Language and Society (week 5) - Description, prescription and verbal hygene

Descriptivism: Interest in how people actually speak.

Historical reasons: e.g. the development of English from Indo-European

Linguistic reasons: all varieties have fully functioning grammars acquired by native speakers.

learned vs. acquired.

prescriptivist views treat grammar as external set of rules imposed from outside by authority.

descriptivist views treat grammar as complex and abstract human system, not imposed overtly.

We acquire prescriptivist views through school. A sense of what is 'right' or 'wrong' and what can and cannot be written. Prioritise written over spoken. Language structure= tied to written language.

• Socially and historically created
• derived from national elites and supported through institutions of power
• codified in an attempt to get rid of variability
• Often seen as symbol of national unity, distinctiveness, prowess and prestige
• The NORM, seen as correct and proper
• trigger a complaint tradition

1. symbols of political power, rather than based on linguisitic distincitiveness (e.g. Yugoslavia)
2. Linguistically odd, as they suppress language variation. Std English does not permit much variability
3. Most 'tidy' in their written form; but writing is learnt not acquired. Speech and song = naturally human. BUT knowlege of spoken grammars is poor in comparison to written. 
4. don't have native speakers: they are ideological
5. They conserve odd forms (e.g. 3rd pers. sing. 's')
6. They're not the only one with norms anyway! Every variety/community needs them

 - no paralinguistic cues
 - unspoken background language
 - largely solitary, not so social;
 - doesn't permit vagueness, ellipsis, ambiguitiy, etc. to the same extent
 - planned, context-free, elaborated, permanent, learned

Constant standard use in formal contexts by powerful people leads speakers to:

• combine use of standard with non-standard forms in their speech;
• absorb attitudes of linguistic inferiority about the non-standard form;
• assume the standard form denotes correctness, civilization, education, truth, etc.
• internalize 'standard ideologies'.

• they shun analysis of metalinguistic commentary
• simply dismiss prescriptivism
• treat language as a biological, natural phenomenon with a life of its own.
• tolerate forms of prescription hidden under language planning and management

• campaigning for use of plain English
• dialect/minory language preservation societies
• taking courses in assertiveness or better conversational English
• editing text for a newspaper
• language planning (e.g. Cornish)
• national curriculum for English
• guidelines for non-sexist language

• offensive, objectionable linguistic behaviour is the same as the physical equivalent - avoidable.
• language not only reflects society it also shapes it. The use of such linguistic behaviour can preserve abuse.
• any group has the right to name itself.

Words don't have meaning outside our intention to use them. If a word is racially charged a speaker might deny that because she or he did not intend to be racist

freedom of expression is restricted...

both pretty shit arguments imho...

It is generally misunderstood. The findings it makes are not in line with the ideologies that most people hold and not directly applicable in local contexts.