Descriptive vs.

Prescriptive Grammar
Descriptive Grammar:

 How people use language in everyday speech

 How our language works
 Part of our "natural" language

 Prescriptive Grammar:

 What we are told we should not do with language

 Determined by some notion of authority
 Must be explicitly learned

 Prescriptive rules are:

 not valid cross-linguistically

 are sometimes based on non-linguistic rules
 can be attempts to model valid language rules from a different language
 seldomly agreed upon by speakers of the same language

 Examples of Descriptive rules (in English)

 Subjects come before verbs

 Form a regular past tense by adding "-ed"
 Adjectives come before nouns

 Following descriptive rules does not always lead to good comprehension.

A sentence can be descriptively fine, but still be incomprehensible :

 The cat that the dog chased ran away.

 The cat the dog chased ran away.
 The cat that the dog that mouse frightened chased ran away.
 The cat the dog the mouse frightened chased ran away .

"Center-embedded" sentences like the ones above follow the descriptive rules for relative clauses
in English. However, as is seen in the last two sentences, they can be extremely dificult to
understand!

Some sentences are difficult because they trick us into thinking that they mean one thing, and
they turn out to mean something else. These are "garden path" sentences:

 The horse raced past the barn fell.

  While the woman was mending the sock fell off her lap

In the above sentences, we interpret the sentence one way, and are then forced to go back and
reinterpret. Overcoming the initial interpretation can often be very hard to do.

The next sentence is impossible to comprehend on the first reading. Without any clues, we are
unable to assign different meanings to the four "buffaloes". (Hint: one meaning of "buffalo" is
"to annoy")

 Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.

("Buffalo from Buffalo annoy other buffalo")

Some Interim Conclusions

 Prescriptive grammars do not accurately describe the form and function of natural
language
 Prescriptive rules must be learned; they are not part of a native language for a child
 Prescriptive rules are based on ideas about what language should be, even though some
of the characteristics of prescriptive grammars are not generally true about many
languages of the world.
 People often differ on what should and should not be part of a prescriptive grammar

 Descriptive grammars attempt to describe the natural form and function of a language
through scientific methods
 Judgments about descriptive rules are generally uniform across speakers.

Why follow prescriptive rules?

 Symbol of status in society

 Can affect listener's judgment of a speaker
 What we were taught

Status of prescriptive grammar

 Decision to follow rules up to the individual (as opposed to descriptive rules, which are
unconscious)
 No scientific basis for superiority of prescriptive rules

What is "sloppy" speech?

 Reduced muscular control (due to alcohol)

 Changes in sounds, not in structure:
 s, ch -> sh

yes -> yesh

teach -> teash

church -> shursh

 These are not characteristics of so-called "sloppy" speech or dialects.

Political correctness - Definition

Political correctness is the alteration of language to redress real or alleged injustices and discrimination or to avoid offense.
The term most often appears in the form politically correct or PC, and is generally used mockingly or disparagingly. One
stated aim of politically correct language is to prevent the exclusion or the offending of people because of their differences
or handicaps.

Proponents of political correctness argue that they wish to bring unconscious biases into awareness, allowing us to make a
more informed choice about our language and making us aware of things different people might find offensive. Two
common examples of this practice are to use the word disabled rather than crippled, and mentally ill rather than crazy.
However, opponents of political correctness often claim that the new terms are awkward, euphemistic substitutes for the
original stark language concerning differences such as race, gender, sexual orientation and disability, religion and political
views. The term "special population groups" can be applied to any groups without detailing what makes the groups
"special".

In scientific study, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language influences thought, was first developed by Edward Sapir and
Benjamin Whorf working independently of each other. Their work remains controversial. In its strong form, the hypothesis
states that, for example, sexist language promotes sexist thought. This theory is also the basis of Newspeak in George
Orwell's popular book about totalitarianism, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The first documented published use of the term political correctness[1] (http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/origins-of-

political-correctness.html) was in 1912 in Chapter 1 of Senator Robert La Follette's
Autobiography[2] (http://memory.loc.gov/gc/lhbum/07510/0045.tif). Speaking of his education at the University of
Wisconsin, he says "In those days we did not so much get correct political and economic views, for there was then little
teaching of sociology or political economy worthy the name".

La Follette later ran for President in 1924 on the Progressive Party platform. The University of
Wisconsin[3] (http://www.probe.org/docs/pc-educ.html) Madison campus has often been cited as the birthplace of political
correctness. Donna Shalala[4] (http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1993/LT930705.html), former Clinton Secretary of Health &
Human Services and University of Wisconsin Chancellor has been called the founder of political correctness.

Here is an extended excerpt[5] (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?

ammem/lhbum:@field(DOCID+@lit(lhbum07510div6))#075100045) of the passage:

It is difficult, indeed, to overestimate the part which the university has played in the Wisconsin revolution. For myself, I owe
what I am and what I have done largely to the inspiration I received while there. It was not so much the actual courses of
study which I pursued; it was rather the spirit of the institution--a high spirit of earnest endeavor, a spirit of fresh interest
in new things, and beyond all else a sense that somehow the state and the university were intimately related, and that they
should be of mutual service.

<em>The guiding spirit of my time, and the man to whom Wisconsin owes a debt greater than it can ever pay, was its
President, John Bascom[6] (http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/john-bascom-problems-in-philosophy.html).

<em>I never saw Ralph Waldo Emerson, but I should say that John Bascom was a man of much his type, both in
appearance and in character. He was the embodiment of moral force and moral enthusiasm; and he was in advance of his
time in feeling the new social forces and in emphasizing the new social responsibilities. His addresses to the students on
Sunday afternoons, together with his work in the classroom, were among the most important influences in my early life. It
was his teaching, iterated and reiterated, of the obligation of both the university and the students to the mother state that
may be said to have originated the Wisconsin idea in education. He was forever telling us what the state was doing for us
and urging our return obligation not to use our education wholly for our own selfish benefit, but to return some service to
the state. That teaching animated and inspired hundreds of students who sat under John Bascom. The present President of
the university, Charles R. Van Hise, a classmate of mine, was one of the men who has nobly handed down the tradition and
continued the teaching of John Bascom.

<em>In those days we did not so much get correct political and economic views, for there was then little teaching of
sociology or political economy worthy the name, but what we somehow did get, and largely from Bascom, was a proper
attitude toward public affairs. And when all is said, this attitude is more important than any definite views a man may
hold.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The argument that language defines the way a person behaves and thinks has existed since the
early 1900's when Edward Sapir first identified the concept. He believed that language and the
thoughts that we have are somehow interwoven, and that all people are equally being effected by
the confines of their language. In short, he made all people out to be mental prisoners; unable to
think freely because of the restrictions of their vocabularies.

An example of this idea is given in George Orwell's book 1984, in which he discusses the use of
a language entitled "newspeak" which was created to change the way people thought about the
government. The new vocabulary they were given was created to control their minds. Since they
could not think of things not included in the vocabulary, they were to be zombies imprisoned by
the trance of their language. Soon, Sapir had a student, Benjamin Whorf, who picked up on the
idea of linguistic determinism and really made it his own. Whorf coined what was once called
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is more properly referred to as the Whorf hypothesis. This
states that language is not simply a way of voicing ideas, but is the very thing which shapes those
ideas. One cannot think outside the confines of their language. The result of this process is many
different world views by speakers of different languages.

Whorf fully believed in linguistic determinism; that what one thinks is fully determined by their
language. He also supported linguistic relativity, which states that the differences in language
reflect the different views of different people. An example of this is the studies Whorf did on the
Hopi language. He studied a Hopi speaker who lived in New York city near Whorf. He
concluded that Hopi speakers do not include tense in their sentences, and therefore must have a
different sense of time than other groups of people. However, in recent years, the Hopi have been
studied in order to further understand this issue, and it has been discovered that although the
Hopi do not include references to the past, present or future in their grammars, they do include
two other tenses, manifested and becoming manifested. Manifested includes all that is and ever
has been, physically. This includes the senses and concrete items. Becoming manifested includes
anything which is not physical, has no definite origin and cannot be perceived with the senses.
Verbs are always expressed within terms of these two tenses. In this way, the Hopi do include
some aspect of time, but in a different way than a native English speaker would recognize.
Perhaps Whorf's data would have been more conclusive had he spent time visiting many Hopi
speakers in their native environments instead of studying one man and only visiting his place of
origin once. Perhaps what Whorf recorded was merely part of that speaker's ideolect, and was
not reflective of the entire Hopi community.

If the world view and behavior of people are affected so severely by the structure of their
language, and languages have different structures, then is cross-cultural communication and
understanding a realistic goal for the modern world? Whorf would have us believe that such
barrier-free communication is almost impossible. However, does that explain current world trade
agreements, joint business ventures with foreign companies or the emphasis on raising bilingual
societies? Sure, not every word of communication between people of different language
communities is expressed. But despite that fact, I believe that the substance of the messages are
getting across. Using the universal languages of law and science, people from all over the world
are working together with no major barrier because of differing mother tongues.

There is no question that the lexicon of a specific language mirrors whatever the nonverbal
culture emphasizes. For example, aspects of the society which are not associated directly with
language seem to have a direct impact on the formation of language. A society where horses are
revered will have many words for horses and horse things- not because horses talk, but because
people talk about their horses. Important parts of a society are certainly highlighted in the
vocabulary of a language. For example, the Eskimos have many words for snow, the Americans
for cars and the Norwegians for fish. But does that mean that the other cultures are incapable of
perceiving the items which are described with such specific vocabulary elsewhere? I don't think
so. I can identify many types of snow using phrases, and I'm sure that in most cases, with most
languages, such a translation can be made. The idea that the absence in a given language for
equivalent terms between the differing vocabularies must always be associated with a different
cognitive world perception is to me, far fetched.

The example of kin terms across cultures is a good example of how vocabulary does not define
our ideas. For example, in the Arapaho culture, there is but one word for a blood-related, senior
male relative. Where an English speaker would use either "father" and "uncle", the Arapaho use
just one to describe both relatives. Is this to suggest that they are totally unaware of and cannot
comprehend the difference between the two relationships? Cultural anthropologists throughout
the decades have proven that people do understand the difference, even if the terms used are the
same. They may put both kin members in the same relationship category as far as what the
expected duties of each are, but a child is always aware that one of the men is her father, and the
other his brother.

I think a more appropriate way to address the differences in languages and cultures around the
world is to identify the differences in the categories groups of people use to define their
vocabularies, as Romaine suggests. I believe that language users sort out and distinguish their
experiences differently according to the categories provided by their languages. One culture
could consider a tree an inanimate object. Another culture may consider it to be a living thing,
just like a human. The grammar of each language would reflect this difference, and the idea of
what a tree is to the two groups would be physically similar, but carry different connotations and
emotional responses. One culture may use the gender neutral term for an item which is
considered feminine or masculine in another culture. For example in German, the definite
articles are either der, die or das. These grammatical distinctions may have an effect on the way
the noun following is thought of. This is an aspect of language which has a direct effect on the
connotation of the term.

Similarly, a personal experience in the confines of one language may actually physically be the
same as one occurring in another language group, and although both people are fully aware
cognitively of what is happening, their interpretation and value of what happened may be
completely different based on the cultural guidelines set forth by their languages. This concept
does not just apply to members of different cultures, but also to members of the same language
community. Definitions of words are documented in dictionaries, yet an individual's use and
understanding of them are sometimes different that the use and understanding of his or her
neighbor.

If the English language was somehow keeping us from freedom of thought, we would all be
trapped in the same cognitive path if we were English speakers. Even among siblings, the
understanding of certain words and what they mean varies. This is due to different environmental
factors, personal interests, friends, teachers and perhaps an age difference. Two people who live
in the same house, with the same genetic make-up and speak the same language should have the
same cognitive processes if we were prisoners of our language. We are obviously not. Although I
personally find Whorf's hypothesis to be wanting in many areas, I believe that discussion about
this topic is an important part of the globalization and cultural education in the world today.
Through theories like this one, we can identify ways in which all languages are universal and
how that universality in language is beneficial to us all. I think when all people realize that no
matter which language you speak or which cultural norms you are used to, everyone is capable
of intellectual thoughts, poetic visions, technical jargon and personal feelings according to their
own experiences, the world will be a much smaller place.

Author: Amy Stafford

KEY CONCEPTS OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS

Social Stratification: distinct social levels (1) can be identified, and (2) can be
ranked/evaluated

Vernacular:       

1. The most systematic and unmonitored level of speech; one's native

dialect, learned before school, literacy & exposure to other norms.
2. A non-prestigious, non-standard dialect or accent

Free Variation: linguistic alternations that are not linguistically conditioned (i.e.
predictable); formerly believed to be unsystematic (now known to be often
socially or stylistically conditioned)
Linguistic Variable: a linguistic unit with 2 or more variants, which can occur in
precisely the same environment without producing a difference of meaning.

Sociolinguistic Variable: a linguistic variable which is sensitive to social or

stylistic context

Broad stratification refers to large gaps or contrasts between social groups, fine
stratification to small ones.

Indicators, markers, and stereotypes

Labov distinguishes 3 types of linguistic variables (exs. in Wardhaugh reading)

according to their level of sociolinguistic salience, i.e., the degree to which
speakers are aware of their social evaluation:

                                                              indicator, marker, and stereotype.

Indicators show no style-shifting, but vary with social stratification; they have
no social interpretation attached. Ex: Norwich (a:) is like this: it’s fronter than
the RP vowel in words like after, cart, path. It is a regional feature with
differentiation by social class, but little by style; not stigmatized or corrected;
part of a regional standard. There is no age stratification, so it’s not part of a
change in progress. There is little contrast within the same social or class
group. Indicators are not part of change, or are very early/late stages.

Markers show both social and stylistic stratification. Classic sociolinguistic

variables ar3e usually markers, e.g. (ING), (R), and (TH) in New York City. They
are linguistic variables to which social interpretation is overtly attached. We call
them markers, because they mark or correlate with some social characteristic or
identity.

Stereotypes not only have well-known social meanings, but are generally
stigmatized and often actively avoided. In other words, their social significance
is so great that it actually affects people’s conscious speech behavior. Labov’s
example is the pronunciation “Toity-toid Street” in New York City
(stereotypically: Brooklyn) for “33rd Street”. Stereotypes are popularly-known
characteristic features which tend not to show regular stratification, because
everyone is so aware of them that they are often avoided by the very group of
people they were once characteristic of.

Indicators may turn into markers, which may become stereotypes -- but once
people are aware of something, it almost never goes back the other way!