On Descriptivism

描写主义或描述性语法是一系列的规则,或者可以说支配人的行动在规范主义或规定性语法是一系列的规则,这些规则控制人们应该或不应该说什么。是没有意义的，说哪一个是正确的或错误的,与人意见不一有关。具体是怎么样的呢

  Increasing exposure to this course of fundamentals of grammar throws some light on the study of some controversial theories, among which descriptivism and prescriptivism are to be discussed in this paper. According to the lecture given by the professor, descriptivism or descriptive grammar is a series of rules that govern what people do or can say while prescriptivism or prescriptive grammar is a series of rules that govern what people should or shouldn’t say. It makes no sense to say which one is right or wrong and opinions differ with people. We are free to be for either one that is supposed to be more justifiable. As for me, I am a descriptivist, which means no radical denial of the merits of prescriptivism. I am for descriptive grammar because I think its advantages outweigh the disadvantages while the prescriptivism is just the other way around. 
  Descriptivism can easily find it’s a large number of supporters throughout the world, since it adapts to the change of language in this ever-changing world. Language is created by humankind and undoubtedly it is expected to change with the development of men through time. Language itself needs development and fresh blood. Take a look at the currently often-used greeting “long time no see”. It is now frequently used by my friends in Canada and America and it is used more and more often by an increasing number of people now. However, some time ago, it is considered as incorrect, not adhering to the grammatical rules. Since language is used to communicate, if a certain expression is helpful in making clear what the speaker says, it should be regarded as not incorrect. Prescriptivism has a lot of rules, for example, don’t end a sentence with a preposition; don’t split infinitives; don’t use double negatives; say to whom and not who. As far as I am concerned, these rules are unable to hold water. “Where are you from?” is frequently used by everyone in English-speaking countries. But based on the rule of prescriptivism, this expression is not correct because it ends with a preposition. Seldom do we hear the so-called prescriptive expression “From where are you?” and the reality is the vast majority of people use the incorrect expression which is of course in prescriptivism terms. In this circumstance, is it right to deduce that the vast majority of people are wrong? Here comes another problem, what is the benchmark?
  As is known, grammar rules are established by a small group of experts with profound knowledge. Admittedly, they have a say in all those components of grammar. But who gives them the right to establish the right from the wrong merely on the basis of their own limited knowledge. And I think no one has the right but the vast majority of people, for language is created by mankind but not this small group of people with authority or prestige based on knowledge. They know a lot but not everything. What is in the interest of the majority is believed to be the benchmark instead of what that small group of experts believes. Let’s take a look at an example. It has long been taught that such use of the word “like” as in those two sentences, “Nowadays Sunday is not observed like it used to be” and “It looked like it would rain” is improper. We are told that we are expected to use “as” instead of “like” in the first sentence and “as if” in the second one. But if asked if the word “like” can also be a conjunction, what can we say? First, maybe we can look up to a dictionary or turn to some reference books of grammar. However, the word “like” as conjunction in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1974) is never mentioned and Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (1972) states that such use is illiterate. But Bergan Evans[1] thinks that there is no problem with that in America. Since those experts don’t agree with each other, we are not sure which one should be the benchmark. Secondly, we may turn to the works of some famed writers in the history of literature. The famous Irish poet Keats is found using “like” as conjunction in his poem “Selected Love Letters to Fanny Brawne”, “it is astonishing how they raven down scenery like children do sweermeats”(Shattock p.385), so is Churchill found using “We are overrun by them like the Australians were by rabbits”(Winston Churchill p.2). Now here appears a problem. If we stick to the grammatical rules of prescriptivism, those two famed celebrities have to fall into the category of the illiterate. 
What’s more, stubborn holding on to the prescriptive grammatical rules stands a great chance to eliminate language diversity. Though we should have to admit that prescriptive grammar makes it easier for language learners to learn a foreign one and it also makes it more convenient for people from different parts of the world to communicate. We have to bear in mind language is an indispensible part of culture, which finds its root in human civilization and evolves with mankind. Since times change, people change, and the society changes, language evolution is supposed to constitute one of the major parts in cultural evolution, thus making social progress. As is reported, more and more languages are disappearing in these centuries, which is a pretty pathetic loss of human civilization. A theoretically correct, formal and standard language should never colonize every part of this world, each people in this world. Instead, far more room should be left with diverse languages to exist and develop no matter whether they are prescriptively right or wrong. Furthermore, if the so-called standard English was established as the norm, how about Australian English, Scottish English or African-American Vernacular English? Those speakers may have the feeling that the standard is slanted against them, which might result in some political consequences, an unnecessary pitfall that can be avoided. Regularizing a language and making it a lot more consistent is never a good idea. To some extent, language is part of people’s identity. For example, when an Irish man introduces himself to us in his Irish accent, we may possibly take a guess of his personality shaped in the broad context of Irish cultural background. His accent is part of his identity, so is his personality implied by his Irish accent. If language diversity is allowed more space to mushroom, people’s identity capital stands in a pretty good position to be increased.
  Listed above are all the merits of descriptivism in terms of its flexibility to change, the unjustifiable prestige or authority based on knowledge of prescriptivism as well as the precious language diversity. However, it is not wise for people to overlook the advantages of prescriptivism. Firstly, it makes easier for language learners to get systematic exposure to a new language. They can get a better understanding of this language a bit faster than without grammatical rules guiding them. Secondly, a formal and standard language makes it easier for people from all around the world to communicate, with which also comes a problem. It is hardly possible for a certain language to colonize the whole world in the visible future. Therefore, in order to communicate effectively, people from all over the world are obliged to find a way in either circumstance. Whatever it is, prescriptive grammar that is incapable of change is never the possible answer.