I feel like this past month more and more people have mentioned to me their belief that languages either do or should strive to be logical. On the one hand, this is an obvious point. A more logical language is a more learnable language, and since language is passed down from generation to generation, we expect that exceedingly difficult-to-acquire portions of a language will be eventually lost by this process. That’s fairly uncontroversial and is known as “regularization” in linguistics. But the problem is that the logic of language is generally opaque. It’s not the same as the logic of mathematics or the logic of argumentation, so it’s hardly obvious what it means for a language to be logical. I’d wanted to make a post about this, but I was having trouble saying what I meant to say. Thankfully, my labmate, Emily Morgan, ended up saying some great stuff about it in a comment elsewhere. She’s been kind enough to elaborate on those thoughts here. Without further babbling from me, here’s a guest post from her.
—
When linguists speak out against prescriptivism, one question we get asked is why we care so much about it. This post is an attempt to answer that question.
To begin with, it’s important to point out that linguists generally aren’t blanketly opposed to prescriptivism; rather, we’re opposed to uninformed or misinformed prescriptivism. So for example, I’m very much in favor of standard spelling and punctuation use, but with the understanding that these are more or less arbitrary conventions–not because I believe that these particular conventions are better than any others. Prescriptivist rules often come with supposed justifications, but under further scrutiny those justifications frequently don’t hold water. In particular, many rules are justified on the basis of some “logical” argument. The problem with that is that it’s easy to construct arguments that sound logical for certain cases, but don’t follow the bigger-picture logic of how language works. To give an analogy from mathematics, I could make a pseudo-logical argument that because we count …8, 9, 10… then the next number after 18, 19 should be 110. Of course, given an understanding of how the decimal system works, that’s nonsense. But without that broader understanding, it would sound logical. So bringing this back to language, if someone tries to argue, for example, that You drive too slow is incorrect because slow is an adjective not an adverb, that sounds logical under the simplified view that slow is an adjective while slowly is an adverb. But in the bigger picture, we find that slow can be used either as an adjective or an adverb–and has had both uses for hundreds of years.
That bigger-picture argument puts a lot of weight on descriptive generalizations about how native speakers use their language. I think it’s important to understand why linguists so often use arguments like these, which are based on descriptions of what native speakers do. The underlying reason is that language is a natural phenomenon, and our goal as linguists is to understand how it works. And to do so, we call upon all the empirical tools of science, and our primary source of data is the way that people actually do use language. Now, I recognize that how people do use language and how people should use language are not inherently the same thing. But I think that any claims about how people should use language need to be grounded in a solid understanding of what language is. And I think that many prescriptivists fundamentally misunderstand this. Language is not an ideal system that we as individual speakers are trying to draw upon or conform to. Language is something that we as a community of speakers collectively create and reinvent each time we speak. So any statement that we make about language is inextricably rooted in a descriptive generalization about what that community does. Even the most fundamental notions of grammar—things like the division of utterances into words, or the grouping of words into parts of speech—are not a priori assumptions about how communication should work: rather, they’re based on our empirical understanding of how speakers treat language.
So in the bigger picture, why do we linguists care about all of this? There’s a lot of reasons, but I think the most fundamental is that there’s hugely widespread misunderstanding of a topic that we care a lot about, and we feel a professional obligation to set the record straight. In the worst case, baseless prescriptions like “don’t split infinitives” or “don’t end a sentence with a preposition” actually lead to worse writing, as people learn to go through contortions to avoid what are actually perfectly standard grammatical constructions. In milder cases, people just waste their time trying to remember rules like the supposed distinctions between that/which and less/fewer, which are mostly harmless when followed, but equally harmless when violated. Additionally, as Gabe discussed recently, these shibboleths distract from the true pleasure of studying language, which is an amazingly rich and fascinatingly complicated system—but instead of being exposed to the excitement of unsolved questions in linguistics, people are instead being drilled on arbitrary and unnecessary rules. To draw another analogy to math, it’s the same sort of regret I feel for people who had poor math instruction early in school, and end up hating all things number-related, without ever seeing the beauty of abstraction that comes out in higher-level math. (If you are one of those number-haters, feel free to substitute your own favorite discipline or activity, and consider that sense of “But you don’t understand!” that you feel when someone misunderstands it or dislikes it for no good reason.)
Finally, I want to clarify that in arguing for more permissive, less prescriptive attitudes towards grammar, we are not trying to convince people to use language in ways that sound unnatural to them. As native speakers, we all have intuitions about what sounds right and what sounds wrong. Gabe can say “needs done”, but to me that sounds unnatural, and so I never use it myself. One underlying assumption to the linguist’s descriptive approach to language, which we probably don’t stress enough, is that there can be more than one right way to say something, and the fact that we are describing variation between speakers does not mean that we expect to find the same variation within all individual speakers. So no one is trying to convince you to say “needs done” if it sounds wrong to your ear—we’re only trying to convince you not to be upset if someone else does use it. As a caveat, I recognize that this position gets more complicated when thinking about English as a Second Language instruction, or when teaching people who have grown up speaking a dialect that deviates in major ways from Standard English, in which cases it’s obviously valuable to discuss what standards exist and what cultural implications they bear. But even in these cases, the fundamental ideas remain unchanged: we should acknowledge variation as natural, and any usage advice needs to be based on factually grounded descriptions of that variation.
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 24, 2010 at 10:14 am
Vance
Thanks for this.
Language is not an ideal system that we as individual speakers are trying to draw upon or conform to.
As you suggest at the end, though, there are many situations in which we do try, more or less consciously, to draw upon or conform to a specific, narrower language mode — whether that be “Standard English”, blogging, a professional writing style, or telling jokes to the guys. For some pedagogical situations, it may be useful to treat certain such modes as closed “systems”, but as you say, they’re not. For one thing, they’re in flux, open to creativity (“blanketly”) and to contagion from other modes — at least to some extent.
My point is that the “ideal system” view of language does capture some important properties of the real world. As a heuristic, it has its attractions. So what do we replace it with, for pedagogy and individual use?
March 24, 2010 at 4:05 pm
language hat
Very well said, Emily.
March 25, 2010 at 12:44 am
James
Here’s one thing I don’t get which never seems to get brought up in these defenses of descriptivistism that come up each week on the language blogs. Let me make a long analogy. There are probably some scientists who study the clothes people wear. And from what I remember, there’s good evidence (based on differences between body lice and head lice) that people have been wearing clothes for tens of thousands of years, to the point where clothes are something pretty basic about being human. There are also other people who like to give advice about what to wear — thin neckties are out and so on. I could imagine a clothes scientist saying that this is awful advice, that there’s nothing in pricniple wrong with wearing thin neckties, and that, in fact, people have been wearing them for hundreds of years. Everyone knows these two kinds of experts on clothes are trying to solve different problems, and so they never get into arguments (I guess). But even worse, almost no one but the scientists cares about the science of clothes. Everyone just want other people to think they look good when they go out, which means listening to people who give fashion advice.
Anyway, my point is as obvious as a clown’s nose. I’m all in favor of descriptivism, probably as much as anyone else, but people really want prescriptivism too. They want to know what’s in and what’s out. So why do linguists get so bothered about prescriptivists when the clothes scientists get along peacefully with the fashion experts? Is it because the prescriptivists in language don’t present themselves as giving arbitrary fashion advice? But everyone knows that’s what they’re doing.
March 25, 2010 at 2:41 am
Stan
There are lice, damned lice, and sadistic ticks.
Thanks to Emily for a thoughtful and sensible article. I think one of the frustrating things for some linguists and language specialists is the widespread assumption that if you are interested in grammar and usage, you must be fussy about it. When the subject appears in mainstream or popular media, for example, the comments often fill to bursting with pet peeves of wildly varying validity. Love of language seems to be commonly confused with anality about it.
Occasionally, someone will comment on my blog that they were self-conscious about making mistakes, even though I repeatedly point out that mistakes happen to everyone (myself included), that I don’t judge people by them, and that often they’re not mistakes anyway. I suspect that the reasons for these attitudes and intuitions are strongly social, with usage being a marker of social type or class, though only rarely is it recognised as such in public discourse.
To James: Not everyone knows that much prescriptivist advice is arbitrary; many take it as The Truth, and pass it on with the same unquestioning belief in its universal and eternal correctness.
March 25, 2010 at 5:19 am
language hat
Yes, if only people were simply getting fashion advice, there wouldn’t be a problem. People seriously think that other people who violate the shibboleths are ignorant, unworthy, and probably bad people. It’s classist, elitist, and stupid.
March 25, 2010 at 7:09 am
Terry Collmann
Splitting infinitives is the new black.
March 25, 2010 at 9:07 am
Emily Michelle
James makes a good point. Although linguists reject the idea of prescriptivism, there is a portion of the population who love it, who buy language handbooks because they crave being told exactly how to speak. I’m not saying I agree with them, just that they exist, and that they take this topic quite seriously.
I think Stan’s comment was particularly insightful: we associate accepted language standards with social standing and assume that we, like Eliza Doolittle, can pass off as smarter or richer or classier than we are if only we can speak correctly. Conversely, as language hat said, those who do speak “correctly” look down on those who don’t and assume that they are stupid. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard or read someone rejecting another person’s ideas, not because the ideas were bad but because the second person used poor grammar in expressing them.
Emily, I loved this post, especially the bit about feeling sorry for those who never get grammar rules and into the true beauty of language. I studied linguistics in college and whenever I told people my major, they assumed I spend all my time memorizing the difference between who and whom, and that it must be a very boring topic to study. It made me sorry for them, that they never understood how fascinating it is, how incredible it is that we all have this capacity to understand and create language.
March 30, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Emily
Thank you guys for such insightful and positive feedback! And my apologies for not responding sooner. (I’ve been out of town for the past week.) At long last, here are some responses to your comments.
Vance: I’m admittedly no expert in pedagogy, but it seems to me that one important idea is to recognize that there are different modes of language use (speaking versus writing, varying levels of formality, etc), and that whatever conventions you’re being taught apply in some situations but not others. Also important is to recognize where these conventions come from: Providing pseudo-logical arguments in favor of conventions gives the mistaken impression that language is designed in a way that follows the logic of mathematics, or some other easily understood form of logic. It may be less satisfying in the short term to say that something is true as a result of historical accident, but when that’s the truth, it’s presumably better in the long term to recognize that.
James: As other commenters have pointed out, I think many prescriptivists present their advice as being inherently good, or good for the sort of pseudo-logical reasons I’m arguing against, rather than arbitrary fashions. And many educated people clearly treat their advice as inherently good and non-arbitrary, regardless of how they intended it.
April 1, 2010 at 9:14 am
beniek
Hello,
your article is very interesting (i was reading it 3 times). Sorry for my english, but it isnt my main language. When you are writing about logical language, then you must remember that in language is very important to “say about emotion”.
I repeat – your article is very interesing, and i enjoyed it.
about it:
“Language is something that we as a community of speakers collectively create and reinvent each time we speak. ”
i think that in language is many grammatic rules. It isnt only personal thinking (“my” english), but it is something universal.
I have problem with english grammar – my teacher gives me many exercises, but i dont know how to do it :( English grammar isnt easy.
“As native speakers, we all have intuitions about what sounds right and what sounds wrong.”
Because you have intuition of perfect english. Intuition of (any) language is very useful.
April 1, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Vance
Not sure what you mean by emotion, beniek — anger or grief don’t really affect what Emily is talking about here, except in the sense that we may speak more informally under stress. If you mean that speech and writing need to meet expressive requirements as well as syntactic ones, that’s undeniable.
And as Emily said, pedagogy — whether teaching second-language learners or native children — imposes different requirements. It may even be necessary to use rules that don’t hold up strictly on close examination of a broad linguistic corpus, rules to be learned as a scaffolding and then discarded, but I have my doubts.
April 5, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Emily
beniek is certainy right that there are grammatical rules for English (or any other language). I think the interesting question is where those rules come from. And what I want to emphasize is that the rules don’t exist independent from the community of English speakers. So while it’s true that you can come up with lots of rules about grammar that are useful for foreign language teaching, those rules shouldn’t be used to stop native speakers (or sufficiently proficient second language speakers) from using language creatively.
April 8, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Arrant Pedantry » Blog Archive » Scriptivists Revisited
[…] strive to make our language match observed standards. Or as Emily Morgan so excellently says in a guest post on Motivated Grammar, “Language is something that we as a community of speakers collectively create and reinvent […]
May 18, 2010 at 10:22 am
Mind your peeves and cures « Sentence first
[…] paragraph, and the next, are from a comment I left on Motivated Grammar a couple of months ago. (The post in question, like all the posts I’ve linked to here, is […]