Linguistic prescription
Part of a series on |
Linguistics |
---|
Portal |
Part of a series on |
Law |
---|
Foundations and Philosophy |
|
Legal theory |
Methodological background |
|
Legal debate |
|
Linguistic prescription, also called prescriptivism or prescriptive grammar, is the establishment of rules defining preferred usage of language.[1][2] These rules may address such linguistic aspects as spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Sometimes informed by linguistic purism,[3] such normative practices often suggest that some usages are incorrect, inconsistent, illogical, lack communicative effect, or are of low aesthetic value, even in cases where such usage is more common than the prescribed usage.[4][5] They may also include judgments on socially proper and politically correct language use.[6]
Linguistic prescriptivism may aim to establish a standard language, teach what a particular society or sector of a society perceives as a correct or proper form, or advise on effective and stylistically apt communication. If usage preferences are conservative, prescription might appear resistant to language change; if radical, it may produce neologisms.[7]
Prescriptive approaches to language are often contrasted with the descriptive approach, employed in academic linguistics, which observes and records how language is actually used without any judgment.[8][9] The basis of linguistic research is text (corpus) analysis and field study, both of which are descriptive activities. Description may also include researchers' observations of their own language usage. In the Eastern European linguistic tradition, the discipline dealing with standard language cultivation and prescription is known as "language culture" or "speech culture".[10][11]
Despite being apparent opposites, prescriptive and descriptive approaches have a certain degree of conceptual overlap
Some authors define "prescriptivism" as the concept where a certain language variety is promoted as linguistically superior to others, thus recognizing the
Mate Kapović makes a distinction between "prescription" and "prescriptivism", defining the former as "a process of codification of a certain variety of language for some sort of official use", and the latter as "an unscientific tendency to mystify linguistic prescription".[21]
Aims
Linguistic prescription is a part of a language standardization process.[22] The chief aim of linguistic prescription is to specify socially preferred language forms (either generally, as in Standard English, or in style and register) in a way that is easily taught and learned.[23] Prescription may apply to most aspects of language, including spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and semantics.
Prescription is useful for facilitating inter-regional communication, allowing speakers of divergent
Linguistic prescription may also be used to advance a social or political ideology. Throughout history, prescription has been created around high-class language, and therefore it degeneralizes lower-class language. This has led to many justifications of
Authority
Prescription presupposes authorities whose judgments may come to be followed by many other speakers and writers. For English, these authorities tend to be books.
Although lexicographers often see their work as purely descriptive, dictionaries are widely regarded as prescriptive authorities.[27] Books such as Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves (2003), which argues for stricter adherence to prescriptive punctuation rules, also seek to exert an influence.
Formal regulation
Linguistic prescription is imposed by regulation in some places. The
Examples of national prescriptive bodies and initiatives are:
- Taalkommissie (Language Commission) is responsible for the compilation of the Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls (Afrikaans Word-list and Spelling Rules), an orthographyof formal, standardized Afrikaans.
- Tosk variety of the Albanianstandard language.
- Québec, where French is perceived to be particularly threatened by the incursion of English.
- White Booklet.
- French: The recommendations of the Académie française, a national body, are legally unenforceable, but they are often followed by standard French speakers.
- Axel Springer AG, Der Spiegel) or to reject it entirely, ending a period when combined German spelling, although officially only necessary in government and educational use, was the widespread de facto standard.
- Italian: The Academy of the Bran (Accademia della Crusca), the Italian language academic body.
- Polish: The Polish Language Council for standard Polish, which aims to popularize Polish language knowledge, issue prescriptions for standard usage (Polish: poprawna polszczyzna, lit. "correct Polish") and formulate normative orthography.[28] The Polish prescriptive policy recognizes two normative subvarieties of standard Polish: the "model/official norm" (Polish: norma wzorcowa) and the "colloquial/vernacular norm" (Polish: norma użytkowa), with the former being a highly traditionalistic idiom for written language and public usage, and the latter being a more liberal idiom for private contexts that is more permissive for loanwords and deviations from "traditional" usage.[29][30] According to the Polish language ideology, the latter is also considered to include regional usages.[31]
- Portuguese: The Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990sets a standard orthography for the language, it has been made into law in both Brazil (2009) and Portugal (2008).
- Moldovan Republic, the only country besides Romania where Romanian is the state language, it is officially called "Moldovan" and is monitored by the Institute of Linguistics of Academy of Sciences of Moldova.
- standardized Russian language during the era of the Soviet Union.
- Association of Spanish Language Academies for standard Spanishin 21 countries.
- Turkish: The Turkish Language Association, founded in 1932[32] by Atatürk, regulates the Turkish language.
Style manuals
Other kinds of authorities exist in specific settings, most commonly in the form of style guidebooks (also called style guides, manuals of style, style books, or style sheets). Style guides vary in form, and may be alphabetical usage dictionaries, comprehensive manuals divided into numerous subsection by the facet of language, or very compact works insistent upon only a few matters of particular importance to the publisher. Some aim to be comprehensive only for a specific field, deferring to more general-audience guides on matters that are not particular to the discipline in question. There are different types of style guides, by purpose and audience. Because the genres of writing and the audiences of each manual are different, style manuals often conflict with each other, even within the same vernacular of English.
Many publishers have established an internal house style specifying preferred spellings and grammatical forms, such as serial commas, how to write acronyms, and various awkward expressions to avoid. Most of these are internal documentation for the publisher's staff, though various newspapers, universities, and other organizations have made theirs available for public inspection, and sometimes even sell them as books, e.g. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage and The Economist Style Guide.
In a few cases, an entire publishing sector complies with a publication that originated as a house style manual, such as
Various style guides are used for academic papers and professional journals and have become de facto standards in particular fields, though the bulk of their material pertains to formatting of source citations (in mutually conflicting ways). Some examples are those issued by the
None of these works have any sort of legal or regulatory authority (though some governments produce their own house style books for internal use). They still have authority in the sense that a student may be marked down for failure to follow a specified style manual; a professional publisher may enforce compliance; a publication may require its employees to use house style as a matter of on-the-job competence. A well-respected style guide, and usually one intended for a general audience, may also have the kind of authority that a dictionary does consult as a reference work to satisfy personal curiosity or settle an argument.
Origins
Historically, linguistic prescriptivism originates in a standard language when a society establishes
When a culture develops a writing system, orthographic rules for the consistent transcription of culturally important transactions (laws, scriptures, contracts, poetry, etc.) allow a large number of discussants to understand written conversations easily, and across multiple generations.
Early historical trends in literacy and alphabetization were closely tied to the influence of various religious institutions. Western Christianity propagated the Latin alphabet. Eastern Orthodoxy spread the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets. Judaism used the Hebrew alphabet, and Islam the Arabic script. Hinduism used the Devanagari script.[34] In certain traditions, strict adherence to prescribed spellings and pronunciations was and remains of great spiritual importance. Islamic naming conventions and greetings are notable examples of the linguistic prescription being a prerequisite to spiritual righteousness. Another commonly cited example of prescriptive language usage closely associated with social propriety is the system of Japanese honorific speech.
Most, if not all, widely spoken languages demonstrate some degree of social codification in how they conform to prescriptive rules. Linguistic prestige is a central research topic within sociolinguistics. Notions of linguistic prestige apply to different dialects of the same language and also to separate, distinct languages in multilingual regions. Prestige level disparity often leads to diglossia: speakers in certain social contexts consciously choose a prestige language or dialect over a less prestigious one, even if it is their native tongue.
Government
Sources
From the earliest attempts at prescription in classical times grammarians have based their norms on observed prestige use of language. Modern prescriptivist textbooks[
The prescription may privilege some existing forms over others for the sake of maximizing clarity and precision in language use. Others are subjective judgments of what constitutes good taste. Some reflect the promotion of one class or region within a language community over another, which can become politically controversial.
Prescription can also reflect ethical considerations, as in prohibiting
Some elements of prescription in English are sometimes thought[by whom?] to have been based on the norms of Latin grammar. Robert Lowth is frequently cited [by whom?][citation needed] as having done so,[clarification needed] but he specifically objected to "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language".[37]
Criticisms
Prescriptivism is often subject to criticism. Many linguists, such as
A frequent criticism is that prescription has a tendency to favor the language of one particular area or social class over others, and thus militates against linguistic diversity.
A second issue with prescriptivism is that it tends to explicitly devalue
Another serious issue with prescription is that prescriptive rules quickly become entrenched and it is difficult to change them when the language changes. Thus, there is a tendency for prescription to lag behind the
A further problem is a challenge of specifying understandable criteria. Although prescribing authorizations may have clear ideas about why they make a particular choice, and their choices are seldom entirely arbitrary, there exists no linguistically sustainable metric for ascertaining which forms of language should be considered standard or otherwise preferable. Judgments that seek to resolve ambiguity or increase the ability of the language to make subtle distinctions are easier to defend. Judgments based on the subjective associations of a word are more problematic.[citation needed]
Finally, there is the problem of inappropriate dogmatism. Although competent authorities tend to make careful statements, popular pronouncements on language are apt to condemn. Thus, wise prescriptive advice identifying a form as colloquial or non-standard and suggesting that it be used with caution in some contexts may – when taken up in the classroom – become converted into a ruling that the dispreferred form is automatically unacceptable in all circumstances, a view academic linguists reject.[55][56] (Linguists may accept that a construction is ungrammatical or incorrect in relation to a certain lect if it does not conform to its inherent rules, but they would not consider it absolutely wrong simply because it diverges from the norms of a prestige variety.)[44] A classic example from 18th-century England is Robert Lowth's tentative suggestion that preposition stranding in relative clauses sounds colloquial. This blossomed into a grammatical rule that a sentence should never end with a preposition.[citation needed]
For these reasons, some writers argue that linguistic prescription is foolish or futile. Samuel Johnson commented on the tendency of some prescription to resist language change:
When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who is able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation. With this hope, however,
academy; the stile of Amelot's translation of Father Paul is witnessed, by Pierre François le Courayer to be un peu passé; and no Italian will maintain that the diction of any modern writer is not perceptibly different from that of Boccace, Machiavel, or Caro.
See also
- Constructionism (learning theory) – Learning theory involving the construction of mental models
- Skunked term – Word avoided due to inconsistent meanings
- History of English grammars
- History of linguistic prescription in English
- Hypercorrection – Non-standard language usage from the overapplication of a perceived prescriptive rule
- Language policy – Body of practices intended to cause a desired change in language
- Linguistic insecurity – Lack of confidence about one's way of speaking
- Linguistic purism – Preferring a language variety as purer
- Politics and the English Language – 1946 essay by George Orwell
- Traditional grammar – Framework for the description of the structure of a language
- Error (linguistics) – Unintended deviation from the rules of a language variety
- Schizoglossia – Linguistic insecurity about one's native language
- Barbarism (linguistics) – Linguistic deviation
- Solecism – Phrase that transgresses the rules of grammar
- Legalese– Pleading in civil and criminal law
- Psychobabble – A form of speech or writing that uses psychological jargon in a misleading way
- Technobabble – Jargon-sounding nonsense
- Plain English – Simple terms in the English language
Examples of prescriptivist topics
- Common English usage misconceptions – Beliefs about the use of the English language considered by others as wrong
- Fowler's Modern English Usage – Style guide by Henry Watson Fowler
- List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents in English
- List of English words with disputed usage
- Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words
- Pleonasm – Redundancy in linguistic expression
Citations
- ISBN 978-1-4051-5296-9.
- ISBN 978-0-19-920272-0.
- ^ Janicki, Karol (2006) Language misconceived: arguing for applied cognitive sociolinguistics p.155
- ^ John Edwards (2009) Language and Identity: An introduction p.259
- ISBN 978-90-272-6673-6.
- ISBN 978-1-317-67898-4.
- ^ "What is Purism in Language?".
- ^ McArthur (1992), p. 286 entry for "Descriptivism and prescriptivism" quotation: "Contrasting terms in linguistics."
- ISBN 978-602-452-369-5.
- ^ a b Markowski, Andrzej. "Językoznawstwo normatywne dziś i jutro: stan, zadania, szanse, zagrożenia". Konferencje i dyskusje naukowe (in Polish). Polish Language Council. Retrieved 2019-02-22.
- ^ "Speech Culture". The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3rd ed.). 1970–1979.
- ISBN 978-0415696005.
- ^ (Heinz 2003)
- ISBN 978-0-429-82339-8.
- ^ a b c Kapović, Mate (2013). "Jezik i konzervativizam". In Vuković, Tvrtko; Kolanović, Maša (eds.). Komparativni postsocijalizam: slavenska iskustva (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagrebačka slavistička škola. pp. 391–400. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
- ^ Kliffer, Michael D. "Quality of language": The changing face of Quebec prescriptivism (PDF). McMaster University. p. 1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-01-08. Retrieved 2018-11-09.
- ^ McIntyre, John (1 September 2011). "Prescription for prescriptivists". Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 6 January 2020. Retrieved 6 November 2018.
- (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
- hdl:10593/14690.
- (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
- ^ Kapović, Mate (April 2014). "Ideology in Grammar" (PDF). Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg: 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 December 2023. Retrieved 14 December 2023.
- ISBN 978-1-78309-652-7.
- ^ McArthur (1992), pp. 979, 982–983
- ISBN 978-1-317-53009-1.
- ^ Dylan Clairmont. "The Role of Linguists in Social Movements: What Role Does Language Truly Play?" (PDF). Swarthmore.edu. Retrieved 27 July 2022.
- ^ McArthur (1992), p. 414
- S2CID 65878707.
- ^ "Podstawowe informacje o Radzie" (in Polish). Polish Language Council. Retrieved 2019-01-27.
- ISBN 978-1-85359-787-9.
- ISSN 0239-6858.
- ^ Karaś, Halina. "Regionalizm". Dialektologia polska (in Polish). Retrieved 2019-01-27.
- ^ "Tarihçe – Türk Dil Kurumu". www.tdk.gov.tr. Archived from the original on 2019-02-18. Retrieved 2021-12-10.
- ISBN 0-521-23228-7) for North American examples of ritual speech.
- ISBN 81-215-0748-0
- ISBN 0-521-65312-6
- ^ McArthur (1992), p. 794.
- ^ A Short Introduction to English Grammar, p. 107, condemning Richard Bentley's "corrections" of some of Milton's constructions.
- ^ Pullum, Geoffrey (April 17, 2009), "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice", The Chronicle of Higher Education, retrieved July 25, 2011
- ^ Pullum, Geoffrey (September 11, 2010), English grammar: not for debate, retrieved July 25, 2011
- Pullum, Geoffrey (November 15, 2010), Strictly incompetent: pompous garbage from Simon Heffer, retrieved July 25, 2011
- ^ McArthur (1992), pp. 984–985
- ^ McArthur (1992), pp. 850–853
- ^ Fowler's Modern English Usage, second edition, Ernest Gowers, ed., Oxford University Press: 1965, pp. 505–506
- ^ ISBN 978-0-521-29775-2.
- from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
- .]
- ISBN 9780521576857.
- ^ Book Review Digest. Vol. 83. H.W. Wilson Company. 1987. p. 1291.
- ISBN 978-0-8077-5502-0.
- ISBN 978-1-136-57904-2.
- ^ a b Vaicekauskienė, Loreta (2012). "'Good Language' and Insecure Speakers: A Study into Metalinguistic Awareness of TV and Radio Journalists in the Context of Language Monitoring in Lithuania" (PDF). Multiple Perspectives in Linguistic Research on Baltic Languages. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 78–80.
- (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
- ^ Kontra, Miklós (2000). "Language contact in East-Central Europe". Multilingua. 19. Mouton Publishers: 193.
- ISBN 978-0-8027-1963-8.
- ^ Kapović, Mate (2011). "Language, Ideology and Politics in Croatia" (PDF). Slavia Centralis. IV/2: 46–48.
- ISBN 978-953-316-282-9.
Sources
- McArthur, Tom, ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-214183-5.
- Heinz, Michaela (2003). "Les locutions figurées dans le Nouveau Petit Robert: évolution de quelques traitements entre 1993 et 2003". Les dictionnaires Le Robert: Genèse et évolution. pp. 227–245. ISBN 9782760619425.
- Strunk and White's The Elements of Style
Further reading
- Simon Blackburn, 1996 [1994], "descriptive meaning", Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 101–102 for possible difficulty of separating the descriptive and evaluative
External links
- Ideology, Power and Linguistic Theory (pdf format) a paper about descriptivism and prescriptivism by Geoffrey Pullum.