Prescriptivism and Descriptivism

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. 

                                                                                         Figure 2.2 Example of a text message with poor grammar
                                                                                                   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

 ‘’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)

https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/page/11/

-Prescriptivism and Descriptivism, 2014

http://english.blogoverflow.com/2012/10/prescriptivism-and-descriptivism/

-Prescriptivism and Descriptivism in the 18th Century (2012)

http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/prescriptivism-and-descriptivism-in.html