What is meant by prescriptive and descriptive approach to language.

Descriptive approach to language: tries to explain things as they actually are, not as we wish them to be, tries to find the unconscious rules that people follow when they are speaking and writing. Describes our basic linguistic knowledge.
Prescriptive approach to language: tries to tell us how one should speak and write and what rules of language usage people should know.
Prescription can only occur after the language has been described, good prescription depends on an adequate description.
Prescriptivists accuse descriptivists of being anarchists who want to do away with all the rules of language.
Descriptivists accuse prescriptivists of uniformed bigotry.
Descriptive linguistics is the work of analyzing and describing how language is (or was) spoken by a group of people in a speech community. All scholary research in linguistics is descriptive, it aims to observe the linguistics world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be. [for teaching]
Prescription can refer to both codification and enforcement of rules governing how a language is to be used. These rules can cover such topics as standards for spelling, grammar or syntax , or rules of what is deemed socially and politically correct. It includes the mechanisms for establishing and maintaining an interregional language or standarised spelling systems.

*Prescriptive: A set of rules and examples dealing with the syntax and word structures of a language, usually intended as an aid to the learning of that language. Prescriptive grammar refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used. A prescriptive grammar is an account of a language that sets out rules (prescriptions) for how it should be used and for what should not be used (proscriptions), based on norms derived from a particular model of grammar.
For English, such a grammar may prescribe ‘I’ as in ‘It is I’ and proscribe me as in ‘It's me’. It may proscribe ‘like’ used as a conjunction, as in ‘He behaved like he was in charge’, prescribing instead ‘He behaved as if he were in charge’. Prescriptive grammars have been criticised for not taking account of language change and stylistic variation, and for imposing the norms of some groups on all users of a language. They have been discussed by linguists as exemplifying specific attitudes to language and usage.
* Descriptive: The systematic study and description of a language. Seeks to describe how it is used objectively, accurately, systematically, and comprehensively. Descriptive grammar refers to the structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers.



Prescription can only occur after the language has been described, good prescription depends on adequate description.
Both kinds of grammar are concerned with rules-but in different ways.
Specialists in descriptive grammar (called linguists) study the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. They aim to observe the linguistic world as it is without the bias of preconceived ideas of how it ought to be. On the other hand, prescriptive grammarians (such as most editors and teachers) lay out rules about what they believe to be the “correct” or “incorrect” use of language.
They codify and enforce the rules that should govern the language.

Robert Lowth (November 27, 1710 – November 3, 1787) was a Bishop of the Church of England, a professor of poetry at Oxford University and the author of one of the most influential textbooks of English grammar.

Lowth is also remembered for his publication in 1762 of A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Prompted by the absence of simple and pedagogical grammar textbooks in his day, Lowth set out to remedy the situation.
Lowth's grammar is the source of many of the prescriptive shibboleths (haslo rozpoznawcze) that are studied in schools, and established him as the first of a long line of usage commentators who judge the English language in addition to describing it.
An example of both is one of his footnotes: "Whose is by some authors made the Possessive Case of which, and applied to things as well as persons; I think, improperly."
His most famous contribution to the study of grammar may have been his tentative suggestion that sentences ending with a preposition—such as "what did you ask for?"—are inappropriate in formal writing. In what may have been intentional self-reference, Lowth used that very construction in discussing it. "This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style."

Lowth's method included criticising "false syntax"; his examples of false syntax were culled from Shakespeare, the King James Bible, John Donne, John Milton, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, and other famous writers, raising the question, by what authority did Lowth aspire to judge these writers' syntax? His understanding of grammar, like that of all linguists of his period, was based largely on the study of Latin, and a number of his judgments were arrived at by applying Latin grammar to English, a misapplication according to critics of a later generation (and his own stated principles; he condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language").
Thus Lowth condemns Addison's sentence "Who should I meet the other night, but my old friend?" on the grounds that the thing acted upon should be in the "Objective Case" (corresponding, as he says earlier, to an oblique case in Latin), rather than taking this example and others as evidence from noted writers that "who" can refer to direct objects.

Lowth's ipse dixits appealed to those who wished for certainty and authority in their language. Lowth's grammar was not written for children; however, within a decade after it appeared, versions of it adapted for the use of schools had appeared, and Lowth's stylistic opinions acquired the force of law in the schoolroom. The textbook remained in standard usage throughout educational institutions until the early 20th century.


Robert Lowth, Short Introduction to English Grammar
“Lowth was a philologist ‘more inclined to melancholy than to mirth’, who believed that Hebrew was spoken in paradise. His Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) became a standard text-book, and his name has become synonymous with prescriptive grammar. Lowth’s reputation as a prescriptivist is not entirely deserved. Though he liberally illustrated his grammar rules with errors to be found in the English Bible and in standard authors, his approach to correctness was not invariably rigid and, like most grammarians, he described English as well as prescribing its rules. . . . Lowth was convinced that English is rule-governed, and he defended the regularity and simplicity of the language against a tradition which viewed it as too primitive to possess any grammar at all. His model was Latin grammar, but he readily modified this to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of English.”

Joseph Priestley.
Joseph Priestley, A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar

The Rudiments of English Grammar (1761) was a popular English grammar textbook written by the eighteenth-century British polymath Joseph Priestley(March 26, 1733 – February 8, 1804) was an eighteenth-century British natural philosopher, Dissenting clergyman, political theorist, theologian, and educator).

While a minister for a congregation in Nantwich, Cheshire, Priestley established a local school; it was his first successful educational venture. Believing that all students should have a good grasp of the English language and its grammar before learning any other language and dismayed at the quality of the instruction manuals available, Priestley wrote his own textbook: The Rudiments of English Grammar (1761).
The book was very successful—it was reprinted for over fifty years. Its humour may have contributed to its popularity; for example, Priestley illustrated the couplet with this rhyme:

Beneath this stone my wife doth lie:
She's now at rest, and so am I.

Priestley's innovations in the teaching and description of English grammar, particularly his efforts to disassociate it from Latin grammar, made his textbook revolutionary and have led twentieth-century scholars to describe him as "one of the great grammarians of his time."
Rudiments influenced all of the major British grammarians of the late eighteenth century: Robert Lowth, James Harris, John Horne Tooke and even the American Noah Webster.

Early Grammarians (18th Century)
A proposal for an Academy of the English Language was first brought forth by Jonathan Swift in 1712, but the Parliament voted against it. Nevertheless, several grammarians wrote dictionaries and grammar books in a prescriptive manner - telling people what to do or not to do with the language. Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755 and Robert Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar appeared in 1762.
Early grammarians felt that language should be logical, therefore, the double negative was considered incorrect (two negatives equal one positive) and should not be used.
They also didn't like shortened or redundant words, borrowing words from other languages (except Latin and Greek), split infinitives, or prepositions at the end of the sentence.

A more scientifically minded attitude took hold by the 19th century when the Oxford English Dictionary was proposed in 1859. It was to be a factual account of every word in the English language since 1000 including its main form, pronunciation, spelling variations, part of speech, etymology, meanings in chronological order and illustrative quotations. The project was begun in 1879 under its first editor, James AH Murray. The1st edition was published in 1928, with supplements in 1933 and 1972-6. The second edition was published in 1989 and it recognised American and Australian English, as the International Phonetic Alphabet for pronunciation.

Abstract:
Joseph Priestley's (1733-1804) Rudiments of English Grammar (1761, second revised edition 1768) has often been interpreted as demonstrating that, unlike most 18th-century grammarians, Priestley took a descriptive approach towards the study of language. This article argues that such a characterisation both of Priestley's work and that of his contemporaries is misleading. The article offers a reappraisal of Priestley's Grammar, demonstrating that the idea of linguistic perfectibility is central to his linguistic ideas, but that it has often been overlooked by modern commentators. The two editions of Priestley's Grammar are assessed, and it is argued that the substantial alterations that he makes for the second edition reveal a grammarian struggling to bring order to the study of the English language.

The Synchrony and Diachrony distinction in language description

Some insights into the nature of language can be gained by examining its history that means examining it diachronically, and some can be gained by assuming synchronic viewpoint.
The kind of information that we can expect from the two approaches can be represented by two kinds of section of the trunk of a tree.


- Horizontal section: Reveals kind of information that is similar to what synchronic study of language can reveal.
It shows particular stages of states of language that can be compared and are distinguishable from each other. For examining this data we do not need any knowledge about previous history. We can locate, define and describe items by relating them to items within this item.


You do not need to know etymology of a word to use it. You do not need to know what inflectional systems shaped the words to use them correctly.



- Vertical section: Can show only a thin slice of items corresponding to the historical development of a single set of units in the synchronic state.
The historical approach can be only used to study the development of any set of linguistic forms when we are informed about:
a) systematic relations of these forms in an earlier state of language
b) differences to be found in their systematic relations at a different state of language.
e.g., a cut of an ''English tree'' at one period would reveal presence of a certain number of nominal inflections but another cut of the same tree at present time would show fewer such inflections.

The properties which make human language a unique type of communication.

People use not only informative signals, which are unintentionally sent (e.g. sneezing: indicating cold), but also use language to intentionally communicate something.
There are six main features of human language which make it unique type of communication. What's more, these properties are unlikely to be found among communication systems of other creatures.
[To remember the six properties you may use DAPCUDD]
1. DISPLACEMENT - it enables users of language to describe events which not necessarily are happening at the present moment [like cat that meows], but may refer to past or future time. Thanks to this property, we can talk about things and places about which we are not sure and create fiction and possible future events. In contrast, it appears that animals use communication at this certain moment, here and now. If your cat is calling 'meow', you are likely to understand it as referring to that particular moment.
2. ARBITRARINESS – there is no 'normal' association between linguistic form and its meaning. The forms of human language do not fit the objects they describe and it is impossible to look at the word and from its shape determine its meaning.
However, there are some words like onomatopoeic ones which have sounds similar to real objects or activities (crash, cuckoo).
3. PRODUCTIVITY – human language in terms of potential utterance is infinite. It is still being enlarged with new expressions. In contrast to it, animals' systems of communicating are not flexible. Worker bees, who can communicate the place of nectar source taking advantage of set of signals relating to horizontal distance, fail to create new signals indicating vertical location.
4. CULTURE TRANSMISSION – it is a process of acquiring language in a cultural context. Humans do not have any predisposition to learn specific language [it is not given in genes] when they are born. They do not inherit language from parents, but from the surroundings and speakers with whom they have contact. However, a kitten irrespective of its surrounding will produce 'meow' rather instinctive and signals used in its communication will be also rather instinctive, not learnt.5. DISCRETNESS – the sounds which are used in language are discrete. Even though there is no big difference between sound 'p' and 'b' in utterance these two sounds are meaningful. Each sound in the language is treated as distinct.
6. DUALITY – [most economical device of human language, because with finite number of sounds we are able to produce infinite number of utterances] ''double articulation'': there are two levels at which language is organised simultaneously. At physical level, we are able to produce individual sounds e.g. 'p', 'b' and none of these individual sounds has any essential meaning. At the second level, we produce these sounds in a particular combination('bin', 'pin') where one word's meaning is different from the meaning of another word. Therefore, human language can produce many combinations of sounds with a distinct meaning due to limited set of distinct sounds.

[Sounds do not have meaning, the morph it the smallest meaningful unit of meaning]

Properties of Linguistic Sign

Ferdinand De Saussure distinguished 4 properties of linguistic sign. Two central are called arbitrariness and linearity.
- The arbitrariness – no motivation for the phonetic constitution of a sign is to be founding the thing for which it is a sign. There is no direct connection between the shape and the concept. For example there is no reason why the letters 'c', 'a', 't' or the sound of these phonemes produce exactly the image of the small, domesticated animal with fur, four legs and a tail in our minds. It is a result of conversion: speakers of the same language group have agreed and learnt that these letters or sounds evoke a certain image. This is true only in simple sign. In syntagmes (complex or compound words, syntactic construction) there is a relative motivation for example inflected forms are similarly constructed to signal the same meaning relations, syntactic constructions used in similar situations are similarly constructed.
- The linearity is seen in the significant which can be segmented into parts succeeding each other in time. The linearity is the entire basis of linguistic mechanism and the criterion by which language can be distinguished from other sign systems.
There are two more properties. Linguistic signs are both immutable (not able or likely to change [that we can still understand old movies or books, some things don't change) and mutable (able to change, even in our life time linguistic sign like komorka, mouse can change its concept)
- The basic reason for the immutability is the fact that each generation inherits its language and the signs that constitute it and both the community and individual are passive in receiving them. This indicates that the conventional nature of language is of a particular type and the notion that there is an explicit contract about meanings among speakers is quite misguided.
Four reasons for the immutability of linguistic sign:
1. Signs are arbitrary, any sign is as good as another
2. while people might prefer to change an arbitrary writing system, because the elements are limited in number and could become an object of criticism, the signs of language are infinite and this infinity seters linguistic change
3. language is an extremely complex system of which only a handful of experts are aware
4. language is the only social systems that all people use, and this fact helps to account for the conservatism of speakers concerning the alteration of their linguistic habits.
- The mutability of linguistic signs is an obvious fact of history. Language is mutable; view of a history which brings about shifts in relation of signifiant and signifie as a consequence of sound change and analogical shifts. From the view point of contemporary speaker [ mouse- used to refer to a little rodent, now the word has acquired new concept ' a computer mouse'] all the reasons for language not changing are visible. For the sake of science the fiction of stable language is necessary.
2 exceptions of arbitrariness;
* onomatopoeic expressions 'kuku'
* interjections 'ouch!'
[Linearity-words follow words, sentences follow sentences, no overlapping.
Mutability- merry/gay/cheerful: used to mean 'happy' now each word bears different meanings.]

De Saussure's concept of Linguistic Sign

Dziecko ma concept ''zwierzęcia'', zna słowo ''pies'', widzi kurę i mówi, '' pać pieś!''

Linguistic Sign- polaczenie konceptu z nazwa, basis of communication, unity of a concept and sound image

According to Ferdinand De Saussure, language is made up of signs and every sign has two sides:

1. Signified – concept

– the shape of a word, its phonic concept, i.e. the sequence of letters or

phonemes ( what you say and what you write)

– more abstract

– purely differential

– directly dependent upon the sound image with which it is associated

2. Signifier – sound image

– memory of the sound trace that we can hear in our imagination

– it is not an actual spoken word, it is a sum of limited numbers of elements or phonemes which in turn can be called up only by a corresponding written symbols). There is a thing and it has a name.

– the sounds that compose the acoustic image, the phonemes, will be permissible ranges of sound differences imposed by the phonology of a particular language.

– The psychic impression of a sound, the representation of it which our senses give us.

The Linguistic Sign illustrated by:

It unites not a thing and a name, but a concept and an acoustic image, the physic entity with two sides. These two sides cannot be separated = the sign is indissoluble unity, permanent unit of two sides, which can not be separated.

The Sign is said to be:

- Concrete and integral (whole, entire) object of linguistic science, the point of view creates the object. That is, the point of view determines what is considered concrete (whole, entire), as opposed to an abstract (partial)

Signs are of two basic types, which will account for an important difference in the discussion of the properties of the sign. If a sign cannot be analyzed into constituent signs, it is a simple sign; if it consists of two or more meaningful parts, it is called a syntagme.

There are two types of signs: Simple and Syntagme. All signs have two central properties: Arbitrary and Linear

- Arbitrary: No motivation for the phonetic constitution of a sign is to be found in the thing for which it is a sign (mostly true in simple signs)

- Linear: Seen in significant (sound image) which can be segmented into parts succeeding each other in time (chain of speech)

The term Sign is a general expression. It can refer to sentence, clause, phrase, words or morphemes (only inflectional and derivational, not for roots or stems).

The word ''arbitrary'' does not imply that the choice of the signifier is left entirely to the speaker. A speaker has no power to change a sign in any way once it has become established in the linguistic community. I mean that it is unmotivated, i.e. arbitrary in that it actually has no natural connection with the signified.

Two objections against arbitrary nature of the sign:

- Onomatopoeia: the choice of signifier is not arbitrary (e.g., tick-tack); limited in number, not important

- Interjections: (e.g., ouch!)

[Additional objections:

- Immutable (changeless, inherited by generations) and mutable (from the History point of view)

- Simple (if it can not be analyzed into the consistent signs) and syntagme (if it consists of two or more meaningful parts i.e., complex and compound words, syntactic constructions).

La Langue, La Parole, Le Langage

De Saussure wanted to define language in such a way that it could be considered a thing, an object that could be studied scientifically (he required from this object to be invegistigable [one of the properties] without reference to its historical development).

La Parole = speaking [the way we speak] term used to refer to individual manifestations of Language.
Speaking includes the following properties: the sum of what people say, including individual constructions that are the consequence of a speaker's choice, acts of articulation that are equally matters of free choice, required to produce these constructions. [this interpretation makes 'speaking' conscious & fully individual product.
• La Parole includes anything that a speaker might say

Le Langage = La Parole + the rules of language
It has both the generality and the requirements of constraints found in grammatical rules. It includes both social and individual factors attributable to the individual speaker and that is why it is not pure and simple social fact.
• Le Langage encompasses anything a speaker might say as well as the constraints that prevent him or her from saying anything ungrammatical. [it has no principle of unity that would enable one to study it scientifically]

La Langue [it's a social fact] = Le Langage – La Parole [so these are just the rules, something we have in our minds, we can understand people talking thanks to rules]
It is the set of passively acquired habits we have been taught by our speech community, in terms of which we understand other speakers and produce combinations that other speakers of our community understand.
• When we hear La Parole of another community we receive the noises made, but not the social facts of the language
• When we hear La Parole within our own community we perceive the sounds as associated with social facts, according to a set of rules.
• La Langue contains the negative limits on what speaker must say if he or she is to speak a particular language grammatically.
These terms gave the beginning to Chomsky's division and dichotomy
To competence (La Langue) – knowledge of the linguistic rules and performance (La Parole) – generated from learner's underlying competence ability to use language.

La Langue it is a kind of code, algebra, according to De Saussure, ''a system of pure values that are determined by nothing except the momentary arrangement of terms.'' Viewed in this way la langue appears to be an abstraction. In order to make any study scientific we require ''a conventional simplification of the data'' to be examined. That is, we must abstract from some of the undenied concrete properties of the things a science studies in order to have a precisely definable object.
- Acts of speaking (la parole) are invariably individual, variable, whimsical, and inventive. There is no principle of unity within speech considered in this way, and, therefore, it is not amenable to scientific study. For a scientific study of anything we must have an object that ''holds still,'' since we want to count and measure it; la parole consists of an infinite number of individual choices, acts of articulation, and novel combinations. Its description, must, therefore, be infinite.
- La langue exists in the form of '' a sum of impressions deposited in the brain of each individual,'' which are ''almost like a dictionary of which identical copies have been distributed to each individual…it exists in each individually, yet it is common to all. Nor is it affected by the will of the depositaries.'' Since la langue is a ''deposit of signs which each individual has received'' from other speakers of the community, it is essentially a passive thing, as opposed to la parole , which is active. La language is a set of conventions that we all receive, ready-made, from previous speakers of the language.