A “descriptivist" tries to describe language as it is used. A “prescriptivist,” focuses on how language should be used. After reading and reflecting about this article I agree with Robert Greene and his descriptivist ideas. The English language is ever-changing and should not follow all the ancient grammar rules like: "Which" introduces a "nonrestrictive" relative clause, and "that" introduces a restrictive clause. These ancient rules are complex and in my opinion do not form part of the "normal" usage of the english language. I am sure that if someone with good modern grammatical knowledge traveled 400 years back and attended an English lesson there would be an outrage, teachers and scholars would complain about his inappropriate use of grammar. This language is suppose to evolve along with society. I agree with Greene's proposed meta-rule "When a proposed rule and actual usage conflict, the proposed rule is false, and actual usage should be our guide".
By no means am I saying that grammar is not important. It is an essential part of writing, and especially formal writing. Proper grammar rules should be taught at every school and it is important we all know our grammatical basics. All I am saying is that people have to be open to the changes in our language and should not try and shove ancient rules down our throats.
It seems to me that language, having its roots in the spoken word rather than the written one, should be judged by how it is spoken in our every-day lives. It is wrong to reject our evolving language while trying to enforce unused rules which might seem ridiculous to us now. The point of grammar rules is so that our messages are conveyed clearly, but if we can do so without the old complex rules than that is fine.
By no means am I saying that grammar is not important. It is an essential part of writing, and especially formal writing. Proper grammar rules should be taught at every school and it is important we all know our grammatical basics. All I am saying is that people have to be open to the changes in our language and should not try and shove ancient rules down our throats.
It seems to me that language, having its roots in the spoken word rather than the written one, should be judged by how it is spoken in our every-day lives. It is wrong to reject our evolving language while trying to enforce unused rules which might seem ridiculous to us now. The point of grammar rules is so that our messages are conveyed clearly, but if we can do so without the old complex rules than that is fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment