In this week’s readings and in-class discussion, you learned about descriptivism and prescriptivism, two different attitudes towards language. For this week’s online discussion, I’d like you to consider the benefits of the descriptivist approach favored by linguists. In your view, what are its strengths? Why do you think it is that linguists are generally so consistent in favoring this approach as they research and attempt to understand language?
27 thoughts on “Discussion 3: Descriptivism and Prescriptivism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Descriptivism focuses on the study of language used in the daily lives of individuals. It is able to provide structure and direction while creating a foundation for teaching language. Descriptivism is able to reduce confusion and is non-judgmental approach to language that analyzes how it is actually written and spoken. Linguists favor this approach because it helps them better understand how language works in real-world contexts, they are able to focus on observing how language is actually used rather than how language is used when rules are imposed. When analyzing different forms of language usage, linguists are able to get a more accurate reflection of language usage across the world with the descriptivist approach. It allows linguists to study the natural evolution of language.
Descriptivism is a more non-judgemental approach when it comes to understanding a language. This concept allows more flexibility to form sentences. There is also the use of mental grammar in descriptive grammar as descriptive grammar can differ from person to person. Descriptive grammar is also used so that linguists dont have to discriminate on dialects. It also helps linguists understand the social, cultural, and historical factors of a specific place, further developing a deeper understanding of human speech.
Descriptivism focuses more on how language would be used by speakers in a particular community or context. Unlike prescriptivism, which dictates how language “should” be used based on rules or standards, descriptivism tries to understand language without passing judgment. Linguists typically favor this approach as its easier to explain and understand, doesn’t have to bend to a specific dialect, and allows for a more natural analyzation of the language.
The descriptivist approach used by linguists is beneficial because it focuses on describing how people actually use language, rather than telling them how they should use it. This helps linguists understand language better by looking at how it’s really used in different situations. One advantage of this approach is that it includes all forms of language, like dialects and informal speech, which can help represent all types of people and challenge unfair ideas about language. By studying how language is used by everyone, linguists can create more fair and accurate theories about language. Linguists prefer the descriptivist approach because it follows the scientific method and is based on observing real language use. This helps them create theories and models that are more accurate and useful. The descriptivist approach helps us understand language better by looking at how people really use it, which includes all types of language and leads to more accurate theories about language.
The descriptivist approach favored by linguists focuses on studying how language is actually used in everyday life, without judgment. It helps create a clearer understanding of language by observing its natural evolution and usage in various contexts, including dialects and informal speech. This approach enables linguists to develop fairer and more accurate theories about language, as it reflects the diverse ways people communicate. By embracing descriptivism, linguists can better grasp the social, cultural, and historical factors that influence language, leading to a deeper understanding of human speech and communication patterns.
I think that linguists benefit from descriptivism more when studying language because it gives them a more direct connection to the way people put the language into practice instead of analyzing the “rules” that were made up by others. I would also say another pro to this is that when looking at descriptivism, its a more fluid way to studying language because if you stop every time people say that the grammar is wrong, then you are getting pieces of the languages history, not the full picture. Lastly I would also say that this approach is the least intimidating to others in the sense that not everyone likes the idea of following strict rules; theres more of a relaxed vibe in this approach.
Descriptivism is favored by linguists for many reasons. It comes to us naturally and is less structured compared to prescriptivism. From a young age, babies are introduced to language and it is instinctual to them. As they grow up continuing to learn to speak it always comes back to the use of descriptive grammar time and time again because it is just more common. We tend to like the descriptivism approach because these are things, we already say automictically, and it feels less forced compared to prescriptive rules which are less understandable and are looked at as the proper way when it comes to language.
Descriptivist language is favored by linguists rather than prescriptivist language because descriptivism focuses on how the language is used rather than any grammar rules applied to it. The strength of this approach to language is analyzing how it is used today. Throughout history, there have been many changes to language and literature — in all languages; therefore this approach is the more logical because it deals with how the language is being used in today’s day. People who have spoken English their own lives will constantly say ‘incorrect sentences,’ but, they make sense and are understood by people of the same language. Finally, linguists are generally so consistent in favoring this approach as they understand language because it is more judicious to understand the way people actually speak, rather than how they should be speaking.
Linguists tend to favor the descriptivist approach when it comes to understanding language. For instance, Descriptivism is the study of language as it is used. Along side, descriptive grammar focuses on the fundamental rules that govern language. While prescriptivism is based on the idea that there is a “correct” or “incorrect” way to utilize language. Prescriptivists alike want a uniform and strict restriction of what language should be. Which I believe contradicts what language truly is. Linguists lean towards descriptivism for its nonjudgmental view of language. I would also argue that the descriptivist approach understands that language is always evolving, and never in a fixed state. Which is why descriptivism focuses on how native speakers today use their language, not traditional. In order for linguists to study language from an unbiased and progressive viewpoint, descriptivism is needed.
Descriptivism is a non judgement approach it focuses on how we write and speak English which is the opposite of prescriptivism that focuses on how language should be used .descriptivism could also be an accurate and real reflection of how language is used worldwide that’s why linguists rely on it and usually are leaning towards it .Moreover, it really gives a clear understanding of how language works in real life context as well as gaining knowledge of the cultural , historical ,social factors that shape language .
By analyzing different forms of how everyone uses language, linguists favor descriptivism because of how accurate it is, they see how it’s actually being used. Many years ago, humans didn’t communicate the same way we do now and seeing how that evolved over time is what linguists want to see and not judge on. I believe it’s a great way for linguists to favor descriptivism rather than prescriptivism because prescriptivism uses rules of grammar that wouldn’t be able to see how people use language.
While going over my class readings and in class discussion notes, I learned several things about descriptivism and prescriptivism. Descriptivism is an approach that is used by linguists which studies language and how it’s used during our everyday lives, without judgment. The difference with prescriptivism is how language should be used, and want uniform and strict restriction of what the language should be. Overall, linguist prefer Descriptivism because it’s a greater sense of how the language may work in an everyday experience over the Prescriptivism.
The benefit of the descriptivist approach favored by linguists is that there is no right or way to the usage of language. Unlike prescriptivism, which has a black and white way of describing the correct way to use language, descriptivism has no judgment in the way language is used in real life and is instead analyzing the ways people use language. Linguists are generally consistent in favoring descriptivism as they research because in real life there are many dialects. Descriptivism allows them to analyze how language is used without judgment.
One of the strengths of the descriptivist approach is that it allows for effective communication between a group of people. It cannot be said to be wrong because it does not adhere to a specific set of rules if it is doing the job that is supposed to. That job is the effective communication between individuals. Another strength is that this approach allows for an unbiased view of the way we speak. We should view things objectively. Something that jumps out to the eye as being very wrong may have been acceptable years ago, as mentioned in page 19 of The Language Files. I think linguists are consistent in favoring this approach because they understand the complexity of language. One scenario in The Language Files is the room, and how it must be painted. Page 17 explains how even though the sentences may be constructed differently, they still express the same idea. The room needs to be painted. While two people might convey the idea differently by speech, the two will eventually understand each other.
The reason why Linguists favor descriptivism over prescriptivism is because there’s many requirements/rules to follow with prescriptivism rather than descriptivism. For example the word “funner” most people don’t think the word “funner” is not a word nor does it makes sense. However linguists do in fact think that funner is a word. I think that Linguists who use the descriptivism approach allow more languages/ dialects or phrases to come about. They are more open to new ideas rather than the prescriptivism approach they are more focused on formal ideas. For example “im gonna go to the store” is not ideal to them “I”m going to the store” is much more formal then the last phrase. Where as descriptivism opens more language to come. This is where I think linguists prefer descriptivism over prescriptivism.
If prescriptivism and descriptivism had their own memes, I feel like prescriptivism would be a photo of a stern nun with her arms crossed in front of her while holding a ruler with the caption, “Do as I say!” while descriptivism would have Yoda subtitled, “It’s all good” (Actually I think Yoda would say, “All good, yes”). While each method has its own pros and cons, the benefit of descriptivism seems more likely to appeal to linguists because, in my opinion, it gives them more to work with, for a variety of reasons. Descriptivism doesn’t see wrong or right when studying a language but rather explores the progression of change without judgement. While researching language, Linguists utilize authentic information that reflects the accurate manner a language is used and eventually evolves. Descriptivism describes how a language is used and doesn’t dictate how it should be used. I compare Linguists that use a descriptive approach like a nature photographer that document wild animals. Their goal is to capture the natural environment without any human intrusion, they are no longer documenting but rather becoming an influential participant when they interfere.
Linguists prefer the descriptivist approach because it is in line with the scientific method. Which emphasizes analysis based on evidence and a dedication to understanding language as a dynamic, evolving entity. Descriptivism allows linguists to investigate the intricacy and variety of language in a manner that better represents its organic nature.
The benefit of the descriptive approach in linguistics is that everyone speaks languages differently. People use language differently. Descriptive is a nonjudgmental approach that leads to how one speaks and writes. Descriptive gives a clear understanding to people as language is approached and used. Linguistics falls back on descriptivism and gives people a better view of how language is or was used culturally and historically until now. the descriptive approach gives people a better understanding of the way people use or take language, it leads to theories being made on language and people coming up with other ideas and ways on how to. better understand each other.
What makes descriptivism different than prescriptivism is that descriptivism focuses on how words are spoken on a normal, regular basis. To elaborate, prescriptivism makes rules for how words are supposed to be organized when speaking a certain language. Things like do not use a double negative, or do split infinitives. Descriptivism takes the rules and throws it away, and brings how we use language everyday. Linguists favor this approach because it is more regular for humans, and it is not so strict on how you are supposed to speak. In my opinion, I think things like slang and talking naturally is a better way to speak. Linguists can see it as more understandable, thus making descriptivism easier to study.
Linguists prefer descriptivism because it focuses on how language is used in real life situations. Descriptivism is described as a method that seeks to describe and analyze language as it is used in real scenarios between people who regularly use the language. It aims to understand the structure, usage, and variation of language without making judgments. With descriptivism, linguists observe how language functions in different contexts and document patterns of usage without imposing rules or norms. Descriptivism recognizes the dynamic nature of language, acknowledging that it evolves over time and varies across regions, social groups, and situations.
According to the slides, it was shown that many linguists tend to prefer the “descriptive” side of language. Because of this, descriptivism to me seems to be the less “formal” way of viewing the “right” way of viewing and speaking language; without all the complicated rules that comes with speaking proper English in the eyes of many, especially among those of high class. In my opinion, I feel that there are a lot of benefits when it comes to descriptivism, as it allows people to speak more freely, creatively and openly; as long as what they are saying is coherent and makes sense to the other person(s). For example, many people who believe in the prescriptive way of speaking may be opposed to using “ain’t” in a sentence as it is considered to be “improper” when it comes to grammar. However, I feel as if it is the opposite, and can actually be something that can flow really easily and well in a sentence since it still has the same meaning as “I don’t have” and does not go against any basic word order or phonetics. I think linguists are in favor of descriptivism as they continue to research language since it can be considered one of the things that make up language as many ways of speaking English is spread from word of mouth instead of being fully reliant on what is considered “grammatically correct” in accordance to proper writing. Due to this, writing is considered secondary from language and should not be seen as more “perfect” than speech.
Descriptivism is the analytic approach to language that many linguists prefer to use over prescriptivism. It observes how a language is truly spoken by speakers without paying mind to the social rules that have developed to shape language more professionally or strictly. Descriptivism takes the non judgemental view and looks more at the rules we follow when we speak naturally and unfiltered. Its preferred by linguists because when you look at language from a prescriptivist view, you see something that is rigid and needs to conform to a greater definition of a language. Language is constantly changing and there is a lot of variation over time and space. When you try to enforce superficial rules that aren’t really used in less formal settings, you look over interesting and important things that do happen to shape that language. We can also look at the differences between writing styles and speaking styles, and see where prescriptionist ideals come into the writing when we are taught how. Trying to apply rules to language and not look at it openly limits how we can express ourselves.
During our readings and in class discussions we learned about descriptivism and prescriptivism. Descriptivism is used by Linguists and is described as no rights and wrongs associated with using language, only what people do with language itself. Descriptists try to figure out what is going on with the use of language rather than finding how language should be used. The descriptivist approach favored by linguists in my point of view is helpful in a way because it helps linguists better understand how language works and they often believe that no language or dialect is better than another. On the other hand prescriptivism is described as finding rights and wrongs associated with using language whether that be written or spoken. Prescriptivists are somewhat like English teachers that always remind us to fix our grammar or writing, for example when they say something like “don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.” Therefore this is why I believe Linguists are generally so consistent in favoring the descriptivist approach rather than the prescriptivist approach since language changes constantly.
The clear strengths of descriptivism is its looser way of going about things. For example if I say “Me and Emily hung out all day” everyone would know what I am talking about, even though this wouldn’t be correct or favored by prescriptivism. The correct form would be “Emily and I hung out all day”. By having a known understanding of technically incorrect language being spoken, it creates a more favorable way of speaking and exchanging of words for the speaking and receiving ends of the parties. The prescriptivism view is more like the original bible where certain words need to be placed in certain areas to create a grammatically correct sentence. Meanwhile, descriptivism is more like the New Testament where there is slight edits and clear sense of evolving. With something like language that is always changing, descriptivism allows for a wider audience and more attractive way of transferring and exchanging language to one another as humans.
I feel that researchers favor this approach more because there are no limits. I feel that language evolves so much over years that linguists want to leave it sort of like in a natural state with no alters.That is more of the descriptive approach. I feel that linguists favor this approach more because they want to see where no limitations takes language verses following a set of rules with restrictions. The major strength i feel from this approach is seeing/researching how language is evolving without limitations.
The descriptivist approach in linguistics emphasizes objectively observing and documenting language as it is naturally spoken and written, without prescribing or judging linguistic forms. Linguists favor this approach because it allows for a comprehensive understanding of language variation, evolution, and usage in diverse contexts. The consistency in favoring descriptivism stems from the recognition that languages are dynamic, constantly changing, and shaped by the communities that use them, making it essential to study language as a living, evolving phenomenon rather than prescribing normative rules.