Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism
Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism
Change is inevitable. For example, take a newborn baby. A baby can wiggle, cry, eat, and excrete. Over time, the baby will grow to develop the powers to think, feel, do, and be. From the moment of birth, the child’s ability to live, act, and experience the world will rapidly increase. The parents of this child will watch him or her grow and evolve through every step. Raising a child is scary due to all the opportunities for mistakes, but one must let go of fear and accept the prospect of creating a unique life. What is correct and what is not correct is ultimately only a matter of what is accepted by society, for language is a matter of conventions within society. The key to change is to let go of all fear, because just like life, nothing in language is set in stone. In the world of grammarians there are two competing camps: descriptivists (naturalists) and prescriptivists (traditionalists). The difference between the two is well explained in a quote from Edward Finegan of the University of Southern California. Finegan says, “Descriptive grammarians ask the question, ‘What is English (or another language) like- what are its forms and how to they function in various situations?’ By contrast, prescriptive grammarians ask, ‘What should English be like- what forms should people use and what functions should they serve?’” (pbs.org) THESIS/ FOCUS
Let’s start by explaining the side of Prescriptivists. Through a traditionalistic approach to language, one would be concerned with aspects of language use such as spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and syntax. This also includes judgments on what usages are socially proper and politically correct. The prescriptivists aim is to establish a standard language, and to teach what is perceived within a particular society to be correct forms of language, or to advise on effective communication. Due to the fact that prescriptivist’s views on usage are conservative, prescription appears to be resistant
Change is inevitable. For example, take a newborn baby. A baby can wiggle, cry, eat, and excrete. Over time, the baby will grow to develop the powers to think, feel, do, and be. From the moment of birth, the child’s ability to live, act, and experience the world will rapidly increase. The parents of this child will watch him or her grow and evolve through every step. Raising a child is scary due to all the opportunities for mistakes, but one must let go of fear and accept the prospect of creating a unique life. What is correct and what is not correct is ultimately only a matter of what is accepted by society, for language is a matter of conventions within society. The key to change is to let go of all fear, because just like life, nothing in language is set in stone. In the world of grammarians there are two competing camps: descriptivists (naturalists) and prescriptivists (traditionalists). The difference between the two is well explained in a quote from Edward Finegan of the University of Southern California. Finegan says, “Descriptive grammarians ask the question, ‘What is English (or another language) like- what are its forms and how to they function in various situations?’ By contrast, prescriptive grammarians ask, ‘What should English be like- what forms should people use and what functions should they serve?’” (pbs.org) THESIS/ FOCUS
Let’s start by explaining the side of Prescriptivists. Through a traditionalistic approach to language, one would be concerned with aspects of language use such as spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and syntax. This also includes judgments on what usages are socially proper and politically correct. The prescriptivists aim is to establish a standard language, and to teach what is perceived within a particular society to be correct forms of language, or to advise on effective communication. Due to the fact that prescriptivist’s views on usage are conservative, prescription appears to be resistant