The use of language. My mom was a proofreader for a handful of local editorials, so the “correctness” of language was pushed very hard on to me from very little. As a result, I pushed for “correct” language onto others very hard as well. And this isnt about English, but my birth language, which has lots of conjugation rules, gendering details, grammar quirks and special cases; so people do tend to deviate from proper grammar a lot in informal settings (and sometimes in formal as well). I became a “language nazi” of sorts, and noticed quickly how people spoke fearfully in front of me to avoid making mistakes and getting corrected. This was something I (regretfully) took pride of.
Until one day, a friend of mine which specialized in languages said to me: “Language isn’t prescriptive; it’s descriptive”. And it took a while, a plethora of questions, and infinite patience from her, but I eventually came around and understood what she was saying: language is what we use to convey ideas from one to the other. We stick to a given language and grammar (structure) because that’s the common agreement for the language speakers, in the expectations that it makes for easier communication. BUT, if a sentence can transmit correctly a thought, even when not using a word in the dictionary or not applying grammar rules, then it’s fine as long as me (or whomever is the interlocutor) understands what they’re trying to say. Furthermore, even when using proper grammar with “existing words”, communication can be confusing and requires clarification. If you can make up a word in the spot that better conveys what you’re trying to say, then I’m all for it! (And probably will start using it myself). If you learned to speak a certain way and call stuff a different name from what I learned, or if you add extra letters to the word because that’s what you were taught by your family (something very usual) then that’s cool and I’ll respect it.
TLDR: Language has no rules. It is what we make of it.
The best thing about descriptivists is that they still tend to use perfectly refined and grammatically correct language themselves, and make up new words and break grammar rules very thoughtfully, not on a whim!
True, though this is one of those ideas at the ends of the bell curve. You have authors who brilliantly break the rules and then you have the degeneracy of the language to the point where communication is touch-and-go at best. Having some flexible ground rules is to everyone’s benefit.
Emphasis on ‘correctly transmitting a thought’. Many who choose to completely ignore spelling and grammar do not manage to convey their thoughts. If I have to read or listen to something more than a couple times to try to figure out what was said, I skip on to the next item. That person failed to communicate.
Thanks for sharing, my dad was a language purist as well, and it took me to marrying a local girl that used a lot of slang to break the habit. Even though sometimes, I cannot stop myself, I’ve become a much easier person to be around with.
Yes but, the fact that language has no rules and is what we make it is precisely why it circles right back to being prescriptive.
If you are a researcher your job is to view the language with no value judgement, to describe things as they are.
But as a speaker the more people I convince into my particular jargon or slang, the more widely used and thus commonly accepted it will be. For example, spring onions should be called “sprungions”. Join me.
Reading Stephen King broke me of this as a teen 40-years ago.
“Hey! That’s not proper English! You can’t use punctuation like that! Did he just make that word up?!”
I had always made A’s in English and was stunned that this popular author often flouted the rules. But, as you said, he conveyed his descriptions brilliantly.
I read Lynne Truss’ book Eats, Shoots & Leaves in high school and it pretty much immediately removed me from the path of being a pedant. I went into it expecting an interesting discussion of grammar and got an old lady yelling at clouds with nothing more to say than “I don’t like this” with a litany of examples.
I know you said English isn’t your native language, but I’m choosing to believe the grammar and punctuation mistakes in your post are just there to troll people who are still “language Nazis”. :-P
However, I was led to believe that some languages are prescriptive. For example, French has Académie Française. I was told (no idea how true it is) that it’s actually “in charge” of the language, so they get to decide what is “right”. The wiki page seems to indicate that they decide what goes in the French dictionary. That being said, I have no idea what authority they actually have outside of that. I doubt they’re issuing fines for using loanwords.
The Académie thinks you should say “joueur-animateur en direct” instead of “streamer” or I guess “stremur” which literally no one does, so if an Académie prescribes a language but no one follows the rules, does it make a language?
Yes, that’s precisely my point. The language is a living being, and any authority pretending to rule over it is just smoke; word will be spoken, meanings will be given. Literally like the word “literally”, which now has a double meaning due to common (mis?)use.
The use of language. My mom was a proofreader for a handful of local editorials, so the “correctness” of language was pushed very hard on to me from very little. As a result, I pushed for “correct” language onto others very hard as well. And this isnt about English, but my birth language, which has lots of conjugation rules, gendering details, grammar quirks and special cases; so people do tend to deviate from proper grammar a lot in informal settings (and sometimes in formal as well). I became a “language nazi” of sorts, and noticed quickly how people spoke fearfully in front of me to avoid making mistakes and getting corrected. This was something I (regretfully) took pride of.
Until one day, a friend of mine which specialized in languages said to me: “Language isn’t prescriptive; it’s descriptive”. And it took a while, a plethora of questions, and infinite patience from her, but I eventually came around and understood what she was saying: language is what we use to convey ideas from one to the other. We stick to a given language and grammar (structure) because that’s the common agreement for the language speakers, in the expectations that it makes for easier communication. BUT, if a sentence can transmit correctly a thought, even when not using a word in the dictionary or not applying grammar rules, then it’s fine as long as me (or whomever is the interlocutor) understands what they’re trying to say. Furthermore, even when using proper grammar with “existing words”, communication can be confusing and requires clarification. If you can make up a word in the spot that better conveys what you’re trying to say, then I’m all for it! (And probably will start using it myself). If you learned to speak a certain way and call stuff a different name from what I learned, or if you add extra letters to the word because that’s what you were taught by your family (something very usual) then that’s cool and I’ll respect it.
TLDR: Language has no rules. It is what we make of it.
The best thing about descriptivists is that they still tend to use perfectly refined and grammatically correct language themselves, and make up new words and break grammar rules very thoughtfully, not on a whim!
…right?
Why meny word, wen fyoo werd get meening?
True, though this is one of those ideas at the ends of the bell curve. You have authors who brilliantly break the rules and then you have the degeneracy of the language to the point where communication is touch-and-go at best. Having some flexible ground rules is to everyone’s benefit.
Emphasis on ‘correctly transmitting a thought’. Many who choose to completely ignore spelling and grammar do not manage to convey their thoughts. If I have to read or listen to something more than a couple times to try to figure out what was said, I skip on to the next item. That person failed to communicate.
Thanks for sharing, my dad was a language purist as well, and it took me to marrying a local girl that used a lot of slang to break the habit. Even though sometimes, I cannot stop myself, I’ve become a much easier person to be around with.
Yes but, the fact that language has no rules and is what we make it is precisely why it circles right back to being prescriptive.
If you are a researcher your job is to view the language with no value judgement, to describe things as they are.
But as a speaker the more people I convince into my particular jargon or slang, the more widely used and thus commonly accepted it will be. For example, spring onions should be called “sprungions”. Join me.
Well yes.
That’s precisely the language being descriptive, not prescriptive. I don’t really see an issue with acceptin springonions into the language.
Reading Stephen King broke me of this as a teen 40-years ago.
“Hey! That’s not proper English! You can’t use punctuation like that! Did he just make that word up?!”
I had always made A’s in English and was stunned that this popular author often flouted the rules. But, as you said, he conveyed his descriptions brilliantly.
I read Lynne Truss’ book Eats, Shoots & Leaves in high school and it pretty much immediately removed me from the path of being a pedant. I went into it expecting an interesting discussion of grammar and got an old lady yelling at clouds with nothing more to say than “I don’t like this” with a litany of examples.
I know you said English isn’t your native language, but I’m choosing to believe the grammar and punctuation mistakes in your post are just there to troll people who are still “language Nazis”. :-P
However, I was led to believe that some languages are prescriptive. For example, French has Académie Française. I was told (no idea how true it is) that it’s actually “in charge” of the language, so they get to decide what is “right”. The wiki page seems to indicate that they decide what goes in the French dictionary. That being said, I have no idea what authority they actually have outside of that. I doubt they’re issuing fines for using loanwords.
The Académie thinks you should say “joueur-animateur en direct” instead of “streamer” or I guess “stremur” which literally no one does, so if an Académie prescribes a language but no one follows the rules, does it make a language?
Yes, that’s precisely my point. The language is a living being, and any authority pretending to rule over it is just smoke; word will be spoken, meanings will be given. Literally like the word “literally”, which now has a double meaning due to common (mis?)use.
Fairnuff!