LINGUISTIC PRESCRIPTION

LINGUISTIC PRESCRIPTION

In linguistics, prescription is the laying down or prescribing of normative rules for a language. A milder form of prescriptivism makes "recommendations" for good language usage. This is in contrast to the description of language, which simply describes how language is used in practice.
Outside the field of linguistics, these terms are used in a more general sense to indicate whether a statement is merely describing a state of affairs or presenting it as desirable. For example, "a man should take responsibility for his actions" is a prescriptive statement; "some men don't take responsibility for their actions" is a descriptive one. Some prescriptive statements are phrased in the language of description: for instance, in many contexts "a man takes responsibility for his actions" would be understood as saying that a man ought to take responsibility for his actions.

Linguistic Prescription
For example, a descriptive linguist (descriptivist) working in English would describe the word "ain't" in terms of usage, distribution, and history rather than correctness; while acknowledging it a nonstandard form, the descriptivist would accept the broad principle that as a language evolves it often incorporates such items and thus would not didactically reject the term as never appropriate. A prescriptivist, on the other hand, would rule on whether "ain't" met some criterion of rationality, historical grammatical usage, or conformity to a contemporary standard dialect. Frequently this standard dialect is associated with the upper class (e.g., Great Britain's Received Pronunciation). When a form does not conform — as is the case for "ain't" — the prescriptivist will condemn it as a solecism or barbarism, prescribing that it not be used. In short, the door is absolutely barred to nonstandard forms.

Scientific Linguistics is Descriptivist. As in most academic disciplines, the purpose of scholarship is understood to be the observation and analysis of phenomena as they actually appear in the world. Nonstandard varieties are held to be no more or less 'correct' than standard varieties, though it is recognised that many speakers of the latter look down on nonstandard forms. In the 18th and 19th centuries philologists expected to find 'primitive' languages in the new colonies around the world, but never did. As a result linguists soon came to understand that there is no such thing and that this principle also applies to nonstandard varieties of European languages.
However, while most linguists see the rise of the descriptive approach as a positive development, many would contend that there is still a place for elements of prescriptivism in some contexts. Most people would agree that standardised languages are useful for interregional communication, for example. Learners of foreign languages need prescriptive teaching unless they are very advanced. And writers or communicators who wish to use words as clearly, powerfully or effectively as possible may be better helped by informed recommendations than by an assurance that anything is acceptable. Consequently, it is unlikely that prescriptive approaches will disappear entirely.

RISHI KUMAR NAGAR