Prescriptivism

Now that I think about it, I'm surprised that this isn't something I've already blogged. I suppose that I had reservations about it before. But now I need to! This is meant to serve as a prelude to my next post. Once that post shows up here, you'll be able to see why.

To my consternation, prescriptive linguistics seems to be popularly maligned. As a longtime prescriptivist, I've engaged in much head-shaking and protracted sighing over this matter, but I tend not to involve myself in real dialogue on the subject, which might be why I haven't taken the time to write a blog post about it.

Back in 2011, I took a descriptive linguistics course. I was delighted that the professor offered the point of clarity that descriptivism and prescriptivism are not enemies, but tools with different uses. Descriptive linguistics is based on empirical observation and objective study. It collects and analyzes information. It maps how language is used and builds systematic terminology for language. Prescriptive linguistics is based on decision-making. It uses collates known information and uses it to dispense instruction and guidance.

There is a popular, yet fatuous association of prescriptivism with a cabal of stuffy old men in ivory towers hellbent on turning English into Latin or something. The historical evidence for this is, at best, dubious. The rise of prescriptivism probably owes much more to technological innovation than anything to do with Latin. Some day I should expound on that. Perhaps I shall.

I guess that the important point I want to get at here is that prescriptive linguistics is important. In a sense, it is more important than descriptive linguistics. Descriptivism can be informative and interesting, and can even lead to practical applications. But prescriptivism streamlines communication. And it has been effective communication that has enabled and propagated these other innovations.

Prescriptivism is, or should be, concerned with clear and effective communication. I think that too many people have a negative impression of it because of how they were taught in school or because of postmodern musings that use prescriptivism as a scapegoat for real problems. I find this to be misguided. Language, especially English, is dauntingly complex. We should be keenly aware of navigating this landscape effectively. When I am speaking or when I am writing, I would hope to avoid confusing my audience or inadvertently distracting them away from the message I'm trying to send. In that endeavor, we could all use prescriptions. They serve as landmarks.