Prescriptivism and Descriptivism Are More Collaborative Than We Think
My second read of 2021 was Cathleen Schine’s “The Grammarians.” It was a Christmas gift, and, despite my love for all things grammatical and stylistic, I had never heard of it. In my review for it, I discussed how well Schine personified prescriptivism and descriptivism through the likenesses of Daphne and Laurel Wolfe. The book got me thinking back to the discourse surrounding the ideologies. My conviction has swum between the two sisters of language thought for years, and, for a while, I was under the misconception that one person could not support the two simultaneously.
The more frustrated and curious I became, the more I realized what has been in front of me during my lifetime of English education: the cyclicality of language. I found this cyclicality in Latin, a language known for its rigid structure and which has now broken into Romance languages. I found it in Old English, Middle English, Modern English. The lifespan of a language is a cycle — rules exist, rules break, and new rules take their place. And there it was, my answer: Language and its evolution can only be held by both prescriptivism and descriptivism.
Let’s start with some basic definitions, courtesy of Merriam-Webster (my apologies to the Wolfe twins, for I am not using their treasured New Webster’s second edition). While “prescriptivism” isn’t listed, a “prescriptivist” is “one who advocates prescriptive principles especially in grammar,” “prescriptive” meaning “acquired by, founded on, or determined by prescription or by long-standing custom.” Simply, a prescriptivist follows the rules and is reluctant to change said rules.
A “descriptivist,” on the other hand, favors descriptivism, the “advocacy or use of the methods of descriptive linguistics.” “Descriptive linguistics” is “of, relating to, or dealing with the structure of a language at a particular time usually with exclusion of historical and comparative data.” Is this confusing anyone else too or just me? Well, let’s consider the definition for “descriptive”: “presenting observations about the characteristics of someone or something.” All right, this I can deal with. A descriptivist believes that words get their meanings from how they’re being used. The descriptivist prioritizes observation over the rules to make sense of language.
There are several arguments in favor of each belief. Prescriptivism promises order and consistency, while descriptivism promises inclusivity and perhaps a more relaxed approach to editing. Descriptivists might call out prescriptivism’s ties with classism — who set these grammar rules and made them unattainable via the lack of universal education? If someone says, “Me and my friend eat lunch” or, “she don’t want that,” are we to think them unintelligent? On the other hand, prescriptivists might argue that language requires some standard so that we may continue to understand one another. Currently, there are strides to changing and setting rules for more inclusive usage; is that descriptivist, prescriptivist, or both?
Both ideologies are respectable, especially because they feed off each other more than one might think. If prescriptivists did not set the rules, how could descriptivists support the breaking of them? And if no descriptivists were advocating for word or grammar changes, how could our languages evolve? Languages are living things: Like us, they require rules from their parents as a foundation, and, like us, they like to break the rules and become their own. This is a cycle that continues. There are rules, descriptivists fight to change them, and prescriptivists set those changes in stone. (This idea suggests a possible chicken-or-egg problem, but I won’t jump into that here.)
“The Grammarians” using the symbol of sisterhood was excellent and reassured me on my conclusion. Yes, these two ideologies are sisters, yes, these two will bicker and fight and claw at each other, but, no, they will never separate. They give each other meaning and are two halves of the same whole: a living, breathing language.
