To Describe or to Prescribe… Apparently That is the Question?

Language is probably the most insane of all human characteristics, not only because of its complexity but also because it constantly changes, develops, and creates specific political/social contexts as much as these contexts create the aforementioned change and development. In the end language is a cyclical thing which humans invented and yet ironically do not fully understand. There are two ways to understand language: you can either try to understand language as it is used or choose to focus on the way language should be used. Linguists are divided between these two approaches to language much like people are divided between left wing and right wing politics (it’s more a sliding scale than an issue of black and white). The linguists that go for understanding language as it is used are commonly known as “descriptivists” while the ones focused on how language should be used are denominated “prescriptivists”. In The New York Times’ Room for Debate the article “Which Language Rules to Flout. Or Flaunt?” brought a descriptivist (Robert Lane Greene) and prescriptivist (Bryan A. Garner) together to debate language. The ideology (for lack of a better word) that I identified most with was the “reasonable [moderate]” descriptivism that Greene believes in. Language should be allowed to evolve and change (it is a human tool after all, it should change at the same rate as we change even though this would indicate that language is going to start changing faster and faster as technology develops and changes our society at a faster rate) but there are certain contexts in which grammar rules and conventions need to be taken into account. In Greene’s more able words: “There is a set of standard conventions everyone needs for formal writing and speaking. Except under unusual circumstances, you should use the grammar and vocabulary of standard written English for these purposes.”

Realistically, language will develop and change whether we want it to or not. Taking a realistic perspective once again, we can’t expect all the conventions of Wnglish to be taken into account when what matters is fast communication. In an informal setting, proper punctuation, spelling, and grammar may even end up being inconvenient. Take texting for example, when an instant message needs to be communicated it is much simpler to type “brb dinner” than it is to type “I’ll be right back, they’re calling me down for dinner”. In this specific context as well as in everyday conversation, informal emails, tweeting (or any other social media), etc. language has developed to make things easier. In my opinion, the creation of abbreviations and pragmatic particles as well as the disregard of common language rules and technicalities can’t be considered wrong in this context.

Journalism, essays, literature, speeches and formal letters are a completely different story. In these specific cases, the technicalities of language should be observed and obeyed simply because that is the way writing was initially developed. It wouldn’t be right to write abbreviations in a formal essay or to ignore the rules of punctuation in journalism. Unless you are disregarding the rules for a specific purpose, this context is not the place to be creative in the name of efficiency.

When we text or tweet or even email informally, we are writing the way we speak: for the sake of communication only and looking for efficiency above all. When we give a speech or recite a poem, we are speaking the way we write: unnaturally long and generally more descriptive, elaborate, and complex than our everyday conversation. This makes all the difference. Language for the sake of efficient communication may be deformed as much as it has to be deformed as long as the message gets across. Language for the sake of art, expression, or information needs to adhere to a certain set of rules. Granted, these rules don’t need to be as strict as: “’which’ must introduce a ‘nonrestrictive’ relative clause (a mere extra bit of information). Only ‘that’ can introduce a ‘restrictive’ clause (a crucial bit of definition)” but basic punctuation and grammar technicalities need to be present.

In the end, language will change and develop regardless of what we want to happen, how we use the language and how we choose to understand it depends on the context we find ourselves in. I would see absolutely no problem with the phrase “lol dude ur insane i don’t even get you” in a text message or as a tweet, it wouldn’t exactly cut it in a college essay though.