2 ms·
How 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 p
by AnimalMuppet 2y ago
How 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.