Language is the primary means of communication among human beings. There are various languages and dialects across the world. However, every language has a standard means of communication. According to Leonard the standard language was formulated by the desire of speakers who “wanted to identify themselves with the fashionable, powerful, and prestigeful, and one way of doing this was to try and sound like them” (2). Despite one speaking in a specific language form, there is a standard recognized as the primary language. For instance, the English standard language is used as the universal way of English communication. The same is taught in schools and passed down to various individuals through rules and regulations. Prescriptivism is the means through which the standard language is taught to different individuals. Prescriptivism is essential in learning any language, as it offers the chance for having a specific standard of language use.
Language prescriptivism is supported by various arguments that try to make the standard language look better than the other dialects. According to Leonard (2), three main reasons support language standards, the reasons behind prescriptivism. The standard language sounds more logical, is clear, and correct as compared to the past. Clarity is the primary reason for prescriptivism in language. The use of different dialects of a language might negatively impact understanding among the speakers. Therefore, through prescriptivism, individuals learn a standard form of language that is equal across the board. Through such language, it is easy to communicate with everyone through the same language, with ease of understanding each other.
Through language prescriptivism, one can divulge to deeper areas of a particular language, supporting their ability to communicate effectively. Both written and oral language use are effectively achieved by a more learned individual in society (Lippi-Green, 55). Prescriptivism is a model of enhancing the ability to discern between an intellectual and a primitive individual. The standard language learned in the process helps ensure that a standard communication standard that improves understanding between individuals is achieved. Lippi-Green considers the standard language as the language for the learned by claiming, “The social domain of standard English has been established: it is the language of the educated, in particular those who have achieved a high level of expertise in the written language” (56). Therefore, through prescriptivism, attending school’s efforts are rewarded by offering the graduates a chance to relate with each other at an elite level.
Teachers should enhance prescriptivism at all levels to strengthen the probability of creating individuals who effectively communicate through both writing and speaking Standard English. The work of Fish, “What should colleges teach?” confirms the need for prescriptivism on the whole education system. Fish (1) affirms that high schools and middle schools are not effectively teaching writing skills if they are by the chance of teaching. Fish asserts that Universities are left with more work of teaching students all proponents of language from the start. Fish is right in his assertion that colleges should begin by teaching the basics to the students before engaging on deep issues due to the unfortunate scenarios in their earlier years of schooling by claiming, “You have to start with a simple but deep understanding of the game, which for my purposes is the game of writing sentences” (3). The education system should focus on enhancing prescriptivism to mold individuals who understand standard language use.
Despite the advantages of prescriptivism as outlined before, there are various ways through which the aspect is problematic in the education system. From the views of Leonard (2), prescriptivism is supported by the argument that the standard language is always more logical. Leonard (2), however, gives an example of how the logical language is confusing through a comparison of the English standard and the French standard. In the English standard, it is wrong to say, “he don’t know nothing.” The same is, however, right from the French standard, “Il ne sait rien,” directly translated to “He doesn’t know anything,” literally, “he-not-know-nothin.” Leonard claims that the English standard does not criticize the French standard as illogical, “because French is a high-prestige language to most English speaker” (2). The assertion confirms that standards do not rely on logic, but the speakers’ perceived status, making prescriptivism problematic, as it sets standards for communication through biasness.
From the above assertion, there are high chances that prescriptivism is considered biased in society. As Leonard (1) brought out, prescriptivism relies on the language of the elites in society, making it the standard form of language. Through prescriptivism, there is a high chance that the other minority dialects will be loosed. Such as a form of discrimination against the lower social classes. However, Lippi-Green (55) claims that standard language makes it easy for people to effectively communicate. Through such assertions, any other language could have been made standard, and prescriptivism still applies. Therefore, the realization that standardization of language helps aid effective communication will erase using prescriptivism as a form of discrimination.
Prescriptivism supports the standardization of language in society. Despite the advantages of standardization, mainly to aid effective communication, prescriptivism faces various critics. The dialects from the prestigious individuals in the society are mostly used as the standardized languages, leading to a possible extinction of other dialects, a depiction of discrimination in the society. However, the view of language standardization positively enhances the chances of viewing prescriptivism positively in society.
