Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner provide a very
interesting debate about how language is used and how it should be used. Most
of the people take the usage of language for granted and do not really realize
why they make mistakes or the actual reasoning behind making the mistake. Here
is where the “descriptivists” and the “prescriptivists” differ. Although both
of them acknowledge that their goal is the good of the language and its appropriate
use, the methods by which they plan to accomplish this task vary a great deal.
Greene exemplifies this by declaring, “…I would open fire by saying that you
preach stodgy nonrules that most people don’t obey, and that people like you
don’t understand that language must grow and change” (Greene). This is a very
harsh attack on the prescriptivists, since they actually preach rules than many
people follow. I agree there are some exceptions that do not follow the rules
of standard English, but the vast majority do. I share most of the ideas
proposed by the prescriptivists because I think that there should be a
hierarchy in language usage. According to the descriptivists, the people decide
how language should be used and what is right or wrong. If this takes place,
then language would change very often and there would not be a defined set of
accepted rules by which to decide if something is right or wrong. The rules of
standard English would become very subjective.
Both of the writers use logos as their main rhetoric mode. They appeal to logic and present their argument based on very well-known writers' ideas. Their points seem to be said as a sequence of arguments which lead to their conclusions either as descriptivists or prescriptivists. I would say that it is almost the same debate that has
occurred between conservatives and liberals. The conservatives want to have a
defined structure that is based on the traditional styles. On the other hand,
the liberals want a structure that changes and evolves as time goes by and as
society progresses. Although the descriptivists have a good point in stating
that language must evolve along with the people that use it, it is more
important that those changes take place gradually and without any sudden shift
in the basics. If this does not happen, even more dialects than the existing
ones will form and each time they will be more different from the original language.
I agree with both of the writers in the sense that there should not be a big
debate over very specific wording concerns. Garner depicts this when he says.
“I’m happy to live in disagreement with you on that tiny point – given that we
agreed on so much else” (Garner). He is implicitly saying that prescriptivists
have many of the qualities of descriptivists and vice versa. However, in the
very end, Garner recognizes the fact that the debate will never end that “the
fighting must stop” (Garner). This is a never-ending debate in which there will
be no defined winner, but I am hopeful that language will still be ruled by a
clear set of traditional rules and that will only change when it is completely
necessary and will do so in a slow and gradual manner.
Prescriptive: Sanctioned or authorized
by long-standing custom or usage.
Descriptive: Of or relating to the
study or the description of a language or a specific stage of a language, with
emphasis on constructing a grammar without regard to historical development,
comparison with other languages, or advocated norms for correct or proper
usage.
Permissivism: Lenience toward or indulgence of a wide
variety of social behavior.