4 ms·
Linguistics as practiced for a long time is descriptive. It is the only practice that makes any sense given the extreme diversity of linguistic forms present i
by rjbwork 2y ago
Linguistics as practiced for a long time is descriptive. It is the only practice that makes any sense given the extreme diversity of linguistic forms present in the world.
How about you leave your pre-modern prescriptive prejudice out of linguistics.
If you want to discriminate against people for how they speak, that's your prerogative, but it has nothing to do with linguistics as practiced.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoHow about this: Yes, linguistics is descriptive. In the world we live in, some people say "aks". And that is regarded as a marker of lower class/uneducated people, and is not generally used by educated/upper class/professional people. It seems to me that linguistics should note that, yes, it is used, and it has a very definite meaning, and it has a connotation about the social class and education of the speaker, and is therefore considered socially improper even if it is linguistically proper.
- ohmyiv 2y agoLet's hear from a linguist: https://youtu.be/I6duEGj04Mg https://youtu.be/I6duEGj04Mg
- rjbwork 2y agoSure, maybe it ought to be denoted in academic terms that in a particular geographical area that a particular linguistic form is reflective of certain socio-economic attributes of the speaker. The comment I was responding to was deriving moral law from a "standard form" and shaming those who were grown or educated in an alternative form. In fact not just shaming, but proclaiming the righteousness of discrimination based upon one's dialect. A linguist or sociologist would describe that some form does get used and discrimination happens because of it. But they would not be prescriptive in either, and especially not the latter.