Prescriptive or Descriptive?

Last week my Modern English Grammar professor posted a video which explained the difference between Prescriptivism and Descriptivism. This video from TheGrammarLab explains it all for you. I decided I wanted to go ahead and take notes on this video and publish them out for the visual learners out there like myself, and add in some thoughts of my own along the way. The notes are formatted as if I were writing down notes for class. Hopefully this way you can use my notes to supplement your learning and help you understand these concepts–if you don’t know what Descriptivism and Prescriptivism is don’t feel bad. I don’t exactly/precisely know either, so I will be learning along with you.

NOTES

Before moving on I highly suggest taking a look at Grammar Girl on podcast 290 “Needs Washed” where she speaks about regionalisms and the Pittsburguese phenomenon or why some people say “needs washed” as opposed to “needs washing or needs to be washed.” It will certainly give you a better idea of what TheGrammarLab describes as Descriptive (excuse my redundancy there).

SO, back to NOTES:

Some say language decline and social decline go hand-in-hand. Misuses of language, when taken in aggregate, indicate general cultural decay–so, many people want to preserve linguistic conventions to maintain our manners and morals (texting is ruining language! LOL, LMFAO, BRB, TTYL…WTF!). Others, however, disagree and think this is a dictatorship kind-of-way of looking at things. Life is not just black and white–“you’re missing out on the rest!”

Prescriptivism–>dictates how language SHOULD be used. They prescribe= “say it this way!”

*tends to approach language as a set of conventions, as having an ideal correct form.

Descriptivism–>analyzes the patters and structure of language as it IS actually used. They describe= “some people say it this way, however, others say it the other way.”

*approaches language as data to be investigated and analyzed.

These definition can be confusing 😦

How to differentiate between Descriptive and Prescriptive?

To differentiate between the two, we can look at the way they use the concepts rules and grammar.

Prescriptivism=uses the word rule to suggest convention or manner (think of a lady eating at a table learning how to properly use her utensils). It’s etiquette. “you should do it this way!”

Many prescriptive rules were popularized during the 18th century. Such as:

1. You should not use the split infinitive! Do not separate to from the verb. So it’s “she hoped to see his recommendation soon” rather than “she hoped to soon see his recommendation.” This rule was popularized in Henry Alford’s “A Plea for the Queen’s English.” Here he says sentences like “to scientifically illustrate” are unknown to English. This is obviously not the case in popular English: “To boldly go where no man has gone before” Startrek. Also, as COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) says, the split infinitive is a common practice even in academic writing.

2. You should not end a sentence with a preposition! The first person who said this was John Dryden in 1672. It was popularized by Robert Lowth in his “Introduction to English Grammar” in 1762. He sees this construction as a matter of style, not grammaticality.

3. You should avoid multiple negations! Lindley Murray, an 18th century influential grammarian said that when you use two negatives they destroy each other, making it a positive. So when you say “Nor did they not perceive him” it means they indeed perceived him. But clearly this is not the way we use it everyday:

Bill Withers–“ain’t no sunshine when she’s gone” *does he mean there IS sunshine when she goes?

Pink Floyd–“we don’t need no education” *does he mean that we do need education? (of course we have to take into account Floyd was criticizing the education system)

Mick Jagger–“I can’t get no satisfaction” *does he mean that he can indeed get his satisfaction?

Prescriptivists are the ones who say “this word should be included in the dictionary” but the words that are included there or not has nothing to do with its circulation/popularity. Take the word “sneak.” What’s the past tense? snuck NOT sneaked. However, podcast 291 on “Irregular Verbs” of Grammar Girl explains the history on the development of irregular verbs such as “sneak.” According to COCA both “sneaked” and “snuck” are used, although “sneaked” is more popular. THIS is interesting to me because it is history right in front of your eyes. This is precisely how irregular verbs lost their irregularity. I would not be surprised if we loose “snuck” all together, even though the video describes it as having gained popularity in the 20th century (he used COHA The Corpus of Historical American English–he can see changes that have occurred since 1810).

Prescriptivists also say that what should be correct is based on a authoritative knowledge of convention. That is, if the guy at Harvard says it’s correct, it’s because it is correct…period. He goes on to expand on this notion of correctness to pronunciation, phonology, lexicon. If the guy at Harvard says it’s spoken this way, then it just is…period.

However, don’t get confused. Prescriptivism doesn’t just work from Top–>Bottom. That is, substituting informal language with highly formal ways of saying things just because the educated powerful guy at Harvard says so. It can also work Bottom–>Up. In his example a girl is criticized because her accent is perceived as too posh, making her sound “snobby and self-important.” Another example was the author David Foster Wallace saying that we should use words like “before” instead of “prior to” or “use” instead of “utilize” so he criticizes people using “puff words.”

Descriptivism=uses the word rule more as in chemistry or physics. We have a set of rules or laws or governing principles that can help us describe patterns in a set of data. It doesn’t tell you you should do things this way, but that according to a set of rules, you can do things in many ways.

Remember Top–>Bottom?
The same thing can happen here. People think that Descriptivism always works Bottom–>Up, but it can also work the other way around. Prescriptivists criticize Descriptivists because they just see all language as correct. Anything counts. If in Pittsburghese that word is pronounced in a particular way, and in New York another way, both are correct. He says it legitimizes incorrectness and encourages relativism, vulgar populism and the dumbing down of literate culture.

Is it grammatical or ungrammatical?

Prescriptivists: it’s grammatical if it adheres to its established convention. Tends to idealize language.

Descriptive: it’s grammatical if it follows the systematic structure of the language variety in which it’s realized. it’s grammatical if that is how it is used. If in Pittsburgh they say “the car needs washed” then in Pittsburgh it is grammatical. However, it’s not always correct to say descriptivists just accept whatever you say as correct. Descriptivists teach language as data. It is important to understand that:

1) English follows a particular structure (which Martha Kolln categorizes as the 10 patterns of the English Language).

2) Some Descriptivists devote their lives to understanding how one particular usage of a word is preferred to the usage of a different word in different settings.

3) Descriptivists can tell us a lot about how a word is used in a particular genre (COCA), whether the word is most common in academic writing or spoken language.

4) Descriptivists can tell us much about whether words used in a particular style book (AP Style Book) certainly match the patters of use in those genres.

5) Descriptivists do not suggest all communication is effective or that people don’t make mistakes.

Back to the beginning:

So he gives this example at the beginning.

“my uncle took us to visited the house”

IS IT PRESCRIPTIVE OR DESCRIPTIVE?

You might think this is prescriptive error because grammar tells us that the infinitive is NOT formed by

to + past participle–>AS THE STUDENT HAS DONE “TO VISITED”

So, you might say “to visited” is certainly not how language should be used, therefore it’s prescriptive.

I personally thought it was descriptive because:

the way we conjugate our verbs in English has more to do with using a word more because it’s popular. As Grammar Girl tells us on podcast 291 on “Irregular Verbs,” most verbs in Old English were irregular. But it got so confusing for people to try and memorize the irregular verbs for so many words, that as a rule established by popularity we decided to add “-ed” to the end of every verb to make it into the past tense. Only the words that we used most often, that were more popular, remained irregular.

So, to me I assume “visited” had an irregular word in Old English, but for popularity we stuck to -ed. Therefore making our -ed usage Descriptive. However, visited was never an irregular verb and we started using it around the Middle Ages according to my Modern English Grammar professor, Dr.Young.

Prescriptivists might say that “to visit” is the correct form because it is prescribed by certain rules of how the word should be used according to grammar.

***clearly the video states it is neither. that correcting “to visited” is simply a correction of error. Like the Monty Python video, according to my professor, it was just neither prescriptive or descriptive because it simply wasn’t the way Latin was used.

Conclusion:

The problem with prescriptivists is that sometimes linguistic judgments become stand-ins for judgments on people’s education or intelligence.

“suck isn’t a word Conan! and you went to Harvard and you should know that!”

However, this does not mean we can just ignore prescriptive rules. The good thing about prescriptive approaches is that, having the choice, we can make a better informed judgment on our descriptive patterns.

You might have a teacher that says you can’t split infinitives. So you just go along for the purpose of that assignment. Or you are writing a college paper and you decide that even though you might want to end a sentence with a preposition, it is weird and not recommended, so you just go along with it for that particular assignment.

Some research on the descriptive usage of a word can also inform prescriptivists on what should be used. Except I guess they would not be very prescriptive to their rules in that case.

My Opinion:

I think i would agree more with the descriptive way of looking at language. But that’s just because English was my second language and I feel I’m pretty open to the beauty of other languages. I could bring in a whole colonialism perspective into this discussion, but that’s for another post. All I would say is, I loved Sam Selvon’s “The Lonely Londoners” which was a beautiful account of Caribbean immigrants in the UK. It was written in Caribbean English vernacular, and I loved it. Read it and I encourage you to ponder on Sam Selvon’s usage of English. Is it correct? is it grammatical?

Thank you for reading and I hope this was extremely useful. If it was, I encourage you to hit “like” and share my blog with fellow writers, professors, classmates–and of course, feedback. I would love to hear what you think about Descriptivism and Prescriptivism, and perhaps feedback on how to improve my blog.

*For those of you still wondering how to distinguish between a Prescriptivist and a Descriptivist I here leave you with THIS amazing TED lecture on Lexicography by Erin McKean. I’m pretty sure that anyone who calls online dictionaries steam-punk bicycles with Victorian designs is pretty much orthodox all-the-way descriptivist.

Copyright © Juan David

 

E-Prime

So this weekend our Modern English Grammar professor sent us two articles to which we had to react using E-Prime (that is, without using any form of the verb “to be”). It was an enlightening assignment–it was a refresher of the necessary skills which dozens of professors had been drilling on me–on those extraneous and barbaric days of all-nighters writing insane literary analyses–“get rid of your be verbs!” they would say.

*For a bit of history on the verb “To Be” scroll all the way down.

So…

Article 1: “Nation’s Educators Alarmed by Poorly Written Teen Suicide Notes” published by The Onion.

-An article that criticizes an alarming number of teenagers who have been committing lots of grammatical errors on their suicide notes. It calls for action in order to prevent grammatical errors before students commit suicide.

Article 2: “: “This column will change your life: To be or not to be” a column by Oliver Burkeman published in the Guardian on January 15, 2010

-An article about the elimination of the verb to be due to its absolutist nature–think about the world without the verb to be!

This was my response to it (on E-Prime):

I think the most important aspect of the article certainly provides a commentary on a society that continuously sets up its youth to commit acts of suicide. We focus on insignificant things, without truly paying attention to what really matters in our child’s life. It reminds me of the animated movie “Brave” which I saw this weekend. A mother so concerned with her child’s poise and presentation to society, taking little care of the bond which forged their family together. This article presents a surreal and satirical presentation of a stark reality–a comedy of manners, if you will, about this generation’s parenting and education patterns–how do parents drive their own children to a point of suicide as opposed to speaking and reaching out to their closest relatives and educators? Unfortunately this provokes feelings of sadness, but it showcases a society engrossed on its own spoils, and this article puts it right in your face, while making a commentary and covering ground for those grammar bigots out there.

It is important to note, as my English Professor, Dr.Young, mentioned: “this [Article 1] satirizes nitpicking, NOT poor grammar skills, and NOT suicide. 🙂  The article argues that we should care LESS about fixing grammar and MORE about preventing suicide.”

To be:

Further evaluation on this verb taps into philosophical territory. An argument that stretches beyond satire and the linguistic assessment of a single part of speech–it is a commentary on the lack of communication in a system that fails to reevaluate the way we are reaching out to our youth. TO BE is more than just an irregular verb, it is an identity. We all have different forms of being. What would the most fundamental statements be without it?

Because when I say “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal” I’d like to think those truths are indeed to be self-evident; and that when I say “I think, therefore I am” then I must absolutely without a doubt be something to someone, even if I’m bullied at school; or that “to be or not to be” is indeed an unquestionable doubt worth pondering for.

A Bit of History:

According to Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln:

“The irregular Be [is] the only English verb with more than five forms…the most irregular of our irregular verbs. It is also the only verb with a separate form for the infinitive, or base (be); it is the only one with three forms for present tense (am, is, are) and two for past tense (was, were); and of course it has an -en form (been) and an -ing (being) form–eight forms in all…in addition…be also serves as an auxiliary in our verb-expansion rule and as the auxiliary that turns the active voice to passive.”

For a more etymological perspective I went to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. It proved valuable in that it told me at least about its evolution. It says:

“The history of [the] verb is long and complex…[it’s] made up of bits and pieces of three older verbs. In the 16th century, Strang 1970 tells us, be was regularly used for the second person singular and plural and the first and third persons plural in  the present tense: we be, you be, they be. About this same time, are, a form surviving in norther dialects of English, began to stage a comeback. Eventually are ousted be from all its present indicative uses in standard English, and be was reduced in standard English to its subjunctive function. It has kept its older indicative uses in various dialects and in a few fossilized expressions such as “the powers that be.””

According to Grammar Girl (which I HIGHLY recommend) on her podcast 291 on Irregular Verbs, to be and the such are relics. These are verbs that were so commonly used that they kept their irregular form. Quote: “Researchers at Harvard found a strong correlation between how often a verb is used and whether it regularized.”

 

Education affordability must stay top priority

the Central Florida Future

By Juan David

Guest Columnist

Published: Sunday, September 15, 2013

Updated: Sunday, September 15, 2013 17:09

When getting an education harms someone more than it helps, we have to rethink our value structure in America and “shake up the system.”

At least, these were the words President Barack Obama used on Aug. 22 at the University at Buffalo upon announcing plans for a new college rating system tied to financial aid. The plan unfolds regarding education and the struggles of a knowledge-starved America.

Obama’s plan seeks to evaluate colleges on measures such as tuition, graduation rates, graduates’ debt and earnings and the percentage of lower-income student attendees. It is hard to argue with Obama that this is, indeed, “A knowledge-based economy,” but we all know too well that, “shaking up” an entire nation takes more than the desire of the president or…To read more click Here

Sunset Harbour’s Anchor

Ocean Drive Magazine
September 2013

Sunset Harbour’s Anchor
The neighborhood’s new retailparking venture has aided its transformation into a culinary mecca.

By Juan David Romero

You don’t normally associate parking garages with deliciousness, but in the instance of Sunset Harbour’s new four-story city-owned garage, open since September 2012, that’s exactly the case. Boston’s Emack & Bolio’s ice cream, Wynwood’s Panther Coffee, and Icebox Cafe (formerly of Lincoln Road) have all found a home in the structure’s first-floor retail space, and new nearby eateries such as Brooklyn’s famed Lucali pizza and four Pubbelly restaurants are part of the flavor spike as well. The project, which includes 460 parking spaces and 26,000 square feet of retail, unfolded as a public/private venture between real estate developer partners Scott Robins and Philip Levine and the City of Miami Beach. “We wanted to bring in the best of Miami Beach and people that had been displaced from Lincoln Road and Ocean Drive,” Robins says. Architecture firm Arquitectonica designed the building with an intricate geometrical façade and pedestrian walk-through, providing the bayfront enclave with bites and drinks—and making it one of the most desirable neighborhoods in town.

What CFOs know about employee productivity and awareness of strategic objectives

Financial Ops magazine

By Juan David Romero

September 5, 2013

Ideal employees understand. Ideal employees shake themselves out of bed every day and head to work because of you. Ideal employees value you and your company. They have an enlightening awareness of that nurturing connection that has kept them in tune with your workplace ambitions since the day you shook hands, forging a long-lasting partnership, maybe even a friendship.

Well, that’s ideal employees. But to fulfill that role, they need a little help from their supervisors and the company’s leadership. According to a recent study, approximately one-third (34 percent) of chief financial officers said their employees are not very or at all aware of their firm’s strategic objectives.

The study was based on a survey by Robert Half Management Resources, which provides senior-level finance, accounting, and business systems professionals on a project and interim basis. Researchers surveyed more than 2,100 CFOs from companies in more than 20 of the largest U.S. metropolitan areas.

In the study, CFOs were asked, “In your opinion, how aware are your employees of the company’s strategic goals?” Thirty-five percent of executives from companies with 20 to 49 employees said their teams are not aware of the firm’s objectives, compared with  just 9 percent of respondents at the biggest organizations, those with 1,000 or more employees.

For many executives, especially at smaller companies, this might be more than a challenge. Keeping your employees informed and actively engaged in pushing forward on your vision is time-consuming, and time is money — money that smaller, more local businesses often don’t have.

Regardless of the size of the company, its leaders — including CFOs — should regularly communicate the organization’s strategic goals, says Paul McDonald, senior executive director with Robert Half. “Some effective internal communications vehicles include in-person meetings, town-hall sessions, videos, memos and Web-based trainings.”

McDonald says there’s no particular one-size-fits-all formula.

“It’s about ensuring employees understand how their work and specific daily efforts support the company’s bigger strategic vision,” he says. “Understanding that their efforts are making a difference — that they’re moving the needle — is the key.”

Think of it as an expense-turned-asset, Google type of attitude. You’ve heard of the Googleplex at Silicon Valley with its ping-pong tables, billiards, foosball, swim-in-place swimming pools, bean bags, comfy chairs, fountains, mood lights, and free healthy organic food.

It’s all about keeping employees happy at the workplace. By doing so, experts say, you enhance productivity, retention rates, professionalism, and trust. For smaller businesses where employee-executive relationships are often more direct, it might entail going beyond that individualized company culture and ensuring that all employees every day feel they’re integral contributors.

For a CFO, of course, this can be an everyday venture and another job all on its own, but it’s crucial, McDonald says.

“Employees who are aware of their company’s strategic goals are more motivated to perform to the best of their abilities, particularly if they feel their contributions are helping to achieve those goals,” he says. “It allows them to align their own objectives with the company’s vision.”

It’s also important to reward employees for their efforts in achieving the company’s business goals. A “thank you” goes a long way, and that can be expressed not just by a pat on the back, but also an investment in educating your employees and enhancing their awareness of your company’s goals and objectives.