The second possible reaction to the appearance of new words, phrases, and spellings is analyzing them and applying corresponding rules to their usage. This is the prescriptive approach. The main concern of this approach consists in identifying whether a phrase or sentence is grammatically correct. According to the prescriptive approach correct grammar is the most important quality of the language and should be imposed on the whole speech community (Liberman, 2005).
Most of the rules which are adopted by the prescriptive approach originally come from Latin and Greek languages. As Latin and Greek are dead languages, they do not change and that is why they serve as models for grammar of English and some other languages (Ibid).
Some of the prescriptive rules of English are: Don't split infinitives, don't use double negation, don't end a sentence with a preposition, don't use who in place of whom, say or write 'It is I’ instead of 'It is me'.
Though modern linguists prefer using the descriptive approach analyzing new tendencies in language, they need to apply to prescriptive approach too because it helps to understand the changes better and to find better tools to explain them. (Peters & Pam, 2004) Surely, the linguists clearly understand that language changes and needs to change in order to reflect changes which take place within the society. That is why they use descriptive approach to give people an opportunity to choose appropriate words for particular contexts in order to understand each other better. The descriptive approach also acts as a more democratic way of thinking and meeting changes because common usage is really more powerful than abstract statements of what is correct or “logical” in a particular language. (Ibid) The descriptive approach does not require certain rules to be imposed on new words or phrases; it just gives advice and recommends certain rules to be applied to new words. It also points out cases in which variations are preferred and indicates the stylistic context in which these variations can be used.
At the same time the prescriptive approach is more traditional and requires certain rules to be formulated for the usage of new words and phrases in order to avoid any confusion. As a result, this approach tends to achieve uniformity in language use, especially if it relates to grammar, spelling, and in some cases pronunciation. While the descriptive approach is more democratic, the prescriptive one is more authoritarian and strict. It requires clear and exact rules to be applied to the language and all the speech community to follow them unquestioningly.
For example, let’s say the question is whether it is acceptable to use the contraction form (for example, “it’s” instead of “it is”) when writing. A person who prefers the prescriptive approach is likely to say that the contracted form is not acceptable in writing; it is, however, may be acceptable when speaking. On the other hand, a person who takes the descriptive approach would probably say “it depends.” It depends on what kind of document is being written. It would be better not to use the contracted form in case a business letter or a legislative act is being written. However, if it is a personal letter or a piece of literature, using “it’s” is perfectly acceptable. But in this case the target audience is to be carefully considered.
In book The Columbia Guide to Standard American English Kenneth Wilson (1993) presents one more way of explaining the descriptive and prescriptive approaches to language. Wilson outlines that the descriptive approach describes and explains how language is used and what a great number of variations it offers to be used. He also presents the specific attributes of accuracy and an “un-retouched picture of this usage, warts and all” as the main features of the descriptive approach. The prescriptive approach, Wilson explains, will require usage of one certain variation instead of any others no matter how good they are and how many of them there might be. For the prescriptive approach it is always clear what is the most appropriate, what is likely to be acceptable, and which is correct and incorrect.
2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Descriptive Approach
The first strength of the descriptive approach is that it gives a person an opportunity to choose what words, phrases and their variations to use in each particular situation. Analyzing and describing a certain usage by means of the descriptive approach, we take a look at the history, origin, contemporary practice, and evolution of the particular neologism. For example, describing some new world we explain not only where it appeared and what its grammar qualities are , but the context in which it is usually used, variants of its meaning, more and less appropriate usages, how it was changing with time, in what cases it is used now, what it stands for, where it may be used. This is one of the most important strengths of the descriptive approach. It allows not only to use certain word in this particular context, but to transfer it to other ones. Explaining one word we get acquainted no only with that word, but with fields, industries, sciences it is used in.
One more advantage of the descriptive approach is that it explains motivations and circumstances of human speech. This helps to understand certain meanings of language better, to analyze how it is being influenced by other cultures and nations, how this influence changes the way we communicate. As Dwight Bolinger stated in his book Language: the Loaded Weapon (1980), in the realm of language and thinking, the premise is that “every language has a structure that must somehow influence the way its speakers view the world.” The descriptive method, hence, helps us to take a look and analyze the way other people view the world. That is one more advantage of description.
Many proverbs, idiomatic and slang expressions we use in our everyday speech, are used due to the descriptive method. The descriptive approach allows us to go into the history, etymology and, possibly, the sociology of speech and language when explaining the meaning of some expression. This approach also allows us to learn and analyze why exactly people use certain phrases and words in this or that particular way.
As for the weaknesses and disadvantages of the descriptive approach, one of the most important of them is that analyzing some usage or word by means of this approach we may get a very wide and long interpretation. Some ambiguity and non-uniformity may appear in such a description. And, surely, it may appear that the explanation is not too concrete, exact and correct.
One more disadvantage of the given approach is that it gives much freedom and many variants to choose from. This, consequently, may potentially cause confusion among students of language who require their learning to be more rigorous and clearly structured.
Another weakness is that some overzealous descriptivists tend not only to describe the usage of language , but try to take the initiative of changing and developing. Such scientists are likely to change and develop through encouraging the “death” of old-fashioned usages or those which they consider irrelevant in a society which has immersed itself in the technological progress. They believe it is their duty to proceed and chop off everything what in their opinion is no fashionable or appropriate any more. (Descriptive and Prescriptive Grammar)
The last weakness of the descriptive approach is in practicality. For instance, both electronic and printed dictionaries need space to accommodate extensive descriptions. It is not easy to define the limit and boundaries for descriptions of words and phrases. It becomes a question whether regional and international variations should be described in a dictionary. The question is also how the meaning of the word should be presented: from its historical perspective, from its social context, or just its modern usage. It is difficult and takes much effort and time to describe words. Language is changing constantly and consistently, all these changes should be described and it is really difficult to entail all the descriptions of all the frequent changes.
3. The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Prescriptive Method
Surely, very appreciated would be a definite answer to all the questions relating to grammar and vocabulary. Everyone appreciates being told, once and for all, what is correct and incorrect in how we speak and write. This is where the strength of the prescriptive method is. It is clear, definitive, and precise. Much attention should be paid to the prescriptive method in our world where change is inevitable and takes place in language daily, where communication is the key to efficient commerce and governance, education and security. A great number of changes in language may lead to ambiguity in grammar, vocabulary, and even pronunciation. In this case we have to return to a more traditional approach which will help to clarify everything.
The second strength of the prescriptive method is that it is easier to teach. The exact knowledge of what is acceptable, correct, and appropriate gives an opportunity to proceed to other aspects of language which are as important. Society is organized because there exist clear and categorical laws that govern all the aspects of life. Language is similar: it also needs to be governed in order to be clear and easy-understandable. That is why systematically enforced rules with very little exception which leave only minimal room for misinterpretation are needed in the language. Such rules, understood and accepted, will help us to improve our communication, to make it simple, easy and clear.
In our daily communication, having decided that “anything goes”, we usually do not pay much attention to how correct our speech is. When such a tendency goes out of control, when we start to use absolutely inappropriate phrases and patterns, this trend is tempered by the efforts of the prescriptive movement. This is the third strength of the prescriptive method. This strength is based on the principle of standing against the irresponsible and careless use of grammar. Those who prefer the prescriptive method do not want to see a language die or inevitably change from misuse or abuse - they want to preserve it at any cost.
However, no matter how noble the efforts of the prescriptive approach are, it also has its weaknesses. First of all, it tends to influence everyone’s personal style of communication. The way we prefer to communicate with each other is chosen by everyone personally. Everyone has certain principles of communication which are expressed in the way one talks and writes, and they help a person to express personal sentiments and beliefs as well and clearly as possible. The prescriptive approach, however, does not allow that.
Being members of the society which develops and changes in its evolution, we choose some particular words and phrases to use habitually because we like them or because our friends and colleagues understand us better when we use them. Hence, our constant desire is to be free in choosing words and patterns to use instead of being obliged to use what someone has already chosen for us.
The second weakness of the prescriptive method is that it strictly follows traditional rules of language use, and does not accept any innovations and realities of the 21st century, modern movements and changes. In his book Net Words (2002) to explain this phenomenon Nick Usborne used an advertisement of a Honda. The advertisement was considered to be a perfect one – grammar and spelling were 100% in order. It was put online. After a few tests it became clear that the advertisement did not work, that it was flat and dull. To make the advertisement acceptable for the Internet they had to change the text and make several grammar errors in it. (Usborne, 2002) So, the weakness of the prescriptive method is that its rules often do not present the meaning in the way it is necessary to be presented.
Besides, it is quite difficult to make all the people follow the requirements of the prescriptive method. For example, the prescriptive approach requires usage of the past subjunctive after the word “if” (for example: if I were you), but it would be quite a challenge to make everyone speak correct and maintain that everyone who uses “was” is wrong, especially because many people say “if I was you” instead of “if I were you.” (Descriptive and Prescriptive Grammar) This is the third weakness of the prescriptive method.
4. Corpus and its Influence on the Debate
It is always necessary to consider possible arbitration. In any intelligently carried out debate there is no winner and no loser. This happens because a debate will always yield interesting arguments, views, ideas, and other perspectives that are worth of being studied deeper. For sure, in any debate, there will always be a side which will win the argument, as in the televised American presidential debates. There will always be a stronger debater and a weaker one. However, there is no winner, because a good debater does not make a good president.
The same concepts can be applied to sociolinguistics. There are certain arguments to prove that the descriptive method is the best approach. As well there are arguments to prove that the prescriptive one is better. All the arguments deserve merit. We have to learn, compare and analyze what is good and bad about both of the approaches. In this situation the appearance of the Corpus is a welcome development, because it continues to improve and develop in order to incorporate both the descriptive and prescriptive approaches. This is manifested by the new American Heritage Dictionary, which was the first dictionary to integrate Corpus linguistics. As Wikipedia explained it, the American Heritage Dictionary introduced the innovation through combining the prescriptive method (how a language ought to be used) and the descriptive method (how language is used at present). (Wikipedia Foundation Inc.) Corpus is a valuable tool of studying language because it not only makes peace between traditional and modern usage, but also provides verbal samples (the largest Corpus databases are characterized by a 90% written language and 10% verbal).
Corpus’ role is very significant because it tends to calm the battle between the two schools of thought – the descriptive and prescriptive approaches. Secondly, it was created via text encoding efforts, qualifying it for ISO Standard 8879. (Descriptive and Prescriptive Grammar) That is why it will stand between the two approaches, giving an opportunity for compromise which will result in a better understanding of language in all its variations.
According to David Crystal (2000) Corpus must be well-constructed and satisfy certain requirements. First of all, it must be large enough to be able to answer all possible questions concerning language. Secondly, it must answer not only questions covering pronunciation or grammar, but all which relate to language including lexical questions as well.
A million of words is not enough in Crystal’s view. He outlines that “the designers of a Corpus should consider whether only Standard English should be included in the Corpus, and whether it should be restricted to one country, or be moving in the direction of World English.” (Crystal, 2000) As in the future Corpus will be enlarged, it will be able to address both the descriptive and prescriptive methods and all the issues arising from each. By all the Linguistics students it should be viewed as a significant step forward. Considering global integration and globalization of all the fields of economy, politics and communication, a Corpus with ISO certification is a very important tool to banish any doubts that can be provoked by either approach.
Conclusion
Considering numerous and constant debates of many linguists from all over the world, it is a great thing that now we have no need to decide which approach to language is better or has more merit. Now we can draw the essential principles from each one and decide how we may use them in order to carry out further research with the objective of adding to the growing body of language data. It is important to notice that from the perspective of the constantly and quickly changing world and language the descriptive approach may seem better, but it is important to remember that the world of symbols and meaning can be chaotic and, hence, need certain services of prescriptivists to diminish that confusion. Now we do not have to decide which school’s arguments are more convincing and what approach should dominate. We think the idea should be to go ahead and use the rules as they apply to the majority of users. Understanding should be the main focus. A compromise can always be found, and a blending of two worlds can result in a beautiful harmony of ideas and teachings. Students today and students of tomorrow would be the beneficiaries of this union of opposing approaches because they certainly will not waste time arguing passionately, when they can always channel those passions to new fields of endeavor within communications or Linguistics.
Bibliograohy
Bolinger, Dwight. Language: the Loaded Weapon – the Use and Abuse of Language Today. New York: Longman Group Limited, 1980.
Crystal, David. Language Death. Cambridge: University Press, 2000.
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK. 1995.
Liberman, Mark. Prescriptive and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 001. Lecture 3. The Language Wars. 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2005/ling001/prescription.html Accessed 13 September, 2006
Peters, Pam. The Cambridge Guide to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Usborne, Nick. Net Words – Creating High Impact Online Copy. New York: McGraw Hill, 2002.
Wilson, Kenneth G. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, New York: Cambridge University Press. 1993.
“Descriptive and Prescriptive Grammar”, Articles. Using English.com. Retrieved from Accessed 12 September, 2006
Wikipedia Foundation Inc. “Corpus Linguistics”. Wikipedia. Retrieved from Accessed 12 September, 2006
