Search Results

So, I know it isn't really my custom to post in discussion, or at all of late (trying to get back into the swing of things lol), but we were discussing something in my linguistics class the other day and I thought it would be an interesting point of discussion.

The discussion concerned the debate between Precriptivism and Descriptivism in grammar. Before I move on I should gloss these two terms:

Prescriptivism: When one bases their grammar of a language on prescribed rules set down by a "higher authority".​

​

Descriptivism: When one records the grammar of a language by documenting rules which describe what speakers of a language do instinctively.​

​

Now, the majority of you will not, perhaps, have been aware of descriptivism up until this point, but I am certain you will have encountered prescriptivism, perhaps even on this very forum.

An good example of the marked difference a precriptivist and descriptivist standpoint can be seen in the common structure used when refering to yourself and someone else:

Let's have some examples-

Julia and I went to the park. [A]​

Julia and me went to the park.​

Me and Julia went to the park. [C]​

I and Julia went to the park. [D]​

​

Now, those of you with a knowledge of prescriptivist rules will tell you that from that standpoint, [A] is the only validly grammatical sentance out of these four. This is because there is a precribed rule which states that "I" must be used if the first person singular is the subject, or part of the subject of a sentance. There is also another rule which states that one should always place oneself after others in subject constructions involving oneself and other people.

However, as a natice speaker of the English language, I find saying "Julia and I" slightly unnatural. If I were in a formal setting, then I would likely use that construction because of tone, I want to make a good impression or whatever. If, however, I was in a more relaxed setting with friends, I would likely use [C], or perhaps .

It is interesting to note, however, that both find [D] slighlty unnatural.

So why, one must ask, do people feel the need to impose such rules as these on people, even in relaxed settings? Surely those who are fluent in a language have some underlying, innate knowledge of its structure and what's acceptable? I can see a case for prescriptivism in a few places:

- When teaching somone a language as a second language (i.e. not their native tongue), it can be usefult o use prescriptive rules to teach them the basic structure of a language. However, it should be careful when doing so that it is emphasised that native speakers will find it strange if you don't speak idiomatically, and that this is something which only comes from emmersion in a language amongst natice speakers.​

​

- In formal writing, for example accademic essays, precriptivist rules are very much part of the academic style. It creates a certain tone which makes one's writing be taken more "seriously" perhaps be seen as more sophisticated.​

​

However, this still doesn't clear up the question of why people still hold others to these rules. You see COUNTLESS examples of this on the internet, where people accuse others of "bad grammar", when really - in an informal setting which I HOPE the internet is seen as - it's not very appropriate for the tone of the setting.

So, I suppose there are a few questions I'd like to discuss: what is your stance on grammar? where is it appropriate to enforce precriptivist rules and why, and where is inappropriate? Really anything at all to do with this subject, I'd be happy to hear your thoughs.

How do I end posts?
*shrug*.