Linguists & language thinkers. Your opinion on prescriptive & descriptive view influencing English teaching?

Question

I want u (linguists & language thinkers) to comment on my position of NO adhering to either prescriptive or descriptive views of language teaching but really KEEPING AWARENESS of both of them, esp. because I'm NOT a native English speaker, only a latino majored in English teaching. Thus, my future Ss & I learn how English native speakers ACTUALLY communicate (descriptive) and how they (& we) should 'properly' communicate (prescriptive)
I've drawn this conclusion from my 2 latest questions (see My Q&A) but I have to say I'm still UNsure about that because I made a simmilar analysis on my graduation work with the essential same conclusions and I got a grade... NOT TO BE PROUD OF. In addition, most of (grammar) books and u have the tendency to think English in the prescriptive way which causes (e.g. in my case) to feel 'lost' sometimes when understanding your speech.
Finally the same situation probably happens to learners of all world languages, regarless 1ft & target language. Thanks

Answer 1

Alejo, prescriptive ideas concerning language were quite common amongst linguists for a long time. Nowadays, the preference is to describe language, without making any value judgments about the language itself or the people who use it.



However, that being said, we linguists are aware that certain linguistics formulations are deemed as "correct" and "prestigious", while others are often pejoratively associated with people of low intelligence, poor expressive capability or from cultural backgrounds which we may like to stereotype.



As I've stated before in another of your questions, the use of language is dependent, to a large degree, on context. Saying 'I ain't got no money' or 'Him and me is going now' are perfectly comprehensible and fine to use in an informal situation where one is not concerned with the use of so-called "correct" grammar. But I would caution someone against using such a formulation, or such informal language in general, in other areas, such as in academic writing, applying for employment or when absolute clarity is required.



As evidenced on here, there are a large number of people who seem hell-bent on proclaiming that certain language formulations are "wrong", "bad grammar" and other such things. While these formulations may in fact go against standard conventions of grammar for the English language, these comments often fail to take into account that the use of language is governed by context, and we have different "registers" or levels of formality, and certain formulations may only be incorrect if used in an inappropriate setting.



Grammar books are prescriptive for a very good reason: the informal registers of all languages are under constant change, whilst formal registers tend to show more resistance to change. Therefore, it is easier to teach something if one knows that in a year that formulation will still most likely be in use; but we cannot always say that for informal language. And if a foreign learner of English uses a formal register of language where a native speaker might use an informal one, that's fine, as most native speakers would comprehend it without any difficulty, and would hopefully be understanding regarding someone not being a native speaker.



So, to conclude, descriptive and prescriptive views on language are both acceptable, provided that, if someone adheres to the latter, they realise the contextual capabilities of language. I think people often go too far on here, especially, judging by many of the comments I see regarding language usage. But if you can not only learn English but also learns the pragmatics of using different registers or formulations, then you'll be well on the way to being a better speaker.

Answer 2

I agree with you! This is what I do myself, though I often run into a little bit of a conflict, even in my own head. In theory I am a descriptive grammarian, because I think it is fascinating to observe how languages work. In practice, though, I sometimes correct people, almost without even thinking about it. My mother's mother was an English teacher, so that legacy has been passed down to me, lol! I also hang out a fair amount with non-native speakers of English, and they often ask to be "corrected."



English is changing, just like any living language. So a lot of the "rules" of English as it is actually spoken (descriptive grammar) are changing also, many of them for a long time. For instance English has not had a "need" to decline pronouns for a long time (except for the genitive case of course), for instance there is only one form of "you." Because there is no linguistic need to make a distinction, many people use "I" and "me" incorrectly -- but everyone understands what they mean (even if they don't like it).



But the process of change is moderated by prescriptive grammar--and just by having a written language and high literacy rates. Having prescriptive rules and enforcing them in schools keeps the language from changing as quickly as it otherwise would. In some ways this is a good thing, because it keeps the historical record intelligible for a much longer time than it otherwise would be.



Other times, though, such as in everyday speech, it is silly to go around correcting people for speaking the same way almost everyone else their age speaks. Though there is some value since for the foreseeable future they still will have to use prescriptively correct grammar in schools or any formal writing.



When teaching English as a second language, then, it is important to think about these issues. For most beginning students it is probably best to teach the prescriptively correct way in most situations--because anything else will be a disservice to them as they will be judged for "incorrect" usage--far more than any native speaker. If a student asks or is confused, though, the teacher should have enough of an awareness of descriptive grammar to be able to explain. And more advanced students could really benefit from a little bit of training in the descriptive grammar of English as it is spoken informally, both because it will help them understand the correct formal versions and the reason for them, and because it will help them be more idiomatic speakers.



Very interesting question!

Answer 3

I teach English as a foreign language and so I am constantly being asked 'which is better, this way or that?' Very few students understand, especially at the early stages of learning, that language use depends on context, but I spend a lot of time trying to get them to notice the way people speak and write in specific circumstances, so we have 'Tee shirt and jeans' style and 'suit and tie' style, and both are appropriate in the right circumstances.



From questions on YA it has always seemed to me that Americans are much more concerned with prescriptive rules than we are in Britain. I have had American trainee teachers ask me 'is this or that acceptable?' and the answer has always been for me 'to whom?' (OK, actually I say 'who to?') because here and in the training centre in Greece where I used to work, we are used to teaching and viewing language PRIMARILY as a question of context, and never divorcing communication from context.



That brings me on to grammar books - I use mostly British reference and pedagogical grammars, and I don't know of one that is wholly prescriptive: some even include double negatives, with a just warning that they are not considered 'educated' by some people and should be avoided if you are a learner. (I don't think we have anything like the awful Strunk and White here)



What really bugs me is not so much misuse of grammar but misuse of vocabulary. People here use 'literally' to mean 'simply', mix up 'on his part' and 'on his behalf', coin tautological new words such as 'overexaggerate' and say 'I refute that' when they mean 'I disagree'. So I get steamed up when people reach for the closest word to what they mean rather than the exact one.

Answer 4

Prescriptive is necessary to have some sort of standard. We have to have standards, so we can all communicate effectively. Imagine the English speaking world with no English education?!



A descriptive view is just as necessary, to understand how people are speaking, and meet the requirements of some sort of standard.



Can't really see the problem - Two complementary views.