Prescriptivism & Descriptivism: Terms & Examples

Question 1

Define a prescriptivist

Answer 1

Is the attitude or belief that the one variety of a language is superior to others. A believer of this is called a prescriptivist. Not all prescriptivist fall under one umbrella. Some may have a one minded view, and some others. Some want to force the the variety of language as restricted as possible. And some just want to police correct/right use of English.

Question 2

A stickerlist is a type of a prescriptivist, define?

Answer 2

Is the attitude of policing the correct use of a language and scolding or correcting if usage is incorrect or illogical. Sticklers or ‘language pedants’ are those who adhere to this attitude.

Question 3

A declinist is a type of prescriptivist, define?

Answer 3

Robert Lane Green’s second prescriptivist category denotes in relation to linguistics see language in an irreversible decline.

Question 4

Name an example of a stickerlist

Answer 4

A famous prescriptivist aka stickler; Lynne Truss, ‘2003’, ‘Eats, Shoots Leaves’ went correcting grammar use in grocers such as the inappropriate apostrophes e.g. ‘Potateo’s’.

Question 5

Name modern/ common/ stickerlists.

Answer 5

Are modern sticklers that pervade every corner on the internet correct people’s misuse of grammar such as the common ‘your and you’re’ or ‘they’re and there.’

Question 6

What do declinists commonly think about English?

Answer 6

English is being destroyed by young people, technology and by immigrants that speak ‘broken English

Question 7

Evaluation: Are all sticklers bad?

Answer 7

No, not really. After all, aren’t we all a little bit of a stickler? When we’re writing that essay or blog, we tread a little more carefully on proper grammar usage. However, when we’re not writing those genre’s it shouldn’t be incorrect when we speak non-standard English. We can always adhere to Standard English.

Question 8

What 3 categories do Declinists adhere to?

Answer 8

1. Damp spoon syndrome
2. Infectious diseases
3. Crumbling Castle View
   from Jean Aitchison’s series of lectures for the BBC in 1996 about the falling standards of English were simply recycled from previous generations and that all harked back to a mythical time when English was at its ‘peak’.

Question 9

Evaulation: Why do Declinsts have this negative stance and should this be seen as a bad thing?

Answer 9

I can’t ask the same question as I did with Stickerlism with this attitude but rather pose up a different question of why declinists see language in such a negative view point? David Crystal, a well-known descriptivist posed this question ‘Is our language sick’ but ‘Why do we want to think that our language is sick?’ Or, ‘Why is language sickness thought to be so serious as a disease anyway? And a serious disease anyway? And why is it chronic?

Question 10

Define benign prescriptivists?

Answer 10

Prescriptivists who seem harmful by being restricted as possible, cause no offense and make language be free from ‘gobbledygook’ as quoted by Dan Clayton.

Question 11

Give me the first example of a benign prescriptivst?

Answer 11

The Plain English Campaign aims to make the English language clearer. They aim to get rid of cooperate ‘gibberish’. They give a clear mark to organisations which use of Plain English

Question 12

Evaluation: What evaluation can be made from Plain English campaign?

Answer 12

Even though the they do intend to care for clarity. They’re not necessarily being morally correct. Job titles such as ‘ambient replenishment controller’ obscure the true denotation that it is a job of a shelf stacker. When companies talk about ‘right-sizing’ their staff it obscures the meaning that they’re going to be firing certain staff. If companies like these truly want to be ‘plain’ why don’t they just explicitly use the correct word? Although, pragmatically It may save the face of an individual but it can be argued that is manipulative.

Question 13

What is the second example that supports benign prescriptivism?

Answer 13

Words ‘chairman’ & ‘coloured’ have been considered offensive. ‘Chairman’ as it a job title exclusively limited to males. Due to the unmarked patriarchal concrete noun ‘man’. Implying that women can never be a chairman. That is why now you can hear of ‘chairperson’ or ‘chairwomen.’ Same goes with policeman.

‘Coloured’ which is a label used as an adjective formed through affixation’ that denoted ‘a person with dark complexion’, the inflectional morpheme ‘ed’ used to make it base adjective. It is a word that offends me but I can’t say it offends other black people, because I don’t speak out for them. The word was used to segregate black people from their white counterparts. To differentiate that one race is better than the other.

Question 14

Evaluation: What can we draw out from these examples?

Answer 14

We must applaud the prescriptivists, rather us, for acting to remove certain words that have caused offense over history. They avoid further uproar. Such as with ‘coloured’ to be considered politically incorrect due to its use during the Slave Era and even after slaves were segregated. Now with the rise of equality, no longer are you able to see and hear the word used in that sense. However, we can argue that in some contexts, prescriptivists can go too far by using it unnecessarily to the extent of manipulation. Somewhere on the along the way we must draw line of when to consider a word politically incorrect or consider a term not ‘clear.

Question 15

Define descriptivism?

Answer 15

is a non-judgemental, open minded approach to language that focuses on how it is actually and written.

It is important to note down that descriptivists rather pose questions of why language as it is today. There is no right or wrong.

Question 16

Are we told to think like a descriptivist when we’re studying A level English Language?

Answer 16

Yes! we should take in to account that we all have a bit of prescriptivism within us such as the cringe at ‘your’ and ‘you’re. We are told that there needs to be a right balance of descriptivists and prescriptivist. One cannot live without the other otherwise that would be the death of language.

Question 17

What is an argument for Descriptivism? (1)

Answer 17

Prescriptivist often to see language as ‘diseased’ but if it was, wouldn’t you think it would’ve died by now? And aren’t descriptivists ‘allowing the language to be warped by errors, to be dictated by the uneducated and to become fragmented and unintelligible?’ Not necessarily. Errors exist within every language but it is important, that in terms of Standard English they would be considered ‘incorrect but in non-standard English such labels shouldn’t be adhered to. We’re not ‘uneducated’ considering the fact that literacy rates across the UK and USA are higher than they were 10 years ago. Nor are we fragmented and unintelligible, the opposite should be said in fact that prescriptivist are allowing clarity to be fragmented when considering the Plain English capaign

Question 18

What is an argument for Descriptivism? (2)

Answer 18

Descriptivists rarely show a lack of genuine consideration of how language is used as long as it’s understood, such as double negatives like ‘I never did nothing wrong’ rarely confuses listeners despite many prescriptivists seeing this use as wrong, or despite how ‘incorrect’ signs like ’10 items or less’ they’re hardly ever to cause an uproar. Instead they’re more concerned about important linguistic issues one being ‘the manipulation of people’s lives by skillful use of languM

Question 19

What example can be used to support Argument (2)?

Answer 19

An example of this manipulation has already been addressed with the Plain English Campaign the job title ‘Ambient replenishment controller’ masquerades the fact that it is just a ‘shelf-stacker’ this gives the person a false perception, making them seem as though their job is high value when it isn’t. There’s nothing wrong with being a shelf stacker, but the problem is with the labelling of the word. Equally with job companies using the verb ‘right-sizing’ which is a euphemism to fire a person. This euphemism is a hyphenated compound that includes the base adjective ‘right’ with the material verb ‘to size’ conjugated in the progressive tense. The pre-modifying adjective makes it seem that it is something positive for the company (which it is) but not for the people that are getting fired. ‘Sizing’ doesn’t explicit denote firing but rather to make smaller or bigger however this is the problem as this masquerade the fact that the company is firing its staff instead of blatantly expressing that they are.

Question 20

What evaluation can be made from the first argument?

Answer 20

This poses the question that there is more underlying issue to the English language unlike other languages. Perhaps, it is the issue that the English languages has always taught its users to attain to a positive face – never a negative one that has caused this manipulation of the English language. Have we gone overboard? Languages like German are very explicit and always express how they feel.

Question 21

What is the second evaulation that can be made from the argument? (1)

Answer 21

This shines the light that the English language is a powerful mechanism, that can truly shape the way we see the world. How it can help us get through the day by making things seem more positive (or not as a big of a deal) than they really are. It also poses questions whether we should use the English language to manipulate the reader, rather than being explicit and making them more concerned, we can avoid that by obscuring the true meaning which we allow readers to go on about their day because it’s life. Would descriptivists’ agree with this view?

Question 22

What is the third evaulation that can be made from the argument? (1)

Answer 22

To me, perhaps they may do because they see language as open, and suited to the user. If people want to manipulate and obscure the meaning, then allow them. Perhaps it is the reader’s choice to decipher what the writer is implicating through their use of language. That is why there’s campaigns (and linguists) like Plain English, that helps makes the English language clearer to readers who don’t want to do that deciphering and just want their language face-value with no implications, the reality. However, descriptivists like Jean Aitchison, Dan Clayton & Steven Thorne would disagree as they seen as manipulative.

Question 23

What is the third example that can be used to support argument 2?

Answer 23

With the weaponise article which talked about how there is Business jargon ‘to make the fluorescent-lit days seem more glamorous’ and how warspeak has manipulated the English language ‘subtly to persuade us that when an actual war breaks out, it’s just business as usual.

Question 24

What are two examples from books can be used to support the underlying issue that language is being manipulated?

Answer 24

Jean Aitchison in her book Language Change: Progress or Decay (1991) looks at how nuclear warfare uses language to dupe and confuse us.

Steven Thorne examines how military discourse often hides death and destruction in The Language of War.

Question 25

Lastly, what is the quote by Dan Clayton which seals the issue?

Answer 25

‘It’s a good thing that people get worked up about punctuation because it helps to create the tension between innovation and tradition that keeps language intelligible to its to users but surely we should be more concerned with stray smartbombs than the occasional stray of apostrophe.’