Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Rethinking the prescriptivist–descriptivist dyad: motives and methods in two eighteenth-century grammars: Revising the prescriptivist–descriptivist dyad

Abstract

Grammars, dictionaries, usage manuals and other linguistic references are traditionally categorized along a spectrum running from prescriptivist to descriptivist, yet for years problems with this system of categorization have been noted. Forty years ago Geoffrey Pullum cautioned against confusing methodology and motives when applying the ‘descriptive’ or ‘prescriptive’ labels (1974: 77–78). A few years later Emma Vorlat suggested a middle ground, that grammars codify the language along a continuum of prescriptive–normative–descriptive, that is codification based on arbitrary rules – usage by social elites – description without value judgment (1979: 129). Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade noted that Vorlat's categories are not discrete, with eighteenth-century grammars increasingly basing prescriptions on descriptions of actual usage as the century progressed (2000: 877). María Rodríguez-Gil further noted that prescriptive grammars often base their advice on description of the language of social elites (2003: 190). Joan Beal characterized Robert Lowth's eighteenth-century grammars as both ‘normative’ and ‘descriptive’ (2004: 106). And Robin Straaijer has noted that ‘it seems useful to view prescriptivism and descriptivism as being independent from one another rather than diametrical opposites’ (2009: 67–68). Yet, perhaps because of the baggage carried by the two terms, to date no one has made the leap to conclude that the two terms address entirely different domains altogether – Straaijer approached the brink but did not leap. Prescriptivism and descriptivism do not exist along the same continuum.

Copyright
Corresponding author
dave.wilton@mail.utoronto.ca
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

A. Auer 2009. The Subjunctive in the Age of Prescriptivism: English and German Developments during the Eighteenth Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

J. Hodson 2006. ‘The problem of Joseph Priestley's (1733–1804) descriptivism.’ Historiographia Linguistica, 33(1/2), 5784.

C. Percy 1997. ‘Paradigms lost: Bishop Lowth and the ‘Poetic Dialect’ in his English Grammar.Neophilologus, 81(1), 129–44.

I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1982. ‘Double negation and eighteenth-century English grammars.’ Neophilologus, 66(2), 278–85.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

English Today
  • ISSN: 0266-0784
  • EISSN: 1474-0567
  • URL: /core/journals/english-today
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×