Prescriptivism and its alternatives
CCCC 2021
Daniel Kies
College of DuPage
To navigate these slides:
1. Click/press the left or right arrows on your screen or keyboard.
2. Swipe left or right on your touchscreen.
Legend:
Introductory For a host of reasons, prescriptivism became a driving force in literacy education, governing the expectations of students, their teachers, their parents,
school administrators, and even the politicians who control the money that funds the schools. This presentation is divided into two parts: the first outlining
the how prescriptivism came to occupy its central role in English education, and the second outlining an alternative approach that seems to me a pedagogically
stronger alternative.
Let's start by defining what we mean by some basic concepts:
(Most of the background images that I use here come from Samuel Johnson's Dictionary , 1755, and Robert Lowth's Short introduction to the
English grammar , 1762, courtesy of the Yale University library and the British Library web sites. As we will learn later, those books play an important
part in the story of how English speakers and writers think about their language.)
Defining terms [1 of 3]descriptivism
An empirical approach to the study of language structures and uses, describing and explaining language as it is used in different contexts.
Descriptivism tends to use frequency to settle questions of divided usage.
Consequently, some view descriptivism negatively, as a force that degrades the language.
Boathouses and houseboats xkcd.com
Descriptivism refers to the practice of studying real language by real people in real contexts. Those practices align the goals and
practices of descriptivism with the goals and practices of grammar (in the sense of grammar as a technical term).Since descriptivists are empirical, they simply record language use as it happens. No judgments. Consequently, when descriptivists find examples
of divided usage among language users, descriptivists simply record the differences without judgment.
Divided usage occur when language users have two or more ways to express a single item. For example, English uses both toward
and towards . English users also split with the media is and the media are .If asked which alternative is better, descriptivists will reply that they can not answer the question. Judgments like correct/incorrect
or good/bad or right/wrong are not relevant to describing language as real people really use it. If pushed harder to answer that
question, descriptivists will only report that one form is more common than the others.
Some prescriptivist find this approach wrong-headed, since it appears that descriptivists will allow anything as correct usage, that
descriptivists accept the most common, the ordinary, therefore, the mundane. This conflicts with the prescriptivist's hope to elevate the language
to something higher than the common, the ordinary. The descriptivist will only reply that chemistry does not label some elements in the periodic
table as good or proper, while other elements are bad or wrong.
Defining terms [2 of 3]prescriptivism
An imperial approach to language use, prescribing language as it should be
Tends to highlight social, geographic, and economic differences in language use
A driving force in traditional school grammars since the 18th century, lending itself to easy, large-scale (standardized) testing, shaping English language curriculum.
There is no such writing rule.
Prescriptivism refers to the practice of recommending the correct or proper uses of the language. At its core, prescriptivism
holds the idea that there exits a pure, perfect way of expressing the language. It takes as its model literature or highly esteemed expository essays as
the exemplars of language use that all others should ascribe to. (Or should that be to which all others should ascribe ? I must not end the
sentence with a preposition, after all.)2 In that way, prescriptivism is imperial — You must do this! — rather than empirical, as in descriptivism.
Prescriptivism as we know it today arose to assuage the linguistic insecurity of the developing middle class in 18th century England.
The growing middle class started a robust public education system, but what should be the base of a language curriculum? Two people turned out
to be profoundly influential.
Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1755) helped to reinforce the idea that Latinate vocabulary and usage was better than Anglo-Saxon
vocabulary and usage.
Nearly contemporaneously, Robert Lowth's A short introduction to English grammar (1762) became a principle work codifying prescriptivism
in the teaching of the language throughout the English speaking world.
In effect, English language education moved decidedly in the direction of the Greek and Roman rhetorics, toward Latin grammars as models for
English grammar, and toward classical usage as the exemplary use of language.
The Fowler brothers (1906) in England, for example, looked to historical examples to justify prescriptivist practices and prejudices. See Drake (1977)
and Milroy and Milroy (2012) for more information.
We see the success of Lowth's attempts to codify correct English not only in the work of the Fowler brothers in England but also in the
most popular school grammars in the US, such as Clark (1847) & Reed and Kellogg (1875, 1877).
Although some justify the need for, and the utility of, prescriptivism by arguing that prescriptive rules codify the best practices of word choice and
grammar, and thereby promote clarity and communicative competence in speech and writing, others point to the historical and linguistic biases
encapsulated in prescriptive rules as counter arguments. Instead, they argue that, like slang, prescriptivism serves primarily a social function:
both slang and prescriptivism serve to separate the in-group from the outsiders, to separate the right people who get it
from those who don't.
We must not dismiss or demean the importance of prescriptivism, however. As John Edwards mentions in Sociolinguistics: A Very Short
Introduction (2013), in their rush away from prescriptivism, linguists may have abdicated a useful role as arbiters and many have left much
of the field open to those stylized as 'language shamans' by Dwight Bolinger, one of the few linguists who was willing to write about the public life
of language. Bolinger rightly criticized the obvious crank elements, but he also understood the desire, however ill-informed, for authoritative
standards.
Our purpose in Modern English Language is not to advocate for or against either prescriptivism or descriptivism. Rather, we want to take up
Bolinger's point and show how linguistics can help teachers of writing (and others) use strategies that promote the most effective uses of language.
We usually assume that good English is straightforwardly based on a few simple and unexceptionable maxims: keep it clear, direct, and logical,
the textbooks advise. Yet prescriptive judgments can be quite idiosyncratic. Moreover, as Bolinger (1980) points out prescriptive rules rarely
guide language learner about usage that is clever, colorful, interesting, or euphonious. A linguistic approach to language learning might have
something to offer as an alternative, addressing not just what is wrong but also why something else is more communicative.
Prescriptivism as we know it today arose to assuage the linguistic insecurity of the developing middle class in 18th century England.
Samuel Johnson's Dictionary helped to reinforce the idea that Latinate vocabulary and usage was better than Anglo-Saxon vocabulary and usage.
Nearly contemporaneously, Robert Lowth's A short introduction to English grammar became a principle work codifying prescriptivism in the teaching of
the language throughout the English speaking world.
In effect, English language education moved decidedly in the direction of the Greek and Roman rhetorics, toward Latin grammars as models for English grammar, and toward
classical usage as the exemplary use of language.
The Fowler brothers in England, for example, looked to historical examples to justify prescriptivist practices and prejudices. See Drake (1977) and Milroy and Milroy (2012) for
more information.
We see the success of Lowth's attempts to codify correct English in the work of the Fowler brothers in England and in the most popular school grammars in the US, such
as Clark (1847) & Reed and Kellogg (1875, 1877).
Although some justify the need for, and the utility of, prescriptivism by arguing that prescriptive rules codify the best practices of word choice and grammar, and thereby promote
clarity and communicative competence in speech and writing, others point to the historical and linguistic biases encapsulated in prescriptive rules as counter arguments. Instead, they
argue that, like slang, prescriptivism serves primarily a social function through a linguistic means: both slang and prescriptivism serve to separate the in-group from the outsiders.
As John Edwards, Sociolinguistics: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford University Press (2013) mentions, in their rush away from prescriptivism, linguists may have
abdicated a useful role as arbiters and many have left much of the field open to those stylized as 'language shamans' by Dwight Bolinger, one of the few linguists who was willing
to write about the 'public life' of language. Bolinger rightly criticized the obvious crank elements, but he also understood the desire, however ill-informed, for authoritative
standards.
Our purpose here not to advocate for or against either prescriptivism or descriptivism. Rather, we want to take up Edwards' point and show how linguistics can help teachers
of writing use strategies that promote the most effective use of language for their students.
Usage studies of human languages have value for many reasons. For example, as a science, linguistics needs data, and therefore many usage studies
collect and analyze real language from real people. The basic work of any empirical science. Yet, beyond that basic need, we have two branches of
linguistics that also heavily rely on usage studies — sociolinguistics and prescriptivism.1
Sociolinguistics As a branch of linguistics, sociolinguistics explores social and geographic language variation. For
example, having grown up (and learned language) in the upper Midwest of the United States, my dialect of English allows me to use wrote as both
the past tense and the participle forms of the verb, as in I could've wrote that! Also, for me, bubbler is a synonym for drinking fountain .
Studies of dialects allows sociolinguists to form a much fuller understanding of social and geographical patterns in human behavior. Further, usage studies
explore language variation over time. Those studies allow us to have an understanding of earlier forms of our languages, an understanding of language
families, and an understanding of historical language change, just to name a few.
Prescriptivism When most people talk about bad grammar, they usually refer to a word (such as ain't or irregardless ) or a sentence structure
(such as ending a sentence with a preposition) that they find objectionable. Their objections have little to do with grammar (in the technical sense of the word),
and instead refer to logic (as in Double negatives make a sentence positive. ) or social class (as in Well educated
people do not use the word less with count nouns, as in less dollars . ) or style preferences (as in It is best not to use
contractions in formal writing. or In educated American English, we put punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. )
The choices that people make because of usage rules attempt to improve communication or to display social class (such as a good education
or a good upbringing). However, usage rules rarely do improve communication. For example, consider the word inflammable . Historically, the
word's primary meaning suggested the something has the ability to catch fire. Over time, though, people started to reinterpret the word as the negative
prefix in- and flammable , giving them the completely opposite meaning. So, for public safety, we created a new word to describe
something that could not catch fire (non-flammable ) and accepted flammable as the new word to replace inflammable . Some
people became upset, arguing that teachers should just do more to teach people the correct meaning of inflammable . Those arguments have proven
unsuccessful, however, since we can see non-flammable on the labels of children's pajamas and flammable on pumps in service stations
throughout the United States.
So if prescriptivism does not necessarily improve communication, we have only the second reason for its purpose — distinguishing among
different social classes. We discuss prescriptivism more later.
After examining what linguists mean by grammar and usage , we can conclude that the rules of one have little to do with the other.
The only commonality that I can think of is a need for a metalanguage, language that let's us talk about language. For example, we need
words like verb and preposition in order to talk about both grammar and usage rules.
Prescriptivism refers to the practice of recommending the correct or proper uses of the language. At its core, prescriptivism
holds the idea that there exits a pure, perfect way of expressing the language. It takes as its model literature or highly esteemed expository essays as
the exemplars of language use that all others should ascribe to. (Or should that be to which all others should ascribe ? I must not end the
sentence with a preposition, after all.)2 In that way, prescriptivism is imperial — You must do this! — rather than empirical, as in descriptivism.
Prescriptivism as we know it today arose to assuage the linguistic insecurity of the developing middle class in 18th century England.
The growing middle class started a robust public education system, but what should be the base of a language curriculum? Two people turned out
to be profoundly influential.
Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1755) helped to reinforce the idea that Latinate vocabulary and usage was better than Anglo-Saxon
vocabulary and usage.
Nearly contemporaneously, Robert Lowth's A short introduction to English grammar (1762) became a principle work codifying prescriptivism
in the teaching of the language throughout the English speaking world.
In effect, English language education moved decidedly in the direction of the Greek and Roman rhetorics, toward Latin grammars as models for
English grammar, and toward classical usage as the exemplary use of language.
The Fowler brothers (1906) in England, for example, looked to historical examples to justify prescriptivist practices and prejudices. See Drake (1977)
and Milroy and Milroy (2012) for more information.
We see the success of Lowth's attempts to codify correct English not only in the work of the Fowler brothers in England but also in the
most popular school grammars in the US, such as Clark (1847) & Reed and Kellogg (1875, 1877).
Although some justify the need for, and the utility of, prescriptivism by arguing that prescriptive rules codify the best practices of word choice and
grammar, and thereby promote clarity and communicative competence in speech and writing, others point to the historical and linguistic biases
encapsulated in prescriptive rules as counter arguments. Instead, they argue that, like slang, prescriptivism serves primarily a social function:
both slang and prescriptivism serve to separate the in-group from the outsiders, to separate the right people who get it
from those who don't.
We must not dismiss or demean the importance of prescriptivism, however. As John Edwards mentions in Sociolinguistics: A Very Short
Introduction (2013), in their rush away from prescriptivism, linguists may have abdicated a useful role as arbiters and many have left much
of the field open to those stylized as 'language shamans' by Dwight Bolinger, one of the few linguists who was willing to write about the public life
of language. Bolinger rightly criticized the obvious crank elements, but he also understood the desire, however ill-informed, for authoritative
standards.
Our purpose in Modern English Language is not to advocate for or against either prescriptivism or descriptivism. Rather, we want to take up
Bolinger's point and show how linguistics can help teachers of writing (and others) use strategies that promote the most effective uses of language.
We usually assume that good English is straightforwardly based on a few simple and unexceptionable maxims: keep it clear, direct, and logical,
the textbooks advise. Yet prescriptive judgments can be quite idiosyncratic. Moreover, as Bolinger (1980) points out prescriptive rules rarely
guide language learner about usage that is clever, colorful, interesting, or euphonious. A linguistic approach to language learning might have
something to offer as an alternative, addressing not just what is wrong but also why something else is more communicative.
We differentiate among those three terms not just because of the misunderstandings surrounding each term but also because much of the support that people have for the
idea, and the practice, of prescriptivism actually grows out of a conflation of prescriptivism with standardization. One does not equal the other.
1 I realize that calling prescriptivism a branch of linguistics seems wrong. Most linguists see prescriptivism
as the opposite of linguistics when thinking about language. However, I will only point out, as Bolinger (1980) did, that prescriptivism has value
by demonstrating the lexical and grammatical features that help to create the prestige dialect of the (written) language. In this way, prescriptivism completes
our sociolinguistic understanding of the language. Moreover, since the prescriptivists' goal (at least in part) is to improve communication, linguists should
certainly have something valuable to say in that regard.2 I remember Joan Rivers (a comedian who was never one to tolerate pomposity or phonies of any kind) once telling a story (a joke) about
working in a swanky New York department store when she was a college student. As a temporary, summer employee, and being among the youngest and
least senior clerks in the shop, she was often given stations that did not offer much pay, such as luggage or stationery. In those days, she said, the summer
workers earned nothing but commissions, a small percentage of whatever their customers paid for the merchandise. Usually she would have to work a lot of
hours all summer to earn enough for the coming school year.How much are you asking for that piece? she asked Joan, referring to the most
stunning necklace sitting alone in its own display.I'll take two, the woman replied.Would you like me to wrap this up? Oh, how gauche! the patron replied, in horror. You ended that question with a preposition! Please, Joan said quickly, let me rephrase that. Would you like me to wrap this up, witch? witch in her story, but I find that word a bit too harsh to repeat. Still, it is classic Joan Rivers, a
person always willing to poke fun at silly social class distinctions, and she did manage not to end the question with a preposition at the same time.
(Oh, dear, I almost wrote to not end the question, which would create a split infinitive. That reminds me of another joke,
but it will have to wait.)
Defining terms [3 of 3]standardization
The process of creating and maintaining the conventions of a language
In English, standardization tends to happen by a combination of historical accident, by political/geographic influences establishing national standards, and by some degree of egalitarianism, a consensus that the language usage of (the majority of educated) speakers and writers plays a role in development of a standard form of the language.
Arrr! Who are ye?
The process of creating a standard form of the English language began with William Caxton. Before Caxton, few people were literate, and the
form of the written language largely was left to scribal practices among the few people who knew how to write. Consequently, spelling was variable (far
more than the differences we see today between British and American English, as in colour and color ). Punctuation practices followed
the work of the Greek and Roman scribes, for the most part, but varied dramatically among English scribes when they had to adapt those punctuation practices
to their language.
Caxton changed all that by bringing the first printing press from the subcontinent of Europe to Westminster, England in 1476. Caxton established
word lists for his typesetters to regularize spelling, and he developed the first punctuation guide for the typesetters as well. Caxton, born in Kent and
speaking the same dialect found in London, spelled words as he thought right (given the past practices of the scribes and given what sounded best to
his own ear). Thus, we have the spellings thought , not thawt and light , not lite .
Caxton's press also drove down the cost of books through mass production. Literacy increased, and the new readers in Dublin, Truro, Cardiff, and
Edinburgh all learned Caxton's southern English ways. The new standard spread throughout the British Isles (and later throughout the English
speaking world, as English imperialism expanded the reach of the language in the 16th , 17th , and
18th centuries).
By the middle of the 18th century, an expanding public education system (sparked by a growing middle class) created a degree
of linguistic insecurity that welcomed the first dictionary of the English language in 1755-56 (Johnson's Dictionary ) and the first
successful school grammar of English in 1762 (Lowth's A short introduction to English grammar ).
In the persons of Caxton, Johnson, and Lowth, we have the core of what becomes the standard for written English. All three used the past
practices of Greek and Latin poets and rhetoricians as models for their usage advice to the English speaking and writing world. Samuel Johnson
expanded the range of exemplary texts by including some writers of English literature. None of the three were trained as linguists, and indeed
the scientific study of language was only in its rudimentary stages. However, England had a developing interest in linguistics in the age of the
Enlightenment. For example, Joseph Priestly (the polymath best remembered for discovering the element oxygen) wrote a linguistically-aware
grammar of English (The rudiments of English grammar , 1761) a year before Robert Lowth's A short introduction to English grammar .
However, Lowth's grammar became more widely adopted in the developing English school system, leading the way to the kinds of English
language instruction we see today for both native and non-native students of English.
Thus, thanks to Johnson's and Lowth's success, we now worry for example aboutwho and whom It is I rather than It's me
School grammars (in five traditions)
ACT CollegeReady (2019a) [1 of 2]
I don't see what the big deal is on using They as a singular pronoun.
ACT CollegeReady (2019a) [2 of 2]
William Caxton showing the first page from his printing press to King Edward IV. Cassell's Illustrated History of England, Volume 2 , published by Cassell and Company, Limited, 1909.
Partial typology of errors in ACT products (2019b)
wordiness
parallelism
verb tense
shifts of tense
comma splice
run-on sentences
redundancies of the and also
commonly confused homophones
misplaced modifierspunctuating introductory adverbials
punctuating coordinating conjunctions
Telling it like it is.
(they're, there, their )
positioning adverbials for clarity
Comparing descriptivism & prescriptivism
Language as text in context(linguistically-informed grammars)
Language as discrete skill sets(traditional/prescriptive grammars)
discourse level
clause level and below
emphasize functional purposes of linguistic structures
emphasize grammatical forms that create linguistic structures
focus on the interaction of discourse and context
focus on structural descriptions built from smaller forms
language as a resource for making meaning
language as a set of rules
language learning happens when learners acquire resources for making meaning in context
language learning happens when learners master the use of the correct forms
So the basic rule is...
Conclusions If we compare the differences between descriptive and prescriptive approaches to language instruction, we see the consequences for the language
learning tasks facing students and their teachers.
The prescriptive approach emphasizes rote learning of mechanics (spelling and punctuation), after reductively breaking down the learning of language
into smaller and smaller parts, easy to drill and practice.
The descriptive approach acknowledges and emphasizes the creative act of using language. The descriptive approach allows for a linguistically-aware
curriculum that keeps attention on forms that serve the highest function of language — making meaning.
Take the example of sentences ending with prepositions. Rather than teaching a prohibition, teach instead about the information structure of a clause.
Cognitively, the beginnings and the endings of things are more salient, most significant. And different word classes have different "semantic weight."
Nouns and verbs are "heavier" than prepositions and pronouns. They "carry" more meaning. So instead of "wasting" the end of a clause on a preposition,
any writer would do well to use a noun or verb.
I do not mean to suggest that prescriptive rules can, or should, be motivated by linguistic principles. The parallels between information structures
in the clause and the "don't-end-with-a-preposition" prohibition was just coincidence.
Writing pedagogy anchored in a language-aware curriculum offers so much more than learning by rote. Prescriptivism, on the
other hand, seems like the educational equivalent of memorizing the correct use of the different forks on the table in a fancy restaurant.
Foci in a language-aware curriculum
Shifting language instruction in writing away from prescriptivism toward an awareness of text in a context (such as genre studies) …
coherence and cohesion
thematic prominence and progression
the language of certitude [hedges and boosters] (adverbials such as obviously, clearly, certainly, naturally, etc.)
markers of (over)generalization: intensifiers, indefiniteness, pronouns such as none, never, all, every, each
and more.
A prolegomenon
... to changing the culture of the schools
students
parents
teachers
administrators
and the politicians who fund the schools
References [1 of 9]
ACT. (2019a). ACT CollegeReady Milestones at-a-Glance .
ACT. (2019b). ACT Technical Manual
Arnold, Matthew. (1964). Essays in Criticism; First and Second Series. Introd by G.K. Chesterton . London: Everyman's Library.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Baron, D. E. (1982). Grammar and good taste: Reforming the American language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Boas, F. (1943). Recent Anthropology. II Science , New Series 98 (2546), 334-337.
References [2 of 9]
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language - The Loaded Weapon: The Use and Abuse of Language Today . New York: Routledge. [reprinted 2017]
Clark, S. W. (1847). A practical grammar: In which words, phrases & sentences are classified according to their offices and their various relationships to each another . New York: Barnes & Co.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
Crowley, T. (1989). Standard English and the politics of language. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English : prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger's book is still an excellent read. Insightful. He demonstrates how to think though usage and what some call abusage rigorously.
Clark
can be found online. His approach to grammar is most significant: Clark tries to concentrate function in addition to form, and we can see that in his first attempts
to develop a method by which he could diagram a sentence that reflected the meaning of the sentence. Fig. 1: A sentence diagram from p. 58 ofPractical English
References [3 of 9]
Dant, D. R. (2012). Using COCA to evaluate The Chicago manual of style 's usage prescriptions. In J. Mukherjee & M. Huber (Eds.) Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description. (pp. 29-39). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
de Oliveira, L. C., Klassen, M., & Gilmetdinova, A. (2014). Scaffolding to support English language learners in a kindergarten classroom. In G. Onchwari & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Cross-cultural considerations in the education of young immigrant learners (pp. 1-16). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Drake, G. (1977). American linguistic prescriptivism: Its decline and revival in the 19th century. Language in Society, 6 (3), 323-340.
References [4 of 9]
Early, J. S. & DeCosta-Smith, M. (2011). Making a case for college: A genre-based college admission essay intervention for underserved high school students. Journal of Writing Research , 2 (3), 299-329.
Fowler, H. W. and Fowler, F. (1906). The King's English. Oxford. Oxford University Press. [reprinted 1979]
Gebhard, M., & Martin, J. (2011). Grammar and literacy learning. In D. Fisher & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 297- 304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
Gebhard, M., Demers, J., & Castillo-Rosenthal, Z. (2008). Teachers as critical text analysts: L2 literacies and teachers' work in the context of high-stakes school reform. Journal of Second Language Writing , 17 (4), 274-291.
The Fowler brothers, a classic of the genre. It's fun to read not only to see that the more things change, the more they stay the same, but also to see first
hand that so much of prescriptivism is just like fashion. The King's English reminds me of bell-bottom jeans.
References [5 of 9]
Gunzenhauser, M. (2003). High-stakes testing and the default philosophy of education. Theory Into Practice , 42 (1), 51-58.
Hudson, R. (2004). Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics , 40 (1), 105-130.
Joyce, J. (1916). Portrait of the artist as a young man , https://www.planetebook.com/a-portrait-of-the-artist-as-a-young-man/ [1917 edition].
Language instruction for newcomers to Canada (LINC). (2018). Sample Lesson Plan - LINC 3 .
References [6 of 9]
Milkowski, M. (2013). On the social nature of linguistic prescriptions. Psychology of Language and Communication, 17 (2), 175-187.
Millward, C. M. (1996). A biography of the English language (2nd ed.) Boston, Massachusetts. Thomson Wadsworth.
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating standard English (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Newman, E. (1974). Strictly speaking : will America be the death of English? . Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill.
It's well worth your time to read the Milroys on this topic, if you find people's attitudes to English usage and changes in English usage interesting.
References [7 of 9]
Peters, P. (2006). English usage: Prescription and description. In B. Aarts and A. McMahon (Eds.) The handbook of English linguistics. (pp. 759-780). Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct . New York: William Morrow and Co.
Preston, D. R. (2013). Linguistic insecurity forty years later. Journal of English Linguistics, 41 (4), 304-331.
Reed, A. and Kellogg, B. (1875). Graded lessons in English. Polytechnic Institute: New York.
Reed and Kellogg's books are online, such as Graded lessons Fig. 2: A sentence diagram from p. 60 ofGraded lessons in Engliah Michael-Whittle.com
References [8 of 9]
Reed, A. and Kellogg, B. (1877). Higher lessons in English. Polytechnic Institute: New York.
Rogers, B. (1999). Conflicting approaches to curriculum: Recognizing how fundamental beliefs can sustain or sabotage school reform. Peabody Journal of Education , 74 (1), 29-67.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2003). Grammar for writing: Academic writing and the ELD standards Santa Barbara: University of California's Lingusitic Minorities Research Institute.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
References [9 of 9]
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005). Helping academic teachers work with academic language: Promoting English language learners' literacy in history. Santa Barbara: University of California's Lingusitic Minorities Research Institute.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2012). Systemic functional linguistics: Exploring meaning in language. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 21-34). New York: Routledge.
Vološinov, V. N. (1930). Marxism and the philosophy of language . London: Seminar Press [reprinted 1973].
Background image credits
Dr. Johnson's Dictionary , Yale University Library https://drjohnsonsdictionary.library.yale.edu/
Johnson's Dictionary , The British Library, http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/dic/johnson/title/titlepage.html
A Short Introduction to English Grammar by Robert Lowth , The British Library, https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/a-short-introduction-to-english-grammar-by-robert-lowth
Yale U and The British Library have given us a real treat. It's interesting to look at pages of these rare, old books, and its interesting to note which pages the library
decided to put online. To my mind, the librarians were highlighting Johnson's humor in many of his dictionary entries.
As influential as Johnson's Dictionary was, the original publishers only printed about 1400 copies. Given its price, the publishers kept the print run down as not
to lose money. Surviving complete copies (Johnson's Dictionary was published in two volumes) now sell at auction for more money than most
people make in a couple of years.
Finis.
https://rhetory.com/prescriptivism
kiesdan@dupage.edu
Send me an email if you have questions or would like to continue this discussion.
