Date:    Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:15:29 -0500
<br>From:    Thomas Creswell <creswell[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]CROWN.NET>
<br>Subject: Re: Writing prescriptions
<br>
<br>Gregory {Greg} Downing wrote:
<br>
<br>> At 04:46 PM 4/24/98 -0500, creswell[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]crown.NET wrote:
<br>> >Prescriptivists are people who tell other people what is correct or
<br>> incorrect in
<br>> >language.  They prescribe or proscribe words, structures, and the like. A
<br>> typical
<br>> >prescriptive "rule." tthough now much discredited, is "Do not end a
<br>> sentence with a
<br>> >preposition."  Those who follow this rule do not prescribe or proscribe,
<br>> they simply
<br>> >kiss the whip and do what they are told.  The swallow the pill that the
<br>> "expert" has
<br>> >prescribed.
<br>> >
<br>> >It is common for prescriptivists to regard themselves and to expect others
<br>> to regard
<br>> >them as having a superior grasp of the language--an admirable, educated,
<br>> sensitive
<br>> >sense of all aspects of language--vocabulary, syntax, idiom. etc  Among
<br>> well known
<br>> >contemporary prescriptivists are William Buckley, William Safire, and,
<br>> perhaps not
<br>> >so well known as the preceding two, Geoffrey Nunberg, who supervised the
<br>> writing of
<br>> >usage notes for the most recent edition of the American Heritage Dictionary.
<br>> >
<br>>
<br>> Thanks for the review. I too was made aware of the
<br>> prescriptivism/descriptivism distinction as early as my first undergrad
<br>> linguistics course.
<br>
<br>I beg your pardon for having needlessly and thoughtlessly characterized the
<br>activities of prescriptive usage experts and having, as a result, put you to
<br> the
<br>task of writing at such length about the  the prescriptive vs. descriptive
<br>controversy
<br>
<br>> My point attempts to build atop that with a bit more
<br>> nuance, given some additional thought and experience beyond the
<br>> rules-of-thumb I was enculturated with close to a couple of decades back. My
<br>> point is simply that prescriptivistic activity is nothing other than the
<br>> very same kind of decision-making activity that is in involved in all
<br>> production of utterances. People decide to say x, not y, or they get
<br>> themselves into the habit of preferring locution a to lobution b. Some
<br>> people make these decisions privately and have "influence" on the larger
<br>> usage of the language only to the extent that other speakers have similar
<br>> preferences or even, in some cases, are somehow directly influenced by the
<br>> usage-decisions and usage-preferences of some of the people whose utterances
<br>> they hear/read. However, some people ("usage mavens") do this quite
<br>> publicly, and achieve influence among people who voluntarily follow their
<br>> opinions on various matters.
<br>>
<br>> Theoretically, if one genuinely wished to be consistently and absolutely
<br>> descriptivist, one would have to have no negative opinions about anyone
<br>> else's usage or lingusitic activities, and in fact would be unable to edit
<br>> one's own oral or written communication. I don't think there are any genuine
<br>> descriptivists (no atheists in foxholes???) -- only folks who present their
<br>> preferences for some usage decisions, and their dislike of others, as
<br>> scientific in an attempt to foreclose dissent. I.e., people who say that
<br>> ordinary speakers are always right (though no one does this consistently, as
<br>> we've seen on this list in re "other x's than y" etc.) and that would-be
<br>> usage mavens are always wrong are simply the mirror-image of usage-mavens
<br>> and their followers, who argue inversely that usage-mavens are always right
<br>> and that the "solecisms" of ordinary speakers are always wrong. Meet the new
<br>> boss, same as the old boss. The specific preferences are opposite, but the
<br>> trend of thought is the same.
<br>>
<br>
<br>No descriptivist of my acquaintance says that the prescriptivist mavens are
<br> always
<br>wrong.
<br>
<br>> I think the only sensible way to deal with the problem is to make
<br>> description and prescription two different stages or (in something like the
<br>> hegelian sense) "moments" of lingusitic analysis. One first sheerly
<br>> describes (and, mirabile dictu, even the activities of language mavens and
<br>> those under their sway can be described as one very common aspect of human
<br>> language-activity!!!). ONLY THEN does one separately evaluate -- and the
<br>> evaluation much be done in a clearly spelled-out context, not presented as
<br>> absolute approval or disapproval. For example, some descriptivistically
<br>> studied language-activity x (and x could be the work of would-be
<br>> usage-mavens, or the rules followed by those under their influence) can then
<br>> be evaluated as a function of certain strands of the culture, or as part of
<br>> an attempt by a certain social group to achieve some goal (claiming status,
<br>> etc.), reflecting a certain register, constituting part of the conventions
<br>> of a certain field, etc. Saying that usage-maven activity ("injunctions by
<br>> `experts,'") is the only invalid part of language-activity is to confuse
<br>> description with evaluation-in-a-context. This seems especially shaky in a
<br>> field (linguistics) where (1) descriptivism is seen as crucial, and (2)
<br>> people have to edit their work in order to publish, which involves all kinds
<br>> of picky little prescriptivisms, far beyond the level of pickiness or
<br>> arbitrariness seen in the work of popular language-mavens.
<br>
<br>Who is it that has said that "usage-maven activity is the only invalid part of
<br>language-activity?"  Certainly not I.
<br>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> >You will note that none of the preceding definitions of _prescriptive_
<br>> refer to any
<br>> >activities undertaken by speakers or writers in the process of composition.
<br>> >
<br>>
<br>> Thanks for the dictionary definitions. As I recently commented on an essay I
<br>> was given to evaluate, quoting an (of necessity) curt and basic dictionary
<br>> definition when the purpose of the essay is to engage in analysis is not
<br>> always the most powerful of rhetorical strategies.
<br>
<br>The definitions were offered to make the point that no dictionary, even one that
<br> is
<br>avowedly prescriptive,  seems, as I read them, to define prescriptivism as an
<br>activity that is part of the composition process. Perhaps that is not the most
<br>powerful of rhetorical strategies.  Is there some other authority to which you
<br> think
<br>I should appeal in attempting to find out in what senses a word is usually
<br> employed?
<br>
<br>> What people do in deciding on their own usage-rules is certainly not
<br>> description, is it?
<br>
<br>No.  It is neither description nor prescription.
<br>
<br>> Description involves leaving things as you find them,
<br>> and just portraying them as carefully as possible. Is there some third
<br>> attitude toward linguistic behavior that is neither descriptive (i.e.,
<br>> simply laying out that which de facto happens, without any evaluation) nor
<br>> prescriptive (i.e., making decisions and imposing preferences prior to what
<br>> de facto happens)? If so, what is it?
<br>
<br>I know of no third attitude toward linguistic behavior that is germane to this
<br>discussion, but note that you accurately refer to these as attitudes toward
<br>linguistic behavior, not choice-making strategies in composition.
<br>
<br>> >My point is that _prescriptive_ is best and most consistently applicable to
<br> the
<br>> >activities of those who tell others how to speak or write.
<br>>
<br>> See above comments and questions.
<br>>
<br>> >  What speakers and
<br>> >writers do is edit as they go along, attempting to make their language
<br>> conform to
<br>> >what their experience or training has taught them is standard in the
<br>> circumstances
<br>> >in which the speech or writing takes place. Such behavior is not
<br> prescriptive.
<br>> >
<br>>
<br>> See above comments and questions. There is no magic wall of separation
<br>> between people (A) telling themselves what to do, (B) influencing others
<br>> simply by their own practice, without making overt exhortations, and (C)
<br>> laying out their evulations and exhorting others to agree with them. After
<br>> all, (A) and (B) often have major impact on each other -- and both are
<br>> heavily influenced by (C) to the extent that many speakers find
<br>> language-mavens authoritative for whatever reasons.
<br>
<br>Perhaps there is no "magic wall," but A and B are compositional activities
<br> quite
<br>distinct from C, which is prescriptivism.
<br>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> I'm still concerned that the idea that language-mavens are the only evil
<br>> force in language-activity is perhaps simply a function of the professional
<br>> rivalry between modern empirical linguistics and the language-maven
<br>> tradition -- a rivalry one can already see in, for example, the
<br>> Whitney-vs.-Max-M"uller polemics of over a century ago. The suspicion
<br>> becomes especially strong when some people who denounce maven-prescriptivism
<br>> and only maven-prescriptivism also deliver themselves in no uncertain terms
<br>> of flat-out prescriptivistic usage-ideas of their own.
<br>>
<br>
<br>If it is a flat-out prescriptive usage-idea of my own to suggest that it is
<br>confusing to use the term prescriptivism to describe the self-editing activities
<br> of
<br>language users, then I am guilty as charged.  But I don't think it is.
<br>
<br>Those who insist upon doing so may, as far as I am concerned, continue to do so.
<br>  If
<br>enough do, well-edited dictionaries will eventually record that sense.
<br> Meanwhile, I
<br>continue to regard such use as confusing .
<br>
<br>> Greg Downing/NYU, at greg.downing[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]nyu.edu or gd2[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]is2.nyu.edu
<br>