Talk:Linguistic prescription/Archive 1

Descriptive linguistics merger
I am against this merger. It is entirely possible to talk about one without the other, and in fact neither is all that relevant to the other. Descriptive linguistics refers to a large collection of subfields, in particular linguistic fieldwork, which has little if anything to do with prescriptive grammar, a non-academic field whose relevance is limited to a couple of dozen major languages. - Mustafaa 07:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out &mdash; I agree with you halfway. It is possible to talk about descriptive linguistics as a field of study without going into much detail about prescriptivism &mdash; though some mention must be made. It is, however, impossible to have a comprehensive discussion about prescriptivism without lengthy counterarguments from description. After all, the label "prescriptivist" was created in the first place by descriptivists! As I understand it, before descriptionism, prescriptionism existed, but was simply known as "grammar" or "orthography".


 * This is why I renamed the article from "Prescription (linguistics)" to "Description and prescription". I stand by my original reasoning. However, the Descriptive linguists article was a bump along the road as I fixed all the redirects. I didn't take the time to read it, as I had dozens of edits to take care of.


 * You are, of course, correct to point out the fieldwork aspect. There is no harm in having two articles with "descripti[on|ve]" in their title, so long as we link the two, make the difference clear, and make sure other articles point to the correct article. I'll get on it. &bull; Benc &bull; 07:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. Upon consideration, I too agree halfway - within the context of English prescriptive grammar, it does make more sense to discuss prescriptive and descriptive grammar together. - Mustafaa 07:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Prescriptive what?
There ain't no such thing as "prescriptive linguistics". Please find me a professor of "prescriptive linguistics" at a Linguistics department (not an English or Communications one) if you want to argue otherwise. 209.204.158.254 03:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You're falling into the prescriptivist trap. While professional linguists will deny that there is "prescriptive linguistics," at least in what they practise, there surely is "linguistic prescription."  And once there is linguistic prescription, idiom will create "prescriptive linguistics" as well.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This very ambiguity is extraordinarily widespread in Wikipedia language/linguistics articles. Incidentally, I agree with User:209.204.158.254. Scientific Linguistics is one thing, and "linguistics" as an imprecise term, has many uses. "Prescriptive linguistics" is misleading, because when seen side by side with "Descriptive linguistics" (which is redundant, by the way), it sounds like two subfields of Linguistics, which is absolutely not true. The word "linguistic" as an adjective carries a very different meaning than the word "linguistics" as a noun (and let's not be too pedantic: that isn't a prescriptivist analysis, it's a pragmatic, descriptivist observation, which the encyclopedia should consistently reflect). I'm currently undertaking a personal project to eliminate this confusion in all the articles that deal with linguistics or language, and I could use some help. Please see my user page. Torgo 09:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Linguistics isn't just done by university departments. Anyone talking or writing about language is doing linguistics. Prescriptivism is thus a branch of linguistics. BTW, if someone says that usual English word order is SVO, are they being prescriptive? Prescriptivism is usually criticised for saying that people ought to write or speak in a particular way, but is a grammarian who points out the wrongness of "*John Mary loves." being prescriptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.205 (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Prescriptivism is as much a part of linguistics as astrology is a part of astronomy. Someone saying that English word order is SVO is being descriptive, because that's how people really speak. --Jotamar (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lowth and Dryden
My source for Dryden and end-of-sentence prepositions is The American Heritage Book of English Usage. I replaced some things that Lowth didn't say with some things he did say. The one on "whose" is from p. 38 of his Grammar; the Addison example is from the note on p. 99. I'm not sure if those references are necessary in the article (or if both examples are). Finally, Lowth had three different bishoprics, all after he published his Grammar, so I decided the could be left to the article on him. &mdash;JerryFriedman 21:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Examples
I am removing the "Bye for now" example because it is factually incorrect. No linguist, teacher, grammatician, or dictionary author, however fusty, would identify "now" as an adverb and not a noun. Even the most standard usage imaginable permits its use as a subject or object, following prepositions, etc. Perhaps someone could replace this example with a similarly structured explanation for a more realistically controversial usage, such as "How are you?" "I am good." I may do so myself if I have time.

Perhaps mention of applications of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (e.g. "political correctness") and the French Academy could also be mentioned.


 * I don't like the 'How are you?' 'I'm good' example as I don't think it captures the descriptivist position. I can't say whether or not it captures the prescriptivist position as I don't think there is a consistent 'prescriptivist position' to be captured.


 * To a descriptivist linguist (and I am one, though I don't work on English) an utterance such as 'I am good' is simply a copular sentence, which has an adjective functioning as a predicate (ie being used much as a verb, although it is not a verb), a subject and uses the special copular verb 'to be'. Verbless clauses such as this are found in many (maybe all?) of the word's languages because it is necessary at times to make predications with words that are not verbs, a classic example being 'I am a teacher'. Not all of them use copular verbs, some have copulas which derive from other parts of speech, some merely juxtapose the subject and predicate. I'll dig up some better examples of descriptivism vs prescriptivism and put them in. Dougg 11:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with "bye for now"? I chose that example precisely because it was in fact taught that way in British schools in the mid-20th century, with precisely that reasoning. It can't be unrealistic when it is an actual historical case. I don't mind if people prefer other examples, but I agree with Dougg that "I am good" is less helpful. Don't choose made-up examples. Choose ones like "bye for now" which actually were subjects of controversy. If you can't find something better, I suggest we revert. --Doric Loon 12:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The "for now" example seems weak. Can you provide a source (other than your own experience) for the claim that it used to be commonly taught that "now" is only an adverb, never a noun? A reference to a usage manual, other discussions on the Internet about British English teachers? The article makes the claim that "modern dictionaries" now list "now" as a noun as well. Do you have a cite to an old dictionary that only listed it as an adverb? I don't doubt that somewhere, sometime, an English teacher may have said something ridiculous, but that doesn't make it a salient example of a disagreement between prescriptivists and descriptivists. How about "can" vs. "may" instead? BrianH123 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct usage of "shibboleth"
The following sentence appears in the current version of the article:

"Lowth's grammar is the source of many of the prescriptive shibboleths that are studied in schools..."

Originally, there was a link to the Wikipedia article on shibboleths. Someone correctly added a note pointing out that the use of the word here does not conform to the Wikipedia article. The article seems to focus exclusively on the first definition of the word (from my Random House Webster's Unabridged, 2nd ed.) That definition states "a peculiarity of pronunciation, behavior, mode of dress, etc. that distinguishes a particular class or set of persons".

The use of the term in the sentence above corresponds to the third definition (and the one with which I am most familiar), which is "a common saying or belief with little current meaning or truth." Often used as a political smear, as in "E.J. Dionne's column contains yet more liberal shibboleths about the war in Iraq."

So the use of the word in this article is correct. I cut the noteand nixed the link (since as it stands it is confusing rather than illuminating). If the shibboleth article is made more complete, perhaps the link could be reintroduced....


 * The shibboleths of prescriptive grammar distinguish the "educated" from the "uneducated", at least in the minds of those to whom such things are important. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Political correctness and linguistic diversity?
I object to the statement that 'It is also seen as politically correct to be open to language diversity.' It is not 'political correctness' (whatever that actually means, but it's usually derogatory) that makes linguists support linguistic diversity, it is for two main reasons, to do with the scientific importance of the study of languages, and the social value of languages to their speakers.

Languages form the material that linguists study, and as languages disappear (very often without having been studied in depth) so the dataset that linguistics is based on diminishes. This is the same as botanists being unhappy about species of plants disappearing before being studied.

Speakers of endangered languages, in almost every case (there are exceptions), want to preserve their language and see it continue to be used.

Assuming no-one wants to debate this I'll remove the line shortly. Dougg 03:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was me that put that phrase in. To me there is nothing whatsoever derogatory about wanting to be PC, and I meant that positively.  Feel free to reword if it doesn't come across that way.  But I wouldn't just delete, because the point is important.  In addition to all the perfectly correct and important reasons you have just adduced, prescriptivism is also problematic because it disadvantages the powerless by rejecting their language as non-standard.  The rejection of prescriptivism is certainly in keeping with modern liberal-democratic views on social structure, and I would go as far as to say it could not have developed without these.  --Doric Loon 10:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dougg. To say that something is "politically correct" in inherently non-neutral. Perhaps the term originally referred to some neutral concept, but it longer does, almost always implying left-of-center views. And this is what is objectionable about using the phrase--it implies that the linguist's views on maintaining language diversity stem from political views, not scientific views. While most linguists may be politically left-of-center, I'm sure they would say that, if anything, their political views have been influenced by their scientific knowledge--not vice versa. While the rejection of prescriptivism may be in keeping with liberal-democratic views, linguists did not reject prescriptivism in order to cause the science of linguistics to conform to a political philosophy. Rather, they rejected prescriptivism (meaning the idea that there is an objectively "correct" form of language) simply because it does not accurately describe the way language works. -- Temtem 02:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Then alter as you see fit. --Doric Loon 19:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather, they rejected prescriptivism (meaning the idea that there is an objectively "correct" form of language) simply because it does not accurately describe the way language works. &mdash;&mdash; I wonder if this is in fact true. I suspect that prescriptivism is perhaps another universal, or at least standard, feature of most human languages; or at least most human languages spoken by people in sufficient numbers in stratified societies.  Many languages have "high", literary, deferential, honorific, or ritual styles; by logical necessity, these styles label other styles as low, illiterate, abrupt, or informal.  --Smerdis of Tlön 19:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is true that linguists have rejected the idea that there is an objectively correct form of any language. All linguists will however accept that there are more or less appropriate forms of speech for any given situation. It is also true, as you say, that it is a common human trait to consider some speech varieties (often one's own) better or more authentic than some others. While I doubt that it's a universal, it is extremely common to hear the 'kids these days...' complaint about the decline of language (along with other things) amongst the youth. And while many languages do have 'high' or deferential styles/registers, this does not necessarily (centainly not 'logically') mean that other styles are considered 'low', rather that they are considered to have different spheres of appropriateness. Ie, the English might address their queen as 'your majesty', but that doesn't mean they think the plain pronoun 'you' is inferior.

Doric Loon, thanks for that. I certainly understand what you were wanting to get across with your text, but I do think, as Temtem says, the term 'politically correct' is nowadays used as a rod which with people on one side of the political spectrum can beat those on the other. Maybe something more explicit, along the lines of what you've written above ('disadvantaging the powerless...') could be added at the end of the first para after the heading 'Examples of linguistic prescription'? Dougg 04:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, Dougg, do it!
 * This whole discussion about perceived language decline is fascinating, and I wonder if it deserves a section of its own in this article, since it is obviously closely related to the desire for inappropriate prescriptivism. Last week on the radio I heard a linguist deliberately use the term "improvement" as a synonym for language change, on the basis that evolution only allows adaptations which make an organism better (not meant in absolute terms, of course, which is meaningless, but in terms of its ability to function in a given environment).  I thought that was a very good answer to the 'kids today' whingers.  --Doric Loon 10:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Tell me...
...if I'm missing something, but is not the first example regarding "I'm good" totally misconstrued here. "Good" in "I'm good" is a predicative adjective—both a prescriptivist and descriptivist would agree to that and I don't see how it possible that either would feel the sentence incorrect. In no way can it be taken as an adverb (unless you want to take it as modifying "am"!).

“However, in this context, it's clearly intended to describe how the speaker is feeling; therefore, it seems to be functioning as an adverb” —whoever wrote this doesn’t know what an adverb is. Please, we should drop this for a better example. The split infinitive seems the obvious first candidate. Marskell 11:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup. This follows from the discussion above under the heading "examples".  The "good" example is not "good" - pardon my pun.  The "bye for now" example which was there before was better, so I am reverting it.  I don't mind if someone has a better example still, but as I say, please do not use made-up examples, use ones which were actually debated in schools, in the press, etc.  The kind of thing that elderly ladies write letters to editors about.  (I had an aunt who was an English teacher, and was pushing this "bye for now" thing at kids at least until 1965.  I loved her dearly, but...)  --Doric Loon 21:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Standard dialect
I think the article somewhat overstates the case in suggesting that only a prescriptivist would make a judgment that ain't, for example, is nonstandard. This would surely fall under the descriptivist category of "discussing its usage" as well. Squib 21:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This relates to the point immediately above about the use of good. Both presciptivists and descriptivists know proper grammer and its not as if the latter suddenly abrogates the right to call a word by its proper category or opens the door to every incorrect usage for the sake of "neutrality."


 * I do want to have a go at this and if there is useful area where the two groups do, as far as I know, disagree, I think the personal pronoun system would work. "They" has become the de facto neuter third-person singular (replacing the male-centric use of "he" for any individual). The prescriptivist says no, they is plural only, while the descriptivist says it's a perfectly reasonable attempt to overcome a short-coming which people (without even necessarily considering it) have readily adopted. Guess I've just written the point. I'll put it in tomorrow and take out ain't. (Y'all is an interesting topic incidentally and probably deserves a mention). Marskell 23:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well. I think that ain't is a perfectly appropriate example to keep in the article. I just think that the way it's used is misleading because it implies that a descriptivist would not recognize the existance of Standard English as a phenomenon and the fact that ain't isn't it. The difference with the prescriptivist, which might be pointed out in the article, would be in how they evaluated why it isn't and in addressing whether it should be. Regarding the singular they, I think you may be overgeneralizing about prescriptivist views and coming close to ascribing a prescriptivist view to the descriptivist. But I do agree it is a good example. Squib 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Squib, the ain't example is a good one, though the discussion of it could be improved. It's certainly true that a linguist would describe the word as 'non-standard' but I'm not sure a prescriptivist would do so as they don't seem to acknowledge the existence of 'non-standard varieties', rather claiming that everything that's not standard is bad. I'm happy with Marskell's description of the differing views of singular 'they'. A linguist attempts to describe the facts, and may also make comments about communicative efficiency (one of the pressures that cause language to change). The prescriptivist on the other hand makes value judgments based on criteria which, to me at least, seem unclear, unsound and variable. Dougg 04:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, though there is growing acceptance of the singular they even in edited prose. I think I read that Canada, for example, now employs even the cutting-edge variation themself in statutes and official publications. Markell's revision is a good one. Squib 18:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Tomorrow will now be the next day unless any of y'all want to do add it. I edited the ain't section and I think it reads better now.


 * So non-standard is nonstandard? In a world without presciptivists I'd hyphenate everything. Honest, I don't see no problem. Marskell 19:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * While nonstandard is definitely standard, I don't know if non-standard is nonstandard, but it's definitely not substandard. I'll grant you that. Squib 20:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Does usage necessarily imply a judgment?
I am taking a college course on English usage. The text (written by the teacher) defines usage as follows: "In general, usage is the study of how people use the language....More specifically, however, usage is the study of propriety in the use of language, the study of linguistic etiquette. It is the study of judgments peoople make about whether language is properly or improperly used."

While judgments are often made about the way people use the language, I have a problem with the notion that usage implies a judgment. I would be interested in the opinions of others on this point.


 * Yes, usage prescription implies some sort of judgment. It privileges the usage of those who observe a proposed norm, and devalues the speech and writing of those who do not.  The suggestion is usually made explicitly or implicitly that to defy the announced rule is to display illogic, imprecision, or ignorance. Confounding this with etiquette, though, seems very last-century.  Etiquette, rather than logic or etymology, may well have been the driving force behind some more recent prescriptionist impostures.  The various political shibboleths of academia, such as non-sexist language, are examples of politically driven etiquette rules rather than traditional usage rules.  They seek to compel changes in the substance of what is allowed to be said, rather than the style in which it is said.  Some traditional prescriptionist rules, such as the preference for you and me as opposed to me and you, may also be etiquette rules rather than usage rules; they seem to have less to do with the meaning of the conjunction or about noun cases, and more about not putting myself first.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Bias against prescriptivism?
I have just passed a critical eye over this article for the first time and note undertones of bias in favour of descriptivism. Whilst English is unregulated, and there is likely a plurality of descriptivists over prescriptivists, whether one or other is 'better' should not be a stance taken by the article. I cite lines such as:

Contemporary stylebooks … are prescriptive in intent. However, these books are intended for use by editors, and are meant to standardize the text of a particular publication, rather than to prescribe all writing in the language."

I would instead recommend usage such as:

Contemporary stylebooks … are prescriptive in intent, for use by editors of their respective publications to standardise presentation."

This gets away a little from the notion of "these books are prescriptive, but that's okay in this case because…" which the article tends to convey as a whole. I have made this adjustment myself, but I ask others to think carefully too. Remember there's nothing 'right' or 'wrong' about either point of view, and if you disagree, take it up with the Académie française. Nicholas 14:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I would compare it with any other science.  Physics is descriptive when physicists are doing research - they observe the world and note, describe, explain what they see there.  But physics is not descriptive when an engineer asks a physicist for a formula to help build a bridge that will stay up.  No physicist would dream of answering: "Anything is as good as anything else if you like it."  Linguistic research is rightly descriptive, but if people are going to communicate effectively there are all sorts of situations in which they need the help of prescriptive advice on all kinds of levels.  The reason why some people are allergic against linguistic prescriptivism is because some others try to prescribe foolishly.  Prescriptivism has to grow out of the descriptive research if it is to be sensitive and sensible.  And that, I think, is what most people on both sides of the argument can't quite come to terms with.  --Doric Loon 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't have said it better myself. Torgo 09:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article as of 2009 still seems biased against prescriptivism.  The impression that I get upon reading it is "Oh look at the stupid little people writing their style guides.  There's no such thing as right and wrong." Please.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Prescriptive what?
There ain't no such thing as "prescriptive linguistics". Please find me a professor of "prescriptive linguistics" at a Linguistics department (not an English or Communications one) if you want to argue otherwise. 209.204.158.254 03:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You're falling into the prescriptivist trap. While professional linguists will deny that there is "prescriptive linguistics," at least in what they practise, there surely is "linguistic prescription."  And once there is linguistic prescription, idiom will create "prescriptive linguistics" as well.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This very ambiguity is extraordinarily widespread in Wikipedia language/linguistics articles. Incidentally, I agree with User:209.204.158.254. Scientific Linguistics is one thing, and "linguistics" as an imprecise term, has many uses. "Prescriptive linguistics" is misleading, because when seen side by side with "Descriptive linguistics" (which is redundant, by the way), it sounds like two subfields of Linguistics, which is absolutely not true. The word "linguistic" as an adjective carries a very different meaning than the word "linguistics" as a noun (and let's not be too pedantic: that isn't a prescriptivist analysis, it's a pragmatic, descriptivist observation, which the encyclopedia should consistently reflect). I'm currently undertaking a personal project to eliminate this confusion in all the articles that deal with linguistics or language, and I could use some help. Please see my user page. Torgo 09:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

practical help needed in preventing prescription in Wikipedia
Please someone take a look at Talk:Backing_vocalist and help me remove a clear-cut case of prescription that is even ridiculously clearly a US/UK dichotomy. TIA --Espoo 00:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Other types of prescription/description
It might be an idea to add links to other areas where prescription and description are muddled up. I'm thinking particularly about biological/genetic factors in populations and individuals (see, for example, the arguments given in Dawkins 1986) and the fallacy of social Darwinism.

Descriptions of how genes make us behave are not necessarily prescriptions on our behaviour, etc.

Comment moved from main article

 * (Had to but in here: How can we communicate if we don't first agree on ways of reducing ambiguity in language or grammar? Scientific language is NOT descriptive for example the Order of operations in Mathematics) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.60 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006 14.12 UTC.

Inner Earth 14:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

POV challenge (was: Is "most linguists are descriptivist" in part an American [or English language, or?] bias?)
Seems to me that some languages, most clearly French, but also to some extent Dutch and perhaps Spanish, live in an enviornment that's more driven by prescriptivist norms rather than descriptivist ones, few would doubt that for the French language the language is primarily what the French Academy says it is, the Dutch have with intention performed widespread spelling reform over the last century, and so on. However, I'm not a linguist, and I have not cited references here, I just wanted to open the question. --Joe Decker 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Coming very late to this battle, but as a native French speaker and a linguist, I can assure you that you are sorely mistaken if you think that “few would doubt that for the French language the language is primarily what the French Academy says it is”. This is not true from any perspective, neither in the education, nor in linguistic studies and least of all in actual language uses. Evpok (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. This article is heavily biased against prescriptive perspectives.  Obviously modern linguistics is fundamentally descriptive in all the senses in which modern natural science is descriptive.  Research involves observing the world (or the word) as it is and thus learning about it.  There is a popular myth among linguists that prior to the early 20th century "philology" was not descriptive, but of course it was, though its focus was on describing ancient languages.  At any rate, there is no argument that descriptivism is where research is and should be at.
 * The question is whether that principle applies in non-research contexts, when we are dealing with every-day communication problems. To go back to the natural science analogy, a physicist may formulate natural "laws" descriptively, but an engineer applies them prescriptively.  Ordinary people want advice on good language use, and it is really rather sickening to hear pseudo-linguists treat these people as though their question were stupid, or regard teachers and others who try to help them as reactionaries.  This crusading attitude to the debunking of prescriptivism is typical one dominant strand of Anglo-Saxon thinking (though I have never met a top-level linguist who would stoop to it).  But as you say, the French Academy is proof that a different approach can be entirely respectable.
 * (I should say that I am based in a university language department, so we are involved in both research and teaching every day. Our research is descriptive, but our foreign language teaching is definitley prescriptive, and rightly so.)
 * Some time ago I added a section to this article pointing out situations where most people - including most linguists I know - think prescriptively.  Since then someone has edited it in an obvious attempt to make it look like a marginal viewpoint.  I pointed out that our society accepts a consensus that spelling errors are "wrong" and that "wrong" implies an acceptability of prescriptivism in this context.  That has been deleted.  I pointed out that foreign language teaching is rightly prescriptive, because the learners want to get it "right" - and that IS a meaningful concept for them.  This has been twisted into a daft phrase about how learners "may use prescriptive metaphors" - weasel words rule!
 * It is often forgotten that all prescriptivism is based on earlier descriptive analysis. Anti-prescription crusaders love to suggest, for example, that the old prescriptive rule against the split infinitive was based on a misguided idea that there are no split infinitives in Latin.  Bullshit!  It was based on the descriptive observation that at that time the split infinitive was not in fact a common feature of the language as they observed it.  This changed, and the rule had to change, and of course a weakness of prescription is that it can be conservative and doesn't always change as quickly as the language does.  But prescription is not about opposing change: it is about advising on effective language choices.  And that is a good thing.--Doric Loon 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added a "disputed" tag to the article. This article MUST have a section which presents prescription positively and fairly. It ought also to make clear that both the "pure descriptivist" and the "pure prescripitivist" mentioned in the opening are abstractions and that nobody actually constitently holds either of these views (though some people think they do), but rather that realistically we are all balancing bits of both, and that this is a difficult trick. Really, the anti-prescriptivist crusade (if it is not, as I suspect, motivated by a puerile desire to kick the old school English teacher in the teeth) is a way of avoiding the complexity of questions which have no simple answer. --Doric Loon 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The latest edits by User:Ihcoyc are a definite improvement. Thank you. But we need more. The article still gives the overall impression that prescriptivism is inherently wrong. It should, rather, show that while prescriptivism is incompatible with scholarly method and out of place in linguistic research, there is a large and respectable body of opinion, both within and (especially) outwith academic linguistics circles, which sees intelligent, sensitive prescrition as a fundamentally good thing in every-day language use. But I don't want to start a fundamental rewrite which will just get reverted, so it would be good if we can have some discussion here. --Doric Loon 14:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a few vague suggestions as to things that might be added here that might improve things more. AFAIK, we don't have a general overview of the role of prestige in language.  More than a year ago I started some relatively short articles on standard language, sacred language, and official language that might be semi-redundant to the sort of thing that might be added here to make a more balanced view.  Those articles aren't very good by current standards, either.
 * The articles on sociolect, acrolect, mesolect, and basilect aren't mine, but they are perhaps a bit too restricted in focus, since the terminology has been coopted from contact-language studies to refer to any phenomenon involving code-switching between prestige variants and vernaculars.
 * The article on register (linguistics) also contains some material that should be compared here.
 * A general overview of the historical processes by which language standards arise, are enforced, and break down might be worthwhile. Such a survey should not be quite as focused on English.  It should discuss the role of statecraft, travel, and legal systems in implementing language policy, by design or by chance.  It should discuss the way spelling standards have arisen in several languages, from ancient Egyptian to the present.  It should discuss the way archaisms are preserved by writing, and the drift that occurs when an installed base of written work bears an increasingly remote resemblance to current vernaculars.  It should discuss the role of cultural prestige in written language, and the phenomenon of how prestige cultures can impose unwieldy scripts on tongues to which they are ill-suited (the use of Sumerian cuneiform for Assyrian, Sinograms in Japan and Korea, and Arabic script for Turkish, Persian, Hindustani, Malay, &c., are the examples that come to mind.)  It should also discuss cultural investment and pride of mastery as a phenomenon that keeps difficult prescribed language forms in place once they arise.
 * Then, perhaps, the history of grammatical prescription in English could be broken out into its own article, where its truthful assertions that the prescriptive tradition in English has come under fire recently may seem less remarkable or parochial. Smerdis of Tlön 19:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That is an ambitious program. I agree that all those things are relevant, but I suspect if you want to discuss them properly you will need a series of related articles linked into this one. By all means start working along these lines. Thinking about a structure for the present article, I wonder how you would feel about something likethis:
 * Introductory sentence (above TOC)
 * 1. Prescription
 * 1.1 Aims
 * 1.2 History
 * 1.3 Criticism
 * 2. Description
 * 2.1 Aims
 * 2.2 History
 * 2.3 Criticism
 * 3. Synthesis/attempts to find a middle way.

Perhaps "issues" would be better than "criticism". At any rate, I like the idea that the structure of the article itself reflects balance. For today, though, I'm going to content myself with rewriting the opening sentences so that they don't misrepresent prescription. --Doric Loon 06:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made a small step forward by starting separate sections on prescription and on description, where these two forces can be discussed in their own terms before the fraught question of their interrelationship is discussed. There's still a lot of work to be done here, though.  I wonder (Ihcoyc/Smerdis, since you seem to be the only other person here) if this article should be renamed "description and prescription", since description has historical and logical precedence?  --Doric Loon 10:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have now removed the "disputed" tag, as I am now happy with the neutrality of the article, though there is still work to do on improving it. Over the last few days, Smerdis and I have done a complete rewrite, based on the above discussion. For anyone just coming to this, I would summarise the changes we have made as follows: I hope most people will see this as an improvement. --Doric Loon 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The English-language bias has been relativised. The section on history of prescription in English has been moved to its own specialised article, and examples from other languages and cultures have replaced it.  (Thanks for those, Smerdis, they're great!)
 * 2) The anti-prescriptivist bias has been removed. There is now a section on prescription which presents it fairly, though the criticisms of prescription are still voiced.
 * 3) The view that prescription and description are antithetical has been balanced with a mention of the (majority) view that they belong together as part of a holistic approach to language.


 * Well done, guys! I last saw this article before the rewrite, and it's vastly improved! --Slashme 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think this needs a huge overhaul. So much editorializing and vagueness, and nary a citation in sight! Is anyone up for this? It needs it Patti Hearse (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Diverging
Prescriptive and descriptive terminology appear to be gradually diverging. Why?? Georgia guy 22:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example? I don't quite understand the question. --Doric Loon 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Propose move
I would like to move this article to "Linguistic prescription". The present title, "Prescription and description", implies that description is treated equally here. In fact, description has its own article, which is cross-referenced at the top of the very short "descriptive approaches" section here. Also, getting "linguistic" into the title would remove the need to have that disclaimer at the top about prescription in ethics and philosophy. --Doric Loon 07:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - since there is no objection I have gone ahead and done this. --Doric Loon 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I wasn't around when you proposed to move the article, but I've been quite busy. At any rate, I have some reservations about the new article name. Having "Linguistic" in the title does avoid disclaimers about other fields, but it makes it sound like Linguistics is divided into two camps: prescriptive linguistics and descriptive linguistics, which is not true. I guess I'm fine with this title if the article is a little clearer, but if anyone can think of a better one, perhaps "Prescriptive Grammar", then I would prefer that. There has been discussion surrounding this topic on this talk page already. I just think if someone doesn't know what Linguistics is, but knows what the word "linguistic" means (which I think is pretty widespread, since the vast majority of people have no idea what I am studying when I tell them I'm a linguistics major; they usually ask me, "oh, what language?") this article, and others by the way, could be very confusing. Any thoughts? ~ Torgo 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think having a title like "prescriptive _noun_" makes it sound like _noun_ is split into sub-fields, one of which is prescriptive, but that a title like "_adj._ prescription" makes it sound like there are people who make prescriptions relevant to the field _adj._ refers to. I therefore think "Linguistic prescription" is better. (The problem with "Grammatical prescription" is that linguistic prescription also covers vocabulary, usage, and even etiquette, none of which constitutes grammar.) Ruakh 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever doubt the title might leave, the article as a whole certainly now communicates far more clearly than it did before that prescription and description are not two camps, but rather two activities, both of which most of us value, though there are possibly two small fringe camps who only do the one thing or the other. The reason I would be unhappy about a title substituting "grammatical" for "linguistic" is that it tends back towards the prejudice that prescription is only something done by old-style grammarians, not by serious linguists. That is patently not true, despite some of the anti-prescriptive invective we occasionally hear. --Doric Loon 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the title "Prescription in language" would avoid both the misconception induced by the title "Linguistic prescription" (namely that it is a field of Linguistics) and the misconception induced by the title "Grammatical prescription" (namely that it only refers to grammar). What do you guys think? If there is agreement, I can change the title and create a redirect. --Antonielly (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why "in" language` Does that make sense? I really don't see the ambiguity with the present title. --Doric Loon (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes by User:Cadr
Here's a point-by-point justification. Hopefully we can come to a compromise on this.

1. Most commentators on language show elements of both prescription and description in their thinking, and popular debate on language issues frequently revolves around the question of how to balance these.


 * Doesn't mention the fact that linguists generally reject prescription (with the exceptions noted in my edit). One can certainly argue over what the general attitude to prescription is within linguistics, but the views of linguists on this matter, whatever they are, shouldn't be omitted.

2. Most people would subscribe to the consensus that in all of these areas it is meaningful to describe some kinds of aberrations as incorrect, or at least as inappropriate in formal contexts


 * Weasel wording, doesn't really add much to the article anyway.

3. Writers or communicators who wish to use words clearly, powerfully or effectively often use prescriptive rules to make their communications widely understood and unambiguous


 * POV. Presupposes that prescriptive rules make writing more clear/powerful/effective.

4. ''Written language is simply different from spoken language. It lacks voice tone and inflection, and other vocal features that serve to disambiguate speech; it therefore must be conservative in syntax and regular in form. ''


 * This seems to be something of a non-sequitur, and is a clear case of original research without a citation.

5. Such choices are often strategic, to maximise clarity and precision in language use.


 * I just changed this to "Such choices are often claimed to maximise...", which is more NPOV. Perhaps substituting "intended" for "claimed" would be better.

6. I added the following sentence: Few prescribing authorities are linguists, and some linguists argue that prescriptive grammarians often make elementary errors of grammatical analysis.


 * In a section dealing with criticisms of prescriptivism, a single cited sentence describing a criticism often put forward by linguists seems entirely appropriate. I see no reason to exclude this criticism from the article.

7. [Changes to the paragraph on descriptive linguists]


 * The paragraph seemed a bit mangled and I was trying to get it to make more sense, but if other people didn't like the changes I won't argue for them in this case.

8. ''However, this is a very rare position. Most of those who claim to oppose prescription per se are in fact only inimical to those forms of prescription not supported by current descriptive analysis''


 * This seems rather POV, implying that some descriptivists are "closet prescriptivists". I think my formulation was more neutral and accurate, noting that descriptivists mostly object to the use of "incorrect", etc. to describe non-standard usage, and are not generally opposed to codifying standard usage.

Cadr 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cadr, for listing your points so clearly. I am sure we will reach a compromise, since the difference between us seems to me to be one of terminology.  I think you have not appreciated what a broad concept prescription is, and are focussing on one untypical aspect of it.  I see prescription as 90% useful and 10% questionable.  I suspect that when you say “prescription” you mean the 10%.  If we can get beyond that, I think we may well see eye to eye.  I will deal with your points one-by-one.


 * 1. Obviously this is a general introductory sentence, so it doesn’t cover everything – more detail comes further down the page.  I wouldn’t put linguistics in the forefront of this article.  Linguistics is about description, not prescription, that’s clear.  But I don’t agree that most linguists reject prescription.  It just isn’t what they are doing in their discipline.  In their every-day life most of them practice most aspects of prescription one way or another: like everyone else, they follow rules of thumb help them use language strategically.  And even in their discipline they see a place for it. If you use a linguistic term wrongly, any linguist will tell you it is wrong. If their students write ambiguous sentences they will condemn the formulation as sloppy. If a non-linguist asks for advice on language usage, most linguists will try to give it. And if (like me) their job is to apply linguistics to practical language teaching, prescription looms large.


 * 2. If you think it sounds weasley you are welcome to rephrase, but I think it is important to note that consensus at the outset. Only a tiny minority of human beings would deny that there is such a thing as a spelling error, a mispronunciation, an ungrammatical sentence or a wrong lexical choice (wrong here meaning that the chosen lexeme fails to communicate what the speaker intended). That consensus is fundamental to what prescription is about, so it has to stand at the beginning of any explanation of the aims of prescription.


 * 3. There is no doubt that many writers and communicators reach for Fowler or some other such authority when they want their language to communicate more powerfully. A main aim of prescription is to meet this perceived need, and that has to be said. Whether it in fact works is of course something you are entitled to question, but my own experience (and THIS may be POV) is that my writing usually does improve when I use the resources on my bookshelves.


 * 4. OK.  I think the point was meant to be that prescription is usually intended for written language, and if it is aiming at spoken language then it often comes to different conclusions. I personally wouldn’t use a split infinitive in an academic article, but I use them in the pub.  Prescription is partly about defining what is appropriate to a register.


 * 5. OK.


 * 6. Disagree entirely.  Pretty well all prescribing authorities see themselves as linguists.  Of course you can argue about the credentials of the nuttier ones… But lunatic fringes are not really the point.


 * 7. OK.


 * 8. Almost all descriptivists are also prescriptivists, because the two things are complementary aspects of what the contemplation of language is all about.  I say “almost” because one hears travellers’ tales about long-haired pot-smoking anarchists who reject any kind of rules in language or in life.  But in 15 years as a university language teacher I have never met one, so I am inclined to discount them and say: ALL DESCRIPTIVISTS ARE ALSO PRESCRIPTIVISTS.  They are “closet prescriptivists” if they deny it, but most do not.  I have often heard linguists complaining about prescription, but you don’t have to dig deep to discover that they are talking about the small part of prescription which is unhelpful.  I have never met a linguist who, when challenged, will uphold a blanket rejection of prescription.
 * Thanks for engaging with me on this. --Doric Loon 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll use you're numbering (I know these point-by-point replies are a bit irritating but otherwise it's a bit confusing).


 * 1. I think we may have different ideas about linguists' attitudes, since I'm a syntactician and most syntacticians seem quite strongly opposed to prescriptivism. I think you're absolutely right that linguists aren't ultra-permissive descriptivist caricatures, but it's fair to say that many of them think that the majority of advice given in the majority of usage guides is simply bad, irrational and linguistically illiterate (I'm thinking, for example, of Geoff Pullum ). I think we need to distinguish between two different kinds of opposition to prescriptivism:
 * (A) Total 100% opposition to all forms of prescriptivism. Rare/non-existent.
 * (B) Opposition to labeling non-standard usage as "incorrect" rather than merely non-standard. Low opinion of the general quality of prescriptive advice. Common amongst linguists.


 * 2. OK, the statement is true, but in context it reads too much like a defense of prescriptivism.


 * 3. Yes, let's just be careful to word this neutrally.


 * 4. Of course written and spoken language differ in style, but there are two problems with this sentence. First, it's not clear in what sense the syntax of written English is more "conservative" than that of spoken English. There are syntactic constructions common in writing that are rare in speech and vice versa. If written English is more conservative, it can only be conservative in the circular sense that styles used in writing are perceived as conservative. Second, it is never explained how the lack of voice, tone, etc. in writing should lead to more "conservative" syntax, and no proponent of this theory is cited. On the face of it, it's equally plausible that the syntax of written English should be less conservative, since authors have time to construct more complex sentences, and readers can read at their leisure rather than parsing in real time.


 * 6. Are you sure that prescribing authorities see themselves as linguists? Very few have any qualifications as such, they rarely/never refer to themselves as linguists, and few linguists would recognize them as linguists. To be clear, by linguists I mean people studying linguistics rather than people studying foreign languages. Generally on Wikipedia we don't call people Xists unless they have some relevant qualification. For example, we don't call anyone with strong opinions on physics a physicist. If you prefer we could say "very few are academic linguists" or something like that.


 * 8. I agree, it's just that the phrasing seemed to imply some level of self-deception. Cadr 10:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You see, we ARE coming closer.


 * 1. Yes, your acknowledgement that most linguists are not THAT anti-prescriptivist brings you quite close to my contention that the decription-prescription polarity is an entirely misleading construct. We can certainly agree that many linguists are suspicious of popular prescription and highly critical of it when it goes wrong. But if we can agree to throw out the descriptivist caricature, can we also agree to throw out the prescriptivist one?  Very few people involved in prescription would say that non-standard forms are automatically incorrect.  They might well say that some of them are inappropriate in some forms of writing, or question their communicative usefulness.  But prescription is not about dusty old Latin grammarians stifling linguistic diversity or opposing natural language evolution, any more than description is about pot-smoking anarachists.


 * 4. Quite right. It would probably be better if the concept of conservative were omitted here.


 * 6. So, the experts of the French Academy are not real linguists? A bold assertion!  I don’t accept your definition of a linguist.  Given your own background, that may be the first definition that comes to your mind, but it is not what most of us think of first.  I would say a linguist is a language professional in any one of a range of branches.  And my definition has institutional support: just ask the Institute of Linguists how many of their members studied linguistics as opposed to languages.  But MILs are nevertheless competent authorities and perfectly entitled to call themselves linguists.  And many of them are also academics. You would have to say “theoretical linguists” or “linguisticians” (horrible word) to get YOUR meaning.  Then the sentence would probably be correct.  But I would still object to you putting it in the article, because it then carries the invidious subtext that theoretical linguists are better qualified than other linguists to comment on prescription.  That sounds to me rather like saying a pure mathematician is better qualified to build a bridge than an engineer is.  I would have thought the opposite, that an experienced language teacher would be in a better position to advise wisely on language use than an abstract linguistics specialist.  Though of course, any teacher worth his salt will value and learn from the theoretician: we’re not in competition. But within the guild of language experts there are certainly in different lines. A theoretical linguist is focussed much more on description, an educationalist tends more towards prescription (though I still maintain they both do both).  So really it is the views of teachers, not of linguistics specialists, which are most relevant for this article.


 * Prescription is a widespread and important human activity. It is part of our society, and most people (at least once they come to understand what all falls under the heading) would not want our society to be without it.  It is not an easy thing to do well, and sometimes it is done very badly indeed.  Therefore it is easy to debunk, if you concentrate on the worst examples (the website you referred to is debunking Strunk & White on the grounds that it is a century out of date, but forgets mention that precisely for that reason it is not a representative example of modern prescription).  However, a Wikipedia article on a phenomenon in society should not pander largely to the debunkers.  We do have a section in this article about how prescription can go wrong.  You are welcome to enlarge that section if you think it misses something; in particular your point, that many specialists believe that many usage guides provide a low-quality service would be a fair point to make there.  But the rest of the article should not be peppered with caveats subtly implying that prescription is inherently flawed.  THAT is POV.
 * --Doric Loon 11:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, it may help you to know where this article is coming from. A year ago, it was a diatribe against prescription.  We have done a complete rewrite since then.  The discussion relating to the re-write is above at sections 10, 15 & 16, if you use the heading numbers in the TOC box.  That might contextualise for you where I am at.  --Doric Loon 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On 6, my definition of linguist was too narrow, but it is still the case that (at least for English) most authorities on usage aren't linguists of any stripe. The most popular style manuals, etc. tend to be written by journalists and authors.
 * I would have thought the opposite, that an experienced language teacher would be in a better position to advise wisely on language use than an abstract linguistics specialist.
 * I see your point, but many abstract linguistics specialists get worked up over the fact that a lot of people advising on usage make basic errors in grammatical analysis (e.g. mistaking nouns for adjectives). I thought this should get a one-sentence mention, though the wording could be improved.


 * I take it we are more or less agreed on 1 and 4. Cadr 13:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, can I suggest we focus for the moment on the section "problems with prescription", to see if we can give a better account on how and when prescription goes wrong. Possibly when we have done that, you will find that the necessary balance is there. --Doric Loon 09:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

African-American speakers of English?
This phrase is used in the Problems section. I didn't want to edit th entry in case I'm just reading this incorrectly but does this mean urban slang? Cause more than just, and not all, black americans speak in urban slang. I think this should be modified but if I've misread the intention could I have clarification on what it means? --Offput 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So we have a bracketing problem: black (English speakers) vs. (black English) speakers. I changed the wording to "speakers of these dialects", not "speakers who are part of these ethnic groups". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. But what does your other change mean? Surely books in print ARE in the public domain? --Doric Loon 12:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If a work is in print, there are 95 years before it goes out of copyright. Strunk & White's The Elements of Style is in print, and its first edition is in the public domain due to having been first published before January 1, 1923. Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage is in print but is still copyrighted due to having been first published on or after January 1, 1923. Older style guides are disseminated more due to fewer legal restrictions on their text. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you mean in copyright terms. I think you ought to rephrase that, because the words "public domain" can also be used more generally, and any text which has been published is in the public domain in the common sense. If I say that information is in the public domain, I mean it is not an official secret. (Don't be misled by Wikipedia usage in connection with pictures; the phrase is used more narrowly there than in many other contexts.) Apart from that, I think you need a reference for this idea, since I would doubt that old books grow in influence when they come out of copyright. Sure, dissemination then becomes easier, but most people like to buy books in printed form, and books which are that old don't normally get reprinted, unless they were already very influential anyway. You would have to prove that this is a factor. --Doric Loon 21:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Three questions
Ths article is helpful, but if I may, I want to raise three questions about statements in the article. The first two are from the section, “Sources”:

First (though not first in order): “It is sometimes claimed that in centuries past, English prescription was based on the norms of Latin grammar, but this is doubtful.”  This seems not to take into account Wallis’s statement about previous grammarians in his Preface: “They all forced English too rigidly into the mould of Latin (a mistake which nearly everyone makes in descriptions of other modern languages too), giving many useless rules about the cases, genders and declensions of nouns, that tenses, moods and conjugations of verbs, the government of nouns and verbs, and other things of that kind, which have no bearing on our language, and which confuse an obscure matters instead of elucidating them.” (quoted by Crystal 1995)  In addition, the reference in the article to the fact that Lowth condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language”  points to the fact that some were doing so.

The second, and this one depends on the first: “The primary source of prescriptive judgments is descriptive study.[citation needed]” This seems doubtful. Is it not the case that those points of prescriptive grammar which raise the greatest controversy with descriptivists are those imposed on the language from something other than descriptive study? Surely the split infinitive rule and terminal preposition rule were not derived just from observing speech.

The third is under “Education”: “Foreign language teaching is necessarily prescriptive.”  The problem with this statement is that it confuses prescriptive grammar and teaching. It does not recognize the possibility of teaching a form of English based on descriptive principles. That is, I could teach my second language students to say “gonna,” while a prescriptivist would teach “going to.” A descriptivist may teach English as it is spoken, whereas a descriptivist will teach English as it ‘should’ be spoken. Neither one of these is necessarily the grammar of teaching. The classroom can accommodate both. Teaching language need not be prescriptive any more than teaching biology is prescriptive.75.182.59.189 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. First of all, I've moved your questions to the bottom of the page.  Hope that is OK.
 * On your first question, you might like to look at the extended discussion on the talk page of the Split Infinitive article.   It is easy to find references to people blaming prescriptivists for their misuse of Latin, but it is extremely difficult to find a quotation from the writings of these prescriptivists themselves which shows them using Latin in such a way.  We possibly found evidence that one second-rate school teacher did this, but so far no evidence has been produced in any of our discussions that any of the famous prescriptive writers did.  So, the ball's in your court: give us a quote from Fowler or Strunk in which they say "we shouldn't do this because Latin doesn't".  Just one?  If you can't, the statement in the article has to stand.
 * Question 2. But precisely the split infinitive is the example par exellence of prescriptivists being accused falsely by anti-prescriptivists of basing their prescription on Latin; in fact that article can cite the earliest comments about the split infinitive, and all of them based their dislike of the construction on descriptive observations. Similarly, Lowth, who is generally accused of being one of the first to condemn the placing of prepositions at the end of the sentence, in fact only gave a tentative suggestion that this construction is rather too colloquial for his liking, and he based this on a descriptive observation - the full quote is on the Lowth page.  The article does not say that ALL prescription derives from description; indeed it gives some significant counter-examples.  But MOST does.  Prescriptivists look at their own language usage, and formulate rules to explain what they find there.
 * Three: You are making a strange distinction here. If you teach your students "gonna", then you are prescribing it.  They are foreigners who know no English but what you teach them.  If you teach them "gonna" then that's what they're gonna say, and they're gonna do that because you are their authority.  That is prescription: when a self-appointed authority tries to make helpful suggestions on language usage, and others gladly follow.  The fact that you choose to prescribe something which others might proscribe is beside the point.
 * Thanks for your interesting questions. --Doric Loon 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Doric Loon, I am so pleased to read your comments. I have become tired of people quoting sources that say, "prescriptivists claim ..." without naming any prescriptivists or citing examples of them arguing from Latin usage to English usage or such like. Sources that make a claim are not sources for that claim, they are sources of a particular POV.


 * I would like to add that transformational grammar and other theoretical approaches to language study are fine tools for examining patterns across languages, they are quite explicit that the aim is to discover regular patterns across languages. Their aim is to reliably describe features of language that are genuinely universal. I find that project exciting, and several of its results eye-opening. Sometimes its ways of describing things are very powerful, other times though, it seems a little arbitrary and idiosyncratic.


 * This is quite a different project to providing an intuitively natural description of patterns of usage in any given language. Universal grammar is a real phenomenon, just as Einsteinian physics describes principles applicable in contexts beyond the ordinary constraints of terrestrial mechanics. However just as Newtonian physics is still adequate for many Earth based engineering projects, so too traditional grammatical categories have an intuitive simplicity, as well as unbroken history of terminology and usage that is sufficiently adequate for most forms of language study or language teaching.


 * When I learn a language, or teach one, what matters is reproducing examples of natural language usage, but the best examples are those that generalize, that provide a model which is repeated many times. Is it descriptive or prescriptive to say English is an SVO language? It can be either depending on context.


 * If the term linguistic prescription has any value at all, it is for the purpose of pointing out that languages contain exceptions:
 * many well-formed sentences would never be uttered, because they are ambiguous or nonsense or offensive
 * some words, phrases or sentences that are not "well-formed", can become accepted idioms, in fact language evolves this way.


 * I'll finish by noting that I am finding linguists in the literature who do not buy in to this discussion. Grammar and style are well understood and clearly distinct categories. Prescription just sounds like a term one uses for people who preceed or outnumber you on some particular question of style. Alastair Haines 02:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Doric Leon, for the helpful comments on my three questions. However, the third quiestion concerns me greatly--the question of teaching vs. prescription. Can we not teach prescriptive grammar?  Surely teaching something--grammar or botany--does not per se make it prescriptive.  If the key distinction between descriptive and prescrptive grammar is the distinction between describing how people use the language and how they ought to use it, both of these can be taught.  In a nutrition class I can teach how people actually eat and how they ought to eat.

More Questions
Under Problems, it states : most people would agree that some kinds of prescriptive teaching or advice are desirable. Would they? Precriptivism now seems to be anathema to grammarians and lexicographers; they tell us that they only study and record what the People are actually saying and writing. This raises a few questions that I haven't seen in all the arguments in the area:

1. Since the professionals we once entrusted with the care of the language now tend to say that it doesn't matter what you say as long as some others use the construction, why should we continue to pay taxes toward their academic salaries, or buy their books? (Us can talk how we likes without they.)

2. Why do descriptivists even bother to argue the points when there are no rules?

3. Are all the examples below "differently correct?" They're all widely used in print; examples abound.

A savings

I could care less, (meaning the opposite.)

Hone in on the objective.

The greengrocer's apostrophe, applied randomly in the vicinity of an "s."

--Ampwright (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "A savings"? What about an innings? "I could care less" is a figure of speech for "I could barely care less". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the greengrocer's apostrophe, since spelling should be prescriptive. For the others, the question is whether they are indicative of the direction the language is changing, or if they ae just rogue variants (however common). Lexicographers are not paid to prescribe; their job is description. But that does not mean that over the dinner table they don't correct their kids' language. Then they are prescriptivists. We ALL are prescriptivists sometimes, but some people are not honest enough to admit it - it has to do with academic politics. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment
There is excellent text in this article, that I fear will ruffle feathers, because people presume prescription is a pejoritive term that concisely describes an outdated view that there are constraints on language.

But that just ain't right!

Although while trained in teaching ESL I was urged to allow diversity of pronounciation, this did not mean "anything goes". There are constraints on language, whether we are observing them, describing them, or teaching them. Standard english is a stress-timed language, Korean is a syllable-timed language. Speaking English without cadences typical of native speakers, frequently leads to difficulty in communication. Scottish English has a different cadence to Mid-West American English. What should we encourage a Korean student to practice? If they expect to go to Edinburgh University, perhaps this should be the Scottish version.

Prescription and description are necessarily related concepts, each containing elements of the other. One can prescribe transformational grammar as the language of description, but there are other meta languages that can frequently provide isomorphic descriptions. It is remarkably myopic to insist on a language of description, and proclaim oneself superior because one is merely being descriptive. In fact, meta-languages are much more amenable to variation than natural languages.

There are urban myths to be debunked under this entry. That normally leads to frustration for the parties involved. Best wishes to all who seek to refine and clarify this page. It is important work. Cheers. Alastair Haines 01:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alastair. You might be amused to go back in the history page and see what this article looked like 18 months ago!  --Doric Loon 05:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Arbitrarily many different strongly equivalent statements of the correctness conditions for English could be given." Pullum says this one page one of the article in external links. Now I have a source for the "isomorphic" descriptions comment I made above. ;)
 * I've gone even more thoroughly through the article. Very nicely worded. Wonderful, sober, clear, direct tone. No fancy language. Shows an appreciation of vexed and intricate issues, without being drawn into them further than necessary. Wouldn't want to touch this with a copy-edit because I fear I'd violate the smoothness.
 * The problem is finding sources that treat the issue with this degree of neutrality, and with similar clarity. Pullum does address many of the issues, but with a lexical selection designed for academics.
 * I long to see the text of this article protected by nice little footnote markings. ;) I'm just not an expert in the field, and I'm biting off more than I can chew with other Wiki projects. Still, this masterpiece of an article ... such a logical, transparent structure, patiently covering all the main issues ... still, this article will remain on my watchlist, so I can chip in should discussion look as though it may benefit by 2c from me. Alastair Haines 07:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Pullum does address many of the issues, but with a lexical selection designed for academics." Pullum is also a descriptivist ideologue who is noted for being quite rude to anyone who challenges or disagrees with him. As Mark Halpern has shown (see his articles on the matter in Vocabula magazine), Pullum is often simply wrong in his assertions. I certainly would not use him as an authority in any article that seeks to be fair to any point of view other than the hard-core descriptivist's.Pernoctus (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Language education
This article states that foreign language education is prescriptive. Is it? I always thought of that as descriptive - this is how people DO speak this language. A good foreign language course will include the phrases and slang that aren't accepted in some cases. This maybe suggests that prescriptive/descriptive are meaningless when applied to foreign languages and the term only applies to your own.


 * Well, I'm a foreign language teacher, and if my students write something which I think is wrong I call it "wrong" and take a mark off. THAT is prescription.  Of course I teach them slang and all kinds of other registers.  And in every case I am prescribing what is suitable in a particular register in a particular case.  And if they use slang wrongly I take a mark off, and that is prescription.  Prescription is not necessarily about standard formal language.  I can prescribe something which is non-standard.  Prescription is about one person telling another how to use language.  It becomes prescription if I prescribe it - that is all the word means.  --Doric Loon 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hartman's Law?
Hartman's Law redirects here, but the name does not appear in the text at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.132.116 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What does a "Grammar Nazi" have to do with this article
(82.55.231.63 (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)).
 * As I understand it, a "grammar Nazi" is one who prescriptively corrects other people on an Internet forum, whether Usenet or web-based. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you on this seeing how it has been merged yet doesn't appear anywhere in the article itself. Takeru27 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Grammar Nazi is incorrect, the proper term is english-linguistic Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.--AppleJordan (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"english-linguistic Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" is grammatically incorrect, though. --92.229.116.71 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably everyone understands that the original statement ("Grammar Nazi is incorrect. ...") was sarcasm (albeit not itself correct). Terry Thorgaard (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Strangely enough, "a" Nazi is not: "a" NSDAP (a perfect example of ungrammatical nonsense), but obviously a member (or sympathiser) of this party or ideology. Grammar Nazi is good, unclean fun, naughty, but also shows the incredible political stupidity of Americans (the idea that Nazis were for law and order...).--Radh (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Grammar Nazi is about people who are (a) unable/unwilling to understand that perfect grammar is perhaps not the most pressing need yet, and (b) who are hell bent at making everyone else to follow what *they* consider to be "right". Joke implies that if they somehow get sufficient power, they would use even nazi style methods of enforcing grammatically correct speech and writing. 90.176.40.79 (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you^^ guys for real?.. lol. Anyway, this is correct.. some mention of the pervasiveness of this on internet forums (fora?) should be mentioned in the article itself.. anyone sociologists amongst us willing to take a stab at it?

acrolect|prestige variety
I note that prestige variety is linked to a section in Post-creole speech continuum

However, the section in this article ==Education== Literacy and first language teaching in schools is traditionally prescriptive. Both educators and parents often agree that mastery of a prestige variety of the language is one of the goals of education. Since the 1970s there has been a widespread trend to balance this with other priorities, such as encouraging children to find their own forms of expression and be creative also with non-standard speech-patterns. Nevertheless, the acquisition of spoken and written skills in normative language varieties remains a key aim of schools around the world.

Foreign language teaching is necessarily prescriptive. Here the students have no prior idiom of their own in the target language and are entirely focused on the acquisition of norms laid down by others.

deals with a general application of linguistic prescription in eduaction.

The sentence "Both educators and parents often agree that mastery of a prestige variety of the language is one of the goals of education." without the reference to the creole language would only be a general statement goals of all educators and parents World-wide.

May I suggest that the sentence be rephrased to "Globally, both educators and parents often agree that mastery of the language is one of the goals of education.", and add a new sentence with the prestige variety as an example of this agreement by both parents and educators in the Post-creole usage?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think the link to creoles is a mistake, caused by the linked page being moved after this one was written. Just delete the link.  The words say what we mean.  "Mastery of the language" is problematic because it raises questions of WHOSE language; the prestige form is the key thing: society has chosen to value one form of a language higher than others, and education is prescriptive because acquiring a non-native idiom within the native language (e.g. a Bavarian learning to write standard German) requires a prescriptive approach. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. However after I deleted it was restored. I therefore tried to offer a compromise because having been accused of starting an (non-existent) edit war, I would not to be in a real one! I would not want to delete the link without the other editor understanding the reasons or not having been offered an alternative to a complete delete.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the edit war - you are taking this very responsibly, coming straight to talk. You are right about the link going the wrong place, and it has now been removed.  So thanks for that. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dated"
Under the "Problems" section, the following text should be excised:

"This problem is compounded by the fact that books which gain a following can remain in print long after they have become dated. This is the case, for example, with Strunk & White, which remains popular in the United States although much of its text was formulated in the 19th century."

First, the notion of what is and isn't "dated" is very subjective. Second, the statement regarding Strunk & White is at best, misleading, and is in my opinion incorrect. Strunk's book may have been formulated during the late 19th Century, but E.B. White's revisions of it extend well into the 20th Century.

I am leaving the sentences, for now, but I will be cutting them in the future unless someone here offers extremely compelling arguments against my position.

Pernoctus (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining - it was me who objected to this being deleted without explanation. However it was another editor who wrote this, and the context, if I remember correctly, was the debate above under the heading "Changes by User:Cadr".  Please read that old debate carefully, and if you still feel that this passage is inappropriate, then go ahead and delete.  --Doric Loon (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I realize now that I should have explained myself before editing, or, at the least, that I should have accompanied my edit with an explanation. I am new to the Wikipedia editing game, and I shall read the guidelines more thoroughly before editing pages or expanding stub articles in the future.

Thanks for the reference to the earlier discussion here, which I did read carefully. My further research indicates that E.B. White updated The Elements of Style as late as 1979. For that reason, the Strunk & White example either needs to go, or it needs to be modified to indicate that White did revise the volume as late as the 1979 edition (to say nothing of subsequent updates by anonymous editors in even later editions). The book is definitely not a mere saurian linguistic artifact of the 19th Century, as the current text strongly implies. I think that it is simpler just to delete the reference, myself, as the example is not a good one.

I also feel that the reference to works as being "dated" should be deleted, or at least modified to reflect that reasonable individuals may disagree about what constitutes something being "dated". I find it questionable to imply that, merely because a word or a form has fallen out of use or fashion, that fact should necessarily consign it forever to oblivion. After all, if clothing fashions can make "comebacks", then why not certain words or linguistic forms?

(As an aside, this last point has always seems to me to highlight a weakness in the positions of the more extreme linguistic descriptivists. If, as they claim, language is ever-dynamic and evolving, then it seems to me that the revival of an older word or usage is as fair an embodiment of this principle as the idea of constant linguistic novelty. Perhaps the failure of many descriptivists to see this fact derives from the widespread misunderstanding and misuse of the word evolution, which many today mistake for progress, or for other purely forward- or linear-thinking mental models. To use a biological analogy, the finch's beak both lengthens and shortens; it does not simply continue to grow longer and longer. Evolution, including the evolution of language, can move in many directions, and yet still constitute evolution per se. Pernoctus (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The oscillating finch beaks make a lovely image. Well, then, go ahead and delete that paragraph. You've made your case. And don't be shy about editing. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

grammar nazi
why goes grammar nazi redirect here? there's not mention on the page that this is what it's refered to? Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the reason is that someone wrote a really bad article on "Grammar Nazis" and no-one knew quite what to do with it, so it was made to redirect somewhere - anywhere. I'm not really too sure what "grammar nazi" is supposed to mean, but I suppose it means "people whose views on grammar annoy me"; and I rather resent the phrase because Nazism is something unspeakably evil and any use of the word to mean anything as trivial as "people who irritate me" is highly offensive. That's why I would resist the phrase "grammar nazi" being mentioned on this page. But if people think "grammar nazi" means "someone who tries to control language use" then "prescription" is probably what they are really looking for. So the redirect does make some kind of sense. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, a "grammar nazi" is a person who routinely corrects others' grammar, usage, or mechanics in a prescriptive way, outside the recognized role of an editor. The word "nazi" appears to fit noun sense 3: "A person considered unfairly oppressive or needlessly strict." It appears that an article about grammar nazis got partially transwikied to Wiktionary. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why isn't there a reasonable arcticle in Wikipedia then? And what is that "Transwiki" at all? Transwiki doesn't explain anything. --Omai Gohd (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving something from one wiki to another wiki. Ex: From Wikipedia to Wiktionary, Wiktionary to Wikinews. en.Wikipedia to de.Wikipedia… Like You Never Did See (talk)

re Hangul in Origins section
I am deleting a sentence in Origins section that says, "the prestige of Chinese writing is such that, even when the Hangul alphabet was devised for Korean, the shapes of the letters were designed to fit the square frames of Chinese calligraphy." The work cited (Florian Coulmas, The Writing Systems of the World) is not a primary source and hence is not an evidence. One may speculate, but King Sejong makes no mention of this in his rationale for Hangul design in Hunminjeongeum. Further, the existence (albeit rare) of lone consonants in pre-20th century Korean orthography, which do not fit in a syllabic block, contradicts the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.4.106 (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user advised to come to talk by Doric Loon
Here I am. From WP:V:

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

It's policy. I'm challenging the material tagged in my edit of 15:17, 10 December 2008. Please don't remove the tags without discussing it here beforehand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.23.8 (talk)

19th century split infinitive
In the section titled "Problems" (tagged as possibly containing original research), the following passage is to be found:

''When in the early 19th century, prescriptive use advised against the split infinitive, the main reason was that this construction was not in fact a frequent feature of the varieties of English favoured by those prescribing. Today it has become common in most varieties of English, and a prohibition is no longer sensible. However, the rule endured long after the justification for it had disappeared.''

This statement is most definitely wrong from wall to wall. Avoiding the split infinitive was not a variety of any form of English (eg. used in a certain region). As for it having to be of a variety "favoured by those prescribing", that is self-evident. But its reasons for practice, like all other preferences, had a basis. That principle was Latin, Latin's infinitive mood verb was formed by a single word and many English language architects that looked to Latin as an icon felt that the two parts to the infinitive should remain side by side - keeping some sort of affinity with Latin. Now whether or not a writer chooses to adhere to this phenomenon is his own choosing, but to say that "the rule endured long after the justification for it had disappeared" is utterly ridiculous. Justifications do not come and go like epidemics, it is either there or it isn't. One may rightly feel that the Germanic origin of English precludes it from the influence of a non-paternal language. But for a prescriptivist who maintains his inclination towards a Latin character, the "justification" is as relevant now as it had been centuries ago. Likewise, if the entire English language community rubbed their heads at the same time and all agreed that English owed nothing to the predecessor of Portuguese, then the rule would have perished with the justification; that is to say, one who insists on keeping the infinitive components together would only do so having the knowledge of why this needs to be so. Evlekis (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Evlekis, but that statement is most definitely correct from wall to wall - we have it thoroughly documented both here and (especially) on the split infinitive page. The justification for avoiding split infinitives never had anything to do with Latin. The justification was clearly stated by all the early commentators who advised against the split infinitive, namely that they saw it as an innovation which was not part of current standard English. The justification for avoiding it was that it was not normal. That justification has disappeared today, because it IS now normal.
 * Split infinitives are found in Middle English, but they all but disappeared in the Renaissance period, and re-emerged in the 18th century. The suggestion that they are not good style (serious commentators never put it more strongly than that) was entirely based on the observation that this new construction was not the useage which could be observed in the language that linguists of that period had learned as children or heard in polite society. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Doric Loon. I have read a number of books on the English language over the years and I was certain that Latin was the purpose. The books I have read have largely been written by descriptivists; but it could well be the case that these non-purists simply used the Latin argument to ridicule the presriptivists. I mean if it boiled down to it, I could easily return to my library and cite the authors who presented Latin as the reason. I am sure that the Latin argument was being used for a separate issue which was avoiding placing prepositions at the end of a clause or sentence, but I definitely read somewhere that it was a contributing factor to the split infinitive too; not that I disbelieve your sources or knowledge. Evlekis (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm quite sure you did read that. If you look on our Split Infinitive page you will find some pretty important commentators there who say this. But they never cite their sources. The people who argue AGAINST the split infinitive never use such an argument - or at least not unless you count some second rate blogs - and the only scholar who has really investigated the history of this says that the idea that Latin was used as an argument against the split infinitive is one of the myths of linguistics. I haven't looked as deeply into the preposition stranding (preposition at the end of a sentence) question, but my guess is that the Latin connection is a myth there too. BTW, don't be fooled by the descriptivist/prescriptivist opposition, which is also a bit of a myth. The best prescription is done by competent people describing what they see and then trying to teach it. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite so. It is very annoying that myths should infiltrate scientific study. The result is to produce all sorts of erroneous details. Fortunately here, I have found one of the citations which links SIs with Latin. The following is an excerpt from The Fight for English by Professor David Crystal, published in 2006.

Chapter 19 - Clarity Page 125 ''This was a rule which escaped Murray's attention. It didn't appear in grammar books until the nineteenth century. It was another example of Latin reasoning. The infinitive form of a verb is one which gives you just the basic form, without adding any endings to express such meanings as tense, person, and number. The verb is in its naked state, ready to take on any meaning you throw at it. It is not delimited in any way. As the Latin grammarians said, 'It has no finitude.' Hence the name: 'infinitive'. In English the infinitive is typicaly presented as two words: "to love", "to go". In Latin, an inflected language, there is just one: "ire", "amare".''


 * Crystal is certainly a reputable source that one can use on WP's language-related subjects. But here Crystal is not so much linking the SI with Latin as he is citing Lindley Murray to have done so in the nineteenth century (as is mentioned in lines prior to the exceprt). So it could all be a myth, but it is one which has been around for a long time!! :) Evlekis (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just came across this article. The article on split infinitive is useful, but the strawman language in this one seems to be unwarranted. Martin Cutts, in the Oxford Guide to Plain English, (published by the Oxford University Press), links the split infinitive, stating that it was in line with a movement by grammarians in the 19th century to transfer Latin rules to the English language, noting that in Latin, infinitives are unsplittable words, e.g., "amare, cantare, audire" (Cutts 111). Cutts also cites books from the 1800s, but makes the argument himself. I think the straw man wording is a bit too strong. Airborne84 (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mhazard9's edits
User Mhazard9 has done a fair bit of work here and some of it looks good. But you can't just delete whole sections without explanation. The section "sources" has been shortened to the point of taciturn incomprehensibility, and important points have been dropped. The section on "problems" has been lost altogether. I have had to revert these, though not the other edits, which seem useful. I realise that the article can't stand as it is: for example the Johnstone quote is in twice. But I don't have time to polish it. Mhazard9, please look at this again. You are welcome to rework this, but don't omit any of the information which is there, unless you bring it to the talk page first. BTW, you are wrong about Lowth - he never commented on the split infinitive. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Doric Loon:


 * Sorry about the inadvertent disrespect, but, the material is years old and obviously polemic, not objective. Still, might you refer me to your sources? I will read them, and work with you to integrate it to the entry.
 * Regarding Lowth, I obtained that datum from his entry. Is the entry wrong? Either way, I believe you. Let me know.


 * Best regards,
 * Mhazard9 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That misinformation about the split infinitive had been deleted from the Lowth entry - is it back? See split infinitive for the true story. No, I didn't feel your edits disrespectful, just too much of the new broom. You are welcome to work here and improve things. But does that material really come across as polemic? I'm not sure what agenda it would be polemizing for, because I thought it was quite balanced myself - the article as it stood addressed both the merits and demerits of prescription. Feel free to work on the tone. But I do want to keep for example the idea that something like the dislike of the split infinitive is originally a fair rule of thumb based on good descriptive observation and later becomes inappropriate because the language has changed faster than the prescriptive tradition can keep up with. I think the point is very important that prescriptivists rarely invent new forms - they prescribe what they think is the best existing usage, and thus prescription draws from descriptive analysis, though not necessarily from a modern scientific method. The exceptions are political correctness and euphemisms, the rare cases where prescription actually tries to change the language to something new. The idea that prescription is based on Latin is a bit of a myth which ought to be debunked here. Not that it could never happen, but it's not common enough to be a real issue. I did a lot of work on this article once, but I don't really have time now. So I'm happy to let you take it forward, but please do discuss before you cut points out. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

plagerism
http://books.google.com/books?id=aQtzkQUaHbcC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=%22forcing+the+English+under+the+rules+of+a+foreign+Language%22.&source=bl&ots=BhewhwYnXb&sig=8J7AQxqka4aPQ6912vTEYDEKGt0&hl=en&ei=a-2aTuDoI-TWiAKw1_zGDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22forcing%20the%20English%20under%20the%20rules%20of%20a%20foreign%20Language%22.&f=false Understanding language change By April M. S. McMahon ""It is sometimes claimed that in centuries past, English prescription was based on the norms of Latin grammar, but this is doubtful. Robert Lowth is frequently cited as one who did this, but, in fact, he specifically condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language".[10] It is true that analogies with Latin were sometimes used as substantiating arguments, but only when the forms being thus defended were in any case the norm in the prestige form of English."" entire paragraphs seem to be lifted, if not more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.179.97 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotation in McArthur (1992) reference
Moving the discussion here from my talk, so anybody can chip in:


 * I don't want to just revert you again, but what you have done there doesn't make any sense. It is not just that the quote tag produced a surreal result. My objection to the quote template was not that it appeared in a footnote, but that it should only be used for highlighting a particularly important quote in the middle of a paragraph of text - which COULD sometimes occur in a footnote, but doesn't here. But quite apart from the quote template, your quote itself doesn't make sense. A quote has to illustrate what is being said, and it should be obvious to the reader what you want to communicate by quoting it. This is just a fragment of something - looks like a section heading - which doesn't seem to me to add anything to anybody's understanding, and I can't see why it is there at all. If all you want is a reference for the information in the text, you should stop at the page number. If you want to add a quote which tells us something, you have to give enough context that the reader has some benefit from it. At present your quote just says "Contrasting terms in linguistics", which makes no sense. Which terms is it that you want to show us are contrasting? Which terms does the source say are contrasting? What is it all about? Apart from that, the word "quotation" should not appear here. Just quote marks are enough. As for the entry heading "Descriptivism and prescriptivism", this should come before the page number, and the words "entry for" are then not required. Please fix this quickly, or if you are unsure, put an explanation here of what you want to achieve. Otherwise I will revert again. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time to address this right now.--Sum (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is one craptastic article
I removed or rewrote the worst of it, e.g. the "some would argue"'s and "most people think"'s and stuff that just seemed to be patent nonsense. Lots of sentences appeared to have been cut up and put back together a bunch of times and just weren't meaningful in any sense.

If I didn't already know the general state of linguistics articles on wikipedia, I'd be seriously surprised at how terrible this article is. My additions/revisions aren't by any means great, but the stuff I was replacing wasn't even coherent. I'll be looking at this again in some days and probably making more changes then. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article could certainly use continued improvement, but I think you owe a little more courtesy to those who have worked on it. Words like "crappy" are completely out of place. If you read further up this talk page you will see that the article has been praised as finally, finally, giving a balanced view on a topic where most commentators are almost emotionally on one side or the other.
 * The stuff you have altered stylistically was not incoherent. You have changed somebody else's style to your style - a nice example of a prescriptivist at work.
 * I don't want to revert all of this, but I have to revert some of it, and I'm afraid I don't have time to go through carefully enough to judge exactly what should be kept. But the head of an article on prescription certainly should not contain such a long account of what linguistics is about. That's like having an article on Catholicism which says Catholicism should be contrasted with Protestantism and then gives more information on the latter than the former. We need to say briefly that prescription must be contrasted with description, cross-reference to where readers can find out about that, and leave it there. If you have more to say about linguistic method, please put it into the article Linguistic description. And by the way, the contrast between what language "should" be like and what in practice language "is" like is EXACTLY the difference between prescriptive and descriptive thinking - you would have to explain why you deride that.
 * What bothers me most about your edits is that they appear to have an agenda. Please discuss that here before you pursue that any further. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Length: Unsurprised
Much longer than the article. Is even any one here at all shockedd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of RFC
Talk:Common_English_usage_misconceptions

Please help improve this related article. Comments should be placed at that Talk page rather than here.

Problematic sourcing re: split infinitves
Doric Loon has added dubious sourcing to dubious statements regarding the split infinitive. Some of the issues that have to be dealt with:
 * The source is from 1834, yet is used to say "the main motivation was that this construction was not in fact a frequent feature of the varieties of English favoured by those prescribing". Such a source comes long before the widespread adoption of the prescription and cannot possibly be used to assert such a fact.  At best, this is WP:SYNTHESIS, but it looks more like pure WP:OR to me.
 * Is there a source that says scholarly consensus that dialect differences led to the adoption of the prescription? An awful lot of sources assert the influence was Latin or something (such arguemnts were made in the 19th century, as the split infinitive article tells us).  If scholars don't agree, then Wikipedia cannot assert it's so.
 *  Today the construction has become common in most varieties of English, and a prohibition is no longer supported by observation. However, the rule endured long after the justification for it had disappeared. —this suggests the widespread use of the split inifinitve is a recent phenomenon.  Dubious to say the least, and uncited.  As the split infinitive article demonstrates, objections to the prescription were there from the beginning.
 * In this way, prescription can appear antithetical to natural language evolution—extreme POV, given how long the split infinitive had been in the language by the time the prescription was introduced (since Middle English). Suggesting the prescription was "conservative" is plain absurd.
 * The split inifintive is a great example of linguistic prescription. They way it's presented here is awful in every way.  What should we do? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for coming to talk page - the reverting was beginning to look silly. I actually think this discussion might be better on the split infinitive talk page, since that's where this is all explained fully. It is quite OK for this article to say something with minimal cites if we are cross-referencing to a specialized page where the thing is dealt with properly. However, I'll try to answer your points here.
 * These sources are not dubious - they are legitimate historical sources. We can argue about what they say, but I take it you are not really questioning that they are genuine.
 * The dubiousness is in the usage— a single primary source to cite the following general statement: "When in the early 19th century, prescriptive use advised against the split infinitive, the main motivation was that this construction was not in fact a frequent feature of the varieties of English favoured by those prescribing". You're saying a source from 1834 can tell us about the "main motivation" of adopters of the prescription later in the century?  Most of whom did not even know the source existed?  If you are going to tell the reader that this was the "main motivation" in general, then you must provide a source that says that this was the "main motivation" in general, not a single, obscure anonymous source that was published before the fact. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the article which is at issue says When in the early 19th century, prescriptive use advised against the split infinitive, the main motivation was that this construction was not in fact a frequent feature of the varieties of English favoured by those prescribing. (It might be more precise to say "prescriptive use first advised" - that's what's meant.) Actually I would have thought that was fairly obvious, but Wikipedia doesn't say a thing because I think is obvious, so I'll try to demonstrate it.
 * So, who first advised against the split infinitive? It was the anonymous 1834 text. Who first made a widely influential statement against the split infinitive? It was Alford. Both of them gave their reasons. And those reasons were that infinitives were not in fact split in the English language as these writers knew it. This is fully cited in the other place.
 * As you know, virtually none of the grammarians of the 19th who prescribed against the split infinitive appear to have been aware of the 1834 text. Nor was it the first.  Nor did said grammarians generally make the 1834 text's argument. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dialects are not mentioned in this paragraph. I presume by that you mean the bit about "varieties". The Alford quote specifically says that the English "of the best writers" which he champions does not have split infinitives, whereas the English of his correspondent does. That is adequate as proof that he (and actually all old-school grammarians) were aware that alongside the English he regarded as prestige English there was another less prestigious one which he disapproved of.
 * The split infinitive was fairly new at the time. If you read the article again, you'll see that although it was found in Middle English, it disappeared, and then reappeared in modern times. The modern construction is different form the medieval one (the examples cited from Laymon and Wycliff would not work in the same way in Modern English) and it has not been demonstrated that there is any continuity between the Middle English and Modern English constructions. So for Alford and co. it was a novelty. However, that's not relevant here since the paragraph we're discussing doesn't mention the age of the construction.
 * You know that it didn't "disappear"—it became relatively infrequent, and then reasserted itself in the 18th century. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Throughout the 19th and 20th century, the split infinitive has experienced a surge of popularity. The split infinitive article gives good citations for its growth.
 * The Latin thing is a red herring. The split infinitive article gives the best possible sources that it is "part of the folklore of linguistics". Besides, it is not mentioned in the paragraph we are discussing.
 * It also gives 19th-century sources making just such arguments, so it cannot be swept under the rug—especially if you are going to insist this all stemmed from an 1834 text that nobody knew about. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason this example is important here is this: nobody invents a prescriptive rule out of nowhere. They look at their own language use, formulate principles to explain what they are doing, and try to teach with those. Prescriptive dogmatism then develops when these perfectly appropriate attempts by teachers to explain what is going on in the language become fossilized and end up as dogmas. I can think of no better example of this than the split infinitive.
 * I realise that there is a lot of misinformation around on this topic, but when you dig into it, you find that what this paragraph says is exactly right, and it is useful to have it here to show how prescription actually evolves. You are right that it is a great example of prescription, and that is why it has to be shown in proper historical contexts. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This seems to cover it.  Although I do agree that the discussion would be more appropriate at the parent article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't cover it at all. The 1834 source was virtually unknown in the 19th century—it's discovery as a "precedent" is recent, and played no role in the adoption of the prescription (and the precedence has since been superseded by the discovery of John Comly's English Grammar of 1803).  The sourcing is totally inappropriate and does not represent a demonstrated consensus of scholars—this WP:OR cannot stand. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Then I would suggest mooting the argument at the parent article where you are likely to find editors more familiar with the history of the split infinitive than here. If you reach consensus there then it should be fairly uncontroversial to apply that consensus here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Curly Turkey, can I ask you not to answer my comments between the lines of my comments? That makes it really difficult for me (let alone anyone else) to see who wrote what, and it means your points are likely to be lost in the jungle of words.
 * Maybe the problem is with the way this sentence is written. I thought it was clear, but if it's not, we need to re-write it. It is talking about why the people who first invented this rule did so. In the first instance, that is the 1834 author. But you are right that he wasn't widely read. This is why I have also cited Alford, who is the first person to say it AND be widely read. All the major 19th-century writers who later commented on this (whether pro or contra) knew Alford and drew from him. 1834 + Alford = the originators of the rule. And they both say the same thing about their reasons; and in fact Alford says it more clearly. The point we are trying to make in this article is purely that what for them was a workable argument (they just didn't know split infinitives, it wasn't in their language) is not a workable argument today. I would have thought we could agree on that. If you want to discuss any of the rest, then yes, discuss it at the other article where it has been written up so well.
 * I'm over 50 years old, so I am now hearing innovations in the English language which were never part of my language, and I'm too old to assimilate them easily. So every time I hear them, they stand out for me as slightly ... different. Since I am a linguist and comfortable with language change, I wouldn't dream of saying these innovations are "wrong", but I do find myself smiling at them. And when my students in my EFL class ask if they should use these things, I tell them that it's maybe too early to be using them in formal writing. Let's suppose that one of my students becomes a teacher and repeats what his old professor said, but does it with slightly less nuance, and it comes out as "that's not good English". THAT is how inappropriate prescription often begins. And that is what we really need to have described in this article, where it's all about the origins of prescription. One of those possible origins (probably the most fequent one) is conservative tastes becoming fossilized. But my personal stories won't do for Wikipedia. The split infinitive on the other hand is a wonderful example of it, where each step of the history is so beautifully documented. That is why I think this belongs here just as it is. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to be getting the point about the sourcing. Both 1834 and Alford are before the fact—they cannot be used to show that the prescription was adopted because of differences in varieties of English—they can't even be accepted as reliable observers of their own varieties of English.  I worked with a guy who insisted the singular they was an unnatural aberration that he had never used and would never imagine using—the next day he caught himself using it in an email.  This is one reason Wikipedia requires reliable third-party sources to back up the text, and primary sources like the ones you've cited can be used only under special circumstances. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, no, you're missing the point: this paragraph doesn't say that later participants in the debate restricted themselves to the original arguments. It only speaks about the first origins. (I'll add a couple of words to the paragraph to make that clearer, in case that is the sticking point.) Since it is talking about them, not later people they influenced, they are not "before the fact" - they are the fact. It also doesn't say that Alford and "P" (the 1834 anonymous) were reliable observers of anything. It only makes a very modest claim, namely that the first people to speak against split infinitives said that they had observed their own usage, didn't find this construction, and advised against it for that reason. Look I don't have time to go back to the library now, but when we wrote the split infinitive article we went through this and spent a lot of time on it, and there are third-party cites on that page as well as these excellent primary sources. But primary sources are absolutely citable, and when we are talking about what Alford said, citing him as the primary source is preferable to citing some book that cites him. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * primary sources are absolutely citable—but never, ever in the way you've done here. I really don't undestand where you're not understanding this.  The claim is not "modest", it is WP:OR—it is claiming "The prescriptive rule was based on a descriptive observation", which is not backed up in a way Wikipedia requires, nor is 1834 the first to advise it, as the text claims—see where this OR gets us? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have an earlier source than 1834? If so, please bring it to the Split Infinitive talk page - I'm not the only one who would be really interested in that. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * John Comly's English grammar, made easy to the teacher and pupil, originally published in 1803 (here's an 1823 edition) as cited here. But the point isn't abut finding earlier precendents—this isn't the split infinitive article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Comly is great! That's very interesting, thank you. You see, now you're making useful contributions. If you hadn't started by being abusive ("dung"!) this conversation could have been helpful from the start. OK, nothing can be done here till a consensus on your new information is reached at the Split infinitive article, so let's migrate discussions there. And meanwhile, leave this as it is.--Doric Loon (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that again you're missing the point. This is not about precedence. This is about making claims not supported by the sources. We cannot make comment on the reasons for the widespread prescription based on sources that came decades (even generations) before the prescription won acceptance. Nothing that happens on that article's talk page will change that fact here. The problem is on this page. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Linguistic description which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Untitled September 2016
Descriptive as opposed to prescriptive oppose my common sense. And science, too. Logic! I could go on. I wonder if something like this:

Although often seen as contradictive, the prescriptive and descriptive efforts joint together allow to understand the complexity of language studies. The normative regulatory body must be aware of natural language patterns. Structured and normalized, patterns can be studied and categorized by descriptive frameworks.

would be any improvement.

And:

Prescriptive approaches to language are often contrasted with descriptive linguistics, which observes and records how language actually is 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.

Errors like sampling, bias, interpretation etc are natural to scientific method, if there is an article on this, readability could use linking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikitty (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linguistic prescription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041021073001/http://wiki.oxus.net/Language_Police to http://wiki.oxus.net/Language_Police

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Cross-language effects (draft)
Right after the material on government bureaucracy, and the historical example of Ptolemaic Egypt, is an ideal place to insert something along these lines:

"Action by nation-states and their precursors, and by religious institutions (when these have been distinct from governments) has often had a prescriptive effect that transcends linguistic barriers, to impose the language or writing system of the dominant group on subordinate ones. The Roman Empire's spread of Latin, even before the Christian period, served a similar function to Ancient Egypt's linguistic preservative tradition, but went further, and over time caused the extinction of many other languages (though the empire's dissolution, and thus the loss of a centralized authority, later gave rise to the distinct Romance languages from Vulgar Latin). Genghis Khan, in the late 11th through early 12th centuries, similarly and vigorously pursued a standardized written language across multiple spoken languages throughout the Mongol Empire, an effort that was integral to maintaining power across such a wide area. The European powers of the colonial era similarly spread English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, and Portuguese across their maritime empires, while Russia and the later Soviet Union imposed Russian from Eastern Europe to its holdings in northeastern Asia, driving many native Asian languages extinct. The Indian schools system in the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries had the same effect on many then-surviving Native American languages.

Well into the 20th century, a particular type of prescriptivism – in favor of a common writing system as 'better' or destined for universality – has attempted, often successfully, to impose a transcription system (most often Romanization) on native speakers of another language with a different form of writing. This most often happens in circumstances in which native literacy is low, a colonial relationship (or its vestiges) exists between the imposers of the change and the native population, and a colonial or post-colonial authority controls education in the area. Thus, for example, Vietnamese has two writing systems, with the France-imposed Romanized orthography dominating.

The same sort of social stratification relationships seen between groups and their usage of a particular style of spoken language can also be seen between choice of writing systems, and choice of languages in areas with more than one vying for dominance."

Just needs source research. This is very basic and summarizing, but gets the gist across. We probably already have material in various articles with sources on most or all of this. I have too much on my plate for this right now, but these bits may inspire someone else to work on this or something like it. There's little operational difference between "my language, or system for writing the one we share, is better than yours" and "my style of speaking or writing our language is better than yours"; they come from the same motivations and have similar social consequences. Other examples could be included (e.g. the UK, France, and Spain taking efforts within living memory to try to stamp out minority languages, and the very recent reversal of these trends in some places, such as increased use of Welsh). But a pile of examples is less important than the core of the material. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

all about clarity of communication
This is the single most massive Talk discussion I have encountered. More dismaying, it is erudite and informed, to the point I find it more interesting than the main article. Still, the article is problematic, and that's why I'm Discussing. Most specifically, I have to take on the way that "prescription" is painted as a means to oppression and thought-control, and how perpetual pursuit of this threat (largely imaginary) gets in the way of crafting a reasonable article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a disingenuous comment. You didn't "encounter" a "massive talk discussion", you attempted to manufacture one by posting a ranty WP:Wall of text in section after section, to which most people don't care to respond, other than critically here and there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

the article
Begin with the fundamentals: the article title. Isn't Wikipedia largely an example of "prescription"? (So, of course, any reference work, and moreso back when shared references had to be printed on paper.) How can someone determine whether any given reference source is reliable or even useful?

On to the abstract. Should there be some multiplication of terms, say prescription vs. prescriptivism, the action against the belief? Potentially clarifying, or further muddying?

Specifically, this article ought be focused on the NORMATIVE PRACTICES, as is stated at the beginning. All distaff elements should be briefly glossed, and shipped off to other articles -- to name a few: political correctness, hate speech, defamation, trolling.

In my lay opinion, the purpose of having a common center of verbiage and usage is most assuredly NOT to "lock down" the language, but to ensure that there is a sort of "floating island" of commonality, which does shift slowly over time, and from which users are free to diverge but always free to return to that calm center. None of us is in any way prevented from being Humpty Dumpty and expecting that every word can mean whatever we choose, but any two people who feel a need to actually communicate will quickly find some way of setting that petty Individualism nonsense aside. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"authority" & Spanglish
Under Authority, there is not enough emphasis on the cited "prescriptive bodies" as not having some sort of police powers to enforce their concretized findings. It's my impression (at least) that such bodies wield only the authority they are implicitly granted by people who desire clarity; if they have feet of clay in a shifting world, they quickly evaporate.

Uncritical imposition of that list shapes the thinking of those who refer to this article. For instance, glancing at the "Spanish" entry, there's the claim that one group somehow establishes "standard Spanish in 21 countries" which I'm moderately certain is nonsense. Does anyone else remember Mitt Romney's on-air gaffe in 2012? Ask for a "papaya" in any Dade County (Florida) neighborhood, and you may get slapped, or worse -- it's the common Cuban term for female genitalia. You'd order fruta bomba. Various Spanish-speaking countries, regions, and dialects have those quirks, and the concept "standard Spanish" takeson water.

My recollection is that the Real Academia has publicly decried the "dilution" of the Spanish language, particularly the accretion of loanwords rather than adherence to "proper" language -- e.g., demanding use of "baloncesto" (basketball) or "ordenador" (computer). Technology and communication are expanding much faster than any "language standardization committee" could possibly keep up with.

No contrasting mention is made of the collection and study of Spanglish verbiage and grammar. As with much (most?) English spoken in the United States, Spanglish is common usage (which some will therefore damn as vulgar). But there are plenty of examples of de facto "standard" Spanglish (as opposed to de jure), and the dialect has received much scholarly attention, so oughtn't some authority be cited? Back around 2000 there was a Texas university with a program observing the dialect, and certainly that'd help balance the efforts of Real Academia. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously you don't understand how the Real Academia works. They like to pretend that their mission is to avoid foreign influences in Spanish, but their true role has always been to put the mark of incorrection on many common uses of Spanish speakers, and then they manage to cajole most of the population into believing that the Academia's style choices are based on science and are therefore beyond any subjectivity. Because English speakers don't have to deal with anything like that, they fail to grasp what's going on in other languages, and particularly in Spanish. --Jotamar (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus, there are other more overt classism/imperialism things going on. I remember reading over a decade ago some scholarly material on the history of the Academia in imposing accent marks in written Spanish (which are essentially unnecessary, given the regularity of the language and the near impossibility of homophones or homographs being confused, due to contextual cues), specifically with a goal of making nuanced literacy in Spanish more difficult, and giving a means of branding colonial and other "unofficial" Spanish written material as substandard. (See also the jingoistic habit in the Spanish of Spain and many Latin American countries to refer to minority languages in Spanish-dominated lands as solo dialectos, 'just dialects', i.e. not real languages.) I've heard similar classism/imperialism complaints aimed at the Academie française (and cf. attempts to stamp out the Breton language and culture, well into living memory). A bit more dissimilarly, but still worthy of note: the Irish body responsible in the 20th c. for simplifying Irish orthography, creating [and imposing] Irish-language teaching curricula, and issuing booklets of new terminology has been accused of essentially creating a mangled pseudo-language that is dumbed down for mandatory school-child instruction (even in populations, as in Dublin and other eastern Irish cities where no one uses it) for nationalistic political reasons.  It's simultaneously amusing and saddening that these efforts have been grotesquely self-contradictory and even self-antithetical in various ways.  E.g., the average semi-fluent reader of modernized Irish has a great deal of difficulty understanding classic works in proper Irish of the 19th century and earlier (even when rendered in a modern Latin typeface rather than Gaelic type), because the government changed too much of the orthography to be more "phonetic" at the cost of obscuring the morphology. Urban Irish people, outside the Gaeltachtaí, are outright resentful of the "Irish" instruction forced on them, and frequently not only refuse to use [what has become of] the language but even mock it as some combination old grandparent crap and tedious government propaganda. Meanwhile, the efforts to introduce (for those who'll actually use it) more newly minted terminology for computing, etc., is overrun with clumsy and farcical quasi-Irishisations of English words, rather than being constructed cognates using Irish roots (classic example: compudair for 'computer'), eroding both the internal integrity/cohesion of the language, and making more and more of it look like laughable eye dialect English in a stereotypical "Paddy" accent. (Some efforts have been made to undo this, like introducing or re-introducing ríomhaire for 'computer', and so on, though I have not tracked the progress of this stuff in over 20 years.)  This is just scratching the surface.  There are so many things like this that have been going on, sometimes with far more politicized and nefarious goals. A good example of that would be Soviet and later Russian/CIS orthography shenanigans, like intentionally imposing conflicting Cyrillic and Latin-based alphabets on neighboring predominantly Turkic oblasts with the specific goal of making it difficult for ideas (especially socio-political ones) to spread among the "non-White Russians"; this has been reinforced by periodically altering the official orthography in various of these places to further impede literacy beyond the basic level needed for worker productivity, to make it difficult for a rich inter-generational transfer of ideas and knowledge, and to further complicate any efforts at pan-Turkic unity within Russian-controlled or -influenced territories.  And there's so much more.  An entire academic journal could be devoted to this sort of stuff (and worse, like intentional attempts to stamp out minority languages and the eroded but still lingering cultures they represent).  I'd be half-way surprised if there isn't such a journal already, though I don't presently have an avenue for full-text journal searching (I forgot to seek renewal via WP:LIBRARY).

actual examples of prescription
I find no discussion of attempts at standardization of "simple" (or "simplified") versions of a language -- which oversight is bizarre considering the proximity of the Simple English Wikipedia -- but even the obviousness of Ogden's Basic English is ignored, let alone Special English. Is this a result of mere ignorance, or yet another anti-PC witchhunt? (Is there a third possible answer?)

I must agree with a previous statement that routing grammar Nazi here makes no sense. Use of the term, as with calling something "politically correct," is assuredly NOT a "criticism" (which kinda implies logical discourse) but at best a counterattack, a fnord used to silence an uncomfortable opinion. The Criticisms section in general is larded with weasel words that aren't attributed, therefore original research. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

momentary coda
IMO, prescriptivism only becomes "wrong" when it's a means (or perhaps a justification) to impose prejudices upon observation. In that sense (alone?) it is anti-scientific. Yet, how are we to explore without using the tools we have at hand, however primitive? To do otherwise, to fall into a sort of analysis paralysis and halt all attempts at observation until the perfect tools magically appear, is fundamentally anti-science.

"In the past, prescription was used consciously as a political tool." Thank heavens we're so much more enlightened nowadays, eh? Such a conclusive statement seems to deny further discussion; unsurprisingly, it's unattributed.

As Doric Loon so aptly said, "the anti-prescriptivist crusade...is a way of avoiding the complexity of questions which have no simple answer." Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I moderated the article's "political" material that you quoted (and what followed it) a bit.  I'm not sure the cognitive dissonance problem you're identifying is real – here or in linguistics. No actual linguists seem to be suffering from it.  They know that their job is to describe actual usage, and to describe differences in usage.  Doing the latter well automatically identifies what the socially "preferred" usage is, and does it better than a style guide, by doing it within different registers, communities, and regions of usage. The people actually suffering brain meltdowns appear to only be actual style guide authors, and only some of them. The latest editions of both Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage and New Hart's Rules, under new editorship right around the same time, both show concrete evidence of this problem.  They are written by non-linguists and attempting to integrate some attempt at linguistic description, but clumsily and piecemeal. They are the ones availing themselves of "a way of avoiding the complexity of questions which have no simple answer", and doing so very literally. The results are that they often actually fail as style guides and conclude (impractically) that there really is no advice to offer and that people should do whatever they want. In a few places, each work (the two major UK style guides) directly contradicts itself, and they both frequently contradict each other, yet while also citing each other as authorities. (I predict that if either work gets a new edition at all that these issues will be rectified, but people are already turning back to the previous editions which did not suffer these problems.)  They've arrived at this mess because they're failing to do the second half of the analysis. They are not recognizing the distinctions between "high academic" writing, the fairly academic writing of non-fiction books for the general public, news journalism writing, technical writing, less-formal-than-news entertainment industry writing, marketing and business communication, and other registers/genres.  Where the editors of these works misperceive a swirl of total chaos, there are actually multiple but fairly tight systems of usage that conflict with each other but not very much within each one.  In the end, this not a problem with descriptivism at all, it's a problem of poor research and editing, and of misapplication of descriptivism, or an application of "descriptivism misunderstood", however you like to look at it.  The very purpose of a style guide is to be prescriptivist, within limits, with good reasons (clarity being the main one), and cognizant of different styles for different audiences (or different communicative purposes).  Where a style guide fails to do this, it is not a style guide and has wandered off into some kind of confused rumination.  Things can go too far the other direction, though.  The Chicago Manual of Style is notoriously "preservative" of obsolescent usage, and of fudging or avoiding observable usage facts (about professional publishing, not slang) in order to maintain a "rule" that its editors just lurrrve but which is out of step with where the world is going.  Several house style guides also suffer this problem (e.g. that of The New York Times).  Meanwhile, while several others (mostly British journalism ones) have the related almost opposite-looking problem of serving as advocates of language change (that they're in a position to try to force by publishing under their own pseudo-norms) that do not match general-public or higher-register publishing either.  This is kind of a "prescriptivism for the sake of inventing a style" thing, the details of which are observably motivated by two factors: desire for maximum compression even at the expense of clarity, and desire to be different, as a branding mechanism.  Another problem in many of these works as a class is making nationalistic assertions about "American English" and "British English" that no linguist would actually agree with, because they're actually observations of norms of particular publishing spheres, not dialects, and they only happen to sometimes loosely follow geographic distributions, which are rapidly breaking down (with the Internet, with, e.g., Oxford University Press selling an order of magnitude more books in the US than in the UK, and many other factors).  But falsely nationalizing sells more books, so some of them, including Hart's, Chicago, and Garner's, among others, keep doing it.

now needs significant pruning
In one way, this is a lovely piece: a good, often lively read, and incidentally informative.

…by which I mean that it is becoming a sort of group-collaborative essay, rather verbose for an encyclopedic article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)