Generating claims and questions through conceptual understanding

¶ … 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."

Analysis of Important Passage

In the following passage, Wallace explains the central thesis of the Descriptivist position by breaking it down into five rules that, according to that view, allow a scientific analysis and application of rules of linguistic evolution.

"The Descriptivist revolution takes a little time to unpack, but it's worth it. The structural linguists' rejection of conventional usage rules depends on two main arguments. The first is academic and methodological. In this age of technology, Descriptivists contend, it's the Scientific Method -- clinically objective, value-neutral, based on direct observation and demonstrable hypothesis -- that should determine both the content of dictionaries and the standards of "correct" English. Because language is constantly evolving, such standards will always be fluid. Gore's now classic introduction to Webster's Third outlines this type of Descriptivism's five basic edicts:

1 -- Language changes constantly;

2 -- Change is normal;

3 -- Spoken language is the language;

4 -- Correctness rests upon usage;

5 -- All usage is relative.

These principles look prima facie OK -- commonsensical and couched in the bland simple s.-v.-o, prose of dispassionate Science -- but in fact they're vague and muddled and it takes about three seconds to think of reasonable replies to each one of them & #8230;"

In his subsequent passage, Wallace goes through each of those five rules and illustrates why they cannot be applied in any manner that qualifies as scientific. In principle, Wallace argues that those rules provide little help when one begins to examine what the "right" pace of change is, how many people must use a particular change for it to be considered "normal" or an element of "spoken" language rather than just mistakes.