Descriptivism, prescriptivism and the evolution of language

[Daniel N.]

As a writer of a (amateurish) page/blog for learning Croatian as a foreign language, let me share my experience.

In Croatia, there's a very strong prescriptive tradition, and there are zillions of web pages, books, manuals, FB pages giving "proper usage advice". Even newspapers give free booklets about "writing and speaking properly".

But people don't speak "properly", and in many contexts (e.g. Facebook, blogs) they don't write "properly". This affects mostly choice of words, and sometimes grammar.

So, if I explained only the "proper" words and grammar, learners would, eventually, be great at writing laws, newspaper articles and giving official speeches. Does an average foreigner want to write laws and newspaper articles? Or he or she wants to speak more or less how natives speak in everyday situations? And listen to popular songs and watch movies? And read some books? (A lot of popular songs are far from the standard language and a lot of fiction mixes in a lot of non-standard dialogs).

For instance, you have members of government speaking about "what will be done in the eleventh month". While Croatian has its name for the month of November (studeni), almost everyone uses numbers to refers to months. You are not able to understand even government ministers without this - but it's not standard. In official documents, months are always named. So you have to learn both.

For me, the only option is descriptive. To explain how people speak, including people on TV news, but explaining that's not how most people speak in most circumstances (that includes university professors, who use less standard than some people would expect). The problem is, the actual speech is quite diverse, there are many 'dialects'. So you have to explain a lot, but there's no other option. And there's a complicated relationship with Serbian and Bosnian, which cannot be really separated from Croatian.

It would be like learning English and your teacher never ever explaining forms like gonna or ain't. Won't do.

[Serpent]

I'll revive this thread to reply

might I assume that... you would readily agree that the adoption of a "prescriptivist" or a "descriptivist" point of view is a matter of personal preference and that neither position can be proved as being more correct or having greater value than the other?

Well no...
First of all, when prescriptivism leads to discrimination, descriptivism is objectively better.
Also, prescriptivism in L1 is essentially a lost battle. A waste of energy that can be spent more effectively.
However, note that descriptivists don't argue that all prescriptivism should be abolished. Academic, professional, legal etc language is somewhat (or very) artificial and genuinely requires precision beyond the capabilities of natural language. Nobody is arguing that a judge should speak the same way in court as with her friends while having a beer.

[Cainntear]

might I assume that... you would readily agree that the adoption of a "prescriptivist" or a "descriptivist" point of view is a matter of personal preference and that neither position can be proved as being more correct or having greater value than the other?

I'm with Serpent.

Consider the horrible world of dog breeding. Professional organisations declare what a "good" example of a particular breed "should" be like. Dog breeders then intensively and selectively breed their dogs to look more and more like this ideal. In the end, you get German shepherds with serious back problems because they "should" look like they're sitting when they're standing on all fours; bulldogs that can't breathe because the "should" have snouts so short that they have no space for sinuses etc etc.

A living thing cannot be distorted to fit a pattern without doing harm. Far better then to accept the whole naturally occurring range of variations as normal and perfectly ok.

[Speakeasy]

Note to Speakeasy's Personal Journal:
Should the Ayatollah's of "Right Thought" ever read Orwell, they would likely conclude that Smith's ultimate submission was his salvation.

[Cainntear]

Note to Speakeasy's Personal Journal:
Should the Ayatollah's of "Right Thought" ever read Orwell, it is likely that they would conclude that Smith's ultimate submission was his salvation.

Woah, there. Sometimes there is such a thing as right and wrong thought. Assuming someone is inferior to you because they have a different colour of skin is wrong - I'm sure you'll agree.

Now prescriptivism favours individuals by birth -- if you are born into the "correct" speech community, you will have an easier life. Meanwhile, if you're born into a poor African-American community, prescriptivism constantly paints you as "wrong" and therefore less intelligent than someone born into an upper-middle-class white gated community, even if you have a genius level brain and they're boringly average.

So even if not intended, prescriptivism encodes racist ideas, and I think it's pretty fair for Serpent to say that "when prescriptivism leads to discrimination, descriptivism is objectively better" without being compared to a dogmatic religious leader.

A world of descriptivism is not a chaotic world without order or rules, it's like a spider's web of interacting rules and patterns; it's a world of crystalline structures that are all perfectly ordered in and of themselves, but whose final form can never be guessed at with 100% accuracy.

Descriptive grammar has all the wonderful, beautiful complexity of crystals, or trees, or the plumage of a bird.

It's a set of rules we can use to break apart what we see and understand why it exists, which eliminates the frustration of looking at something and thinking "but that doesn't make sense".

[dampingwire]

Now prescriptivism favours individuals by birth -- if you are born into the "correct" speech community, you will have an easier life. Meanwhile, if you're born into a poor African-American community, prescriptivism constantly paints you as "wrong" and therefore less intelligent than someone born into an upper-middle-class white gated community, even if you have a genius level brain and they're boringly average.

Grammar of any stripe is the least of your hypothetical poor African's problem. His (or her) real problem is that the white upper-middle-class gated community constantly "paints" him or her as "not one of us". Even if, in some world, descriptivism were to rule unchallenged over the vast oceans of grammar, the members of the gated community would still look over at the poor genius and chortle to each other, "Gosh, he speaks so well, for a poor person with the wrong tone of skin/from the wrong side of the tracks/who's chosen to wear unbranded trainers".

[Cainntear]

Grammar of any stripe is the least of your hypothetical poor African's problem. His (or her) real problem is that the white upper-middle-class gated community constantly "paints" him or her as "not one of us". Even if, in some world, descriptivism were to rule unchallenged over the vast oceans of grammar, the members of the gated community would still look over at the poor genius and chortle to each other, "Gosh, he speaks so well, for a poor person with the wrong tone of skin/from the wrong side of the tracks/who's chosen to wear unbranded trainers".

Least? Perhaps, perhaps not. Problem? Yes. Why do we only have to eliminate the bigger problems? Are you saying that if you had cancer and split your head open, you wouldn't get bandaged because it's "the least of your problems"...?

[Speakeasy]

Yes, yes, prescriptivism is the Mother of All Evils.

Serpent, could you please support your statement “well no … descriptivism is objectively better” by supplying a definition of “objectivity” and by demonstrating how your position is free from your own very personal judgments, preferences, feelings, beliefs and desires?

Cainntear, your assertion “there is such a thing as right and wrong thought” evokes the very worst aspects of political and religious dogma … “thoughtcrime” would be Orwellian formulation.

Cainntear and Serpent, your representation of prescriptivism as being inexorably linked to “discrimination, wrong thought, favouritism by birth, racist ideas” requires substantiation. Putting your hyperbole aside for the moment, I wonder if you could please direct us all to some widely-accepted sociological studies that provide objectively-verifiable support for your points of view? Uh, that is, something other than subjective pseudo-studies supporting a “new” dogma.

PS to Cainntear: To my mind, the jarring “woah, there” was totally uncalled for. It displays a lack of respect for your interlocutor, who has just as much right as you to express his opinions in a civil and respectful manner.

[Serpent]

Serpent, could you please support your statement “well no … descriptivism is objectively better” by supplying a definition of “objectivity” and by demonstrating how your position is free from your own very personal judgments, preferences, feelings, beliefs and desires?

You took that out of context. My statement concerned only the cases when prescriptivism leads to discrimination. It doesn't matter whether it's common or not. Do you agree that it sometimes happens?
Also, please avoid disrespectful labels like "new dogma"

@dampingwire we're discussing linguistic discrimination because it's a language forum. There are other kinds of discrimination too, of course.

[Speakeasy]

... “well no … descriptivism is objectively better” ... You took that out of context.

It was not out of context. It was a direct quote of your response to my suggestion that "you would readily agree that the adoption of a "prescriptivist" or a "descriptivist" point of view is a matter of personal preference and that neither position can be proved as being more correct or having greater value than the other."

Also, please avoid disrespectful labels like "new dogma"

DOGMA: an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy. 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. A belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted


A "new" dogma is nothing more than one that replaces an "old" dogma. In both cases, dogmas are "a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted." Qualifying my use of the word as "disrespectful" requires an explanation.