Prescriptive and descriptive approaches to language, though opposing ideas, both share opinions on how language should be treated and maintained. Prescriptivism is essentially the idea that language should have rules which need to be adhered to and is “a matter of what people ought to say” (Trask: 1999: 73). Contrastingly, descriptivism takes the hands-off approach to language, and rather than attempting to try and enforce rules and regulations, simply devotes itself to explaining how and why such language works (Curaz 2014: 15).
Given this information, does one idea have merit over the other? Prescriptivism gained a major foothold around the eighteenth century, when a variety of English had evolved into standard, and all other forms were perceived as less good as a consequence. Fast forward to today, and there is still a need for Standard English. According to Lynch, (2009: 19) “we need the rules of English, say the prescriptivists, to communicate clearly”. Furthermore, the need for Standard English is generally necessary in various professions such as law and business. There is great emphasis on the need for children and foreign speakers to learn the standard form, and for there to be a strict set of language dos and don’ts.
However, prescriptivism does not exist without faults. According to Endley, (2010: 20) all languages change, and there is no way to stop this from happening. From a prescriptive point of view, however, any change in language should not be accepted. Prescriptivism, though certainly idealistic, does appear to be somewhat unattainable. For one thing, language is always changing and it is difficult to pin down a set of rules which can account for such changes. This problem introduces the contrasting view of the descriptivist, a view which is impartial and objective about a language’s rules.
Descriptivism, on the surface, seems to be an easier stance to agree with; language should not necessarily have rules, and description is of higher priority. This is also the stance that most modern linguists tend to adopt, as it gives the opportunity to analyse language use and collect results based on the findings gathered. There is no desire to regulate language use. Furthermore, descriptivism is a useful stance because it could be argued that before we can attribute rules to a language, we should first investigate and describe its aspects.
However, descriptivism too has its faults. For instance, Meyer (2010: 14) states that “whether linguists like it or not, all language is subjected to linguistic norms”. There is no avoiding the fact that language rules are enforced, and in most cases, people tend to make negative judgements of a person’s non-standard language use. One further problem which is worth addressing is that it is difficult to believe that a fully accurate description of language is possible, as all interpretation is biased. No matter how objective descriptivism claims to be, individuals still have their own subjective opinions about what constitutes good and bad language.
To conclude, although both prescriptivism and descriptivism have their assets, neither one idea alone appears to be without problems. Prescriptivism does not take into account the fact that language is a naturally changing phenomenon, and there is too much variation and change for it to be able to stagnate. On the other hand, descriptivism must acknowledge different language uses they have to be at least aware that these usages are different. This implies that there must first be some form of judgement about various uses of language. Finally, Mesthrie (2009: 19) offers some form of compromise claiming “variation in language is to be expected in informal speech, but that more formal contexts of use (like a formal lecture) require a shift to other, more educationally sanctioned styles that minimise variation”.
ALEXANDRA GRAHAM, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK