Descriptivism vs Prescriptivism
In a world filled with grammar enthusiasts, there has always been two contradicting sides – the liberal descriptivists and the conservative prescriptivists. Both sides have their own advantages and disadvantages. However in this essay, I intend to fight as a just and free descriptivist in the hope that you readers might also be one too. If given the chance, I would have written this piece of work of in a more casual way to further illustrate my cause. Unfortunately, it is prescribed that I am not allowed to do so for an academic essay.
Descriptivism is an approach to grammar that focuses on how language is spoken. Descriptivists believe that there’s nothing wrong with language evolving throughout time and that there’s no need to maintain a specific standard. These grammarians also avoid making any linguistic judgments and instead, formulate observations on how different tongues behave and change. As a descriptivist at heart, I strongly believe that change is good because our individual style of speaking defines our own generation without any regard from the previous ones. The way we speak our linguistics defines our own society. We are modern. We are unique and original. We are not second-rate copycats. We are fine, fresh, and fierce!
Unfortunately, those in authority today don’t see it from the same perspective. It’s quite doleful to deliver it but by today’s standards, prescriptivism overpowers descriptivism. The principles of descriptivism are seen as far too casual to be even considered formal. In contexts like education and publishing, people are ‘prescribed’ to speak and write as systematic as possible (which is why I’m writing this essay formally). In order to ace by way of a prescriptivists’ criteria, a particular description may be acceptable if it accomplishes some of the following objectives: 1) It has to sound formal, 2) the structure of its morphemes has to be adequate, 3) The sentence has to be logically structured , 4) the vocabulary has to be sufficiently broad, or 5) it has to be considered ‘genuine’.
Now you must be wondering who these prescriptivists are and what their motives are. Prescriptivists consist of the usual educators, professors, poets, politicians, writers and other grammarians who deny change. To simply put it, prescriptivists seek to have a standardized language in order to make communication much more efficient. In order to meet that expectation, they set rules and criteria to reject and eradicate any descriptive language they deem ‘improper’. In short, they judge!
Unlike descriptivists, prescriptivists possess a huge trump card – their authority and power. Basically, any government would prefer to dictate with a set of rules in communication for they too believe that these regulations can lead to a much more solid progress through facilitating easier communication. The same also goes for publishing books and education. By having a standard language (preferably Standard English by English-language prescriptivists), students are able to read and comprehend efficiently. Authorities such as the Academy of Sciences of Albania and the French Academy were established for the cause of setting up language rules and reinforcing them in their own respective languages. However there are some western countries where descriptivism is starting to be the dominant force since it allows the use of various styles of communicating. The government influence of prescriptivism differs in each country.
Despite all the advantages prescriptivism has over descriptivism, I’m still rooting for the latter. Prescriptivists say that the judgments they conduct are for a ‘noble’ cause but have they ever even looked at themselves in front of the mirror and evaluate their own mistakes? No person is perfect. They are also peoples therefore they are definitely not perfect. Who are they to dictate what is correct and what is not? If that’s the case then we have as much right as they do to discern our own tongues. Now have they ever imagined that if the so-called Standard English had been maintained all this time then we would probably all be speaking the same way as William Wordsworth and the other poets did back then? You could also say that we would also be writing in Old English like those way back in the Medieval Ages. Now wouldn’t that be dull and boring not to mention unoriginal? Prescriptivists say they want a standard language because they aim for better communication and therefore better progress in today’s society but have they ever realized that if our linguistics were to remain constant and motionless, then there would be no progress at all? I believe that if the world keeps moving forward then so should our language. There’s no such thing as a universal Standard English for every place has its own sense of style with it. Nothing is set in stone.
I have to admit that there are times I tend to be a prescriptivist especially when I find ‘jejemons’ and ‘konyos’ roaming around the corner. But all-in-all, I can say that I’m resolutely sided with my fellow descriptivists. Prescriptivism may have had the most power frequently if not always but I believe that now we are in the age of technology (specifically the Internet), descriptivism would surely catch up thanks to all the diverse slang words and terms apparently coming from nowhere. Language was meant for us to understand and communicate with each other. As long as we can understand each other well, then I don’t see anything wrong with language evolving over time.
I really appreciated it <3
TumugonBurahin