Prescriptivism and descriptivism in English language usage

¶ … English language usage and the respective merits of the positions of linguistic "Prescriptivists" and "Descriptivists" in connection with what should be considered proper English grammar and usage. On one hand, the author acknowledges the fundamental tenet of the Descriptivists that language always evolves and changes to reflect the ways that it is, in fact, used by the population. On the other hand, he absolutely rejects the descriptivist argument that this evolution can be quantified scientifically. Meanwhile, he also acknowledges the value of maintaining standard written English (SWE) and of resisting changes to English language usage that reflect ignorance and a lack of education rather than genuine social trends as reflected in language usage.

Main Thesis and Methodology

Wallace's main thesis seems to be that neither the strict Prescriptivist approach nor the infinitely lax descriptivist approach is necessarily the best solution to the dilemma of maintaining those aspects of proper English grammar and usage that are important while incorporating gradual changes that truly reflect the evolution rather than the devolution of the English language. The author's principal methodology seems to be to develop a common ground by unpacking the respective underlying sources of both positions and identifying potential problems associated with adhering to either one too strictly while ignoring the objective merits of the other.

More specifically, Wallace suggests that certain aspects of the Prescriptivist position are merely functions of the arbitrary fact that English originated from Latin, such as in connection with the technical prohibition against split infinitives. However, Wallace acknowledges that there are absolute limits to what types of (or how much) change is acceptable under the concept of linguistic evolution as function of popular use. Specifically, he illustrates that an overly board permissiveness in that regard would allow words such as "brung" and "feeled."

Response and Conclusion

Ultimately, Wallace presents a cogent argument for reconciling two diametrically opposite perspectives. Certainly, there is a value to retaining some semblance of what it means to speak and write English correctly. On the other hand, it is also natural and desirable that language be permitted to evolve; otherwise, we would all still be speaking biblical language. According to that reconciled view, words like "brung" and "feeled" would never be considered part of linguistic evolution because they reflect nothing more than widespread mistakes. Conversely, the English language should always be flexible enough to incorporate changes that do reflect common usage, such as the addition of the verbs to "Google" or to "Tebow."