LSAT 157, Section 1, RC Passage 2, Prescriptivism and Descriptivism

RC Passage 2 Explanation

PASSAGE TEXT: Grammarians of the prescriptive school take it as part of their task to …

Paragraph Summaries

1. Prescriptive grammarians try to distinguish correct from incorrect language usage. Descriptive grammarians just describe how people actually use language and think prescriptivists are unscientific and likely to fail.
2. Descriptivists point to usages that were once considered wrong but later became accepted. For example, “data” is now often used as a singular mass noun, even though prescriptivists traditionally treated it as plural.
3. Descriptivists object to prescriptivism on two grounds. They think it ignores the natural laws of language change, and they think it imposes elite language habits on everyone else.
4. Some attempts to regulate language have worked, so language change isn’t exactly like the laws of physics. Prescriptivists also argue that standard usage helps people communicate and is meant to include people, not exclude them.

Analysis

This is basically a “two sides, then author weighs in” passage. At first, it looks like a neutral descriptivist vs. prescriptivist debate. But by the last paragraph, the author is clearly pushing back against the descriptivists.

The important thing is to track the two descriptivist objections: scientific and egalitarian:

1. The scientific objection says language changes naturally, so trying to control it is pointless.
2. The egalitarian objection says prescriptivists are just elites forcing their own language rules on everyone else.

The “data” example isn’t there because you need to care deeply about the word “data.” It’s there to show why descriptivists think prescriptivists are fighting a losing battle. A usage starts out “wrong,” people keep using it, and eventually it becomes accepted.

But the author’s response is: not so fast. Language isn’t gravity. People choose how to speak and write, and people can be persuaded. So prescriptivism isn’t automatically doomed.

The author also softens the “elite” criticism. Yes, standard language is usually maintained by educated people. But the author says the goal doesn’t have to be exclusion. Standard usage can also help people communicate more freely across society.

So the author’s view is: descriptivists make some fair points, but they go too far. Prescriptivism isn’t automatically unscientific, pointless, or elitist.