In a section of the opinion pages called Room for Debate, The New York Times hosted a debate between two rival linguists representing contending schools of thought: the descriptivist and the prescriptivist. The discussion was about the rules that regulate proper written English and whether they should be adapted to suit changes in the spoken tongue. Descriptivists describe language as it is used, believing that cumbersome grammatical rules that are not consistent with the regular English used by most native speakers should be eliminated. On the other side, prescriptivist linguists make emphasis on how language should be used.
I began reading the article with a prescriptivist point of view, believing that all rules make the ideas being expressed in writing clearer. Obviously, I did not advocate an unchanging language, archaic and inconsistent with the vernacular. More so, it can be said that I agreed with Bryan Garner in supporting a “nonstandard, but rule-bound, dialect.”
Robert Lane Greene made me change my mind. I understood that making the rulebook more comprehensive could be a social equalizer, by extending written expression to those who, in the words of Lane, were “just unlucky not to get a great education”.
Nevertheless, I also understand Garners’ point of view. If language rules become too elastic, language becomes a hot mess in which the effectiveness of writing is compromised. Lane suggests a worthy solution to this problem with his “meta-rule”, stating that when a rule is in conflict with the actual usage of many great writers and the majority of native speakers, the rule should be expunged in favor of the actual usage. Unless these conditions arise, Garner suggests that rules be followed.
No comments:
Post a Comment