Scribd
Upload
97 views

Prescriptive Vs Descriptive

The document discusses the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammars. Prescriptive grammars prescribe rules of proper language usage while descriptive grammars objectively describe how language is used. The author believes judgment should be used in applying rules based on clarity, audience, and effectiveness rather than strictly following or rejecting prescriptive rules.

Uploaded by

mnbvfgtr5432plkjihyuuytyrer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
97 views

Prescriptive Vs Descriptive

The document discusses the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammars. Prescriptive grammars prescribe rules of proper language usage while descriptive grammars objectively describe how language is used. The author believes judgment should be used in applying rules based on clarity, audience, and effectiveness rather than strictly following or rejecting prescriptive rules.

Uploaded by

mnbvfgtr5432plkjihyuuytyrer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Prescriptive versus Descriptive Grammars

Prescriptive versus Descriptive Grammars


By Jack Lynch
The grammar books you're used to are what linguists call prescriptive: that is, they prescribe
rules for proper usage. For several hundred years, "grammar" was synonymous with
"prescriptive grammar." You went to a book to get the official word: thou shalt not split
infinitives; thou shalt not end sentences with prepositions. (This is presumably why you're
reading this guide now: to find out what's "right" and what's "wrong.")
Linguists today are justly dubious about such things, and most spend their time on descriptive
grammars: descriptions of how people really speak and write, instead of rules on how they
should. They're doing important work, not least by arguing that no language or dialect is
inherently better than any other. They've done a signal service in reminding us that Black
English is as "legitimate" a dialect as the Queen's English, and that speaking the way Jane
Austen writes doesn't make you more righteous than someone who uses y'all. They've also
demonstrated that many self-styled "grammar" experts know next to nothing about grammar as
it's studied by professionals, and many aren't much better informed about the history of the
language. Many prescriptive guides are grievously ill informed.
Fair enough. Sometimes, though, I enjoy picking fights with those linguists, usually amateur,
who try to crowd prescription out of the market altogether. The dumber ones make a leap from
"No language is inherently better than another" (with which I agree) to "Everything's up for
grabs" (with which I don't). The worst are hypocrites who, after attacking the very idea of rules,
go on to prescribe their own, usually the opposite of whatever the traditionalists say. These
folks have allowed statistics to take the place of judgment, relying on the principle, "Whatever
most people say is the best."
These dullards forget that words are used in social situations, and that even if something isn't
inherently good or evil, it might still have a good or bad effect on your audience. I happen to
know for a fact that God doesn't care whether you split infinitives. But some people do, and
that's a simple fact that no statistical table will change. A good descriptivist should tell you that.
In fact, my beef with many descriptivists is that they don't describe enough. A really thorough
description of a word or usage would take into account not only how many people use it, but in
what circumstances and to what effect.

http://www.copydesk.org/pdfs/Prescriptivevsdescriptive.htm (1 of 3) [5/3/2003 4:44:57 AM]

Prescriptive versus Descriptive Grammars

Much can be said against old-fashioned bugbears like end-of-sentence prepositions and
singular they. They're not particularly logical, they don't have much historical justification, and
they're difficult even for native speakers to learn. But you don't always get to choose your
audience, and some of your readers or hearers will think less of you if you break the "rules."
Chalk it up to snobbishness if you like, but it's a fact. To pick an even more politically charged
example, Black English is a rich and fascinating dialect with its own sophisticated lexicon and
syntax. But using it in certain social situations just hurts the speaker's chances of getting what
he or she wants. That's another brute fact one with the worst of historical reasons, but a fact
still, and wishing it away won't change it.
That doesn't mean the old-fashioned prescriptivists should always be followed slavishly: it
means you have to exercise judgment in deciding which rules to apply when. Here's the
principle that guides what I write and say whenever traditional ("correct") usage differs from
colloquial ("incorrect") usage.

Does the traditional usage, hallowed by prescriptive grammars and style guides, improve
the clarity or precision of the sentence? If so, use the traditional usage.
Does the colloquial usage add clarity or precision to the more traditional version? if so,
use the colloquial one, rules be damned.
Sometimes the traditional usage, the one you've been taught is "right," is downright
clumsy or unidiomatic. The classic example is "It's I," which, though "right"
traditionalists will tell you it is in the nominative case, and that a copulative verb requires
the same case in the subject and the predicate is too stilted for all but the most formal
situations. "It's me" sounds a thousand times more natural. If you like being the sort of
person who says "It's I," that's fine, but know that most of your audience, including most
of the educated part of your audience, will find it out of place.
If neither one is inherently better, for reasons of logic, clarity, or whatever, is the
traditional form intrusive? If it's not going to draw attention to itself, I prefer to stick with
the "correct" usage, even if the reasons for its being "correct" are dubious. For instance,
the word only can go many places in a sentence. Putting it in a position the traditionalists
call "wrong" will probably distract a few readers; putting it in a position the traditionalists
call "right" won't bother anyone, even those who are less hung up about word placement.
In this case, unlike the "It's I" case, following the "rule" will keep the traditionalists happy
without irritating the rest of the world.
For me it's a simple calculation: which usage, the traditional or the colloquial, is going to
be more effective? Since most traditional usages work in most colloquial settings, and
since many colloquial usages don't work in formal settings, I usually opt for the traditional
usage.

Some determined iconoclasts consider it pandering to follow any traditional rule they don't like,
and do everything they can to flout the old grammar books. I suppose some think wanton
infinitive-splitting shows the world what free spirits they are, and some think giving in to "White

http://www.copydesk.org/pdfs/Prescriptivevsdescriptive.htm (2 of 3) [5/3/2003 4:44:57 AM]

Prescriptive versus Descriptive Grammars

English" is unmitigated Uncle-Tomism.


Maybe. If rebellion makes you happy, go nuts; I won't stop you. But as I make clear throughout
this guide, writing is for me a matter of having an impact on an audience, and my experience, if
it's worth anything, is that some usages help you and some hurt you. Think about each one, not
in terms of what you're "allowed" to say, but in terms of what your words can do for you. A
dogmatic prejudice against the rules is no better than a dogmatic prejudice in their favor.
Used with permission of Jack Lynch
From his grammar guide Web site.
April 29, 2003

http://www.copydesk.org/pdfs/Prescriptivevsdescriptive.htm (3 of 3) [5/3/2003 4:44:57 AM]

You might also like