Descriptive Grammar Vs Prescriptive Grammar

Author Bryan A. Garner, in his article “Making Peace in the Language Wars” (published in Garner’s Modern American Usage 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2009), seeks to negotiate a cease-fire between two fighting countries, the prescriptivists and the descriptivists, by dispelling myths about each of their camps. First and foremost, Garner outlines the war is happening between the lines of our favorite novels and poetry, and he describes what each camp stands for. Prescriptivists desire to instruct the world around them on how to use the language by enforcing, or at the very least informing the general public about the rules of grammar. They are sometimes described as conservative and are very concerned

“Authority and American Usage” written by David Foster Wallace, poses an argument about the English language, and the different beliefs of its usage. This essay was written in defense of Bryan A. Garner’s, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. His argument in “Authority and American Usage” is the difference the between prescriptivism perception and the descriptivism perception (Linguistic terms that could easily be made into smaller, more understandable words for people like me). Since the beginning of time, language has evolved. From biblical times, to Shakespearean times, to present day; the English language has been continuously changing since it’s birth and has no intentions on stopping.

“Others among you, perhaps fewer in number, will say to yourselves: quite so, there is such a thing as Standard English, or purity of speech, or correctness of expression- something worth safeguarding and fostering; but how the devil is one to accomplish that under the prevailing conditions: in a democratic society full of minorities that have their own dialects or linguistic preferences, and in a world in which television, advertising, and other mass media manage daily to corrupt the language

This book was revolutionary not only because it sought to "Americanize" the classroom, but because of the tone of the book. Most previous grammars were prescriptive, meaning that they informed the student how the words should be spoken or spelled. The "Blue-Backed Speller," on the other hand, was a descriptive work, meaning that it merely showed how words were actually used and pronounced by real speakers of the language (Millward 245).

Grammar is and has been a big deal in American society. It’s so big that we are require to take English classes all four years of high school. What’s the point of grammar if things are always changing and developing in English? The point is to not look illiterate and when a person goes college or decides to join the work force. In the book “I Won’t Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar”, the author Kyle Wiens states, “After all, grammar has nothing to do with job performance… right? Wrong. If it takes someone more than 20 years to notice how to properly use “it’s” then that’s not a learning curve I’m comfortable with.” (Wiens, 500) I personally agree with Mr. Wiens when he stated that comment. When you have a business and your trying to be successful and every aspect then its right to also be grammar savvy as well. The only thing I think is to extreme is the

Standard American dialect is necessary in academic writing for three key reasons. First, the ability to use standard American dialect is a skill that people living in America should obtain because it is the most spoken and written language across the country. Having the knowledge to use standard American dialect will be helpful in many different situations, such as in the classroom and business world. In addition, being able to write using this dialect, will guide in writing a stronger, clearer paper, as well as ensuring unity between all academic writing. I disagree with the following statement from “Students’ Right to Their Own Language”: “We affirm strongly that teachers must have the experiences and training that will enable them to respect diversity and uphold the right of students to their own language” (3). Teachers should not have to go through an immense amount of training

choice to use proper grammar was not encouraged, society has become less aware. The use of

While reading chapter six from Beyond Grammar Language, Power, and the Classroom, written by Mary R. Harmon and Marilyn J. Wilson, I began to realize how much we become caught up in the rules of the so-called Standard American English. It is sad because people are being judged on their dialect, which is a representation of who people are and where they are from. I have found myself correcting people that have a different dialect, or correcting people that say words that I have been told were not proper language, such as the word ain’t. Standard American English is something that is embedded in our brains at a young age and as we go through school; language is something teachers are constantly correcting children on. Reading about dialect has

Shakespere's time is different than ours in two ways. The grammar is one of them. In his time, they didn't care as much of grammar as they do now. Shakespere's language was called "old english" according to the article "Shakespere: words, words, words" by the Utah Shakespere Company. They also said that most grammatical changes from old and middle english had taken place; yet rigid notions about "correctness" had not yet been standardized in grammars. In shakespere's time they really didn't care about grammar or pronunciation like we do.

School has always been a place of business, in my opinion. A place where we are educated and prepared for life, essentially. And the proper way of doing so, as I believe most people have been taught, is to enhance all skills such as vocabulary, grammar, mathematics, etc... This is why we are taught so many subjects, being tested and guided to follow whichever path we feel most comfortable or skilled at doing. During the process, is where skills are established and developed. The product that is intended after having gone through school is to shape a well skilled, educated, and productive person that can benefit society as a whole. In limiting the teaching of Standard American English, we would be limiting the amount of people that can fulfill their potential, raise the difficulty for teachers, and accept mediocrity. In keeping this dialect, students will gain new skills and learn the language of business to prepare them for any encounters along the way. There is no need, in my eyes, to minimize or put an extent to teaching the English dialect and that is what I will personally support in this essay.

George Orwell states that, “our civilization is decadent and our language…must inevitably share in the general collapse” (Orwell 2000, 1), when he argues for prescriptivism (though toned down from what was taught and accepted in his day). While Garner posits that, “describers, meanwhile, remind us that linguistic change is a fact of life – and conclude that it’s therefore not worth opposing” (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 272). When David Foster Wallace discusses descriptivism, he makes a historical reference to, “Philip Gove’s now classic introduction to Webster’s Third [which] outlines this type of Descriptivism’s five basic edicts: ‘1 – Language changes constantly; 2 – change is normal; 3 – spoken language is the language; 4 – correctness rests upon usage; 5 – All usage is relative.’” (Wallace 2005, 83). Wallace himself argues against most of these edicts, proving himself to uphold his snootitude. Bryan A. Garner creates a list similar to that of Gove’s, while addressing the argument that “learning grammar may seem like an exercise in pedantry,” which is a point argued by many descriptivists:

Since there do exist different English varieties it is clear that the most important are the American English and the British English, which are quietly different yet so connected with each other. Generally, it is agreed that no one version is "correct" however, there are certainly preferences in use. However, there are a lot of grammatical differences between these two, which sometimes cannot be identified by English speaking peoples unless they are very meticulous or linguistics to understand them, but also the native speaker of both these varieties can easily detect these grammar differences. They are present in pronunciation differences in both consonants and vowels, in intonation and word stressing; also differences are in vocabulary, in verbs, nouns, phrasal verbs and also using names of items or tools. The main difference can be seen in spelling where a general difference is in the usage of prefix and suffix. Also differences are seen in the use of auxiliary verbs, past tense verbs, tag questions etc… So the British and American English have more similarities than

Talking about “dialects”, a term often mentioned along is “standard language”. When being brought into comparison with “dialect”, “standard language” usually serves as a legitimate variant with the highest level of excellence (Bex & Watts, 1999). Though positive in nature, standardization - the procedure of standardizing a language – often raises heated controversy because of its consequences on not only linguistics field but also the society. In the second part of the essay, I will focus on the disadvantages of language standardization.

Specialists in descriptive grammar (linguists) examine the principles and patterns that underlie the use of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. In contrast, prescriptive

He seeks to find underlying similarities across these “distinct” languages, to construct a general theory of a singular language. However, it seems as though he cannot be scientifically vindicated without the groundwork being laid down by many of the authors that he is critical of. Thus, it is particularly interesting that Chomsky seems to be so at odds with the idea of descriptivism. When Chomsky says, “Grammar should not be merely a record of the data of usage, but, rather, should offer an explanation for such data,” (587) he is acknowledging the usefulness, presumably to his own theories, of descriptive linguistics. He in fact recognizes the debt he owes when he says, “To me, it seems that [structural linguistics'] major achievement is to have provided a factual and a methodological basis that makes it possible to return to the problems that occupied the traditional universal grammarians...” (590) But he goes on to say, “On the other hand, it seems to me that the substantive contributions to the theory of language structure are few, and that, to a large extent, the concepts of modern linguistics constitute a retrogression as compared with universal grammar.” (590) Where the descriptivists see an end, Chomsky sees only the means, and is somewhat dismissive of them.