Descriptive or Prescriptive grammar? - Page 2

riverkid · #11 (**permalink**) 10-Sep-2006, 02:13

Casiopea:
Quite interesting since that's the exact argument traditionalists have in the past used against descriptive grammars.

The traditionalists were wrong then and they're wrong now, Casi.

The thing is, both camps are housed with rules; both have something worthwhile to offer. Why choose just the one?

The difference is, Descriptive grammars describe the real rules, the ones that accurately portray how language works. Prescriptive grammars that prescribe have nothing to offer save for misconceptions about language.

It's so clear, I sometimes wonder aloud how people can miss it. When you describe language accurately, you have Descriptivism, and the essence of science. When you prescribe, you have the very antithesis of science, opinions generating decisions.

Many people get the wrong idea about descriptivism. They think that it allows a free for all wrt language. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many also mistakely think that Prescriptivism guards the rules of English. Prescriptivism holds to such a simplistic view of language that it is not at all surprising that so much of it is wrong.

No doubt, prescriptivists get some things right and in this, they too have something to offer. But when they get something right, they are simply being descriptive, so why would anyone want to waste their time with a prescriptive grammar. Why plow through a "Fowler", trying to sort out the trash from the good stuff?

The Language Works · #12 (**permalink**) 17-Nov-2006, 05:09

In terms of curriculum development, this topic is an endless one. Arguably, descriptive grammar is constantly challenging prescriptive grammar to become more user-friendly. Stiff and formal rules of grammar are slowly being nudged into the dust heap of language history by new, perhaps more logical, forms. This is a good thing.

The obvious question a discussion on this topic poses is: "Whose grammar?"
Descriptive and prescriptive grammars vary in most languages, but perhaps more so when it comes to English. North American and British grammars may be nearly identical when it comes to the text books, but vary to some degree on the descriptive front:

1) Have you got? vs. Do you have?
2) Shall we go? vs. Would you like to leave?

These examples may not be the best, but you can see the point.

If we vote for descriptive grammar (and I hope most people do) we need to give a wide berth to the forms earmarked as "correct" or acceptable. Perhaps the consequence would be a more colorful and interesting English for the future.

Please visit us:
Home
English curriculum for young learners

alienvoord · #13 (**permalink**) 05-Dec-2006, 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infosaturated

For example, "swimmed" is often used rather than swam in common speech. Why should people have to learn countless irregular verb forms just because they survived the modernization of the English language? Although it makes me cringe, there is nothing inherently better about the form "went" verses the form "goed". It's just an archaic convention.

That has nothing to do with descriptivism. "went" is the past tense of "go" in standard English. That is a fact. I think any descriptive linguist would say that "goed" was a variation from the norm, and would point out that "went" is the standard past tense.

Niall · #14 (**permalink**) 15-Jan-2007, 19:57

Prescriptive grammer often forms the basis of descriptive grammer.

As much as I love being analytical, descriptive grammer can often become the creation of a rule set for a specific group of people. As in the end, descriptive grammer is moulding grammer around a specific model.

Prescriptive, on the otherhand, can seem overbearing, and forced. Yet to inforce a universal set of grammer rules seems to be the best thing to do.

As "balanced" and indecisive as it sounds, a happy medium between both seems appropriate. Though i would certainly lean more towards prescriptive.

**Tdol** · #15 (**permalink**) 17-Jan-2007, 06:23

A lot depends on the quality of the description or the prescription- in both camps, there are good and bad examples. I agree that taking from both sides is a balanced approach and don't see it as indecisive. I don't see why the two have to be seen in opposition.