Necessary Peace in the Language War Author Bryan A. Garner, in his article “Making Peace in the Language Wars” (published in Garner’s Modern American Usage 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2009), seeks to negotiate a cease-fire between two fighting countries, the prescriptivists and the descriptivists. According to Garner, the two camps engage in warfare because they each desperately cling onto their specific views of how language should be used. Prescribers tend to be more conservative and are concerned with precise usage. They also are proponents of correcting grammar mistakes based off of the canon of English rhetoric. On the other hand, the describers are much more liberal. Being far more concerned about simply describing how the
…show more content…
Oftentimes when reading an essay of this nature, the author will try to persuade the reader to join his own side. However, Garner avoids overly advocating his own stance by providing ample explanation of both the prescriptivists and the descriptivists and the nature of their war with each other. He describes their war as one of usage—stating that the major conflict that arises between these two types of soldiers has to do with how they each believe the English language should be used. One group, the prescribers, believes that strict adherence to the rules that are already set in place concerning grammar and usage is of utmost importance. They seek to stabilize the language and normalize it so that all speakers of American English maintain a level of competency and consistency. The opposing group, the describers, accept that change is a fact of life, especially when it comes to language. They are far more concerned with how the language is already being used and merely reporting that information. These two groups are beautifully explained to the readers by Garner, who describes himself as a “descriptive prescriber” meaning that he is a prescriber who often will utilize descriptive methods. With this self-assessment of his own views on the language war, he illustrates that most individuals will not be 100 percent in one …show more content…
He uses individuals Mario Pei and John Marenborn who reinforce the ideas that he has already stated. And by bringing in an outside voice, he also gives his ideas more credence and validity. All three scholars would definitely fall more under the prescriptive label as they all advocate for the power of the informed choice when it comes to language. Pei argues that since language is personal, everyone should make informed choices about how to use their language instead of merely going off instinct. For example as Junior High students, we are all told that the us of personal pronouns in an essay exhibits informality. And while this rule is established mainly due to the overuse of such pronouns, I believe that using personal pronouns can add special emphasis precisely where I want it to be. The other linguist aforementioned, Marenborn, explains that prescriptivists merely are seeking to create a language standard across the board of American English speakers. To do so takes special instruction in the art of good construction and irregular forms which is neither an easy task, nor a brief one. However, Garner also engages the reader by using arguments from the descriptive side. One of the most enlightening of these comes from the linguist Steven Pinker. In an explanation about whether language
Oftentimes when reading an essay of this nature, the author will try to persuade the reader to join his own side. However, Garner avoids overly advocating his own stance by providing ample explanation of both the prescriptivists and the descriptivists and the nature of their war with each other. He describes their war as one of usage—stating that the major conflict that arises between these two types of soldiers has to do with how they each believe the English language should be used. One group, the prescribers, believes that strict adherence to the rules that are already set in place concerning grammar and usage is of utmost importance. They seek to stabilize the language and normalize it so that all speakers of American English maintain a level of competency and consistency. The opposing group, the describers, accept that change is a fact of life, especially when it comes to language. They are far more concerned with how the language is already being used and merely reporting that information. These two groups are beautifully explained to the readers by Garner, who describes himself as a “descriptive prescriber” meaning that he is a prescriber who often will utilize descriptive methods. With this self-assessment of his own views on the language war, he illustrates that most individuals will not be 100 percent in one …show more content…
He uses individuals Mario Pei and John Marenborn who reinforce the ideas that he has already stated. And by bringing in an outside voice, he also gives his ideas more credence and validity. All three scholars would definitely fall more under the prescriptive label as they all advocate for the power of the informed choice when it comes to language. Pei argues that since language is personal, everyone should make informed choices about how to use their language instead of merely going off instinct. For example as Junior High students, we are all told that the us of personal pronouns in an essay exhibits informality. And while this rule is established mainly due to the overuse of such pronouns, I believe that using personal pronouns can add special emphasis precisely where I want it to be. The other linguist aforementioned, Marenborn, explains that prescriptivists merely are seeking to create a language standard across the board of American English speakers. To do so takes special instruction in the art of good construction and irregular forms which is neither an easy task, nor a brief one. However, Garner also engages the reader by using arguments from the descriptive side. One of the most enlightening of these comes from the linguist Steven Pinker. In an explanation about whether language