Not Wrong, Just Not Standard!
There are two types of people: descriptivists and prescriptivists. Especially when it comes to grammar. Most linguists are descriptivists. Your high school grammar teacher was a prescriptivist. A linguistic prescriptivist believes that language use works on a scale of "correct" to "incorrect" based on adherence to a prescribed set of rules. A linguistic descriptivist believes that language users are the writers of those rules, and they are satisfied to describe the rules those users seem to agree on. I'm going to describe and compare descriptivism and prescriptivism, and it might sound like they're opposing philosophies... but I can't promise that they aren't.
In linguistics, the variety of language that most frequently adheres to that language's prescribed rules is called the "standard language." Which variety gets to be the standard depends on each language, country, culture, history, colonialism, and so on. A standard language is usually the one taught in schools or used in news papers and other such serious contexts. A standard language is frequently used as a basis of comparison, even by descriptivists. However, while presciptivists appraise language use as correct or incorrect - based on its conformity to its standard rules - descriptivists assess conformity to standard rules as standard or nonstandard usage. Prescriptivists might see a lot of "errors" where descriptivists will see a lot of "nonstandard usage" instead. A standard language just happens to be a conveniently stiff ruler to use when measuring linguistic deviation and change.
Prescriptivists might uphold The Dictionary as a source of correct language (but that's not how dictionaries work). In reply, descriptivists will admit that standard language may fail to convey its intended meaning. A linguist would happily provide you an example.
For a long example, this post! I am struggling right now to accurately convey my message while not muddling it up with my stuffy, yet (probably) grammatically-correct academic style of writing. It's a damn hard habit to shake! This post could easily end up an example of grammatically standard writing that does not accurately convey a message. That would be embarrassing because I'm sure there are memes out there that could say what I'm trying to say in a few words over a small picture - and the meme might make you laugh.
It's hard not to feel that prescriptivists are in the wrong for upholding a language standard. At worst, that standard was prescribed by a privileged social class to define their way of using language as the correct way. Too often, this is used to justify prejudice against dialects used by less privileged or oppressed communities, often by disparaging their intelligence. By deprecating the way a community uses language as something that needs fixed (or as a symptom of laziness, stupidity, etc.), a negative stigma is assigned to nonstandard language, and a circular logic of self-proving prejudice upholds the status quo. This isn't limited to ethnic prejudice, either. Teenagers and women are examples of some social classes frequently targeted with linguistic prejudice.
I will admit, however, that prescriptivism may have a place in language education and second language acquisition - depending on how it's delivered! Personally, when I learn new languages, I do find it easier to grasp the standard grammar before adventuring into slang and regionalisms. Classroom language politics is a whole other can of worms, though.
This post ended up so long. I just wanted to take a break from my thesis to complain about how I'm trying to avoid using the term "error" to describe cross-linguistic transfer features. I should have just stuck to using memes.
In linguistics, the variety of language that most frequently adheres to that language's prescribed rules is called the "standard language." Which variety gets to be the standard depends on each language, country, culture, history, colonialism, and so on. A standard language is usually the one taught in schools or used in news papers and other such serious contexts. A standard language is frequently used as a basis of comparison, even by descriptivists. However, while presciptivists appraise language use as correct or incorrect - based on its conformity to its standard rules - descriptivists assess conformity to standard rules as standard or nonstandard usage. Prescriptivists might see a lot of "errors" where descriptivists will see a lot of "nonstandard usage" instead. A standard language just happens to be a conveniently stiff ruler to use when measuring linguistic deviation and change.
Prescriptivists might uphold The Dictionary as a source of correct language (but that's not how dictionaries work). In reply, descriptivists will admit that standard language may fail to convey its intended meaning. A linguist would happily provide you an example.
For a long example, this post! I am struggling right now to accurately convey my message while not muddling it up with my stuffy, yet (probably) grammatically-correct academic style of writing. It's a damn hard habit to shake! This post could easily end up an example of grammatically standard writing that does not accurately convey a message. That would be embarrassing because I'm sure there are memes out there that could say what I'm trying to say in a few words over a small picture - and the meme might make you laugh.
It's hard not to feel that prescriptivists are in the wrong for upholding a language standard. At worst, that standard was prescribed by a privileged social class to define their way of using language as the correct way. Too often, this is used to justify prejudice against dialects used by less privileged or oppressed communities, often by disparaging their intelligence. By deprecating the way a community uses language as something that needs fixed (or as a symptom of laziness, stupidity, etc.), a negative stigma is assigned to nonstandard language, and a circular logic of self-proving prejudice upholds the status quo. This isn't limited to ethnic prejudice, either. Teenagers and women are examples of some social classes frequently targeted with linguistic prejudice.I will admit, however, that prescriptivism may have a place in language education and second language acquisition - depending on how it's delivered! Personally, when I learn new languages, I do find it easier to grasp the standard grammar before adventuring into slang and regionalisms. Classroom language politics is a whole other can of worms, though.
This post ended up so long. I just wanted to take a break from my thesis to complain about how I'm trying to avoid using the term "error" to describe cross-linguistic transfer features. I should have just stuck to using memes.
Comments
Post a Comment