+0
Are these definitions of prescriptivism and descriptivism a good place to start for someone who wishes to know the differences in the two ways of thinking?

"Prescriptivism is based on the view that one variety of language is inherently superior to others and that this more highly valued variety should be imposed on the whole of a particular speech community."

"Descriptivism is based on the view that the assignment of a superior status to one variety of language is often arbitrary and is more likely to be the result of socio-economic factors than of intrinic linguistic factors."

From Keywords in Language and Literacy. By Ronald Carter
1 5 6 7  9 10 11 13
Comments  (Page 8) 
<The point I was trying to make is that until we decide what we mean by the two terms questions such as: "Would a prescriptivist/descriptivist say x or y in this case?" are difficult to answer. It is not helpful in any forum, linguistics or otherwise, if we all mean different things by the same word.>

Would you at least agree that we can say a description can be wrong, but a prescription cannot be judged by such a term?
Forbes, when a doctor prescribes a certain treatment, medicine, etc. does he mean to say "take this" or "I recommend you take this"? Just a thought.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
<Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as the attempt to present the fruits of descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of language aesthetics.>

That kind of covers up the correct-incorrect English, good language-poor language view that normally accompanies prescriptivist texts.
Hello Milky,
Milky
That kind of covers up the correct-incorrect English, good language-poor language view that normally accompanies prescriptivist texts.

I quoted this passage earlier:


[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. It’s clear who they had in mind.

ii a. Kim and I saw the accident. b. !Kim and me saw the accident.

In [ i ], both versions belong to Standard English, with [ a ] somewhat formal, and [ b ] neutral or slightly informal. There is no difference in grammaticality. But in [ ii ], the [ a ] version is standard, the [ b ] version non-standard; we use the ‘!’ symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in Standard English but grammatical in a non-standard dialect.

Do you think the part I've underlined reveals a "correct-incorrect English view"?

MrP

<Do you think the part I've underlined reveals a "correct-incorrect English view"?>

How could it? It shows there is grammaticality in both Standard and non-standard English.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
And would you agree with the CGEL that:

1. Me and Kim saw the accident.

is "non-standard", and "ungrammatical in Standard English"?

MrP
MrPedantic
And would you agree with the CGEL that:

1. Me and Kim saw the accident.

is "non-standard", and "ungrammatical in Standard English"?

MrP

How would I know?.
Or "Kim and me saw the accident", if you prefer:

http://www.cambridge.org/assets/linguistics/cgel/chap1.pdf


[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. It’s clear who they had in mind.

ii a. Kim and I saw the accident. b. !Kim and me saw the accident.

In [ i ], both versions belong to Standard English, with [ a ] somewhat formal, and [ b ] neutral or slightly informal. There is no difference in grammaticality. But in [ ii ], the [ a ] version is standard, the [ b ] version non-standard; we use the ‘!’ symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in Standard English but grammatical in a non-standard dialect.

MrP

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
MrPedanticOr "Kim and me saw the accident", if you prefer:



[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. It’s clear who they had in mind.

ii a. Kim and I saw the accident. b. !Kim and me saw the accident.

In [ i ], both versions belong to Standard English, with [ a ] somewhat formal, and [ b ] neutral or slightly informal. There is no difference in grammaticality. But in [ ii ], the [ a ] version is standard, the [ b ] version non-standard; we use the ‘!’ symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in Standard English but grammatical in a non-standard dialect.

MrP

Would you say both "Kim and me..." and "Me and Kim..." are grammatical and standard in this kind of English:

"Briefly (for we will return to the topic below), we are describing the kind of English that is widely accepted in the countries of the world where English is the language of government,

education, broadcasting, news publishing, entertainment, and other public discourse."

Show more