Prescriptivism in linguistics is the idea that rules exist for the use of language, and good quality writing demands adherence to these rules. Sometimes, of course, prescriptivism is correct. There are important rules that govern language use, whose violation is an impediment to clear and effective communication. Other times, however, prescriptivists out themselves as rule fetishists. You can see this brand of prescriptivism at work wherever there are English teachers who insist, baselessly, that it is "wrong" or "ungrammatical" to end a sentence with a preposition; or that infinitives, like inseams, mustn't ever be split without embarrassment; and, finally--one of Orwell's bugbears--that the use of the passive voice must be minimized, if not eliminated. English teachers, and no one else, maintain and enforce these rules, though they manage to convince some English speakers to adhere to them.
None of these rules are defensible.[*] See here and here for the sad story of how we managed to get to the point where people are educated into ignorance about prepositions at the end of sentences; or note, with amusement, that Orwell himself used the passive voice more often than his peers. Split infinitives, arguably, create inelegant constructions, but surely no one misunderstood the voiceover introduction to Star Trek because it decided to boldly go. In what sense, then, is it "wrong?" Unfortunately, too many people, including otherwise intelligent men like George Orwell, readily attempt to enforce spurious rules of language. See this excellent post for an analysis of why people do this, and try, like I do, to let it go next time you are tempted to do it.
[*]If you thought I ought to have used the singular there, add that rule to the list.
3 comments:
hi david. i enjoyed this entry very much. it reminded me of lynn truss's book EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES, although she is concerned with the politics of punctuation rather than grammar. (i'm now wondering if she would agree with my inclusion of a third "s" in the possesive form of her name. Those decsions are best left to our legistative reps, i understand: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/
archives/004291.html)
in my own act of gramatical anarchy, i refuse to capitalize letters in electronic communications. The glaring exception above was simply becasue i haven't the electro-savvy to underline or italicise in this forum.
again, thanks for the great post and remember that i'll be checking in!!!
upon review, my anarchy needs work.
Hi Blair! Thanks for stopping by. Your admission gave me a chuckle, too.
About the third "s," I recently eliminated that from my writing. I had an English teacher in high school who insisted upon it, and I greatly respected him, so I used it for all singular possessives. For whatever reason, I recently stopped, except in papers. By any rational standard, either form is acceptable, and neither strikes me as more useful than the other. I can't recall Truss' position on it, though I remember that Strunk's Elements of Style insists on the additional "s." So does the MLA style manual.
I'm careful about punctuation in general. I have to admit that I recoil at the idea of anarchy (i.e. in my own writing, not in others'), but the Internet has made writing ubiquitous and publishing accessible; I expect it will erode some of the old rules as well. To the extent that utility isn't harmed by these changes, there's no problem with them. Or at least this is what I continuously tell myself.
Post a Comment