Descriptivists v Prescriptivists.

A prescriptivist (a person who creates or encourages following language rules that try to control how people write and talk).

A descriptivist is someone who uses language to describe how it is.


-Language is constantly changing and becoming more informal.
-If American English continues to flout the rules of syntax and grammar, it'll sow the seeds of it's own destruction.
-Language could disintigrate further.
-Language is described as unhealthy, poor, sad, depressing and fairly hopeless.
-American English has always been influential.
-The OED is based on American English.
-Language is influenced all the time, mainly by the media.

'Descriptivists (like dictionary makers) are content to describe language as it changes.'

'Prescriptivists like 'Simon' (The boss of OED in NY) believe you need prescribed rules to preserve language.'

'Discriptive linguists are a curse against their race' -says that they're uneducated.

Descriptivists describe their language use as 'non-standard'

'Language change happens and there's nothing you can do about it'

---------------------------

My view on descriptivists v prescriptivists: I think that it's right for language to be preserved to some extent, but you must allow for language change, especially as technology develops, there needs to be introductions of new words in order to label new inventions, language change is vital for socio-economic change, all the changes which occur in the world need to be described somehow. As for the quote 'Discriptive linguists are a curse against their race' - I think it's unethical to say something like that, everyone is entitled to believe in what they want to. Personally I believe that descriptivistism is the way forward although there needs to be some sort of preservation in order to keep the language pure and not lose it's latin roots which have made the English language so beautiful.