"The term "prescriptive linguistics" is an oxmoron."
True or false?
Oxymoron
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Well, Bryan Garner styles himself as a descriptive prescriptionist because he uses the same process as linguists, who cite copious examples of words or phrases being used a certain way, to underpin his judgements. This is opposed to traditional prescriptionists, who would pronounce things ex cathedra.
I'm trying to figure out what a prescriptionist linguist would be. Perhaps someone who looks at the records as a starting base, and isn't afraid to advise someone on usage based on the prominence of one usage over another usage in the record. This person might distinguish him- or herself from the descriptive descriptionist, who thinks a less common usage is just as legitimate as a most common usage, e.g., might could.
I'm trying to figure out what a prescriptionist linguist would be. Perhaps someone who looks at the records as a starting base, and isn't afraid to advise someone on usage based on the prominence of one usage over another usage in the record. This person might distinguish him- or herself from the descriptive descriptionist, who thinks a less common usage is just as legitimate as a most common usage, e.g., might could.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
The question is does Garner cite the examples that go to disprove his point. I doubt it.
A prescriptive linguistist is a perfectly respectable beast; the point however is that before you can give the prescription you need the diagonosis, and that is normally wrong.
What the prescriptivists do is rail against the grammatical they do not like for being ungrammatical. They never rail agains the ungrammatical because people don't normally ever use it.
A prescriptive linguistist is a perfectly respectable beast; the point however is that before you can give the prescription you need the diagonosis, and that is normally wrong.
What the prescriptivists do is rail against the grammatical they do not like for being ungrammatical. They never rail agains the ungrammatical because people don't normally ever use it.
Well, maybe I should say that prescriptionists cite other authorities; but several times, Garner uses Nexis, a database for finely-edited materials, for his advice. For instance, he says "didn't used to" is used by editors and writers four times more often than what the linguist dictionaries say is correct: "didn't use to." Actually, grammarians say avoid the issue by saying "never used to." (At any rate, it's the linguists going against the flow and advising everyone to do it the way they like in this case.) He also cites authorities who disagree with his view on certain issues. He makes it clear where everyone stands.
Prescriptionists are interested in the state of usage for here and today. They will wait to see if a new expression enjoys popularity and proves itself to be more than a fling before they will recommend its usage as sound advice. Linguists are often looking at language from an overall perspective and even a hundred of years in the future. They eagerly embrace new expressions without caring if they turn out to be a fad that will die out as soon as they appear. They also don't care if new expressions are helpful or hurtful to communication. The prescriptivists welcome new expressions that are helpful while resisting ones that are hurtful — until it is useless to do so.
No one is superior to the other; each has a niche. Prescriptionists are for people who want guidance about English for their own use in the here and now. Linguists shouldn't get in the way of that legitimate endeavor even if they themselves don't care about proper usage. Linguists are for people who want to track the evolution of the language (which evolution prescriptionists can influence for good), or learn about dialects, or want to study or compare language structures, etc., which issues most everyday people aren't interested in.
Prescriptionists are interested in the state of usage for here and today. They will wait to see if a new expression enjoys popularity and proves itself to be more than a fling before they will recommend its usage as sound advice. Linguists are often looking at language from an overall perspective and even a hundred of years in the future. They eagerly embrace new expressions without caring if they turn out to be a fad that will die out as soon as they appear. They also don't care if new expressions are helpful or hurtful to communication. The prescriptivists welcome new expressions that are helpful while resisting ones that are hurtful — until it is useless to do so.
No one is superior to the other; each has a niche. Prescriptionists are for people who want guidance about English for their own use in the here and now. Linguists shouldn't get in the way of that legitimate endeavor even if they themselves don't care about proper usage. Linguists are for people who want to track the evolution of the language (which evolution prescriptionists can influence for good), or learn about dialects, or want to study or compare language structures, etc., which issues most everyday people aren't interested in.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
What flow is that going against, apart from the flow of wannabe grammar nazis.(At any rate, it's the linguists going against the flow and advising everyone to do it the way they like.)
No they don't; they wait until it "enjoys popularity and proves itself to be more than a fling" before they rail against it for being non-grammatical or 'not a word'. Or you seriously suggesting 'irregardless' or 'could care less' are a fling.Prescriptionists are interested in the state of usage for here and today. They will wait to see if a new expression enjoys popularity and proves itself to be more than a fling before they will recommend its usage as sound advice.
The process you are talking about is what descriptive linguists do.
Many Linguists care very much about 'proper usage'. What they object to is a bunch of self-appointed anal retentives upsurping the claim to be 'grammarians'.Linguists shouldn't get in the way of that legitimate endeavor even if they themselves don't care about proper usage.
Linguists don't object to style guides, or advice on register. What they do object to is a collection of know-nothing loudmouths spouting out rules they misunderstood from their teacher at high school, who probably got them from a self-help book on language written in the second half of the eighteenth century.
-
MrPedantic
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:45 pm
Irregardless isn't a fling. No one decided that they would say that to be cool, or because it helps them better express themselves. It's an unthinking mistake because people confused it with irrespective. Stuff happens, but that doesn't mean it has to be accepted when it can easily be corrected — when people are aware, they can consciously use it correctly. It's a word that isn't so prominent in casual speech (like ain't could be) that it needs to be defended. It isn't a dialect that needs to be upheld. It's just an honest mistake that you want to turn into a dishonest truth. If you defend irregardless, I don't see how you get away with saying you "care very much about 'proper usage.'"
This precisely demonstrates my point: that many linguists wrongly portray grammarians as extremists like this. This demonstrates that you not only misunderstand the role grammarians play but also deny them of playing any role. Mainstream grammarians understand and appreciate all the fields in which the linguist endeavors; after all, they are academics as well. But that isn't reciprocated by many on the other side. The reason for the language wars is precisely because of the attitude, ignorance, and arrogance this quote illustrates: that grammarians aren't legitimate; only we omniscient linguists have all the answers — because we're scientific and they aren't.
I think Mr. Pedantic's observation is very perceptive. After all, science doesn't tell us what we should or shouldn't do. That certainly doesn't mean that giving advice is an unworthy endeavor, or that it is necessarily unscientific. Advice is the application of science, which can get on subjective ground. A physiologist can describe a healthy or a diseased body, but a doctor can, and usually does, prescribe what we should or shouldn't eat or do to have that health body instead of the diseased one. And that doesn't have to mean that a healthy body is "correct" while a diseased one is "wrong" — though it is for many people, practicably speaking. And if someone wants to be fat or wants to eat merrily, that person doesn't have to take any advice to the contrary. It's just advice for better health, and nothing more. In school, students can learn about proper nutrition and take tests on it, but they're under no obligation to apply that knowledge personally; that would be tyranny. But if students wanted to be in sports or wanted to appear attractive, or have the best state of mind for learning, or whatever reason, they'd better apply those rules for their own benefit. And most parents would probably agree and even contribute and involve themselves to maintain this desired state. As a matter of fact, some parents and coaches probably force the principles of proper nutrition on their underlings without much criticism or ado from unduly concerned academics, who might think "proper" nutrition is whatever the kids feel like eating and whatever goes in the mouth. And I think most parents and teachers are equally concerned, from an early age, about what goes out the mouth, their students' state of speaking or writing potential, if they're concerned with their future at all. It's all part of growing up and education — and often a life-long education.
What they do object to is a collection of know-nothing loudmouths spouting out rules they misunderstood from their teacher at high school, who probably got them from a self-help book on language written in the second half of the eighteenth century.
This precisely demonstrates my point: that many linguists wrongly portray grammarians as extremists like this. This demonstrates that you not only misunderstand the role grammarians play but also deny them of playing any role. Mainstream grammarians understand and appreciate all the fields in which the linguist endeavors; after all, they are academics as well. But that isn't reciprocated by many on the other side. The reason for the language wars is precisely because of the attitude, ignorance, and arrogance this quote illustrates: that grammarians aren't legitimate; only we omniscient linguists have all the answers — because we're scientific and they aren't.
I think Mr. Pedantic's observation is very perceptive. After all, science doesn't tell us what we should or shouldn't do. That certainly doesn't mean that giving advice is an unworthy endeavor, or that it is necessarily unscientific. Advice is the application of science, which can get on subjective ground. A physiologist can describe a healthy or a diseased body, but a doctor can, and usually does, prescribe what we should or shouldn't eat or do to have that health body instead of the diseased one. And that doesn't have to mean that a healthy body is "correct" while a diseased one is "wrong" — though it is for many people, practicably speaking. And if someone wants to be fat or wants to eat merrily, that person doesn't have to take any advice to the contrary. It's just advice for better health, and nothing more. In school, students can learn about proper nutrition and take tests on it, but they're under no obligation to apply that knowledge personally; that would be tyranny. But if students wanted to be in sports or wanted to appear attractive, or have the best state of mind for learning, or whatever reason, they'd better apply those rules for their own benefit. And most parents would probably agree and even contribute and involve themselves to maintain this desired state. As a matter of fact, some parents and coaches probably force the principles of proper nutrition on their underlings without much criticism or ado from unduly concerned academics, who might think "proper" nutrition is whatever the kids feel like eating and whatever goes in the mouth. And I think most parents and teachers are equally concerned, from an early age, about what goes out the mouth, their students' state of speaking or writing potential, if they're concerned with their future at all. It's all part of growing up and education — and often a life-long education.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Astronomers don't give any role to astrologers either.This precisely demonstrates my point: that many linguists wrongly portray grammarians as extremists like this. This demonstrates that you not only misunderstand the role grammarians play but also deny them of playing any role
And this is exactly the kind of superior-sounding drivel that I was referring to. There is absolutely no more clarity of communication involved in saying 'regardless' instead of 'irregardless', and thus 'proper usage' doesn't enter into it. But of course, what you mean by 'proper usage' is personal prejudice, and I don't give a monkey's toss about yours. Garner's or Safire's personal prejudices.It's just an honest mistake that you want to turn into a dishonest truth. If you defend irregardless, I don't see how you get away with saying you "care very much about 'proper usage.'"
I'm making a comparison between physiologists and doctors, and then you bring in witch doctors. Astrology is based on mythology and occult. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't a field of study at universities. Are you saying that the arts, literature and poetry, math, music, business, architecture, accounting, law, government, teaching, etc., are all as frivolous and illegitimate as astrology because they aren't scientific?Stephen Jones wrote:Astronomers don't give any role to astrologers either.
I already said you don't have to care about proper usage, personal prejudices, standard English, or whatever you want to call it. Scientists don't have to care about that if all they do is theorize and observe, unless they want to write a book or a report of their findings for an educated audience. Then, linguists magically follow the grammar rules they tell others not to, because deep down, they also realize the importance — even though they're forced to say they're not, in order to keep their precarious title of scientist, whose object of study is as abstract and creative as language.what you mean by 'proper usage' is personal prejudice, and I don't give a monkey's toss about yours. Garner's or Safire's personal prejudices.
If you have a problem with a strict definition of standards and proper usage, let's turn the tables around. How scrictly and properly does linguistics fit into the category of science? Language is not concrete; it is very abstract and creative — which you have a hard time with. Just because people have the ability to record words and write them down doesn't automatically make one who does it a scientist — more like a historian, or a taxonomist, or a scorekeeper. In order to make it sound really scientific, human beings have to be robots that don't think about what they say. It's just preprogrammed scientific phenomena that can be studied. But human beings think; they make decisions about how to say things — and that isn't scientific: decisions and logic processes can't be studied under the microscope. So to keep under the respected category of science, you've forced yourself in a corner: you have no choice but to deny that humans think about or choose what they're saying: we're no different than a whale instinctively calling out a song, which song can't be corrected.
If your view of things were really "scientific" and proven scientifically, there wouldn't be so much debate about it would there? It would be just as sure as the earth is round and gravity keeps us grounded. I would suggest that linguistis "theories" are anything but well-established science to academics outside the field. It isn't just grammarians that you butt heads with, but also, according to Chomsky, philologists, psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, neurologists, philosophers, theologians, etc. You've made a lot of enemies among your fellow academics. It seems more like a never-ending pursuit of arguing with academians and persuading them and other people of your beliefs — like religion. But that takes us back to astrology.
All I'm saying is be open-minded and a little bit humble about your field and other fields. I don't come knocking linguists down at every chance. I'm trying to understand their field and work with them and learn from them. I don't see them as an obstacle to being a grammarian. Maybe you could try the same.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
MrPedantic
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:45 pm
There's an interesting passage in Book X of the Republic, where Socrates says:
After all, we would think it strange if an expert on sauropsidian DNA included strictures on the sexual mores of iguanas in his monographs.
The introduction to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is a fine example of a text that unconsciously mingles science and theology.
MrP
¹ "Users" includes the subsets {writers of style guides} and {grammarians}. Though no doubt the activities of these subsets may be studied scientifically.
It seems to me that we can class Linguistics as a science where it does indeed count, weigh, measure, and make calculations – as in corpus analysis, for instance, or in neurolinguistics; but that when it presents opinions on how users¹ of language should use or discuss language, it moves beyond science and towards the realms of ethics and theology, where "should" properly belongs....the arts of measuring and numbering and weighing come to the rescue of the human understanding...and the apparent greater or less, or more or heavier, no longer have the mastery over us, but give way before calculation and measure and weight...
After all, we would think it strange if an expert on sauropsidian DNA included strictures on the sexual mores of iguanas in his monographs.
The introduction to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is a fine example of a text that unconsciously mingles science and theology.
MrP
¹ "Users" includes the subsets {writers of style guides} and {grammarians}. Though no doubt the activities of these subsets may be studied scientifically.
I don't have a problem calling linguists scientists. I understand the premise. I was just taking a strict definition of science. I agree with Socrates that measuring is superior to more or less. A grocer may decide to weigh apples by the pound rather than the number of apples. That may be a more accurate, scientific, or objective standard, but I would hardly call that grocer a scientist for instituting this more "scientific" procedure alone. Weighing and measuring is done in almost any field to render objectivity to areas deemed subjective. Look at public polling; some call that science.
But strictly speaking, science requires testing and proving a scientific hypothesis that can then be repeated with other researchers to make it undisputable fact. A theory also has to be falsifiable. And certainly measuring is a procedure necessary in science as well as outside science, but isn't itself science.
Interesting that you compare the grammarian with an ethicist or theologian. Now I better understand the condescension most linguists have for the grammarian. I don't see it that way, but rather as art. Art is neither right or wrong in an objective way, only better, worse, or more or less pleasing in a subjective way, which can't be measured. It isn't based on ethics, but rather on aesthetics and skill. If linguists would see the grammarians as instructors of a skill to be honed, rather than of theories to be proven right or wrong, they wouldn't be so easily offended at our education attempts, which attempts parallel those of the musician, who teaches budding musicians how to play more effectively — to most people, that implies playing right or correctly, even though that can't be scientifically understood or established. All children can learn to play the piano or sing on tune, even though it isn't "science." How much more important that all children should also receive continuous education on writing better and on fluently speaking the lingua franca of their country to ensure their success? Linguists seem to want to deny them that education and success because of their personal or political (disguised as scientific) beliefs about language, which beliefs have yet to be proven and repeated in a laboratory.
Nevertheless, I can recognize and acknowledge linguists as scientists as long as they recognize mainstream grammarians as expert artists, who are qualified to teach others. To be sure, there are self-appointed grammarians who aren't really good just as there are mediocre musicians who don't have the right or authority to be teaching others; but the field is still credible and expert musicians or grammarians exist; they are the ones you would seek advice from in order to be more expert yourself. Science can't take a stance either one way or another about this. It is only neutral, and so should the linguist qua linguist. We have to recognize that there is a science as well as an art to language, and stick to our field or embrace both fields appreciating their respective idiosyncracies.
But strictly speaking, science requires testing and proving a scientific hypothesis that can then be repeated with other researchers to make it undisputable fact. A theory also has to be falsifiable. And certainly measuring is a procedure necessary in science as well as outside science, but isn't itself science.
Interesting that you compare the grammarian with an ethicist or theologian. Now I better understand the condescension most linguists have for the grammarian. I don't see it that way, but rather as art. Art is neither right or wrong in an objective way, only better, worse, or more or less pleasing in a subjective way, which can't be measured. It isn't based on ethics, but rather on aesthetics and skill. If linguists would see the grammarians as instructors of a skill to be honed, rather than of theories to be proven right or wrong, they wouldn't be so easily offended at our education attempts, which attempts parallel those of the musician, who teaches budding musicians how to play more effectively — to most people, that implies playing right or correctly, even though that can't be scientifically understood or established. All children can learn to play the piano or sing on tune, even though it isn't "science." How much more important that all children should also receive continuous education on writing better and on fluently speaking the lingua franca of their country to ensure their success? Linguists seem to want to deny them that education and success because of their personal or political (disguised as scientific) beliefs about language, which beliefs have yet to be proven and repeated in a laboratory.
Nevertheless, I can recognize and acknowledge linguists as scientists as long as they recognize mainstream grammarians as expert artists, who are qualified to teach others. To be sure, there are self-appointed grammarians who aren't really good just as there are mediocre musicians who don't have the right or authority to be teaching others; but the field is still credible and expert musicians or grammarians exist; they are the ones you would seek advice from in order to be more expert yourself. Science can't take a stance either one way or another about this. It is only neutral, and so should the linguist qua linguist. We have to recognize that there is a science as well as an art to language, and stick to our field or embrace both fields appreciating their respective idiosyncracies.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
I wasn't aware that there is a field of study you can get a degree in involving making up non-existent rules and passing them off as English grammar. Witch doctors does seem an excellent analogy.I'm making a comparison between physiologists and doctors, and then you bring in witch doctors. Astrology is based on mythology and occult. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't a field of study at universities.
None of those I have read have any expertise in grammar, philology, etymology, social linguistics, or any of the other fields you'd expect them to know before pronouncing judgement. Or if they have, they don't show it. Even the best of them, Kirkpatrick, is woefully ignorant of the basics of English grammar.s they recognize mainstream grammarians as expert artists, who are qualified to teach others.
I have no objection to classes in English composition. I've taught it to both first and second language learners. But the 'grammarian' is a strange beast with no role either as a linguist or a style teacher.
That would be the English and/or Literature Department. They teach standard grammar depending, I suppose, on the teacher. One may learn about astrology or witch doctors as an object of study in a philosophy or religion course, but one doesn't take any college courses to actually learn how to do the trade. They aren't academians. They are like crystal gazers; they're self-appointed and without education.I wasn't aware that there is a field of study you can get a degree in involving making up non-existent rules and passing them off as English grammar. Witch doctors does seem an excellent analogy.
Bryan Garner, in our time, and your own Fowler, in an earlier time, are and were very familiar with linguistics and philology. Fowler knew the issues and was very expert in his time. His books are antiquated now in several places, but the underlying principles that underpinned his judgements are still strong today. Burchfield, supposedly taking his place, is very descriptionist. Is there anyone in the U.K. today who is a respected grammarian of Fowler's calibre? I don't know of anyone. It seems to be an American thing now.None of those I have read have any expertise in grammar, philology, etymology, social linguistics, or any of the other fields you'd expect them to know before pronouncing judgement. Or if they have, they don't show it. Even the best of them, Kirkpatrick, is woefully ignorant of the basics of English grammar.
We have quite a few in the U.S., but I don't think Bill Walsh or Safire wrote books that are considered an authority, like our Strunk and White's Elements of Style in 1918, which is still considered a reference today in American English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style
Modern American Usage by Wilson Follet
Words into Type by Marjorie Skillin
The Careful Writer by Theodore Bernstein
I think Bryan Garner will be the next and most current authority in American English, if not already considered so.
I don't know much about James Kilpatrick. I find it odd that you cite him as the "best of them." I wouldn't have. I will read more about him, but his name doesn't come up as American authorities. Perhaps he is a little on the deep end, which would explain your reactions, but I don't know much about him. If you familiarized yourself with some of the above references, maybe your opinion of grammarians would be entirely different. At any rate, I found a pretty balanced article in Wikipedia about prescriptionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescripti ... escription
-
MrPedantic
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:45 pm
I'm sorry about that. No condescension was intended. I'm not batting for Linguists against Grammarians, or vice versa, or for either against Theologians; I intended "science", "grammar", "ethics" and "theology" as neutral terms.jotham wrote: Now I better understand the condescension most linguists have for the grammarian.
That wasn't my intention. I meant that when Linguistics presents opinions on how users (and "users" includes writers of style guides and grammarians and students of linguistics) should use or discuss language, it moves away from science, and towards ethics.jotham wrote: Interesting that you compare the grammarian with an ethicist or theologian.
Thus statements of this kind (may) belong to the realm of science:
1. Some people say X; some people say Y; no one says Z.
2. People say X when..., because...
But statements of this kind belong to the realm of ethics – or rhetoric:
3. It is fine/not fine to say X.
4. People should/should not say X.
— "ethics", if the speaker's concern is moral; "rhetoric", if the speaker's concern is stylistic.
(This would apply to descriptivist and prescriptivist alike.)
MrP