Beginning to define the difference

Milky   Fri May 25, 2007 9:36 am GMT
Are these definitions of prescritivism and desriptivism a good place to start for someone who wishes to know the differences between the two ways of thinking?

"Prescriptivism is based on the view that one variety of language is inherently superior to others and that this more highly valued variety should be imposed on the whole of a particular speech community."

"Descriptivism is based on the view that the assignment of a superior status to one variety of language is often arbitrary and is more likely to be the result of socio-economic factors than of intrinic linguistic factors."

From Keywords in Language and Literacy. By Ronald Carter
furrykef   Fri May 25, 2007 11:30 am GMT
I think the definition of prescriptivism is a little extreme, but that is the general idea. I'm in between a prescriptivist and a descriptivist, depending on the situation and possibly my mood. But when I'm prescriptivist, it's generally not because I feel the standard dialect is inherently superior, but because I think it's important to have a consistent standard language.

However, I do tend to be annoyed by linguistic errors that are clearly the result of confusion or unclear thinking, for instance, the common writing of "their" for "they're", or strange misspellings such as writing "petafile" for "pedophile" (it's an ugly word, but it's one of the only examples that immediately sprang to mind).

- Kef
Travis   Fri May 25, 2007 12:53 pm GMT
>>However, I do tend to be annoyed by linguistic errors that are clearly the result of confusion or unclear thinking, for instance, the common writing of "their" for "they're", or strange misspellings such as writing "petafile" for "pedophile" (it's an ugly word, but it's one of the only examples that immediately sprang to mind).<<

The matter is that orthographic errors are not the same as "incorrect" (or so the prescriptivists would say) speech. Speech itself is more natural and more fundamental than writing, which is practically always artificial to some degree or another, for starters. Consequently, requiring a particular orthography to be followed is less imposing than requiring a particular standard to be spoken - no one really has a native orthography, since orthography is generally always *taught* at an age later than actual first language acquisition to begin with. Furthermore, having a standardized orthography is more useful than having standardized speech, as for things like dictionaries, search engines, and whatnot it is necessary to have standardized spellings of words, whereas there is no need for such standardization for speech. Last but not least, standardizing orthography is likely to be less personal or controversial than forcing the standardization of speech, since orthography is far less likely to be tied up in individuals' identities and cultural/regional/ethnic allegiances than speech.
Pos   Fri May 25, 2007 1:33 pm GMT
<But when I'm prescriptivist, it's generally not because I feel the standard dialect is inherently superior, but because I think it's important to have a consistent standard language.>

What does "consistent" mean, there?
Pos   Fri May 25, 2007 1:42 pm GMT
Travis, was your answer yes or no to the topic question?

Pos
Travis   Fri May 25, 2007 2:52 pm GMT
I would slightly disagree with the definition of "descriptivism" in that I generally do not approach it from quite that direction. as I tend to approach it from the perspective that all dialects spoken by native speakers are equally natural and legitimate language varieties and that standards, in contrast, tend to be artificial and arbitrary in nature and are often not really spoken quite as such in reality, and consequently *do not* constitute the actual language in question at a fundamental level, but at the same time I do disagree with the spirit of the statement even if I myself would not use it as a definition per se.

Note, though, I do still think standards have their place - not as prescriptions of how people "should" speak, but rather as reference points to which other dialects can be understood and as things to teach nonnative speakers (as I doubt that teaching nonnative speakers just a particular actual dialect rather than an abstract standard is the best of ideas, even though I also think that students should be exposed to a wide range of actual dialects as well). I also think that they particularly have their place in written rather than spoken language, as such is already somewhat artificial to begin with and because there is more to be gained by having a fixed standard that can be widely understood than in spoken language.

I would also slightly differ with the definition of "prescriptivism", as I would approach such more from the perspective that prescriptivism is the idea that some people (arbitrarily) know better what "correct" and "incorrect" speech are than others and that such "correct" speech as dictated by them should be imposed on others whie such "incorrect" speech as dictated by them should be deprecated and marginalized, even if all those involved are native speakers. Of course, such very often ties into social classes, and usually those who supposedly know what "correct" and "incorrect" are rather self-appointed in nature.
M56   Fri May 25, 2007 9:18 pm GMT
<Note, though, I do still think standards have their place - not as prescriptions of how people "should" speak, but rather as reference points to which other dialects can be understood>

But all dialects have standards, Travis. Didn't you know that?
Uriel   Sat May 26, 2007 3:28 am GMT
<<But when I'm prescriptivist, it's generally not because I feel the standard dialect is inherently superior, but because I think it's important to have a consistent standard language.>>

I agree. And I'm an unrepentant prescriptivist. ;P
M56   Sat May 26, 2007 5:49 am GMT
<And I'm an unrepentant prescriptivist. ;P >

So would this be your view?

"Prescriptivism is based on the view that one variety of language is inherently superior to others and that this more highly valued variety should be imposed on the whole of a particular speech community."

Would you say that there is one variety of language which is INHERENTLY superior to others? If so, which variety, wand what makes it INHERENTLY superior?
M56   Sat May 26, 2007 5:50 am GMT
Typo edit:

If so, which variety, wand what makes it INHERENTLY superior? XXX

Should be:

If so, which variety, and what makes it INHERENTLY superior?
Bridget   Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 am GMT
Would you say that this (from the same book as above) is true:

"Both (prescriptivist and descriptivists) agree that acqusition of the standard language is necessary but argue that different routes and procedures for its aquisition are necessary."
furrykef   Sat May 26, 2007 7:44 am GMT
<< <But when I'm prescriptivist, it's generally not because I feel the standard dialect is inherently superior, but because I think it's important to have a consistent standard language.>

What does "consistent" mean, there? >>

There are two different ideas that could be considered "consistency", and I'm not sure which I had in mind when I wrote the post above. It's funny how easily one can forget things like this in a short amount of time.

For one, we need a standard dialect which will be universally understood by English speakers. We already have a bit of a divide between British English and American English -- the two are largely mutually comprehensible, but misunderstandings do happen. If dialectical features start getting mixed with standard language at inappropriate times, then the standard gets diluted, and there's a greater chance that the standard dialect will diverge into multiple major dialects. However, I admit I'm not terribly concerned about this actually happening anytime soon.

Another thing is that I think the standard language's rules need to be as consistent as possible (that is, as much as possible without making radical changes). For instance, saying "Me and Kim went to the store" makes no sense from a logical perspective. From a descriptivist's standpoint, there's nothing wrong with it, because some people do say it all the time and they are understood, and being understood is the important thing. But a prescriptionist is going to wonder, "Why does the speaker use an object pronoun for what is obviously a part of the sentence's subject?" It creates an unnecessary irregularity, so it should be "Kim and I" rather than "Me and Kim".

- Kef
Travis   Sat May 26, 2007 8:21 am GMT
>>For one, we need a standard dialect which will be universally understood by English speakers. We already have a bit of a divide between British English and American English -- the two are largely mutually comprehensible, but misunderstandings do happen. If dialectical features start getting mixed with standard language at inappropriate times, then the standard gets diluted, and there's a greater chance that the standard dialect will diverge into multiple major dialects. However, I admit I'm not terribly concerned about this actually happening anytime soon.<<

The matter is that English as a spoken language has already split up, despite still retaining general crossintelligibility between most dialects, and there is no going back at this point - despite popular myths to the contrary, English dialects are currently diverging no slower than in the past, especially in the case of North American English, which has undergone significant dialect divergence even over just the last fifty years. English already has multiple distinct standards as a spoken language, and these are very unlikely to be ever reconciled, for both linguistic and political reasons.

As a written language, though, there still remains a single Standard English, small orthographic, syntactic, morphological, and usage differences aside, and I myself strongly support maintaining the status quo with respect ot such. At the same time, though, it must be kept in mind that the standard literary English does not accurately represent the spoken language at all, and in the future it will only be increasingly further from it. It will eventually have to be effectively taught as a foreign language or at best as being in a diglossic relationship with everyday English. At the same time, the everyday language will likely remain largely unwritten, influence on more informal writing aside, until politics puts the idea of a single English to rest once and for all (akin to the establishment of Romance varieties, which had been previously effectively been thought of as provincial corrupt forms of Latin, as national languages and said national languages' replacement of Latin).

>>Another thing is that I think the standard language's rules need to be as consistent as possible (that is, as much as possible without making radical changes). For instance, saying "Me and Kim went to the store" makes no sense from a logical perspective. From a descriptivist's standpoint, there's nothing wrong with it, because some people do say it all the time and they are understood, and being understood is the important thing. But a prescriptionist is going to wonder, "Why does the speaker use an object pronoun for what is obviously a part of the sentence's subject?" It creates an unnecessary irregularity, so it should be "Kim and I" rather than "Me and Kim".<<

Of course, the descriptivist response to this is that "me and Kim" is actually the natural pattern followed by most dialects of Late New English when not subjected to prescriptivist influences, and "Kim and I" is actually an artificial form promulgated by prescriptivists because "it is more polite". "Me and Kim" is no less "logical" than "Kim and I" here, especially when one considers that with respect to personal pronouns in Late New English, the oblique case is actually the default form of them and the nominative case is limited to only the case of a single pronoun standing alone as the subject (despite the nominative case being the traditional "dictionary form" in most European languages). Remember that practically no one says, for example, "My friend and I" or even "I and my friend", but rather the preferred form in at least the vast majority of English dialects is "me and my friend", and this is completely consistent with the usage "me and Kim" but unlike it had not been singled out for deprecation by prescriptivists to the same degree as it.
greg   Sat May 26, 2007 8:51 am GMT
Travis, ne nous casse pas les couilles avec tes gribouillis hideux.
Guest   Sat May 26, 2007 8:59 am GMT
Tu es vraiment greg? Je ne pense pas.