thepaperpilot
d525a1f2c2
2.2 KiB
| alias | public | slug | title | prev | next |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prescriptivism, Descriptivism, Prescriptivism or Descriptivism | true | prescriptivism-vs-descriptivism | Prescriptivism vs Descriptivism | false | false |
Prescriptivism vs Descriptivism
256 words, ~1 minute read.
Referenced by:
Social ConstructsThese two terms refer to how words are defined. Prescriptivism is where definitions are written by an authority of some sort and users of the language are supposed to respect that definition, or else they are incorrect. Prescriptivism defines a truth, a boundary on what is allowed. Descriptivism, on the other hand, argues definitions should be based on how the word is currently being used. Someone using it differently is not wrong, they're just part of the normal process through which definitions can change. Descriptivism, therefore, does not define an objective truth. A notable example of this dichotomy is the definition of "literally". It was defined as meaning something that is to be taken at face value, but dictionaries have found justification for it having a second, near opposite, definition.
I'm fairly against prescriptivism, but acknowledge the argument that words are more useful when their definitions don't change underneath you, especially in cases where the word can now ambiguously refer to the opposite of one of its other definitions. However, the cultural change in definitions happens regardless, so I think it's important to be able to analyze how words are being used and decide if and when it makes sense to update those definitions. I feel the same way about all Social Constructs , which language is just one of.
Dictionaries take a stance in between the two extremes - both becoming an authoritative (and therefore prescriptive) source of definitions, but updating them as deemed necessary to more closely match their real-world uses.