The Edgy, Teenage Punk Side of Language

Language is a topic that can and will always be a topic of debate. Whether it's about its concreteness or the application of new rules, a discussion over language is never a rare finding. Precisely this is what is found in the New York Times in a debate between Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner. The two writers find themselves defending their position towards language.

In this article, writers are divided into two different groups: descriptivists and prescriptivists. Descriptivists define language as something that is completely relative and grows along with its writers. In the other hand, prescriptivists see language as something that must be kept under a set of rules. Greene defends the descriptivists and Garner defends the prescriptivists.

Personally, I prefer the prescriptivists. I think that language should be something that contains many rules that help keep it under control. If language doesn't have any definite rules, then all writing would only be a jumble of words that are only able to encapsulate chaos. One way that I like looking at this topic is in a political way. If language was a community, the prescriptivists would be those in favor of a government, and the descriptivists would be those who support anarchy. If all members of a community only had to follow the rules that one believed in, there would be a lack of control that would probably lead the community to ruins.

Another way that I approach this topic is by personifying the two different groups. They way that I saw this was like if the descriptivists were teenagers that want to rebel against their prescriptivist parents. One aspect of this article that led me to reach this image was Garner's manipulation of logos in his debating. In comparison to Greene's piece, Garner's contains a lot more references to other texts and a lot more focused making it seem like an overall better written piece. When Greene has to resort to describing prescriptivists as "'language cranks,' 'oddballs,' 'declinists,' 'self-appointed language guardians,' and 'scolds' who habitually fly into 'spittle-flecked fury,'" I can't help but draw the parallel to a child who doesn't know how to continue the argument and decides to call names instead. Descriptivists might think that they have reached a time period where they will be the strongest, but they must realize that if prescriptivists have survived up to this point, it's for a reason.