When is prescriptivism ok?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Please watch the full video so you don't get the wrong idea. True descriptivism suddenly doesn't seem so appealing anymore...
------------------------------------------
Simulanger = one who simulates languages
I will be publishing showcases, tutorials, translations, deep-dives, walkthroughs, and even streaming once in a while! Most of my content will be related to conlanging, linguistics, worldbuilding, and writing, although I reserve the right to post whatever I want :)
Reach out to me in the comments or at tsvikm14@gmail.com! I love hearing from other simulangers!
If you subscribe it will make my day :)
This channel used to be known as Shmili Langs, but then I stopped making videos for a while and wanted to rebrand the channel when I returned to signify the start of a new era.
#linguistics #pronouns #conlang #language #grammar #languagelearning #translation #english #englishgrammar
I would disagree with how you see descriptivism. I think descriptivism (in inguistics) is not used to mean "anything is fine use whatever you want" but a scientific approach: "we're not here to judge people's language, we're just here to learn how people use language". I think a descriptivist can definitely have opinions on language, but they recognise that opinions and preferences are subjective and not objective: you can't measure or prove what the "correct" word to use is.
I think instead of "mythical descriptivist", I would just use "mythical anti-prescriptivist" or something.
That makes sense! I agree that that's more how it's used in linguistic practice. I guess then my question becomes, when is it ok to have opinions/preferences on language that you try to force on others.
@@simulanger It was a pretty prescriptivist nitpick of me ;)
@@simulanger As an attempt to answer the question, I think one situation in which it is okay is things like official communications, scientific publications, things like that, where precision, clarity and the ability to communicate across time and cultures are more important than free expression. It's still good to be careful with that IMO, because things like science communication become harder if the scientists are speaking what's basically an entirely different language from the general public.
I agree with what you're saying, but I definitely see on the internet plenty of self-proclaimed descriptivists who fit the video's definition.
The dichotomy of the pop discourse is a bit silly, imo.
I'm aware of what the language is doing. I have my preferences regarding usage and how I hope the language will and won't change. I happily engage in conversation about these preferences and will argue for them, not from a position of "This is right, because I'm an authority" but just "I like this for these reasons, so let's do this." But if I see that how I wanted things to go isn't how they're going (singular they, for instance) then of course I adopt it.
Telling people that it's wrong to express opinions about how they want their language to change/not change is just bizarre.
Dictionaries and academic linguists perhaps have a responsibility to be somewhat like journalists, neutrally cataloguing what is happening. But the rest of us are what decides, and there's nothing wrong with thinking and talking about it.
This isn't a new thing with pronouns. It's fundamental to seccond-language education. You can't teach someone French by saying "eh, do whatever you want and I'll observe your struggles". "Prescriptivism" is OK, and necessary, when you want to tell someone how to function within the systems that already exist, rather than changing those systems. I.e., what you are describing is not prescriptiv-ism, it is the practical application of knowledge obtained through descriptivism.
That's true! I still think there's some meaningful difference between telling someone to speak like a native versus certain "prescriptivist" things we do like using correct pronouns and not saying slurs and stuff - many English speakers DO use slurs all the time and I think it's valid not to want people to replicate that, even though it's descriptively how many people speak English.
I think those are fundementally different though. I'm learning Gascon through descriptivist sources, so I think of it as "Here is a description to how the language is spoken and it's rules" instead being told to speak it a certain way. The difference is you unofficially contractially decide to follow your language source when learning a second language, while prescreptavism has more to do with fixing what isn't broken.
@slovenianempire I disagree; both language teachers and, for lack of a better term, "pronoun warriors", can be prescriptivist, are not inherently prescriptivist. It depends on the assumptions behind the purpose of the interaction. "This is how you should speak (because this is how the language should be)" is prescriptivist. "This is how you should speak (if you want to be understood--otherwise, you do you...)" is descriptivist. Similarly, "you should call this person 'they' and 'them' (if you do not want to be perceived as a jerk--if you *do*, go off, I guess...)" is descriptivist. "You should call this person 'they' and 'them' (because gendered pronouns are a pox upon language and should be eradicated)" is prescriptivist.
@@LoganKearsley I think it has something to do with pragmatics and context where one might tell someone to do something, because contextually it could benefit them or aid them in their quests. The key word in their sentence being "if" - showing it isn't a command. I think the problem is prescriptivism vs descriptivism can't appear in non-native-level languages, because learning a language is a consented-prescriptivist activity, except for certain cases (which I happen to fall into due to the languages I learn being about to die soon and which definitely withheld a different viewpoint in my initial comment) where the material serves more as a description of the languages as it is used instead of a course which tells you how to speak.
I'd say there is a prescriptivist way to teach language and a descriptivist way. Personally, when I am correcting my younger siblings on language mistakes, I don't say, "this is the wrong way to say that. Don't say that." I say, "In order for other people to understand you, it's better to say this." And that's true. If they mispronounce a word there's a chance if they're talking to someone else they won't be understood. And the same could be said for teaching another language.
We can use the same model for pronouns. We can tell our mom, "Harry prefers they/them pronouns, so it's better to use those for them." The catch here is, if our mom decides not to, then this is not a cause for anger.
I think a lot of this hinges on what "prescriptivism" and "descriptivism" even mean. I don't think linguists are under any illusion that there is no such thing as "incorrect" use of language, they just think that the boundary between correct and incorrect is innate to native speakers. The phrase "I didn't do nothing" might rile your average boomer, but most speakers of english will understand it as belonging to a different dialect. On the other hand, for the sake of example, something like "I didn't nothing" would be immediately clocked by virtually all native anglophones as incorrect. To my understanding, the descriptivist approach is all about finding grammatical as fundamentally understood by native speakers.
That said, I think most of us linguistically minded folks understand that more formal prescriptivism has its place, depending on motivation. In academic writing, it's common to employ a lot of obtuse latinate terms because they're usually niche enough to have a very precise meaning, and in law, misplaced punctuation can have (and has had) significant consequences on how the law is interpreted in practice. There's a reasonable rationale behind those instances, and in the case of pronouns there's the noble goal of giving respect to folks that wider society is pretty hostile to. The point where it gets kinda stupid is when we're expected to contort english grammar to arbitrary standards because some guy in the 1800s wanted english to be more like latin.
I totally agree! It's all about definitions and the purpose of your being descriptivist. I do think there's another type of instance where people come up with some pseudoscientific linguistics to justify their societally-formed linguistic leanings (like, "singular they is bad because its more imprecise and makes it harder to communicate"), and this is what pisses off so many linguists to hate the term.
I feel like the answer in this case would be: don't be prescriptivist when doing linguistics (like when writing a grammar), but in the case of people merely speaking, prescriptivism is okay (I should define limits regarding obsolete or dragging along archaic parts of language) within reason because that is just something that happens naturally. Language is just a convention, so people are to find common ground to understand eachother.
Yeah that works! Do you think there are cases of 'bad' prescriptivism in conversational contexts other than dragging along archaic language, or is it just that? (I honestly can't think of anything rn but it feels like there could be more)
@@simulanger I don't think there is any other form of bad prescriptivism other than archaic language. I think any other form of it can be considered part of the culture, so even your pronoun example is in no way bad (in both cases), because ethics are complicated and vary a lot in time.
Even archaic language isn't necessarily bad prescriptivism, but only if done knowing well that it is unusual.
@@simulanger I think the worst kind of prescriptivism is that when it is used for enforcing oppressive systems (for example: when people with authority decree features of AAVE as incorrect English)
@@simulanger Bad prescriptivism is trying to change what is said without it having any benefit to the transfer of the message. Speaking is about having a piece of information -- a message -- go from one person to another. If the prescriptivism prevents it from being transferred well, then it is bad. If it is widely known that Harry goes by 'they' and Bob goes by 'he', then if I were to say "Bob and Harry are walking there, they have a new haircut it seems." Then if one were to "correct" me by saying that I should say 'he' instead, it is bad prescriptivism. This is because if I were to say "Bob and Harry are walking there, he has a new haircut it seems." It is not clear if I am talking about Bob, or about Harry but that I am being a prescriptivist. So in that case saying it should be 'he' makes the message ambiguous in a way that it would not have been if it was not done by a prescriptivist. That is bad prescriptivism.
I'm so glad living in a country with a language that has neuter pronouns, so i don't need to dealt with this crap 😎
Say whatever you want just be aware that i dont like bigots xd
I don't believe in either descriptivism or prescriptivism. I believe in being descriptive in linguistics and prescriptive when we're considering speech as a part of our culture including the ethics as well as practicalities of particular usages.
Why be descriptive in linguistics? Because linguistics as a social science is interested in the facts about how language actually works, and doesn't make that conditional on what anyone's judgements about it are. It deals with forms that are prestige, forms that are looked down on, it even has to deal with things like overcorrections or spelling pronunciations, and in all this it doesn't judge, just describes.
But the fact that linguistics has to be descriptive doesn't mean *we* all have to be descriptive, all the time. Even linguists can be prescriptive in appropriate situations. An example is gender pronouns as in the video: whether you believe "they" should be used for particular non-binary people, or only for particular pluralities of people and maybe indefinite references in the singular, you're prescribing. Even if you say "It doesn't really matter, say whatever you want to say..." you're actually prescribing a linguistic course of action. Truly being descriptive would to offer no rule at all.
There are actually many situations in which we are being prescriptive. Examples that have less to do with ethics and more to do with practical considerations include rewriting a text for tone, clarity, conciseness, (im)personality, factual accuracy etc. In doing this the rewriter is judging that some linguistic choices are better than others, within a given context of purpose. The whole profession of copy-editing is essentially linguistic prescriptivism. It's not just about English teachers and self-appointed grammar pedants. If we were to say there should be no language prescription then we could write a formal speech in the most informal language and we could not say that was 'wrong'. Not only is this ludicrous, but it does nothing to further the objectivity and scientific rigour of linguistics, which was the whole of descriptivism as an approach when first created.
Yeah I agree, I think this is a good distinction! I think a lot of times when linguists talk about how prescriptivism is bad or call someone a prescriptivist in a negative way, we're referring to the idea among non-linguists that certain language is just *inherently* better - as in, a pure value judgement about some innate quality (like, it's more precise, efficient, that kind of thing). But you're right, pronouns probably better fit into the category of ethics, and other prescriptivist-things like style of writing are also totally cool as long as they're known to be good *for a specific purpose*.
I think the real problem with this question, and why it's so hard to try and answer without making contradictions or cornering yourself into a subjectively stupid position is that "ok" is subjective. Peoples' priorities can be incompatible. I read someone saying it was about consent, that Harry wouldn't consent to being called anything but "they". But you can say the same for the narrator's Mother, that she doesn't consent to calling Harry "they". And consent over what you're called surely can't outweigh consent over the words you say, or vice versa. In this case I think there's really no objective scientific way to resolve the issue. A whole lifetime of experiences and thoughts have gone into shaping both Harry's and the narrator's Mum's opinions, and it can't be said in general that prescriptionism in either direction is worse than the other. I'm rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that none of the attempts at explanations in the comments are satisfactory to me, so I've decided this problem is poorly framed and/or unsolvable.
Hm, interesting! I agree with your analysis except for maybe the "consent over what you're called surely can't outweigh consent over the words you say" - I feel like imo maybe it does, especially in the cases of slurs and insults and stuff. But yeah it's not like there's a hard line or anything you're right. If you come up with a neater framing lmk I'd love to hear it!
Skibidi gyatt rizz only in ohio rizzing up baby gronk sussy imposter grindset freddy fazbear literally hitting the griddy whopper whopper whopper whopper 1 2 buckle my shoe goofy ahh ugandan knuckles family guy funny moments compilation with subway surfers gameplay backrooms gigachad based cringe kino redpilled literally 1984 mrbeast kid named finger fanum tax toilet.
Prescriptivism is okay when you tell Gen Alpha to stop saying 'What the skibidi ohio sigma rizz'
(Just a joke)
Thank you for decribing by main beef with self-styled descriptivists, who, as soon as a field comes up that matters to them, suddenly are anything but. It's egotism, pure and simple - my hobbyhorse matters, not yours!
I love this video! But my solution to the pronouns debate is to remove the concept of gender from the language as a flawed construct... so I've never claimed to be a remotely a descriptivist. I do believe you should be aware of the contexts of how you use words in communication in the interim of fixing the language though and that claiming/informing a preference is different to prescribing a usage - eg: 'Harry claims "they" as their default first person singular pronoun' is a neutral phrase, while 'you must use "they" when you talk about Harry to be grammatically correct' is putting impetus on the person you talk to to change their behaviour. AKA: the first is informing a person how to avoid communicating that they are a troglodite in future communication, while the second gives the impression that there is a factually correct way to describe an individual's gender using language.
😂 very fair that's a pretty good distinction!
I’m no linguist, but I always interpreted descriptivism as something more like “any linguistic path you take to get your point across is valid as long as your audience understands your point.” In other words, a language is defined not just by the specific linguistic rules humans set up for it, but also the naturally occurring, often unspoken rules that determine interpret what you say.
In the case of pronouns here, I would argue the two aren’t arguing about how they’re speaking, but instead the actual content of what they’re saying. While the primary function of what the mom is saying is to ask a question, on a secondary level, her use of pronouns is clearly trying to say that she believes Harry (rest in peace) is a man. The son, does not believe Harry is a man, so the message delivered by his mom’s words doesn’t align with his world view. Therefore, he’s attempting to correct her message, not her understanding of language.
Ah, I see! That actually makes a lot of sense. It's definitely true that with pronouns it seems very pragmatics-dependent (obviously the mother using "he" for SOME people would be fine) and so you're right I think Harry and the mom are arguing about the content not the language - what do you think for situations where there are words people outright don't want others to say (ie slurs)?
Like, is saying them more expressing a belief than with who/whom? Obviously the societal implications of whatever belief it is are much deeper and...worse, so maybe that's the problem, but idk I'm not sure there's a qualitative difference between the two categories.
Im a linguistics nerd they/them who has gotten in trouble with other non-binary and agender friends because I refuse to "correct" people who use she/her or he/him. This video is going to be super helpful in helping those friends understand my position better!
I can think of three reasons to describe descriptivists as mythical despite their existence:
1 - to try and bait people who falsely claim the title into revealing themselves
2 - youve never met one irl so doubt their existence
3 - because its not natural so people who truly live life as descriptivist still hear things as wrong the first time theyre exposed to new changes in language
Curious which reasoning was used in this video or what other reasons people can think of?
Huh, that's really interesting! Well, I've definitely met descriptivists and ~pretty much~ consider myself one, and I do actually think (3) is accurate, although it's not really what I wanted this video to be about. So.... I guess (1)? I wouldn't say I'm trying to bait people into revealing themselves to anyone but.. themselves. I guess I'm trying to either 1) get people to move beyond the binary of "prescriptivism bad, descriptivism good" or 2) get people to see descriptivism in a more nuanced way than just "don't tell people they should use some language and not other language". (Based on the other comments, I think (2) is succeeding!)
I am neurodivergent and struggle with remembering pronouns. I hate it if people get angry from me using the wrong pronoun because I am trying my best to respect your pronouns and will constantly make mistakes along the way. I personally try to be as much of a descriptivist as possible, but I have a boundary when it comes to ambiguity. If the change makes the message unclear, it should not be used in my opinion.
Pronouns are defined to convey meaning in all languages. Even if a certain individual wishes to deceive others, that does not grant that person the right to compel others to engage in that same deceptive behaviour.
I'm not a linguist, so I don't know how exactly "prescriptivism" is designed, but I think there is a clear difference between telling someone that they shouldn't say something because it's "grammatically incorrect" or even "factually incorrect" and telling someone they shouldn't say something because it's "hurtful", which I think is generally the intended meaning when people say things like "Harry goes by "they" so you should use "they".
So I don't think that would qualify as "prescriptivism", unless the argument is that telling someone not to hurt people using language is inherently prescriptivist.
Why can't I edit this, anyway, I meant "defined" not "designed"
Yes I totally agree good point. Hurtful is different than ungrammatical.
This is my first time hearing about this, but wouldn’t prescriptivist’s main concern be language, and your main concern not related to language? In the whom example, there is a grammatical error/disagreement whereas the “they” example is less grammatical and more relating to personal issues. Does this matter?
It probably matters! Yeah, that's probably related to the distinction I'm searching for I just can't find a perfect way to describe it.
If you are **Really** being a descriptivist, then you realise that prescriptivism is actually another thing that people just naturally do. It's another feature that human languages convey. A true descriptivist would not tell people to stop prescribing language use, as that is prescribing one to not prescribe. Confusing, I know.
I'll try wording it better.
People across all cultures prescribe how to speak their language, so a true descriptivist would recognise that. Hence, a descriptivist will not stop one from prescribing speech.
This is when prescriptivism is OK, when prescriptivism is seen from a descriptive POV.
For e.g., saying 'What the sigma' is demolition of culture, is prescriptive - but it is common amongst most cultures to tell the younger generation that they slang they use is bad, and the slang they use(d) OK. A true descriptivist would not prescribe the fact that prescriptivism is bad.
Hope it wasn't too confusing.
I think that makes a lot of sense but I do think most linguistics *do* consider prescriptivism for prescriptivism's sake a bad thing and it certainly has a negative stereotype in the community. Mostly when it has the potential to seem like pseudoscientific linguistics, like "whom is more precise so you should use it" or "singular they erases a helpful distinction we won't be as good communicators with it" or things like that.
@@simulanger From the POV of a linguist, absolutely. A linguist should try to not prescribe speech, but I meant other people. Others (non-linguists), in my opinion, should be forgiven for their sin of prescribing. We shouldn't care whether 'singular they erases a helpful distinction' so long as it describes how speakers of a certain language speak.
Those who prescribe language, so long as they aren't a linguist, should not be told off for it, as it is just part of a language's evolution.
In the previous sentence, I wanted to write 'as it is *actually* just part of a language's evolution,' but Grammarly told me that that makes it sound less concise. A descriptivist would say, "Hey, both are fine", but Grammarly says "Don't you want to make it more concise?". In this case Grammarly is no bad guy, it just wants to help my writing sound clearer. But a descriptivist would say that that doesn't matter.
Descriptivism is best for linguistic purposes because that's what linguistics is - describing language. But for purposes that are not linguistic (such as ones Grammarly is designed for), descriptivism isn't actually that bad.
Sorry for the long read.
Edit: Btw, love ur content. Keep it up!
When you tell your mom Harry's a they you're describing language as it's used by the person in question, whereas your mom is prescribing gendered pronouns where they aren't used because she thinks they should be. The argument you're presenting here reminds me of arguments certain people make about tolerance, and how tolerant societies don't actually exist because they can't tolerate intolerance. Descriptivists can't exist because they're always prescribing descriptivism to prescriptivists. blah blah blah.
And it's already been pointed out that your depiction of descriptivism is imprecise.
I don't really know anything about the tolerance society stuff, but I'm not trying to say descriptivists are prescriptivists because they're prescribing descriptivism - I was trying to point out that when people tell others to use the right pronouns for someone, it's also prescriptivism (at least under my initial definition), and therefore prescriptivism might not be always bad. If you disagree with the initial definition - which I think is totally reasonable - then yeah sure I could be wrong! A lot of people have pointed out good qualms in the definition.
@@simulanger ok i see what you're saying. thank you
Thanks for the thought ! I think the boundary is about consent. Consent over one's designation.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense!
I think it gets a bit more complex with non-pronoun stuff like slurs or ableist-type language regulation, but generally I agree, like why would you purposefully make someone feel worse or call them smth you know they don't want you to just to prove a point.
@@simulanger Exactly ! Glad I was able to contribute to your reflexions :D
Prescriptivist here. This is really interesting and thoughtful. But i do not think that the object of a pronoun can dictate the use of a pronoun.
The pronoun is a shortcut and aid for the speaker and "their" (indefinite singular) listener--even how another person or the society broadly uses a pronoun to describe them is not theirs to control.
I also don't think that the mother in this example is purposely inflexible; she may use a different pronoun in light of her son's explanation. She will have to decide for herself, just as her son did, if she is using the correct pronoun. The son who wants to have her use "they" in a non-standard way has offered a good rationale: my friend prefers it or doesn't want to be associated with a masculine identity. (Even though "they" was used in the past only to reference an individual of unknown gender, not to someone who wanted to subvert the gender binary.)
Prescriptivism isn't about controling or imposing, rather it is insting that words have meanings, specific symbols have specific referents. The pronouns above assume the mother is a "she," the son is a "he," and the hypothetical object of my example (they) is of an undetermined gender. These shortcuts are available to all speakers without having to ask about someone's subjective mental state or feelings at every turn. Both the mother and son are agreeing that words have both meaning and reference to objective reality. The question remains for the broader society: is someone a "they" because they prefer the term?
Personally, I do not care about pronouns and anything like that, if one wants to be called they or whatever else I respect that and will do my best to respect their wishes. However, in my opinion pronouns are there to represent people in one's story and different pronouns only exist for reference tracking. So I really do not care about pronouns and which are used and would not correct someone as long as I understand who they are talking about. If I were to mistake who they are talking about due to their usage of pronouns, I would ask to change it so it is easier for me. This could be seen as something prescriptivist. I would instead, however, say it is in order to disambiguate the conversation so that the message might be transferred with no problems. Also note that I am neurodivergent and have troubles with pronouns and remembering who uses what. Personally, since I am a man most people would use he/him for me, but if someone where to call me they, she, or it, even tho the last two would sound weird at first due to me not being used to them, I would not mind. This is, in my opinion and as far as I know, the most descriptivist way of thinking about it. Where you do not care about it, but you do respect it.
Just follow standard English teach from school. Bad at learning grammar isnt an excuse to create new word and avoid the problem. Literally just a grammar issue.
In romanian, I find that it s really common. But I don t even think I m referring to the same thing as the one explained in the video. We have pronouns and "polite" pronouns. Meaning we use he/him when talking about someone close and they/them if they re of higher status than us. Though, in recent years, it s less commonly used among people, but the majority still uses them. Also, they re a must when typing / in some parts of literature. I find that it s similar to how it is in japanese. Anyways, I m pretty sure I m referring to a different thing than the one mentioned in the video. Sorry for rambling.
Always, my waking goal is to tell everyone precisely how to speak at all times 😎
In issues like this where you get conflicts, the definition is too broad
You can correct someone for calling a trans man "she" (or even a cis man), for using a term which is now considered a slur, or for simply saying something insulting. In those cases the correction because the usage of English is wrong, but instead because the meaning being conveyed is hurtful.
Yes I totally agree very well put.
How do we rectify this as linguists?
Simple, by not denying reality. The reason it's an "exception" is because there is a violent movement out there that threatens us with violence for not saying things that are blatantly untrue.
The reason you're a prescriptivist in this situation is because social pressure demands you contradict reality with nice words. It's not any more or less wrong than others, it's just that you get cancelled if you don't do it.
Besides, saying that there is no right or wrong way to speak might have something to do with the falling literacy rates of the US...maybe there's a reason why we all agreed on a code of communication instead of being unique pink unicorns and not being able to communicate.