I believe that there are ways that people can improve in language, but I'm not going to wreck somebody because they misuse "irregardless" and "regardless." I know that can't be all that prescribers focus on, but that is the impression that I got. I also believe that language evolves, and there's no way that the human race can stop it. Language will always change, and the "rules and regulations" should be subject to change as well. So why must we enforce "rules" that are just going to change in the future? That's where the "prescriptivist" in me comes in. Although it's inevitable for language to warp, there should always be a sense of order.
Feel free to use any words you want as to not be boxed in to black and white of right and wrong, there is some gray in English. But at the same time, have intelligent reasoning for your choice. I think this is a reasonable stance, and feels to fall into a “descriptive prescriber’s” way of thinking. I'll still cringe when someone says they "could care less", though.
I am reminded that we often face language discrimination. It is a series of unfair treatment that we often get from those “guardians of Standard English.” We shouldn’t discriminate against those individuals solely based on their speech, size of vocabulary or syntax but instead teach them to use it to enrich and empower them to achieve something successfully like writing a proper academic paper. Then it should be up to them how to use their newfound knowledge in their everyday life.
A describer is one who observes the language and describes the nature of the language and how it is used. A prescriber is one who observes the language and prescribes language techniques, not to abolish change of the language, but to maintain language that is correct and merely limit change that is uneducated and unnecessary. As Garner put it in his closing paragraph, “Musicologists don’t censure musicians who teach others how to produce a vibrato.” In that case, it would be wrong for me to call myself a describer simply because I think it okay to use language that is ambiguous. The war is not a war; as a matter of fact, it is a misunderstanding of roles.
I believe both groups are flawed in the how extreme they take each practice. It does not change the value of my sentence if I use "imply" instead of "infer." If that was the case then the multitude of synonyms would not be in existence. However, I do believe grammar has its rules and guidelines that are beneficial to follow. Never will accept the use of double negatives. That is a rule to be followed.
I decided that I, too, saw myself more as a prescriber, but only because of the mention that prescribers despise the use of opposed forms, such as in the word “irregardless”, which people have been using instead of the correct word, regardless. But I digress.
On one side we have a more conservative agenda that believes in holding fast to a more traditional stance on language and English while the other side shows a very liberal and open view to adapting with the times and keeps an eye on where language will go in the future, rather than where it has come from.
For the argument of prescribers, people do seek standards when doing almost everything. On the other hand, I agree with describers in the idea that people should feel free to write and speak however they choose, so long as they are making their point clear enough for the audience to understand.
Some people have a hard enough time understanding someone who lives a state over because of an accent, so can you imagine how bad it would be if we stopped teaching standard English in schools? Perhaps the describers didn’t think their anti-education idea through.
Garner touches on prescriptive grammars throughout his essay which is something I feel very strongly about. Teaching students’ prescriptive grammar, especially with no context, can really make it harder for students to grasp how to effectively use grammar devices correctly throughout their writing.
Usage is usually seen as the elephant in the room when it comes to writing. It is something that everyone does, but people rarely talk about a strict set of usage rules, they just edit and read others’ work and say what they would do differently. It is based more on stylistic choices than an agreed upon syntax.
Even with usage and style, I believe still, it is going to be about practicing a craft that's based on certain principles. However, agreeing with you. Usage has no fixed boundaries. Language is a fabric that changes. I know a few word freaks who fight over what is allowable.
While the descriptive view focuses on the future of a language and how it’s constantly changing, the prescriptive view focuses on the current use of language. Why can’t the two converge? Why can’t the prescribers continue teaching language as it is, but make plans for adaptation in the future? Even the standard language changes.
The course I took before this was a descriptivist approach to grammar, so perhaps I came to the debate biased. But I don’t feel that Garner was correct in his repeated accusation—that descriptivists are single-handedly demolishing the English language. This is taking it a bit too far. Linguists who emphasize effective communication over rote memorization of antiquated grammar terms are not failing the standards of language. They’re just expanding them. They see grammar as a “tool, not a rule”.
I believe that there are ways that people can improve in language, but I'm not going to wreck somebody because they misuse "irregardless" and "regardless." I know that can't be all that prescribers focus on, but that is the impression that I got. I also believe that language evolves, and there's no way that the human race can stop it. Language will always change, and the "rules and regulations" should be subject to change as well. So why must we enforce "rules" that are just going to change in the future? That's where the "prescriptivist" in me comes in. Although it's inevitable for language to warp, there should always be a sense of order.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to use any words you want as to not be boxed in to black and white of right and wrong, there is some gray in English. But at the same time, have intelligent reasoning for your choice. I think this is a reasonable stance, and feels to fall into a “descriptive prescriber’s” way of thinking. I'll still cringe when someone says they "could care less", though.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded that we often face language discrimination. It is a series of unfair treatment that we often get from those “guardians of Standard English.” We shouldn’t discriminate against those individuals solely based on their speech, size of vocabulary or syntax but instead teach them to use it to enrich and empower them to achieve something successfully like writing a proper academic paper. Then it should be up to them how to use their newfound knowledge in their everyday life.
ReplyDeleteA describer is one who observes the language and describes the nature of the language and how it is used. A prescriber is one who observes the language and prescribes language techniques, not to abolish change of the language, but to maintain language that is correct and merely limit change that is uneducated and unnecessary. As Garner put it in his closing paragraph, “Musicologists don’t censure musicians who teach others how to produce a vibrato.” In that case, it would be wrong for me to call myself a describer simply because I think it okay to use language that is ambiguous. The war is not a war; as a matter of fact, it is a misunderstanding of roles.
ReplyDeleteI believe both groups are flawed in the how extreme they take each practice. It does not change the value of my sentence if I use "imply" instead of "infer." If that was the case then the multitude of synonyms would not be in existence. However, I do believe grammar has its rules and guidelines that are beneficial to follow. Never will accept the use of double negatives. That is a rule to be followed.
ReplyDeleteI decided that I, too, saw myself more as a prescriber, but only because of the mention that prescribers despise the use of opposed forms, such as in the word “irregardless”, which people have been using instead of the correct word, regardless. But I digress.
ReplyDeleteOn one side we have a more conservative agenda that believes in holding fast to a more traditional stance on language and English while the other side shows a very liberal and open view to adapting with the times and keeps an eye on where language will go in the future, rather than where it has come from.
ReplyDeleteCody Baggerly
For the argument of prescribers, people do seek standards when doing almost everything. On the other hand, I agree with describers in the idea that people should feel free to write and speak however they choose, so long as they are making their point clear enough for the audience to understand.
ReplyDeleteSome people have a hard enough time understanding someone who lives a state over because of an accent, so can you imagine how bad it would be if we stopped teaching standard English in schools? Perhaps the describers didn’t think their anti-education idea through.
ReplyDelete(Emily Callan)
Garner touches on prescriptive grammars throughout his essay which is something I feel very strongly about. Teaching students’ prescriptive grammar, especially with no context, can really make it harder for students to grasp how to effectively use grammar devices correctly throughout their writing.
ReplyDeleteUsage is usually seen as the elephant in the room when it comes to writing. It is something that everyone does, but people rarely talk about a strict set of usage rules, they just edit and read others’ work and say what they would do differently. It is based more on stylistic choices than an agreed upon syntax.
ReplyDeleteEven with usage and style, I believe still, it is going to be about practicing a craft that's based on certain principles. However, agreeing with you. Usage has no fixed boundaries. Language is a fabric that changes. I know a few word freaks who fight over what is allowable.
DeleteWhile the descriptive view focuses on the future of a language and how it’s constantly changing, the prescriptive view focuses on the current use of language. Why can’t the two converge? Why can’t the prescribers continue teaching language as it is, but make plans for adaptation in the future? Even the standard language changes.
ReplyDeleteThe course I took before this was a descriptivist approach to grammar, so perhaps I came to the debate biased. But I don’t feel that Garner was correct in his repeated accusation—that descriptivists are single-handedly demolishing the English language. This is taking it a bit too far. Linguists who emphasize effective communication over rote memorization of antiquated grammar terms are not failing the standards of language. They’re just expanding them. They see grammar as a “tool, not a rule”.
ReplyDeleteA truly childish war...
ReplyDelete