You’re right, of course, on the prescriptivist-descriptivist contrast. The prescriptivist impulse never dies, sadly.
However, the key insight that compels essentially all professional linguists towards descriptivism is not the fact languages change, true as that is. The key point is rather sociolinguistic. *Who gets to prescribe?* *What gives anyone authority on this?* As soon as one digs into these questions, you realise there are no good answers.
Prescriptivism is always and inevitably an attempt to establish or reinforce the preferences of one subgroup of language speakers over another. This is so whether or not its advocates intend it. Your example of AAVE is a common go-to example for making this point.
One of my favorite things about language is how thoroughly it shapes us, how certain ideas can only be expressed in certain languages. And the same is true for dialects that use the same words differently to extract some new, unanticipated meaning.
Language is so inherently creative. As you say, why limit ourselves to some rigidly prescriptive set of rules at all times?
Thanks for this post! I tend to speak with quirky mistakes and accents in my multi daily languages bundle and always have to self-consciously curl under the boots of linguist nazis. Glad they got called out here! 💪✨
Some time back I wrote a piece called "I Say 'Tomato', You Say 'Presciptive" on this topic (TBH, the title was probably the best part.) I argued that the prescptive/descriptive controversy is looking at it awry because linguists are actually both. You start with a description of a particular language as used in a particular speech community (or in your own head if you're a generativist). But for your description to be anything more than "butterfly collecting", you need to come up with a set of rules for speaking that language. So even if you're a sociolinguist studying, say, the dialect of second-generation Pakistani immigrants in Liverpool, you should stop end up with a set of rules that say, in effect, "If you want to talk like a Scouse Asian, this is how you do it." You're getting an ought from an is, as you put it. The problem with prescriptivists is that all too often, they're trying to pull an ought out of thin air.
Oooh I didn't know about that 'be' hidden meaning. As an ESL person I would understand what they meant from the context, unike French People, I don't feel the need to correct people if they use the wrong article while talking about stuff, but never guessed there was a hint of 'habit' behind the use of this construct. Fascinating
Only problem now is that I read it as Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) AL. Which still actually works, so never mind.
Me thinks Weird AL writes dope rhymes, and he be playing a character to make the song happen.
You’re right, of course, on the prescriptivist-descriptivist contrast. The prescriptivist impulse never dies, sadly.
However, the key insight that compels essentially all professional linguists towards descriptivism is not the fact languages change, true as that is. The key point is rather sociolinguistic. *Who gets to prescribe?* *What gives anyone authority on this?* As soon as one digs into these questions, you realise there are no good answers.
Prescriptivism is always and inevitably an attempt to establish or reinforce the preferences of one subgroup of language speakers over another. This is so whether or not its advocates intend it. Your example of AAVE is a common go-to example for making this point.
Smart guy!
One of my favorite things about language is how thoroughly it shapes us, how certain ideas can only be expressed in certain languages. And the same is true for dialects that use the same words differently to extract some new, unanticipated meaning.
Language is so inherently creative. As you say, why limit ourselves to some rigidly prescriptive set of rules at all times?
Thanks for this post! I tend to speak with quirky mistakes and accents in my multi daily languages bundle and always have to self-consciously curl under the boots of linguist nazis. Glad they got called out here! 💪✨
Some time back I wrote a piece called "I Say 'Tomato', You Say 'Presciptive" on this topic (TBH, the title was probably the best part.) I argued that the prescptive/descriptive controversy is looking at it awry because linguists are actually both. You start with a description of a particular language as used in a particular speech community (or in your own head if you're a generativist). But for your description to be anything more than "butterfly collecting", you need to come up with a set of rules for speaking that language. So even if you're a sociolinguist studying, say, the dialect of second-generation Pakistani immigrants in Liverpool, you should stop end up with a set of rules that say, in effect, "If you want to talk like a Scouse Asian, this is how you do it." You're getting an ought from an is, as you put it. The problem with prescriptivists is that all too often, they're trying to pull an ought out of thin air.
Excellent, informative post. Thank you for the excitement it brought me! Mind Molecules!
Thanks for reminding me of this song. Playing Word Crimes first thing in the morning is starting Friday off right!
Oooh I didn't know about that 'be' hidden meaning. As an ESL person I would understand what they meant from the context, unike French People, I don't feel the need to correct people if they use the wrong article while talking about stuff, but never guessed there was a hint of 'habit' behind the use of this construct. Fascinating
You be writin'... and rightin'
I can confirm your instinct, Weird Al is one of the nicest people anyone could be lucky enough to know. 👍