This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.
|Applied and experimental|
Linguistic prescription (or prescriptivism) is the practice of promoting one kind of language use over another. It may imply that some usages are incorrect, improper, illogical, lack communicative effect, or are of low aesthetic value. Sometimes informed by linguistic purism, these normative practices may address such linguistic aspects as spelling, grammar, semantics, pronunciation, and syntax. This approach is often informally called prescriptive grammar, despite its breadth. They may also include judgments on socially proper and politically correct language use.
Linguistic prescriptivism may aim to establish a standard language, teach what a particular society perceives as a correct form, or advise on effective communication. If usage preferences are conservative, prescription might appear resistant to language change; if radical, it may produce neologisms.[page needed]
Prescriptive approaches to language are often contrasted with descriptive linguistics ("descriptivism"), which observes and records how language is actually used. The basis of linguistic research is text (corpus) analysis and field study, both of which are descriptive activities. Description, however, may include researchers' observations of their own language usage.
Despite being apparent opposites, prescription and description may inform each other,[page needed] as comprehensive descriptive accounts must take speaker preferences into account, and an understanding of how language is actually used is necessary for prescription to be effective. Since the mid-20th century, English-language dictionaries and style guides – prescriptive works by nature – have been increasingly integrating descriptive material and approaches, beginning (then controversially) with Webster's Third New International Dictionary in 1961, and continuing to the present. For example, new 2010s editions of New Hart's Rules, Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, and Garner's Modern English Usage have all been updated to add more descriptive and evidence-based material, especially about topics of ongoing conflict between authorities, or in different dialects, disciplines, styles, or registers of usage. Some, like The Chicago Manual of Style, remain primarily prescriptive and traditionalist as of 2017.[update]
The chief aim of linguistic prescription can be to specify standard language forms (either generally, as in Standard English, or in style and register) in a way that is easily taught and learned. Prescription may apply to most aspects of language, including spelling, grammar, semantics, pronunciation, syntax, and register.
Standardized languages are useful for inter-regional communication, allowing speakers of divergent dialects to understand a standard language used in broadcasting, for example, more readily than each other's dialects. While such a lingua franca may evolve by itself, the desire to formulate and define it is widespread in most parts of the world. Writers or communicators often adhere to prescriptive rules to make their communication clearer and more widely understood. Similarly, stability of a language over time helps one to understand writings from the past.
Linguistic prescription may also be used to advance a social or political ideology. During the second half of the 20th century, efforts driven by various advocacy groups had considerable influence on language use under the broad banner of "political correctness", to promote special rules for anti-sexist, anti-racist, or generically anti-discriminatory language (e.g. "people-first language" as advocated by disability rights organizations).
George Orwell criticized the use of euphemisms and convoluted phrasing as a means of hiding insincerity in Politics and the English Language (1946). His fictional "Newspeak" (in 1984, written around the year 1949) is a parody of ideologically motivated linguistic prescriptivism.
Prescription presupposes authorities whose judgment may be followed by other speakers and writers. An authority may be a prominent writer or educator such as H. W. Fowler, whose Modern English Usage defined the standard for British English for much of the 20th century, or Strunk and White in their Elements of Style for American English. The Duden grammar (first edition 1880) has a similar status for German.
Although lexicographers often see their work as purely descriptive, dictionaries are widely regarded as prescriptive authorities. 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.
Linguistic prescription is regulated formally in some places. The Académie française in Paris is national body in France whose recommendations about French language are widely respected in the French-speaking world, though not legally enforceable. In Germany and the Netherlands, recent spelling reforms[which?] were devised by teams of linguists commissioned by the respective governments and then implemented by statutes. Some met with significant dissent, for example the German orthography reform of 1996.
Examples of national prescriptive bodies and initiatives are:
Other kinds of authorities exist in specific settings, most commonly in the form of style manuals (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 facet of language, or very compact works only insistent upon 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 dialect 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.
A few that originated as house style are now widely adhered to across an entire publishing sector, such as The Chicago Manual of Style and New Hart's Rules in non-fiction book publishing in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively, and The Associated Press Stylebook in American news style. Others are by self-appointed advocates whose rules are propagated in the popular press, as in "proper Cantonese pronunciation". The aforementioned Fowler, and Strunk & White, were among the self-appointed, as are some modern authors of style works, like Bryan A. Garner and his Modern English Usage (formerly Modern American Usage).
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 way). Some examples are those issued by the American Medical Association, the Modern Language Association, and the Modern Humanities Research Association; there are many others. Scientific Style and Format, by the Council of Science Editors, seeks to normalize style in scientific journal publishing, based when possible on standards issued by bodies like the International Standards Organization.
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 receive a reduced grade for failure to follow an instructor-required style manual, a professional publisher may demand or editorially enforce compliance with one as a condition of publication, and a publication may requires its employees to use house style as a matter of on-the-job competence. A well-respected and usually general-audience style guide may also have the kind of authority that a dictionary does, consulted as a reference work to satisfy personal curiosity or settle an argument.
Historically, linguistic prescriptivism originates in a standard language when a society establishes social stratification and a socio-economic hierarchy. The spoken and written language usages of the authorities (state, military, church) are preserved as the standard language. Departures from this standard language may jeopardise social success (see social class). Sometimes, archaisms and honorific stylizations may be deliberately introduced or preserved to distinguish the prestige form of the language from contemporary colloquial language. Likewise, the style of language used in ritual also differs from everyday speech. Special ceremonial languages known only to a select few spiritual leaders are found throughout the world; Liturgical Latin has served a similar function for centuries.
When a culture develops a writing system, orthographic rules for the consistent transcription of culturally important works (laws, scriptures, contracts, poetry, etc.) allow a large number of speakers to understand written communications 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 alphabet. Hinduism used the Devanagari script. 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 linguistic prescription being prerequisite to spiritual righteousness. Another commonly cited example of prescriptive language usage closely associated with social propriety is the system of honorific speech in Japanese.
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 bureaucracy tends toward prescriptivism as a means of enforcing functional continuity. Such prescriptivism dates from ancient Egypt, where bureaucrats preserved the spelling of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt into the Ptolemaic period through the standard usage of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
From the earliest attempts at prescription in classical times grammarians have based their norms on observed prestige use of language. Modern prescriptivist textbooks draw heavily on descriptive linguistic analysis.
Prescription also privileges some existing forms over others, mainly to maximize 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 swear words. Words referring to elements of sexuality or toilet hygiene may be regarded as obscene. Blasphemies against religion may be forbidden. In recent decades political correctness has had a profound censorious effect.
English prescription is sometimes thought[by whom?] to have been based on the norms of Latin grammar. Robert Lowth is frequently cited as having done so[clarification needed], but he specifically objected to "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language". It is true that analogies with Latin were sometimes used to buttress arguments, but only in defending an accepted prestige form of English.
Although the standardization of language has an established place in such fields as broadcasting, computer programming, and international commerce, prescriptivism is often subject to criticism. Many linguists, such as Geoffrey Pullum and other posters to Language Log, are highly skeptical of the quality of advice given in many usage guides, including highly regarded books like Strunk and White's Elements of Style. In particular, linguists point out that popular books on English usage written by journalists or novelists (e.g. Simon Heffer's Strictly English: The Correct Way to Write ... and Why It Matters) often make basic errors in linguistic analysis.
A frequent criticism is that prescription has a tendency to favour the language of one particular region or social class over others, and thus militates against linguistic diversity. Frequently, a standard dialect is associated with the upper class, for example Great Britain's Received Pronunciation (RP). RP has now lost much of its status as the Anglophone standard, and other standards are now alternative systems for English as a foreign language. Although these have a more democratic base, they still exclude large parts of the English-speaking world: speakers of Scottish English, Hiberno-English, Australian English, or African-American Vernacular English may feel the standard is slanted against them. Thus prescription has political consequences. In the past, prescription was used consciously as a political tool.
A second 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 colloquial language. In 1834, an anonymous writer advised against the split infinitive, reasoning that the construction was not a frequent feature of English as he knew it. Today the construction is in everyday use, yet the old prohibition can still be heard.
A further problem is the difficulty of specifying legitimate criteria. Although prescribing authorities almost invariably have clear ideas about why they make a particular choice, and the choices are therefore seldom entirely arbitrary, they often appear arbitrary to others who do not understand or are not sympathetic to the goals of the authorities. 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.
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 may identify a form as non-standard and suggest that it is used with caution in some contexts. Repeated in the schoolroom, this may become a ruling that the non-standard form is automatically wrong, a view linguists reject. (Linguists may accept that a form is incorrect if it fails to communicate, but not simply because it diverges from a norm.) A classic example from 18th-century England is Robert Lowth's tentative suggestion that preposition stranding in relative clauses sounds colloquial. From this grew a grammatical rule that a sentence should never end with a preposition. Such dogmatism has often been a cause of resentment.
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 being 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, academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength. The French language has visibly changed under the inspection of the academy; the stile of Amelot's translation of Father Paul is observed, by 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.
— Preface to a Dictionary of the English Language (Project Gutenberg)