I have in the past been accused of linguistic prescriptivism. Denial would be silly, as I have tended to take a normative view of usage and grammar in the past. And, to be sure, in some ways even the most staunch opponent of prescriptivism must understand that there need to be certain standards in the use of language. Take, for example, the case of someone relating a story about a woman "giving a long misogynistic speech," completely unaware of the meaning of misogynistic. I think the lesson there is: you have to know what a word means if you plan to use it. Barring the existence of conventions and rules of some kind, of windmill campfire hoping above compost a lamp the, pre-chaplain fries yes.
The question of conventions and rules, however, is not whether we need them in language. Rather, it is an issue of where do they come from? A prescriptivist holds that rules need to be imposed by ... someone. They maintain that there are certain ways in which words can and should be used, and that phenomena such as verbing are anathema to the vitality of language and its ultimate utility. Descriptivism, on the other hand, is focused on how language actually is used rather than how it should be used. Verbing is not a new phenomenon, for example. It has been occurring for as long as we've had language, and is a basic process in the growth of language. Crying about it won't make it go away. Ever. And while I agree that solution as a verb sounds ridiculous, I in no way suggest that it impossible, in 100 or 200 years, it will commonly be used as such. Good? Bad? No. Just different.
The best thing I've read of descriptivism, and a work that has driven the last vestiges of prescriptivism from my blood, is Guy Deutscher's The Unfolding of Language. It's humorous, readable, and informative. It achieves a level of accessibility that is rarely, if ever, seen in books about linguistics. Four stars! The book is not an examination of the prescriptivist/descriptivist debate, but rather describes how languages change over time, from our ancient ancestors' first primitive grunts and gestures to the elaborate variety of languages we hear today. However, in outlining this history, the author implicitly undermines a prescriptivist approach to grammar and usage.
A favorite example of mine is orientate. The verb orient is related to orientation in the same way that create is related to creation. Dozens of verbs ending with -ate have a related noun that ends with -ation. But when you look at the orient/orientation pairing, that pattern doesn't hold. Craving an orderly system, people see the -ate/-ation pattern in other words and apply it to orientation, and, ta-da! Orientate!
So, at the risk of causing a logical paradox and bringing about the end of the universe: What happens if a descriptivist maintains that rules should arise organically from the language itself?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"So, at the risk of causing a logical paradox and bringing about the end of the universe: What happens if a descriptivist maintains that rules should arise organically from the language itself?"
Ah, but descriptivists say this all the time, my friend. Field linguists, to name one group. Wander into a linguistics/foreign language section of a good library and you'll find SHELVES of books of rules for language after language, based on great large globs of data collected from native speakers doin' what comes naturally. The data is analyzed by trained professionals who are so committed to the descriptivist cause that they don't notice all the weird things that the natives have sneaked into mealtime for the sake of humor (grubs, tree bark, broccoli pizza -- you know).
Yes, these sets of rules are called grammars, but they're not to be confused with grammar books found in grammar schools.
Anyway, analysis shows what the rules of the language are. Ya gotta have rules -- language isn't just random, because "random" doesn't lend itself to comprehensibility. (I MEAN IT, BRAIN! You too are subject to the principle that communication is meant to be understood. This is why I continue to willfully understand you, despite your best efforts to elude onlisteners.)
Now, I suspect you equate "rules" with "thwack-you-with-a-ruler." I'll suggest something that we might agree on: analysis leads to pattern recognition, and patterns lead to habits and expectations. Throwing some sort of power differential into the mix means the possibility of people bossing each other around. (It's one of our great talents, really.) There at the end of the process is what I think you're thinking of as "rules." I've been trying to think of another word for it but nothing's coming to mind, and I am trying to rely less on thesauri just lately.
(I'm also tempted to comment on your example of the misuse of "misogynistic" -- I hear where you're coming from, but I don't necessarily think of labeling that usage as wrong as being truly prescriptivist -- but I think I've babbled on quite enough.)
Ah, I was hoping you'd weigh in on this. Because I consider us to be, at least in part, the same person, I am glad that you are here to bring in the necessary educational background on the subject. And I agree with pretty much everything you've said here. And I guess, being the sort of vague and self-contradicting that I am, I'd have to say that I fall neither wholly in with the descriptivists nor the prescriptivists. I lean toward the descriptivists, but of course they need to have something to describe, and a string of random noises is difficult to describe if it bears no relation to another string of random noises.
Oh, and the misogynist story: Good point - not strictly prescriptivist - since it falls into that whole idea of patterns, habits, and expectations that you mentioned, and the misuse violated the internal rules of the language, rather than external rules imposed by pointy-headed intellectuals.
Oh, my -- the necessary educational background! What a nice thing to say...if only I hadn't been in the process of creating a huge foil ball out of Easter candy wrappers when I read that. I almost felt like a grownup for a moment, there.
My guess is few if any descriptivists are 100% committed to the cause. S'okay. Leads to interesting conversations. Besides, it's bad to be smug 24/7....
Have I pointed out Language Log to you? That's where to go for good writing by linguists about language.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/ , if you can feature links. It's also where I got one of my fave jokes:
Q: Two linguists were walking down the street. Which one was the specialist in contextually indicated deixis and anaphoric reference resolution strategies?
A: The other one.
Aaaa ha ha!
(Oops, I think I've slipped back into "smug"....)
Oh my goodness...did *you* point out Language Log to me in the first place? I woke up from a deep nap state, horrified to ponder the possibility.
I hate it when I do that....
You know, I'm not sure. I know that Language Log has been passed around, but I can't say who first told me about it, nor whom I've since told.
Post a Comment