You might remember those sort of “controversial” posts I had on language and prescriptivism (the one commenting on the Bebigerls and another commenting on one of Mr. Jose Carillo’s posts regarding the prescriptivist versus descriptivist debate). As language studies scholar, I do swear by descriptivism, since as a an applied linguist, I have to write about language as it’s being used rather than how it “should” be used.
But I do acknowledge the role of prescriptivism today especially in language teaching. I know that some colleagues in fields such as literature and creative writing do swear by the masterful and artful use of the language. Most have minimal to zero tolerance for grammar errors and lapses. And I do acknowledge their points. In my opinion, if even only for the basis of achieving mutual intelligibility, there is premium to teaching and learning a “standard” English.
And I do concern myself with this thought as of late. I need to bone up on my academic writing. I’ve been trying to write my thesis for the past couple of months only to find myself lacking the patience and discipline to write longer stretches of academic discourse. Years doing web content writing have transformed my writing style from being clear and concise to curt, disorganized, and fluffy.
And I concede that I have to go with a prescriptivist if only to remedy my writing style for the purposes of my thesis. I have to revisit Strunk and White and the MLA Handbook. I even grabbed a few books on style and usage including a couple of Mr. Carillo’s books which I know are excellent local materials on the subject while at the bookstore earlier.
While my position as a language scholar will always be descriptivist, I do maintain that it’s not about choosing one over the other but selecting which one is apt given the context.
Oh. Interesting that I found several David Crystal titles available at National Bookstore. And it was funny to see them located next to Lynne Truss books.
Check out these other posts:
0 Comments.