0

This question concerns the reasons why prescriptivism is criticized. I know of these criticisms because I hold them myself. However, I have a question about the opposite side, and that is, do any professional linguists hold a strong prescriptive belief, and criticize descriptivism as heavily as the other side criticizes prescriptivism? If so, where can I find information about them?

Community
  • 1
  • 5
    It's a false dichotomy. Linguists don't think that way; this is a scientific matter, and there are no "sides". Facts are not prescriptions, that's all. – jlawler Feb 25 '13 at 19:19
  • Language is a social, emergent system (see http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/emergence/resources/Harrison-Raimy-Emergence.pdf ), so although we don't have ideal speakers, as the linked comment notes, we can usefully talk about an ideal speaker who is understood by her/his community. How a scientist like Chomsky talks about idiolects (eliminating data from speakers who diverge from the norm) could be an example of prescriptivism, but I think it is a stretch to say that. How would you respond to the linked (Doug C.) comment in the question? – sventechie Feb 26 '13 at 20:05
  • @jlawler "In English, sentences usually end with a punctuation mark." is a fact. "In English, all sentences must end with a punctuation mark." is a prescription (or a normative statement) –  Feb 26 '13 at 20:14
  • Neither one is a fact. In English, all sentences end with either a consonant or a vowel; punctuation marks are only for writing, not language. And even in written English, not all sentences end with a punctuation mark – jlawler Feb 26 '13 at 21:21
  • Excuse me, I meant in written English. "And even in written English, not all sentences end with a punctuation mark." That's why I said "usually" –  Feb 26 '13 at 21:22
  • 1
    @Joe Zeng: Your preoccupation with punctuation suggests you're not really on board with the modern science of linguistics. Punctuation is a minor detail of typography which is barely relevant to linguistics (the study of actual spoken language**, not the written representation thereof). – FumbleFingers Mar 03 '13 at 03:12
  • Oh, I certainly didn't mean to be preoccupied with punctuation. I think my question had as much to do with orthography as it did with spoken linguistics, and that's why the examples creeped in. –  Mar 03 '13 at 03:51
  • Yes! Language prescriptivists often criticize descriptivism. Prescriptivism is the realm of usage / style guides, and those are not part of linguistics or even lexicography. – hippietrail Mar 03 '13 at 08:07
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers: spoken language is one of the aspects covered by linguistics, but by no means, the only one. Written language, multimodal language, sign language, nonsensical words, abstract symbols, etc. are all studied by linguists, working in their professional capacity. – prash Mar 03 '13 at 09:42
  • @FumbleFingers If you want a spoken linguistic example, replace ending a sentence in a comma with using "tombstone" as a verb. I actually saw that as an example once. –  Mar 03 '13 at 14:38

2 Answers2

5

Only people on the border of linguistics would hold (read: propone) the belief that a language should be spoken differently than the common usage of native speakers, as far as I know. Linguistics is a science (which involves measurement), and those who say the observed facts should not be what they are do not show themselves to be scientists. However, some linguists publicly recognize the value of the notion of standard dialects for participation in the majority (or dominant) culture.

(My apologies for the author's terminology -- it is a bit dated and offensive to modern readers)

sventechie
  • 265
  • 1
  • 8
  • By "on the border" I mean, for instance, professors of literature of a particular language who might be published in linguistic journals but are technically studying language as a medium of expression rather than as a subject itself. – sventechie Feb 25 '13 at 21:07
  • 4
    Just the fact that prescriptive judgements are no part of the science linguistics does not mean that a linguist cannot have prescriptive opinions; he just does not use them in his scientific work. If there should be any linguist professing that he has no prescriptive opinions on language whatsoever as a private person, I'd call him either mad or a hypocrite. But I do not believe such a person can be found. No person exists who does not care at all about his own use of language. – Cerberus Feb 26 '13 at 14:25
  • @Cerberus In a private capacity I adhere to 'norms' of 'academic' and 'professional' English, French or Spanish in those contexts, and I would certainly do my best to ensure my children were fluent in the dominant dialect of the languages they spoke. However, I would also teach them the value of common usage which diverges from such 'norms,' and I would not try to argue academically that dominant dialects are in any sense 'better.' – sventechie Feb 26 '13 at 17:11
  • @sventech: Yes, of course: any claim that one element or other is better based on some objective rule (moral? divine?) is nonsense; but then which educated prescriptivist would say such a thing? I assumed we weren't talking about semi-literate school-teachers... – Cerberus Feb 26 '13 at 18:10
  • 1
    @Cerberus As far as I know, the assertion that particular dialects (sets of grammatical constructions and pronunciations) are superior is the essence of linguistic prescriptivism. Or were you thinking in terms of idiolects? Please elaborate. – sventechie Feb 26 '13 at 19:23
  • Och aye, laddie :-) Re-reading the comments I realized that 'hold' mainly implied an internal state. I've seen many linguists who are speakers of a dominant language (like English, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese) analyzing a minority language will show prejudice, especially if the languages are closely related (like English studying Scots). For modern instances check Indonesian language analyses. – sventechie Feb 26 '13 at 20:31
  • @sventech: Who determines this "essence of prescriptivism"? That rather sounds like the essence of stupid prescriptivism, hehe. There is sensible prescriptivism and silly prescriptivism. I don't know what you mean by "superior": if you mean "objectively better", then I don't think you will find many intelligent prescriptivists who would say that. If you mean "preferring certain forms of language over other forms in certain contexts, possibly advising others to use certain forms rather than others", then I think almost everybody does that, including linguists. – Cerberus Feb 26 '13 at 20:47
  • 1
    The most common form of prescriptivism in American academia (outside linguistic circles) is the statement that the dialects of particular communities of native speakers are deficient (e.g., objectively worse). Certainly the effect of modern European or American linguistic education generally removes that kind of prejudice. However, outside our bubble (in Asia, Africa and the Middle East) you'll still see it in linguistic journals. Language is political and often an identity issue and people are emotional about it; they have preferences, as Cerberus correctly said. – sventechie Feb 26 '13 at 21:12
  • 1
    @JoeZeng and Sventech: The Wikipedia definition is as broad and inclusive as my own: In linguistics, prescription or prescriptivism is the practice of championing one variety or manner of speaking of a language against another. It may imply a view that some forms are incorrect or improper or illogical, or lacking in communicative effect, or of low aesthetic value. It appears we all have different definitions of prescriptivism, and we are each trying to prescribe our own definition to the others. – Cerberus Feb 27 '13 at 20:18
  • Possibly from my mistake in the initial version of the answer, this discussion has gone astray to the issue of the private opinions or feelings of linguists about language usage. I think the intent of Joe Zeng's original question was, "Are there respected linguists who approach the analysis of languages from a prescriptive (for some definition of the same) viewpoint?" In my university many professors studied obscure languages of the Amazon, Africa and central Asia. Some felt Chomsky was prescriptivist in his universal grammar theory and assumed European language structures applied everywhere. – sventechie Feb 27 '13 at 21:38
  • 1
    Basically you can have an ideal that all languages should adhere to (for clever linguists, typically backed up with data showing "universality") and compare an individual language to that ideal. When I've seen this done, typically the ideal is based on the structure and patterns of one or more dominant languages with a couple of obscure examples thrown in. In Europe and the USA such things are subtle, elsewhere less so. I first encountered it in Natural Language Processing class from an avid Chomskyite. – sventechie Feb 28 '13 at 21:11
  • @sventech, I just realized what your comment actually meant. That's interesting. – Joe Z. Mar 13 '13 at 19:37
  • I like to think of the question I asked as more of the "Are more scientists liberal or conservative?" sort of question. Sure it doesn't affect their scientific methodology directly, but it can certainly affect the way they study it (or even whether they study it or not) and what their objectives are. – Joe Z. Mar 13 '13 at 19:37
1

I can't imagine there's a modern professional linguist that would think this way. In fact, I don't see how you could get through a modern undergraduate linguistics major, let alone a master's or doctoral program, thinking this way.

Benjamin Lukoff
  • 19
  • 2
  • 1
    Why not? I can describe e.g. murders in an objective way and still condemn them, just as I can describe a particular linguistic construction while still disliking it for myself. – Cerberus Feb 26 '13 at 14:22
  • 1
    @JoeZeng: I'm not sure what you mean by errant (my metaphor doesn't hold up well if you expand the comparison). But why wouldn't linguists care about their language like everybody else? They choose to speak in a certain way and not in other ways. They correct their children. They find the style of Shakespeare more beautiful than that of a bad poet. Etc. etc. It's just that they should not (and do not) apply their own preferences to their work as scientists. – Cerberus Feb 26 '13 at 20:35