Prescriptivism - peddling myths about language

I've always thought that a phrase such as "me no can stop drinking" makes far more sense, linguistically, then "I cannot stop drinking." Yet I'm sure both the descriptivists and prescriptivists would be on the same side against me on this.

The long and the short of it is that a descrptivist describes what he/she hears and then prescribes that as the "correct" construct.

Well, you'd better try proving it to yourself and others, Robert, because it's clear in what you wrote about descriptivists that you don't know what you're talking about.

Indeed. Descriptivists have to draw a subjective line somewhere, because everything is used by somebody yet they can't just blindly accept it all.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, they are often making the same judgment calls while using a different professed criteria.

Quote:

Ah, well then, I was right: for you, a "prescription" is any rule that you don't like.

No, Joe, you're not even close to right. Not even in the ballpark.

And here, you've proven it, in spades. The rules of language are not determined by should's.

This isn't about "broadest terms". A prescriptivist, when uttering a prescription, [which is a fictitious rule that doesn't describe the language] is someone who says how the language should be used based on personal opinion, poor analysis, mistaken notions about social order, any number of things.

A descriptivist is someone who studies [note that important fundamental difference] how the language is used in all registers, not just speech.

When a prescriptivist corrects a child who says "me want cookie", that prescriptivist is being descriptive. The basis for telling the kid is one that is based on the truth. In this case that person is describing to the child how we actually use the standard language.

I don't understand how you can miss the distinction.

When a person of any stripe corrects someone for something that is not of the English language, 'that/which'; 'can' for permission; ..., then that person is being prescriptive, that person is being untruthful.

Why are you avoiding the real prescriptions? Why aren't you defending them if you feel they are adequate descriptions of how the English language works?

Two important questions you've overlooked, Joe.

Quote:

Now if you want to bring up the argument that maybe people are speaking incorrectly, then you should take one of these rules and explain why it is a good and natural rule of English, why we should actually follow it.

Why not try "no 'can' for permission"? But don't let me limit you in any way. I'd love to see a defense for any prescription.

How do you justify new rules that seek to correct long standing language practices, ones that, long ago, served language well and continue to serve language well?

No, Robert, says G Pullum, who explained my position perfectly. In addition, he pointed out how you're wrong in your analysis of descriptivism. Best read it again.

Which conditions are the relevant ones for you is an empirical question. Descriptive linguists try to lay out a statement of what the conditions are for particular languages. And it is very important to note that the linguist can go wrong. A linguist can make a mistake in formulating correctness conditions. How would anyone know? Through a back and forth comparison between what the condition statements entail and what patterns are regularly observed in the use of the language by qualified speakers under conditions when they can be taken to be using their language without many errors (e.g., when they are sober, not too tired, not suffering from brain damage, have had a chance to review and edit what they said or wrote, etc.).

Then spend some time thinking about it because it's obvious that your comment was/is but a knee-jerk opinion.

Wrong again. Had you read the article you might have begun to understand.

This is too unclear to even bother addressing.

Rules are nothing but "shoulds." You just like some of them more than others. For instance, you like the rule that says that you should form the past tense of regular verbs by adding "ed" to the verb stem, but you don't like the rule that says you shouldn't split infinitives. So the first you call a "natural rule" and the second you call a "prescription." But the first one is a prescription too. It's just a prescription that you like, and so you refuse to call it a prescription.

I haven't been avoiding the "real prescriptions." The rule against "me want cookie" is a real prescription -- ask any prescriptivist.

I know you want me to defend the rule against split infinitives or the distinction between "that" and "which," but I'm not going to do that. On those points I'm sure we're in agreement. I'm much more interested in your attempts to distinguish between "good" prescriptions and "bad" prescriptions.

Both prescriptive and descriptive linguists make judgments about what are acceptable rules. They merely use different criteria.

Both rely on subjective criteria and must make value judgments about language. The descriptivist wishes to describe a pattern of use, but still must draw lines at acceptable prevalence of the pattern.

After all, there is a pattern of English use that includes "me want cookie". This structure is excluded by prescriptivist on the grounds that it's grammatically incorrect and by descriptivism in that it doesn't "accurately describe" the use of the English language. In both cases this distinction is a matter of subjective opinion.

No, "Me want cookie" isn't excluded by descriptivism.

It's not subjective to analyse the usage patterns of native speakers.

I can't disagree with you that some might form what seems to be a subjective opinion, in that it's a new idea/theory but if it's based on how humans use language there is at least a hope for transparency.

Such is clearly not the case for prescription.

It's not subjective opinion that the split infinitive rule is bogus, Robert.

It was fashioned after Latin. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the two languages are different.

It is not subjective opinion that ENLs often use 'which' for restrictive clauses.

It is not subjective opinion that 'can' is much more commonly used than 'may' to ask permission.

Descriptive linguists considers that structure incorrect (or "inaccurate" or whatever you want to call it, but it's still grammatica non grata) just like proscriptive linguists do. They merely consider it incorrect for different reasons.

I never said the mere act of analyzing the usage patterns is subjective, but by necessity they have to do much more than that, and draw conclusions based on their own subjective judgments.

For example, "me want cookie" can be observed in use in the English language. Yet it's not prevalent enough for descriptivism to accept as part of the language. This determination is based on subjective interpretation of the language.

That's nice, but nobody in this thread is talking about that at all. Nobody here is arguing which way is most "transparent".

The point is that both camps are declaring what is "correct", both camps do so subjectively and they only differ in this regard through what ratiocination they use to reach their respective conclusions.

So in the case of "me want cookie" both camps reject it. Proscriptive linguists because it violates the rules they consider "correct" and descriptive linguists because it is not part of a pattern of use that they consider an "accurate description" the language.

You have to draw the line somewhere in terms of how prevalent a use must be before you accept the usage pattern

Now, since Hawaii is a state of the United States of America where English is the most commonly spoken language (as far as I know), would a descriptivist say that constructions such as, "If [you] no can tomorrow, can maybe Wednesday?" are grammatically "correct" ? I wonder.*

*Edit: Just noticed something. In that sentence, the words 'can' and 'maybe' may be reversed with no loss or alteration of meaning. It's an interrogative sentence regardless of where the preposition is placed.

what preposition are you referring to, Merry?

Which conditions are the relevant ones for you is an empirical question. Descriptive linguists try to lay out a statement of what the conditions are for particular languages. And it is very important to note that the linguist can go wrong. A linguist can make a mistake in formulating correctness conditions. How would anyone know? Through a back and forth comparison between what the condition statements entail and what patterns are regularly observed in the use of the language by qualified speakers under conditions when they can be taken to be using their language without many errors (e.g., when they are sober, not too tired, not suffering from brain damage, have had a chance to review and edit what they said or wrote, etc.).

Joe, once more. It has nothing to do with 'liking' a rule.

A rule is a rule because that's how the language works. We both know that the default rule for modern English is add 'ed'. We both also know that this wasn't the rule in the past and we are left with a number of irregular verbs. When we remark upon this we are describing how English works.

The first rule describes, accurately, how we deal in English with marking past time. The one on split infinitives, by your own admission, does not accurately describe how we use language; it then is a prescription. And it has nothing to do with liking one or the other. It has to do with what is found in the language.

Prescriptivists are not the people to ask about language issues. I'm sure you've read some of Garner's stuff.

Let me describe it to you once more. It's not standard English. It's a possible collocation in nonstandard English similar in nature to "Confucius say". Note that even though the phrase has been uttered thousands upon thousands of times to millions of kids, none of them has fallen into the trap of believing it is standard English or even common nonstandard English. Natural rules again.

I'm interested in you gaining an understanding of what prescriptivism is.

You have to draw the line somewhere in terms of how prevalent a use must be before you accept the usage pattern.

All abusage (as defined by either camp) has some folk using it. If in 100 years "me want cookie" is the most common way to express that thought descriptivism would have to accept its structure as an accurate reflection of English language use. However there's no magic point where this happens, and precisely when that is no longer considered abusage is the product of subjective interpretation. On the part of the proscriptive camp it's subjective interpretation of the language's rules, and among descriptivists it's subjective interpretation of use patterns.

Furthermore, the very basis of descriptivism is a subjective proscription. The idea in a nutshell is that it's better to try to describe the language than to proscribe it and all your arguments come down to this claim at its heart.

Thing is, you just refer to the claim itself to support it instead of acknowledging that this is a subjective matter with pros and cons for either side, and that both camps hold certain use to be abusage but for different reasons.

Not according to my definition of "like."

It is only a "prescription" according to your strange definition of the term. As I see it, both are prescriptions, since both embody rules regarding how English should be spoken.

I have a pretty good idea of what it is. Your Prof. Pullum, on the other hand, is pretty confused about the whole thing, if your link is any indication.