15
(Bad linguistics) Language change is wrong, actually
(www.independent.org)
Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!
Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.
Rules:
Related communities:
prescriptivism is wrong, actually. descriptivism FTW.
Prescriptions and descriptions are not opposites. They're orthogonal to each other:
And prescribing is not automatically wrong. For example if I were to tell someone "don't call us Latin Americans «spic niggers», it's offensive", I am prescribing against the usage of the expression "spic nigger"; it is prescriptivism. Just like when someone proposes inclusive language.
What is wrong is that sort of poorly grounded prescription that usually boils down to "don't you dare to use language in a different way than I do, or that people did in the past". It's as much of a prescription as the above, but instead of including people it's excluding them.
Tagging @bgainor@thelemmy.club, as this addresses some things that they said.
This is fair. Usually when I hear "prescriptive" I have a knee-jerk reaction to it as something bad because it's usually used to refer to people using made-up rules to enforce systems of oppression rather than fight against them like inclusive language does, but I hadn't thought about it as "prescriptivism for good."
The knee-jerk reaction is understandable, since most prescriptions are of the exclusionary type. And at the same time, since linguists say "we're describing, not prescribing", people create a false opposition between both things. And, well, if description is scientific and good the prescription ends as "unscientific and bad", through that opposition.