain English rules from each period. For
example, descriptivism had clearly taken place throughout the years as there
had been an increase in lexicology from the publishing of the first Oxford
English Dictionary to the current copy. Lexemes such as ‘pulchritudihous’, an
adjective for physically beautiful would not had been in the first printed
copy. As well as in the addition and obsolescence to lexemes (rabbit and
coney), morpheme (-ing and -ed) and variations in spelling (vyolence and
violence) , there had been changes in phonology due to events such as ‘The
Great Vowel Shift’, occurring in the late Middle English period. However, even
with this, people couldn’t help but argue about them. So the main debate
between them is whether or not grammar is something that can be naturally learnt
or something that had to be taught? It would be easier to acknowledge that both
can benefit from each together but the problem is that different people’s
opinions are getting in the way in keeping the two separate. One believes that
it would make the language easier if it is flexible whereas the other insists
that language should behave in an orderly fashion. To be honest, it is better
to support both. By stepping into the shoes of the two enable English speakers
to see the best of both sides. As quoted from Priestly, reforming a language
would be like “trying to rope in a river”. Language cannot be fully uniformed,
as there would be lexemes that come and go and changes in semantics of lexemes
caused by new inventions and discoveries. However tools such as dictionary and
education are dependent on prescriptivism, tools that native speakers need to
communicate. Hence, as mentioned before, prescriptivism and descriptivism is
both required in English. Everyone must be taught, in school, the standard
rules of the language (spelling, grammar and punctuation) as it is required for
clear communication with speakers of the language around the world. However it
is important to accept any new natural changes to the language as it enable the
evolution of the language.
"Descriptivism is like common
law, which works on precedent and accumulates slowly over time. Prescriptivism
is an authoritarian version of code law, which says precedent be damned: if the
rule book says this is the law, that's that."-(Robert Lane Greene, You Are What You
Speak. 2011)
Prescriptivism
and descriptivism had been working hand in hand throughout many centuries, and can
therefore can coexist. Without one or the other, the English language would not
be as it is today. Without prescriptivism, it will be very difficult, if not
confusing, to maintain. Nonetheless, if prescriptivism only exists, English
would never continue to improve. The war between the two had been, and still is,
debating which one holds the upper hand. However, regardless of any war, both
exist and are regularly used. This shows the coexistence of the two has no
major negative impact towards the language and they will continually coexist.
Therefore, in conclusion, prescriptivism and descriptivism can and does
coexist.
Bibliography:
-Can
descriptivism and prescriptivism coexist? (2012)
-Prescriptivism
and Descriptivism, 2014
-Prescriptivism
and Descriptivism in the 18th Century (2012)
