 | Theneutrality of this article isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(November 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part ofa series on |
| Law |
|---|
 |
| Foundations and Philosophy |
| Legal theory |
| Methodological background |
| Legal debate |
Linguistic prescription[a] is the establishment of rules defining publicly preferredusage oflanguage,[1][2] including rules ofspelling,pronunciation,vocabulary,grammar, etc. Linguistic prescriptivism may aim to establish astandard language, teach what a particular society or sector of a society perceives as a correct or proper form, or advise on effective and stylistically apt communication. If usage preferences are conservative, prescription might appear resistant tolanguage change; if radical, it may produceneologisms.[3] Such prescriptions may be motivated by consistency (making a language simpler or more logical); rhetorical effectiveness;tradition;aesthetics or personal preferences;linguistic purism or nationalism (i.e. removing foreign influences);[4] or to avoid causing offense (etiquette orpolitical correctness).[5]
Prescriptive approaches to language are often contrasted with thedescriptive approach ofacademic linguistics, which observes and records how language is actually used (while avoiding passing judgment).[6][7] The basis of linguistic research is text (corpus) analysis and field study, both of which are descriptive activities. Description may also include researchers' observations of their own language usage. In the Eastern European linguistic tradition, the discipline dealing with standard language cultivation and prescription is known as "language culture" or "speech culture".[8][9]
Despite being apparent opposites, prescriptive and descriptive approaches have a certain degree of conceptual overlap[10] as comprehensive descriptive accounts must take into account and record existing speaker preferences, and a prior understanding of how language is actually used is necessary for prescription to be effective. Since the mid-20th century somedictionaries andstyle guides, which are prescriptive works by nature, have increasingly integrated descriptive material and approaches. Examples of guides updated to add more descriptive material includeWebster's Third New International Dictionary (1961) and the third editionGarner's Modern English Usage (2009) in English, or theNouveau Petit Robert (1993)[11] in French. A partially descriptive approach can be especially useful when approaching topics of ongoing conflict between authorities, or in differentdialects, disciplines,styles, orregisters. Other guides, such asThe Chicago Manual of Style, are designed to impose a single style and thus remain primarily prescriptive (as of 2017[update]).
Some authors define "prescriptivism" as the concept where a certain language variety is promoted as linguistically superior to others, thus recognizing thestandard language ideology as a constitutive element of prescriptivism or even identifying prescriptivism with this system of views.[12][13] Others, however, use this term in relation to any attempts to recommend or mandate a particular way of language usage (in a specificcontext orregister), without, however, implying that these practices must involve propagating the standard language ideology.[14][15] According to another understanding, the prescriptive attitude is an approach to norm-formulating andcodification that involves imposing arbitrary rulings upon aspeech community,[16] as opposed to more liberal approaches that draw heavily from descriptive surveys;[17][18] in a wider sense, however, the latter also constitute a form of prescriptivism.[8]
Mate Kapović makes a distinction between "prescription" and "prescriptivism", defining the former as "a process of codification of a certain variety of language for some sort of official use", and the latter as "an unscientific tendency to mystify linguistic prescription".[19]
Linguistic prescription is a part of a language standardization process.[20] The chief aim of linguistic prescription is to specify socially preferred language forms (either generally, as inStandard English, or instyle andregister) in a way that is easily taught and learned.[21] Prescription may apply to most aspects of language, including spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and semantics.
Prescription is useful for facilitating inter-regional communication, allowing speakers of divergentdialects to understand astandardized idiom used inbroadcasting, for example, more readily than each other's dialects.[citation needed] While such alingua franca may evolve by itself, the tendency to formallycodify and normalize it is widespread in most parts of the world.[citation needed] Foreign language instruction is also considered a form of prescription, since it involves instructing learners how to speak, based on usage documentation laid down by others.[22]
Linguistic prescription may also be used to advance a social or political ideology. Throughout history, prescription has been created around high-class language, and therefore it degeneralizes lower-class language. This has led to many justifications ofclassism, as the lower-class can easily be portrayed to be incoherent and improper if they do not speak the standard language. This also corresponds to the use of prescription forracism, as dialects spoken by what is seen as the superior race are usually standardized in countries with prominent racism. A good example of this is the demeaning ofAAVE in theUnited States, as the idea that the "lower race" speaks improperly is propagated by people with an opposing ideology.[23] Later, during the second half of the 20th century, efforts driven by variousadvocacy groups had considerable influence on language use under the broad banner of "political correctness", to promote special rules foranti-sexist,anti-racist, or generically anti-discriminatory language (e.g. "people-first language" as advocated by disability rights organizations).[citation needed]
Prescription presupposes authorities whose judgments may come to be followed by many other speakers and writers. For English, these authorities tend to be books.H. W. Fowler'sModern English Usage was widely taken as an authority forBritish English for much of the 20th century;[24]Strunk andWhite'sThe Elements of Style has done similarly forAmerican English.[citation needed] TheDuden grammar (first edition 1880) has a similar status for German.
Althoughlexicographers often see their work as purely descriptive, dictionaries are widely regarded as prescriptive authorities.[25] Books such asLynne Truss'sEats, Shoots & Leaves (2003), which argues for stricter adherence to prescriptivepunctuation rules, also seek to exert an influence.
Linguistic prescription is imposed by regulation in some places. TheFrench Academy in Paris is the national body inFrance whose recommendations about theFrench language are often followed in theFrench-speaking world (francophonie), though not legally enforceable. InGermany and theNetherlands, recent spelling and punctuation reforms, such asthe German orthographic reform of 1996, were devised by teams of linguists commissioned by the respective governments and then implemented by statutes, some met with widespread dissent.
Examples of national prescriptive bodies and initiatives are:
Other kinds of authorities exist in specific settings, most commonly in the form of style guidebooks (also called style guides, manuals of style, style books, or style sheets). Style guides vary in form, and may be alphabetical usage dictionaries, comprehensive manuals divided into numerous subsection by the facet of language, or very compact works insistent upon only a few matters of particular importance to the publisher. Some aim to be comprehensive only for a specific field, deferring to more general-audience guides on matters that are not particular to the discipline in question. There are different types of style guides, by purpose and audience. Because the genres of writing and the audiences of each manual are different, style manuals often conflict with each other, even within the samevernacular of English.
Many publishers have established an internalhouse style specifying preferred spellings and grammatical forms, such asserial commas, how to writeacronyms, and various awkward expressions to avoid. Most of these are internal documentation for the publisher's staff, though various newspapers, universities, and other organizations have made theirs available for public inspection, and sometimes even sell them as books, e.g.The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage andThe Economist Style Guide.
In a few cases, an entire publishing sector complies with a publication that originated as a house style manual, such asThe Chicago Manual of Style andNew Hart's Rules in non-fiction book publishing in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively, andThe Associated Press Stylebook in Americannews style. Others are by self-appointed advocates whose rules are propagated in the popular press, as in "proper Cantonese pronunciation". The aforementioned Fowler, and Strunk & White, were among the self-appointed, as are some modern authors of style works, likeBryan A. Garner and hisModern English Usage (formerlyModern American Usage).
Various style guides are used for academic papers and professional journals and have becomede facto standards in particular fields, though the bulk of their material pertains to formatting of source citations (in mutually conflicting ways). Some examples are those issued by theAmerican Medical Association, theModern Language Association, and theModern Humanities Research Association; there are many others.Scientific Style and Format, by the Council of Science Editors, seeks to normalize style in scientific journal publishing, based where possible on standards issued by bodies like theInternational Standards Organization.
None of these works have any sort of legal or regulatory authority (though some governments produce their own house style books for internal use). They still have authority in the sense that a student may be marked down for failure to follow a specified style manual; a professional publisher may enforce compliance; a publication may require its employees to use house style as a matter of on-the-job competence. A well-respected style guide, and usually one intended for a general audience, may also have the kind of authority that a dictionary does consult as a reference work to satisfy personal curiosity or settle an argument.
Historically, linguistic prescriptivism originates in a standard language when a society establishessocial stratification and a socio-economichierarchy. The spoken and written language usages of theauthorities (state, military, church) is preserved as the standard language. Departures from this standard language may jeopardize social success (seesocial class). Sometimes,archaisms andhonorific stylizations may be deliberately introduced or preserved to distinguish the prestige form of the language from contemporarycolloquial language. Likewise, thestyle of language used inritual also differs from everyday speech.[32] Specialceremonial languages known only to a select few spiritual leaders are found throughout the world;Liturgical Latin has served a similar function for centuries.
When a culture develops a writing system,orthographic rules for the consistent transcription of culturally important transactions (laws, scriptures, contracts, poetry, etc.) allow a large number of discussants to understand written conversations easily, and across multiple generations.
Early historical trends in literacy and alphabetization were closely tied to the influence of various religious institutions.Western Christianity propagated theLatin alphabet.Eastern Orthodoxy spread theGreek andCyrillic alphabets.Judaism used theHebrew alphabet, andIslam theArabic script.Hinduism used theDevanagari script.[33] In certain traditions, strict adherence to prescribed spellings and pronunciations was and remains of great spiritual importance. Islamic naming conventions and greetings are notable examples of the linguistic prescription being a prerequisite to spiritual righteousness. Another commonly cited example of prescriptive language usage closely associated with social propriety is the system ofJapanese honorific speech.
Most, if not all, widely spoken languages demonstrate some degree of social codification in how they conform to prescriptive rules.Linguistic prestige is a central research topic withinsociolinguistics. Notions of linguistic prestige apply to different dialects of the same language and also to separate, distinct languages in multilingual regions. Prestige level disparity often leads todiglossia: speakers in certain social contexts consciously choose a prestige language or dialect over a less prestigious one, even if it is their native tongue.
Governmentbureaucracy tends toward prescriptivism as a means of enforcing functional continuity. Such prescriptivism dates fromancient Egypt, where bureaucrats preserved the spelling of theMiddle Kingdom of Egypt into thePtolemaic period through the standard usage ofEgyptian hieroglyphics.[34]
From the earliest attempts at prescription in classical times grammarians have based their norms on observed prestige use of language. Modern prescriptivist textbooks[which?] draw heavily on descriptive linguistic analysis.
The prescription may privilege some existing forms over others for the sake of maximizing clarity and precision in language use. Others are subjective judgments of what constitutes good taste. Some reflect the promotion of one class or region within a language community over another, which can become politically controversial.
Prescription can also reflect ethical considerations, as in prohibitingswear words. Words referring to elements of sexuality or toilet hygiene may be regarded as obscene. Blasphemies against religion may be forbidden. In the 21st century,political correctness objects to the use of words perceived as offensive.[35]
Some elements of prescription in English are sometimes thought[by whom?] to have been based on the norms ofLatin grammar.Robert Lowth is frequently cited[by whom?][citation needed] as having done so,[clarification needed] but he specifically objected to "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language".[36]
Prescriptivism is often subject to criticism. Many linguists, such asGeoffrey Pullum and other posters toLanguage Log, are highly skeptical of the quality of advice given in many usage guides, including highly regarded books like Strunk and White'sThe Elements of Style.[37] In particular, linguists point out that popular books on English usage written by journalists or novelists (e.g.Simon Heffer'sStrictly English: The Correct Way to Write ... and Why It Matters) often make basic errors in linguistic analysis.[38][39]
A frequent criticism is that prescription has a tendency to favor the language of one particular area or social class over others, and thus militates against linguistic diversity.[40] Frequently, a standard dialect is associated with theupper class, for example theUnited Kingdom'sReceived Pronunciation (RP). RP has now lost much of its status as the Anglophone standard, and other standards are now alternative systems forEnglish as a foreign language. Although these have a more democratic base, they still exclude the vast majority of the English-speaking world: speakers ofScottish English,Hiberno-English,Appalachian English,Australian English,Indian English,Nigerian English orAfrican-American English may feel the standard is arbitrarily selected or slanted against them.[41][42] Therefore, prescription has political consequences; indeed, it can be—and has been—used consciously as a political tool.[citation needed]
A second issue with prescriptivism is that it tends to explicitly devaluenon-standard dialects. It has been argued that prescription, apart from formulatingstandard language norms, often attempts to influence speakers to apply the proposed linguistic devices invariably, without considering the existence of differentvarieties andregisters of language. While some linguists approve the practical role of language standardization in modern nation states,[13][43] certain models ofprescriptive codification have been criticized for going far beyond mere norm-setting, i.e. by promoting the sanctioned language variety as the only legitimate means of communication and presenting it as the only valid baseline of correctness, while stigmatizing non-standard usages as "mistakes".[44][45][13] Such practices have been said to contribute to perpetuating the belief that non-codified forms of language are innately inferior, creating social stigma and discrimination toward their speakers.[46][47] In contrast, modern linguists would generally hold that all forms of language, including both vernacular dialects and different realizations of a standardized variety, are scientifically equal as instruments of communication, even if deemed socially inappropriate for certain situational contexts.[48][49] Resulting instandard language ideology, normative practices might also give rise to the conviction that explicit formal instruction is an essential prerequisite for acquiring proper command of one's native language, thus creating a massive feeling oflinguistic insecurity.[50] Propagating suchlanguage attitudes is characteristic of the prescriptivists inEastern Europe, where normativist ideas of correctness can be found even among professional linguists.[50][51][52]
Another serious issue with prescription is that prescriptive rules quickly become entrenched and it is difficult to change them when the language changes. Thus, there is a tendency for prescription to lag behind thevernacular language. In 1834, an anonymous writer advised against thesplit infinitive, reasoning that the construction was not a frequent feature of English as he knew it. Today the construction is ineveryday use and generally considered standard usage, yet the old prohibition can still be heard.[53]
A further problem is a challenge of specifying understandable criteria. Although prescribing authorizations may have clear ideas about why they make a particular choice, and their choices are seldom entirely arbitrary, there exists no linguistically sustainable metric for ascertaining which forms of language should be considered standard or otherwise preferable. Judgments that seek to resolve ambiguity or increase the ability of the language to make subtle distinctions are easier to defend. Judgments based on the subjective associations of a word are more problematic.[citation needed]
Finally, there is the problem of inappropriate dogmatism. Although competent authorities tend to make careful statements, popular pronouncements on language are apt to condemn. Thus, wise prescriptive advice identifying a form as colloquial or non-standard and suggesting that it be used with caution in some contexts may – when taken up in the classroom – become converted into a ruling that the dispreferred form is automatically unacceptable in all circumstances, a view academic linguists reject.[54][55] (Linguists may accept that a construction is ungrammatical or incorrect in relation to a certain lect if it does not conform to its inherent rules, but they would not consider it absolutely wrong simply because it diverges from the norms of a prestige variety.)[43] A classic example from 18th-century England is Robert Lowth's tentative suggestion thatpreposition stranding inrelative clauses sounds colloquial. This blossomed into a grammatical rule that a sentence should never end with a preposition.[citation needed]
For these reasons, some writers argue that linguistic prescription is foolish or futile.Samuel Johnson commented on the tendency of some prescription to resist language change:
When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may thelexicographer be derided, who is able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation.With this hope, however,academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds remain too volatile and subtle for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength. The French language has visibly changed under the inspection of theacademy; the stile ofAmelot's translation ofFather Paul is witnessed, byPierre François le Courayer to beun peu passé; and no Italian will maintain that the diction of any modern writer is not perceptibly different from that ofBoccace,Machiavel, orCaro.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)| Types ofreference works | |
|---|---|
| Types ofdictionaries | |
| Other | |