Prescriptivism > descriptivism
I know the common consensus among the linguistics community is that descriptivism > prescriptivism and that pedantry = bad. However, I strongly disagree, so let me defend myself and dispute the common arguments that descriptivists often give me.
“Language changes! It’ll always be that way, and you just have to accept it!”
Okay, I get that language changes. I’m okay with language changing, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a standard. That standard can change, but we shouldn’t throw our hands in the air and say that the standards don’t even matter. Science also changes. 100 years ago we thought there were only three states of matter. Now we know there are four. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the laws of science. The standard may have changed, but there was a consensus among the scientific community of what that standard is. Language should be the same. Without linguistic standards, we cannot communicate efficiently.
“People use linguistic pedantry/prescriptivism to be snobby and look down on the less educated.”
Sure they do. Snobs will be snobs. Let’s go back to the science example. People use scientific literacy to look down on the less educated too. People will always find something relatively harmless and abuse that thing to excuse their snobbery. That doesn’t make that thing bad; it makes the PERSON misusing it bad.
“Everyone hates pedantry because it’s mean to correct people!”
Really? Mean? Annoying perhaps. But lots of “mean” and annoying things are still beneficial. If someone said that World War II began in 1950, and you correct them and say it started in 1939, they might be annoyed, but it still was beneficial because now they know and are less likely to make the same mistake again. Friends and family are always critiquing each other lovingly, and yes, it often feels mean and annoying at first, but that doesn’t make it bad. Correcting people is how the human race improves.
“Language changes! It’ll always be that way, and you just have to accept it!”
Okay, I get that language changes. I’m okay with language changing, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a standard. That standard can change, but we shouldn’t throw our hands in the air and say that the standards don’t even matter. Science also changes. 100 years ago we thought there were only three states of matter. Now we know there are four. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the laws of science. The standard may have changed, but there was a consensus among the scientific community of what that standard is. Language should be the same. Without linguistic standards, we cannot communicate efficiently.
“People use linguistic pedantry/prescriptivism to be snobby and look down on the less educated.”
Sure they do. Snobs will be snobs. Let’s go back to the science example. People use scientific literacy to look down on the less educated too. People will always find something relatively harmless and abuse that thing to excuse their snobbery. That doesn’t make that thing bad; it makes the PERSON misusing it bad.
“Everyone hates pedantry because it’s mean to correct people!”
Really? Mean? Annoying perhaps. But lots of “mean” and annoying things are still beneficial. If someone said that World War II began in 1950, and you correct them and say it started in 1939, they might be annoyed, but it still was beneficial because now they know and are less likely to make the same mistake again. Friends and family are always critiquing each other lovingly, and yes, it often feels mean and annoying at first, but that doesn’t make it bad. Correcting people is how the human race improves.
31-35, M