Feature: Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Grammar
Long-time readers of fandom_grammar know that not infrequently, in giving an answer, we will make a distinction between what is grammatically correct and what is most often used. For example, we might say, “X is the rule, but people don’t really talk that way. So in dialog, go ahead and have your character say Y instead.”
I suspect that some of you might find yourselves a little frustrated with that sort of equivocation and would much rather know whether it is a rule or it isn’t. After all, isn’t that why you asked the question in the first place? And that others of you breathe a great sigh of relief, because you thought you remembered from grade school that X was correct, but it just sounds so unnatural in conversation, and now you have justification to use Y.
Welcome to the great divide between prescriptive and descriptive grammar.
Briefly, in language, whether it’s regarding grammar, usage, syntax, spelling or whatever, prescriptivism refers to the establishment of and adherence to rules or standards. Descriptivism refers to the observation of how the language is used by the people who speak and write it.
You’ve heard of the grammar police? Those are prescriptivists. They're like cops who prefer rules and order, live in a meticulous loft with color-coded Tupperware, and wear an apron when they cook because it’s practical. And descriptivists are like hippie anthropologists, who observe and record but aren’t about judgment and don’t get all hung up on house rules like “No sex in the loft.” … Okay, I promise I won’t turn this whole thing into an analogy based on The Sentinel. But I am amused by how well it would work.
In academic circles, there is sometimes heated conflict between the prescriptivists and descriptivists. It’s actually quite an interesting argument, and if you go in for that sort of thing I would recommend the essay “Making Peace in the Language Wars,” which prefaces Bryan Garner’s Modern American Usage. The topic is not as narrow as it may first appear, and touches on issues of multiculturalism, classism, and privilege.
That there is conflict may seem odd when you consider how intrinsically these two approaches to language study are linked. After all, the dictionary prescriptively tells us what words mean and how they ought to be spelled, yet it was compiled through written examples of how authors used the words, and with each edition new words are added, which is descriptive. But when you remember that on one hand you have people who say, “’Could care less’ means the exact opposite of ‘couldn’t care less’,” while on the other you have people who say, “But you know what I mean when I say it, and that’s what matters,” perhaps it does not seem so odd after all.
English is a living language and, as such, it is constantly evolving. This sort of evolution can be clearly seen on a more dramatic scale by looking at the Romance languages: They share a common ancestor in Latin, which spread across much of Europe with the Roman Empire. Highly prescriptive Classical Latin remained the language of the Western (Roman Catholic) Church and was used by scholars and political leaders across nations for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire - even finding its way into English grammar, though English is not one of the Romance languages. Yet meanwhile, Vulgar (spoken) Latin evolved with existing language and geographical and political divisions to create, in descriptive fashion, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and other languages.
Now let’s look at English. How many readers today struggle to understand Shakespeare, much less the Middle English writings of Chaucer (which few of us can muddle through without a translation to one side) or Old English, nigh unrecognizable as a related language? Given the scope and constancy of this evolution, the inevitability of change, one might wonder why prescriptivists even bother. However, a prescriptivist would argue that just because the rules will change in the future doesn’t mean they do not provide a valuable foundation in the present.
Both prescriptivists and descriptivists believe that they are arguing on behalf of greater language facility and expressiveness, and they are. They just have different theories as to how to best go about it. To go all Kinsey on you, most language users exist along a prescriptive/descriptive spectrum. We believe that language ought to be precise and universally understood enough to convey that which we want it to convey, but adaptive enough to allow for individual expression and new ideas. It’s just that we all seem to have our own notion of where that line is, and it changes according to the kind of communication that we are conducting.
So how does all of this apply to us as writers of fanfiction?
Writers are expected to be conversant in multiple forms of English grammar. Just as we would use different language in a résumé than we would for a research paper or a personal email, we can use different grammar in our fiction. Often the narrative portions of a story will follow more prescriptive strictures while the dialog reflects descriptive usage. And even within the narrative portion, a story written entirely according to the current rules of standard grammar will have a different feel than one written in vernacular. Being familiar with both the prescriptive and descriptive aspects of grammar gives us greater flexibility as writers.
Another area where prescriptive vs. descriptive can crop up in fanfic is between a writer and a beta reader. Many beta readers tend toward prescriptivism. Is the beta reader clarifying the text or drowning the authorial voice in standard English? Is the writer an innovative user of colloquial language or too much of a special snowflake to be bothered with the rules? In the nonprofessional world of fanfic, we have the luxury of finding another person to work with who may fall closer to us on the prescriptive/descriptive scale. Or we can continue working with someone whose approach is a far cry from our own; understanding the ideology driving a conflict can help us gain from a different perspective.