P Is For Prescriptive An A-Z of ELT

5/26/13 P is for Prescriptive | An A-Z of ELT
An A-Z of ELT
Scott Thornbury's blog
P is for Prescriptive
2 10 2011
(http://scottthornbury.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/en-clase.jpeg)I’m
puzzled why my MA students have so much trouble getting their
heads around the prescriptive- descriptive distinction. But, then,
they’re probably puzzled as to why I think it matters so much.
Some defining might be in order. To quote from An A-Z of ELT, “If a

prescriptive grammar is about how people should speak, a descriptive
one is about how people do speak”. Thus, a prescriptivist will argue
that taller than me is wrong, and that, for various abstruse reasons, it
should be taller than I. A descriptive grammar would simply state (as
does the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Biber, et al.
1999, p. 336) that, after as and than, “both nominative and accusative
forms occur”, and that the accusative forms (e.g. taller than me) “are
predominant…especially in conversation”. So, while prescriptivism is
about opinions, descriptivism claims to be about facts.
scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/p-is-for-prescriptive/ 1/22
(http://scottthornbury.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/hugos-incorrect-
english.jpeg)Why do I think that the distinction matters? Well, because
a lot of trainees, coming to ELT fresh, tend to associate grammar
teaching with the kind of ‘good style guide’ grammar that they got at
school. They think grammar teaching is going to be all about not
starting sentences with ‘And’ or not ending them with a preposition.
They may mistakenly see themselves as part of this tradition – as
guardians of the cultural legacy enshrined as ‘proper English’. They
may have been indoctrinated into the view that “students should be
taught that correct speaking is evidence of culture; and that in order to
speak correctly they must master the rules that govern the use of the
language” (from an editorial in The Detroit Free Press, 1928, quoted in
Fries, 1940).
However, this is not the problem with my students. Quite the opposite.
The problem is that they come to associate all rules with prescriptivism.
Thus, the rule that “to form the past tense of regular verbs, you add –ed
to the base form of the verb” is considered prescriptive – simply
because it’s a rule.
But this is to confuse rules-as-regularities with rules-as-regulations.

Adding –ed is something we regularly do; saying taller than I is
something we don’t do regularly, but which (according to
prescriptivists) we ought to. Theirs is an attempt to regulate language
use.
There’s an added problem, however, and that is: are student grammars
really that descriptive? After all, the so-called pedagogic grammar –
which purports to be a sub-set of the rules of descriptive grammar – is
by definition selective. It selects some usages and ignores others. And
the usages it selects are those that are considered standard – or the
norm. But a norm is only a norm because it has been accepted by a
speech community as such. It has been validated. What the grammar
describes is what the speech community prescribes. As Cameron (1995)
argues, “there is no escape from normativity”.
Moreover, in order to obviate the messiness of exceptions, pedagogic

grammars tend to be more assertive than they need to be – often at the
cost of accuracy. Rather than stating rules, they issue edicts. (Perhaps
they should be called ‘pedantic grammars’). So we get:
Some verbs are used only in simple tenses. For example, “You
cannot say ‘I am knowing’. You can only say I know. (Murphy,
1985, p. 6)
And they use the ‘we’ word a lot, too. So you get:
We can make negative sentences with nobody, nothing… With these

words, we do not use not…:
He said nothing. (NOT He didn’t say nothing)
(Swan & Walter, 2001, p. 114).
Who is this we? At times, it starts to sound a little like the royal we. It
starts to sound very prescriptive. No wonder my students get
confused.
Not just my students – there is a strong sense generally that description

= good; prescription = bad. Nevertheless, there is one area of language
teaching where most teachers are happy to be prescriptive, and that is
vocabulary. We regularly caution students not to use words that are
considered offensive or vulgar, even if they are commonly used by
native-speakers. Dictionaries do the same. They shamelessly prescribe.
And, because of this, they are excellent sources for tracking shifts in
cultural values. Consider the two entries (below) from the first edition
of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1948) and the same entries
from the 6th edition (2000).
(http://scottthornbury.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/nigger_old-
new1.gif)
Click to enlarge
(http://scottthornbury.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/jew_old-
new2.gif)
Click to enlarge
This should serve to remind us that, as Cameron (op. cit) puts it, “we
are all of us closet prescriptivists”. As she explains:
I have never met anyone who did not subscribe, in one way or
another, to the belief that language can be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘good’
or ‘bad’, more or less ‘elegant’ or ‘effective’ or ‘appropriate’. Of
course, there is massive disagreement about what values to
espouse, and how to define them. Yet however people may pick
and choose, it is rare to find anyone rejecting altogether the idea that
there is some legitimate authority in language’ (p.9).
References:
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. 1999.
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Cameron, D. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
Fries, C. C. 1940. American English Grammar. Tokyo: Maruzen.
Murphy, R. 1985. English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Swan, M., and Walter, C. 2001. The Good Grammar Book. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Actions
Comments RSS
Trackback
Information
Date : October 2, 2011

Tags: descriptive grammar, grammar, pedagogic grammar,
prescriptive grammar, prescriptivism, rules, usage
Categories : English language teaching
53 responses
2 10 2011
Mike Harrison (08:50:41) :

Thanks for this, Scott. Prescriptivism is something I struggle with a
bit myself. Not so much the distinction between what is actually
said or used versus that which people think we should use. As you
say, so much related to this is bound up with opinion and views of
‘good’ language. It’s more explaining certain things to my students
sometimes – I confess that sometimes I can’t explain exactly why a
certain grammatical or other point is.
Interesting (for me) is the idea of prescriptivism relating to

vocabulary. Are the examples above prescriptive, or descriptive as
the usage of these words has changed? I suppose the vocab
equivalent to the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English
would be slang vocab books used in tandem with dictionaries.
Mike
PS – I am *always* being corrected for saying ‘than me’ instead of

‘than I’ by my grandmother!
Reply
3 10 2011
Scott Thornbury (08:07:44) :
Thnaks for the comment, Mike. And good question re dictionaries
(“Are the examples above prescriptive, or descriptive as the usage
of these words has changed?”) A chicken-and-egg situation perhaps:
certainly, the two examples I quote reflect changes in social
attitudes, but to what extent lexicographers simply record these, or
actually influence them, is a moot point. Certainly, a lot of what is
known as political correctness in language use (e.g. the change from
crippled to handicapped to disabled to challenged to differently-abled) has
been the result of deliberate efforts to change the way people use
language so as to effect a change in the way people think.
Reply
2 10 2011
Richard Ingate (11:41:45) :
I think the distinction you offer (rules-as-regularities /rules-as-
regulations) is very useful, and not just in regard to grammar. As an
English teacher transitioning into the world of Lifecoaching, I could
apply this distinction with clients who stop themselves thriving
because they have taken regularities to be regulations. Thank you
for this insight.
Richard
Reply
2 10 2011
Carol (11:42:38) :
I’ve never been keen on prescriptive grammars. I once did a

conversation analysis of a phone-in radio show where, that week,
people called in to talk about their grammatical pet hates. What I
found interesting was that as people ranted about what they found
unacceptable, they made the same ‘mistakes’ themselves. So, I’d go
along with the idea that “description = good; prescription = bad.”
Until, that is, I start to think about what you’ve written about
vocabulary.
If we tell students that some words are considered to be offensive or

vulgar, are we being prescriptive or are we giving our students all
the information they need to be able make decisions about which
words to use in particular contexts? So, even though native speakers
may use some words in discussions in pubs with friends, they may
recognise that they need to find different words in a business
meeting or when giving a presentation. This is information that
students need to know about a word, particularly perhaps when it
is a word that refers to a group of people as in the examples you
have selected, so that they don’t get into bother.
As I write this, I’m realising that I am probably a prescriptivist when

it comes to words describing people. I tell my son he shouldn’t use
particular words and I have told students that ‘we’ no longer use the
words they found in their electronic dictionaries to describe people
with learning disabilities.
Outside of this, though, I think we’ll regularly advise students that

some words will offend some people, or not be considered
appropriate in academic writing, or that they are not used very
much any more. We tell them this not because of ‘some legitimate
authority’ but because of how we think the language is currently
being used, interpreted, and understood. I don’t think that this is
being prescriptive, just that words, with their various meanings,
spellings, synonyms, connotations, need more description.
Or is it?
Reply
3 10 2011
Thanks for the reflective comment, Carol. I guess it boils down to
the question: Is ‘handing on other people’s prescriptions’ being
prescriptive ourselves? That is, if we tell our learners that some
people think it is offensive to refer to Hispanics as Latinos (an issue
that came up in the comments on my last blog post), are we being
descriptive or prescriptive? In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter –
the point is that, as teachers, we know that words have connotations,
and part of teaching vocabulary is to make those connotations clear
to learners. How they ‘read’ our intentions, and what they do with
this informaiton, is really up to them
Reply
2 10 2011
Penny Hands (12:06:49) :
Thank you, Scott, for another thought-provoking post.
I’m interested in your mention of the use of ‘we’ in pedagogical

grammars. I always imagined that Swan’s aim in using ‘we’ was to
be friendly and inclusive. He’d probably be a bit shocked at the
idea that people might think of him as establishing a ‘royal we’-type
tone.
However, Roger Berry’s article ‘Who do they think ‘we’ is?’

(Language Awareness, 2005) reports some interesting results
obtained from a study he did into how learners understand ‘mixed
personality’ (interchanging ‘you’ and ‘we’) in pedagogical
grammars. Learners whose L1 used generic forms similar to English
ones had few problem with generic ‘you’ and ‘we’ in themselves
(although interchanging them did cause some confusion). However,
Chinese speakers clearly found it harder to work out who the
referent was: Here are two particularly insightful responses from
Hong Kong students:
‘the person who do it right’ (WE) vs ‘the person who do it wrong’

(YOU)
‘the people who want to combine a verb and an adverb or
preposition’ (WE) vs ‘the one who cannot follow the rules’ (YOU)
Berry’s article highlights just how difficult it is for writers of

pedagogical grammars to decide how to word their descriptions of
the rules: they have to try to weigh up the pros and cons of being
friendly and natural without being too formal or impersonal (for
example, by using ‘one’ or by using the passive throughout), and
without appearing to set up a power relationship between the
writer and the reader.
The thing is, though, that whichever form we use, and however
objective and neutral we think we are, whether we are writers of
pedagogical grammars, lexicographers, teachers or parents, we are
usually describing the language of ‘People Like Us’, which, when it
comes down to it, is a pretty prescriptive thing to do. So, for
example, Cobuild dictionaries and grammars usually use ‘you’ in
their full-sentence definitions, but there are numerous instances of
the type:
In formal or written English, *people sometimes use* a subject

pronoun after a linking verb. For example, ‘It was I’, ‘It is she’. [my
asterisks] (Cobuild English Grammar, 3rd ed., 2011)
…suggesting that ‘I, the writer, would not do this, and you probably
shouldn’t either.’ (Interestingly, it’s the more old-fashioned, or
rather precious, form that the writer is distancing him-/herself from
here, but there are also instances where the writer describes slang or
rude words in similar terms – I won’t sully your blog with examples
)
Similarly, as a supposedly objective linguist/parent, I find myself

wincing at statements like ‘Me and Naomi were down at the park,
and ….’. I’m getting better at letting these things go as I get worn
down by the sheer volume of ‘non-standard’ usages I hear coming
from my children’s mouths – and I think of myself as being fairly
liberal… I tell myself it’s fine as long as they can code-switch. This
really means, I suppose, that I want them to know how to ‘talk
properly’ when they’re with ‘People Like Us’. This parental
behaviour is natural, perhaps; I justify it by thinking of it as
encouraging the learner/child to be aware of register. But it might
equally be seen as conservative prescriptivism. (My rebellious
children sometimes suggest that this is the case.)
Reply
3 10 2011
Thanks, Penny – I’m fascinated by the research you mention. I
happent to be reviewing some pedagogical materials right now, and
am intrigued by the use of ‘we’ in the grammar explanations, as in
‘we say…’ or ‘we never use…’ and this got me looking at how other
grammars do it, including the COBUILD preference for ‘you’ that
you mention. I wonder if this need to have subject pronouns is a
result of a (misguided?) attempt to avoid the passive, which would
at least obviate these identity issues. Compare:
We never use mental process verbs (know, believe, etc) in the

progressive form.
Mental process verbs (know, believe, etc) are never used in the
progressive form.
Reply
3 10 2011
I agree that doggedly avoiding the passive would be misguided.
COBUILD Grammar, incidentally, also uses the passive to describe
the grammatical point you mention:
‘Certain verbs are mainly used…’ (3rd ed. p. 219)
However, as you say, ‘you’ is often preferred, e.g.
‘When you use the passive form of a verb, you do not have to
mention the person or the thing responsible for the action.’ (op. cit.
p. 406)
…and not:
‘When the passive form of a verb is used, it is not necessary to

mention…’.
For the sake of natural, friendly-sounding English, a combination of

the two would seem to work. Whether the mix of passive and active
forms is confusing for learners, though, is worth further
consideration.
Reply
2 10 2011
Newson (12:21:30) :
Would you all agree that one of the problems here is the word
“rule” with its implication of external enforced order? I’ve heard it
argued that “laws”, as in the laws of Physics, might be a better
expression, but I am not convinced. Are there any good
alternatives? Observed descriptive regularities? That’s not very
smart but perhaps someone on this reply network has coined or
come across something more appealing.
Dennis
Reply
2 10 2011
J.J. Sunset (13:12:17) :
As a non-native English speaking teacher, I chose to eradicate the
words ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ from my teacher talk. I find it more
‘soothing’ for nativespeakerness believers to give them feedback in
terms of probability and frequency of use, rather than infallible
grammaticality judgements.
Reply
3 10 2011
Chris Bowie (08:29:16) :
I normally use the term ‘patterns’ and ‘common patterns’. If one
takes a more lexical look at language, then you can boil most things
down to ‘common patterns’ which are frequently used to express
distinct ideas.
Reply
3 10 2011
I’m now wondering if a better term would be ‘routines’. The term is
sometimes used, in the literature, for formualic language, i.e.
chunks. They are routines because we use them a lot (i.e. routinely)
but also because they are sort of like algorithms whereby

communication is routinised. Given that all grammar is simply
recurring word strings with variable slots, then maybe the term
‘routine’ can be stretched to include syntactic structures as well as
formulae? (This idea comes from my re-visiting O’Grady’s Syntactic
Carpentry (see comment further down).
Reply
3 10 2011
I totally agree, Dennis, that the word ‘rule’ comes with a lot of
excess baggage. I’m not sure ‘law’ is any better, though! Perhaps
‘pattern’ might best describe a lot of the behaviour that grammars
try to describe – although this, too, is tainted by association with
‘pattern practice drills’.
Reply
2 10 2011
J.J. Sunset (13:00:38) :
Aren’t most L2 students prescriptivists at heart? Adults more so?
How does ‘English as a Lingua Franca’ fit into the prescription-

description dilemma?
Reply
3 10 2011
“Aren’t most L2 students prescriptivists at heart?” To the extent that
they probably want to approximate acceptable (not merely accurate)
norms of behaviour in the second language, yes.
As for the question about ELF, its advocates are quick to deny any
charge of prescriptivism on their part. The problem is that, until
ELF is exhaustively described, any recommendations on how to
teach it smack of opinion rather than of fact. (And it remains to be
seen if there is a uniform phenomenon that can be described).
Reply
2 10 2011
Wes (17:38:25) :
I’ve recently written a blog entry on the topic of ‘rules’. Here are are
a few points I made:
People who bother a lot about language ‘rules’ tend to say that a)
rules are important, otherwise everything would be incoherent and
b) you have to know the rules, in order to break the rules.
In a way, this is clearly right. Language that is incoherent is, by

definition, meaningless. We need to make ourselves understood to
others, and we expect others in turn to be comprehensible to us –
we would not be able to function productively as a society without

a shared sense of coherence. And yes, we need to have a standard
model of language to be able to create and understand departures
from this. The punctuation-free, battered, ‘unstructured’ poems of
e.e. cummings are meaningless without seeing them against the
backdrop of a larger conventional linguistic framework.
Yet the word ‘rule’, with its connotations of absolute correctness and
incorrectness, is surely an inadequate one. What, for example, is the
rule that explains why we collocate ‘take’ with ‘risk’ but ‘make’ with
‘sacrifice’? Why can some verbs be followed by the -ing form, some
only by the base form and others by both? Which rule can we
appeal to to reveal where the stressed syllable belongs in
‘controversy’? Why do we say ‘sick and tired’ and never ‘tired and
sick’? Is there a rule which tells us which of these sentences – ‘I
already ate’ or ‘I’ve already eaten’ – is indisputably correct?
Clearly though, not just anything goes. We cannot write ‘discreet’

when we mean ‘discrete’, say ‘proDUCE’ when we mean ‘PROduce’,
or punctuate ‘My sister’s friends’ when we mean ‘My sisters’
friends’. Moreover, it would be foolish to suggest that everything
about English is simply arbitrary or that it has so many exceptions,
as some people like to claim. In fact, the remarkable thing about
English is just how logical and congruous it really is.
However, language is not a matter of simple right or wrong but of

conventions – or if you prefer, norms, tendencies or likelihoods. If
we have a widely accepted model of Standard English today, it is
not because it exists in some linguistic vacuum, but because it has
become conventionalized through the passage of time. This
conventionalization arises through a type of social negotiation –
done mostly tacitly but sometimes explicitly (i.e. pedants on
comments boards, newspaper style guides etc. – where people
decide between them what is acceptable or unacceptable. Whatever
works tends to stick; whatever is unnecessary or internally
confusing tends to become obsolete.
Of course the very nature of conventions is that they are liable to

change. The conventions which Shakespeare followed, for instance,
are not always ones we recognize now. In fact, from our current
perspective, Shakespeare’s grammar frequently appears
inconsistent and confusing: subject pronouns used as object
pronouns and vice versa, double comparatives and double
negatives, plural nominatives with singular verbs, and so on – all
things which would nowadays be considered to be quite serious
offences among those people who generally obsess about rules!
Who knows, perhaps in 500 years time, pedants will be picking up

when they fail to use such grammar as ‘less people’ and ‘I ain’t done
nothing’!
Reply
3 10 2011
“….language is not a matter of simple right or wrong but of
conventions – or if you prefer, norms, tendencies or likelihoods”.
True, and all that a rule does is give a snapshot of the state of the
conventions at any one time (and in any one place). At the same
time, it might be useful to distinguish between what some scholars
call ‘grammar as structure’ and ‘grammar as choice’. Grammar-as-
structure rules out, for example, the combination of ‘be-auxiliary +
infinitive’ as in ‘I am love it’. Grammar-as-choice allows for the fact
that ‘I love it’ and ‘I’m loving it’, being both well-formed, are
feasible choices (although it just happens that – for semantic reasons
– one is much more common than the other) and that ecah can be
sued to create different effects.
The problem comes when grammar-as-choice gets confused with

grammar-as-structure, giving rise to the prohibition of utterances
like ‘I’m lovin’ it!’
Reply
3 10 2011
Wes (13:12:33) :
“True, and all that a rule does is give a snapshot of the state of the
conventions at any one time (and in any one place).”
Nicely put. I’ll have to remember that.
“The problem comes when grammar-as-choice gets confused with

grammar-as-structure, giving rise to the prohibition of utterances
like ‘I’m lovin’ it!’”
Yes, absolutely, Scott. This distinction is something that pedants on

comments sections of the Guardian etc. seem completely unwilling
to recognize! But then, outside the classroom, language rules matter
to people for a variety of significant reasons – reasons to do with
social status, security, identity, tradition etc. These are all things
that are not easy to let go of, I guess.
Reply
2 10 2011
Newson (19:12:30) :
What I’d like to add to Wes’ argument (as I understand it) – if,
within limits, you do not “obey the rules” when using a language
you won’t be understood. This is absolutely not to imply that you
learn/acquire a foreign/second language by consciously learning
the rules and applying them. Rules may work well for descriptive
purposes, but I don’t believe they can often generate effective
learning strategies.
Reply
3 10 2011
Perhaps language rules are a little like table manners. When I teach
Chinese business people about how to behave at a business meal
with western clients, I need to help them understand that the way
you behave depends on who you’re eating with and where you’re
eating. I draw out different behaviour patterns in different
situations: a business lunch in a fancy restaurant vs a quick catch-up
chat at a sandwich bar vs a formal dinner with toasts, speeches and
an array of knives, forks and spoons.
Clearly I need to be descriptive by talking about how people

usually behave in these different contexts rather than saying how
they used to behave or ought to behave. But at the same time I need
to be clear that there are certain things they shouldn’t do (but that
might be perfectly normal in a Chinese context) if they want to make
their (potential) business partners feel comfortable dealing with
them and accepting of them as part of their peer group.
The same goes for language use. The way people speak when
giving a formal presentation to shareholders, a sales presentation or
a speech at an employee’s wedding are different, and need to be
different to be accepted as part of the group.
We may not like dealing with poe-faced people, but sometimes we

don’t have a choice and need to regulate our behaviour if we want
them to agree to do the thing that we are trying to persuade them to
do.
I see my job as helping my students avoid making mistakes which
will result in them being rejected as part of the group they want to
interact with. If I told them that (I believe) that anything goes, and so
they behaved in an inappropriate way by saying or writing the
wrong thing in the wrong context, they’d be justified in saying that
I’d let them down.
Chris
Reply
3 10 2011
“I see my job as helping my students avoid making mistakes which
will result in them being rejected as part of the group they want to
interact with.”
Nicely put, Chris. I don’t think there are many who would disagree
with you, even if they are nervoius about labelling themselves as
prescriptivists.
Reply
3 10 2011
Jannan (01:33:58) :
HI Scott (all the way from Lima, Peru)
Thank you for your post. It has made me reflect a lot about
grammar and how I should address it and vocabulary as well in my
classes. Can you suggest any good grammar book for training
prospective teachers? I would appreciate the info.
Jan
Reply
3 10 2011
Hi Jan – welcome to the discussion. By good grammar book, I
presume you mean a reference grammar, rather than a book about
teaching grammar (I know a very good example of the latter ).
Perhaps we can throw this open to the blog followers – what

grammar reference would you (or do you) recommend to trainee
teachers?
Reply
3 10 2011
Anthony Gaughan (13:26:45) :
Leech, G. etc al (1989) A-Z of English Grammar and Usage, Harlow,
Longman
Thornbury, S. (2004?) Natural Grammar, Oxford, OUP
The former because it was my first teaching grammar and I still

think it does a great job of blending sound information, clarity of
treatment and humorous contextualisations that can be leveraged in
class; the latter because it redresses the “vocab doesn’t have
grammar” fallacy.
Reply
3 10 2011
Anthony – I also have a valued copy of Leech, but mine is
published by Edward Arnold:
Leech, G. 1989. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. London:

Edward Arnold.
Thanks for the mention of Natural Grammar – those interested in

the thinking behind it can read about it here:
http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/s-is-for-small-
words/
3 10 2011
I have that self-same edition, Scott (impression 1991,
Arnold/Nelson) – pretty dog-eared by now! Bought it fir a module
on linguistics in my first year at uni, but even its clarity could not
stop me from being defeated by the obtuseness of the sessions, and
to my shame, I dropped the module. Dusted it off during the
summer break 3 years later for my TEFL cert course and the rest is
history!
Thought a more up to date reference would disguise my -ahem –

vintage though…
Thanks for that reference back to your post on small words, as well!
4 10 2011
Rob (16:22:05) :
Speaking of prescriptivist tendencies, Anthony, can I ask what
‘leverage’ means to you above?
4 10 2011
Hi Rob – I am using “leverage” in the sense of “exploit for
advantage”.
For example, if a trainee has identified a language need through

observation, they can go away, research the issue in the A-Z, and
they may also find the cartoons provide either a ready-made
situational presentation or the idea for one for a subsequent class.
Have I thereby outed myself as a prescriptivist? *trembles*
3 10 2011
Martin Sketchley (12:02:37) :
I’d recommend three books;
1. “English Grammar Today” by CUP

2. “Uncovering Grammar” by Thornbury
3. “Teaching English Grammar” by Scrivener
I hope that helps. There are some other wonderful reference books
out there by Parrott et al.
Reply
3 10 2011
Tony (12:06:18) :
Not to be too heretical but Swan’s “Practical English Usage” is

referred to as the Bible where I work. There are very few questions
of application that it does not address, and it does so in language
every teacher can understand.
Reply
3 10 2011
Jessica Mackay (13:05:36) :
We used to call it the gospel according to St Michael
Reply
3 10 2011
Adam (12:07:37) :
For trainee teachers, I’d still go with ‘Practical English Abusage’ by
Michael Swan. It didn’t do me any harm.
If you’re somewhere with a lot of long, wintery nights, you could

fill them quite adequately with the ‘Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English.’
Reply
3 10 2011
Martin (12:09:28) :
Hi Scott,
Grammar Dimensions edited by Diane Larsen-Freeman. A great

book to understand grammar from meaning, form and use. Not only
is good for trainee teachers but for experienced teachers who might
want to use a different approach to grammar teaching. Teachers will
enjoy developing grammar concepts and new activities in a more
well-rounded grammar focus.
Totally recommended!
Martin
Reply
3 10 2011
rliberni (12:11:15) :
For quick reference I quite like Cobuild English Usage for learners
(not just grammar) or Longman’s Advanced Grammar for learners.
For more depth the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written
English. For those trainee teachers without a solid grammar base
then Murphy has good explanations but It’s never been my
favourite. I like Thomson and Martinet better (though my copy is
very out of date now!)
Reply
3 10 2011
Where does grammar as a verb – “to grammar” come into the

picture? I enjoyed your book, “Uncovering Grammar”, where you
showed how we (inclusive use here) use grammar to bridge the gap
between the speaker/writer and the listener/reader or between the
reality and the speaker’s hypothetical argument.
Perhaps we can see these ‘principles’ as ways for our learners to use
grammar to make their meaning clear in more complicated
situations. Example: “I didn’t buy it” vs. “I would have bought it if I
had been given my pay rise.”
Reply
3 10 2011
Sort of related to the idea of ‘grammaring’ is that proposed by
William O’Grady in his book Syntactic Carpentry (Lawrence
Erlbaum, 2005), to which I referred earlier. O’Grady argues that
“sentences have the properties that they do because of the way they
are built — one step at a time, by an efficiency driven linear process
that eventually becomes fixed on particular routines” (p.213). That
is to say, there are no pre-established “rules”, in the sense of an a
priori design. The metaphor he uses is “carpentry”: “Put simply,
when it comes to sentences, there are no architects; there are only
carpenters. They design as they build, limited only by the materials
available to them and by the need to complete their work as quickly
and efficiently as possible” (p.2).
The effect of these computational processes, and the constraints that

they work under (e.g. limitations on working memory) determine
the way that one word is strung to the next, and so on, creating “the
illusion of rules”, as he calls it. As in the Machado poem, we make
the path by walking it.
I’m not sure that I really get it, but I find the idea that there are no
rules, only routines, very exciting!
Reply
3 10 2011
Elena (15:29:17) :
I think, english speaking is like driving. To “drive” efficiently and
safely everybody needs to follow the rules.
Grammar is really essential, as it gives learner a sense of control.The
idea is how to introduce grammar as a necessity, which could allow
to reduce risk of any problems “on the road”, but not the problem
itself, that is studied as a separate issue.
Reply
3 10 2011
Thanks, Elena, for your comment. The value – or not – of teaching
rules has been discussed on this blog before. Check out R is for
Rules here.
Reply
3 10 2011
anthony elloway (@aelloway) (21:28:42) :
Thanks for your post, Scott. I love how reading one thing can
suddenly connect with something else one is reading – I was
reading your post and Leo van Lier’s The Ecology and Semiology of
Language Learning at (almost) the same time, and found this: Leo,
describing language as emergent, makes a passing reference to
Bakhtin’s idea that there is a tension in language between
‘centrifugal’ forces and ‘centripetal’ forces: centrifugal forces express
creativity, diversity, freedom, variety; centripetal forces pull in the
‘opposite’ direction and express standardisation, conformity,
centralised control. In other words, perhaps, the same
‘descriptivism’ versus ‘prescriptivism’ your entry discusses.
Leo writes: “Like culture, it [language] is contested, open to
processes of inclusion and exclusion, prescribed and proscribed
patterns of use, permeated by value judgments, markers of identity,
and signs of success.” (2004:85)
Reply
4 10 2011
Hi Anthony – thanks for making those connections! The centripetal
vs centrifugal forces tension is a great way of thinking about it. I
guess to an extent this also maps on to what Crystal calls the
identity function and the communicative function of language. I.e.
we assert our identity through language, and hence take seriously –
and are very protective of – markers of identity (and education)
such as accent, and the difference between fewer and less; on the
other hand, the inexorable need to communicate with as many
people as possible pulls language into all sorts of strange shapes
and sizes, many of which threaten the identity of the language’s
‘guardians’.
Reply
4 10 2011
Centripetal – funny you should mention that but I referred to the
same concept vaguely related in a recent (not especially coherent
but perhaps still interesting) blog post citing Graddol on the
vacuum at the heart of “standard English” and a tenuous extension
of the idea to modelling and the notion of “best practice” in
teaching: http://wp.me/pPAaf-7J
Hope you don’t mind me sharing the post again here, Scott.
Reply
3 10 2011
darridge (21:48:28) :
The pointlessness of grammar as prescription and pointedness of
“all that a rule does is give a snapshot of the state of the conventions
at any one time (and in any one place)” is very clearly shown in this
link from Larry Ferlazzo’s site:
http://microsyntax.sites.yale.edu/
Here is an example:
http://microsyntax.sites.yale.edu/phenomena/needs-washed
Reply
4 10 2011
Great site, Darridge – thanks for that! I shall immediately pass it on
to my students.
Reply
4 10 2011
Newson (14:13:59) :
I certainly “get it” to a far lesser degree than Scott and many of the
contributors to this ‘top of the blogs’. But scattered throughout the
writings of people like Nick Ellis, Jens Bod, Krashen and many
others coming through to me is the suggestion that language is not a
static entity to be described in and learned by rules, but something
else, a constantly moving mass which is to be learned and then
acquired by being exposed to statistically sufficient instances of it.
Reply
4 10 2011
Rob (16:58:47) :
Great Scott,
You do grammar well and you do it good!
My students and I come to class each day with our individual

grammars, and we grammar about. We grammar on until, at times,
we feel we can grammar no more though grammar we must!
Sometimes we notice the grammar, sometimes we feel it, and other
times it seems to have left the room (but it hasn’t). We don’t always
agree on where it is or what it is. There’s Grammar and there’s
grammar in our use and usage of Englishes – and e-nglishes.
Grammaring and G/grammar are a large part of what makes
language learning, and teaching, fun for me. I hope the learners feel
the same.
Would it be appropriate to mention Michael Hoey and lexical

priming (cf. http://tinyurl.com/3qd8czh ) in this discussion of
grammar given that the distinction between lexis and grammar is
tenuous at best?
“Classical theory holds that grammar is generated first and words

are then dropped into the opportunities thus created; Hoey’s theory
reverses the roles of lexis and grammar, arguing that lexis is
complexly and systematically structured and that grammar is an
outcome of this lexical structure…” (ibid.)
What does Hoey’s ‘theory of words’ imply when it comes to

prescriptivism and descriptivism – which, by the way, I think we
have established are not polarized entities but rather a confluence
within us – when it comes to your examples of grammar and
vocabulary, Scott?
Cheers,
Rob
Reply
4 10 2011
Quite right to mention Hoey in the context of lexical-driven
grammars. Also, perhaps, David Brazil — who comes from the same
‘stable’ as Hoey (i.e. the University of Birmingham). His brilliant but
neglected A Grammar of Speech (Oxford University Press, 1995)
argues the case that grammar is the bi-product of incremental,
purposeful, on-line processing, because “speech is an activity that
takes place in time: speakers necessarily say one word, follow it
with another and then with another, and so on” (p.4).
Instead of assuming that speakers commence an utterance with

some kind of pre-conceived sentence structure (its architecture) into
which the compositional elements have to be shoe-horned, “let us
assume that the mechanisms whereby words are assembled to make
larger units will be revealed to us if we begin by thinking of
speakers as pursuing some useful communicative purpose and as
aiming, at any one time, at the successful accomplishment of that
purpose’ (p.2). What we call grammar, then, is like the pathways
that ants leave after thousands and thousands of them have
engineered a track across an obstacle-ridden terrain, driven by their
collective purposes.
Now, how this relates to descriptive vs prescriptive grammar –

well, it doesn’t.. If anything, it’s something altogether different, what
we might call process grammar. I.e. it is an attempt to explain how
certain formations (‘routines’) encode communicative purposes. In
this sense, it resembles Hallidays’ functional grammar perhaps,and
his dictum that ‘language is like it is because of what it has to do”.
Reply
4 10 2011
Rob (17:04:54) :
Anthony, thanks for clarifying. To me, leverage implies a power
dynamic (any wonder it’s often used to talk about politics or
business?), and I – the prescriptivist in this case – wasn’t sure who
was using the book you’d cited to exploit (leverage) whom. It turns
out I was wrong to assume only people. Perhaps are involved since
you mean trainees can exploit the examples in the book. I should
have my Po-face massaged?
Reply
4 10 2011
Ah, I see where you were coming from. I think I overuse the word a
bit, anyway, so it’s good to be pulled up on it from time to time
“That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Reply
4 10 2011
Rob (17:07:21) :
Anthony (Scott), sorry, in a rush at the moment. Meant to write: It
turns out I was wrong to assume only people are involved since
you mean trainees can exploit the examples in the book. Perhaps I
should have my Po-face massaged?
Reply
4 10 2011
Talking about prescriptivism – I have an example of prescriptivism
with a capital P at the place where my partner works. The
company’s decided to change their brand and adopt a new one with
a new brand identity. In this new identity, the staff have all been
told that they need to change the way they write and speak to
represent the new brand. There is now a list of words they are not
allowed to use, such as “leverage”, “optimise” and “ensure”.
They’re also no longer allowed to use chunks like “Please kindly be
informed that…” and “I would be grateful if you could advise your
availability…” The new brand calls for a more natural approach like
“I’m writing to tell you that..” and “Please let me know when you’ll
have time to…”
As the English coach, it’s falls to my partner to train all the L2

employees that the ‘Business English’ they’ve been trying to perfect
for years is now obsolete and they have to learn what ‘natural’
means.
I have mixed feelings about this. While I never liked the stale
‘corporate speak’ I’m also taken aback at the confidence of corporate
leaders in feeling that they can dictate not only what people say
when representing the company (which is reasonable) but also

exactly which words they use and can’t use, which might seem a
little Orwellian.
Reply
5 10 2011
Yes, this is a good example of what Cameron (Deborah, not David!)
calls ‘verbal hygiene’. Coincidentally, someone sent me a link
yesterday to this article in the Economist which deals with a similar
problem, bureaucratic Euro-speak. Interestingly, not only does the
writer blame this on non-native speakers’ poor command of
English, but (as one of the commentators points out), even in the
first paragraph (s)he uses a number of figurative devices that
completely run counter to the call for greater clarity in speech and
writing.
Reply
5 10 2011
thomasway (03:44:30) :
As I was reading through and thinking over all these fascinating
comments I was tabbing through links on typography in a different
browser window. Suddenly, up pops Stephen Fry talking about …
prescriptive grammar. If you haven’t seen it: http://t.co/esToZV3N
Nice kinetic typography too!
Reply
5 10 2011
Thanks for that link, Thomas. A beautiful rant.
Reply
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Freshy by Jide.

P Is For Prescriptive An A-Z of ELT

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

P Is For Prescriptive An A-Z of ELT

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

5/26/13 P is for Prescriptive | An A-Z of ELT

Some defining might be in order. To quote from An A-Z of ELT, “If a

But this is to confuse rules-as-regularities with rules-as-regulations.

Moreover, in order to obviate the messiness of exceptions, pedagogic

We can make negative sentences with nobody, nothing… With these

He said nothing. (NOT He didn’t say nothing)

(Swan & Walter, 2001, p. 114).

Not just my students – there is a strong sense generally that description

Cameron, D. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.

Fries, C. C. 1940. American English Grammar. Tokyo: Maruzen.

Murphy, R. 1985. English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge

Date : October 2, 2011

Mike Harrison (08:50:41) :

Interesting (for me) is the idea of prescriptivism relating to

PS – I am *always* being corrected for saying ‘than me’ instead of

I’ve never been keen on prescriptive grammars. I once did a

If we tell students that some words are considered to be offensive or

As I write this, I’m realising that I am probably a prescriptivist when

Outside of this, though, I think we’ll regularly advise students that

I’m interested in your mention of the use of ‘we’ in pedagogical

However, Roger Berry’s article ‘Who do they think ‘we’ is?’

‘the person who do it right’ (WE) vs ‘the person who do it wrong’

Berry’s article highlights just how difficult it is for writers of

In formal or written English, *people sometimes use* a subject

Similarly, as a supposedly objective linguist/parent, I find myself

We never use mental process verbs (know, believe, etc) in the

‘Certain verbs are mainly used…’ (3rd ed. p. 219)

However, as you say, ‘you’ is often preferred, e.g.

‘When the passive form of a verb is used, it is not necessary to

For the sake of natural, friendly-sounding English, a combination of

but also because they are sort of like algorithms whereby

How does ‘English as a Lingua Franca’ fit into the prescription-

In a way, this is clearly right. Language that is incoherent is, by

we would not be able to function productively as a society without

Clearly though, not just anything goes. We cannot write ‘discreet’

However, language is not a matter of simple right or wrong but of

Of course the very nature of conventions is that they are liable to

Who knows, perhaps in 500 years time, pedants will be picking up

The problem comes when grammar-as-choice gets confused with

Nicely put. I’ll have to remember that.

“The problem comes when grammar-as-choice gets confused with

Yes, absolutely, Scott. This distinction is something that pedants on

Clearly I need to be descriptive by talking about how people

We may not like dealing with poe-faced people, but sometimes we

Perhaps we can throw this open to the blog followers – what

Thornbury, S. (2004?) Natural Grammar, Oxford, OUP

The former because it was my first teaching grammar and I still

Leech, G. 1989. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. London:

Thanks for the mention of Natural Grammar – those interested in

Thought a more up to date reference would disguise my -ahem –

For example, if a trainee has identified a language need through

Have I thereby outed myself as a prescriptivist? *trembles*

1. “English Grammar Today” by CUP

Not to be too heretical but Swan’s “Practical English Usage” is

If you’re somewhere with a lot of long, wintery nights, you could

Grammar Dimensions edited by Diane Larsen-Freeman. A great

Where does grammar as a verb – “to grammar” come into the

The effect of these computational processes, and the constraints that

You do grammar well and you do it good!

My students and I come to class each day with our individual

Would it be appropriate to mention Michael Hoey and lexical

“Classical theory holds that grammar is generated first and words

What does Hoey’s ‘theory of words’ imply when it comes to

PS – I am always being corrected for saying ‘than me’ instead of

In formal or written English, people sometimes use a subject

Have I thereby outed myself as a prescriptivist? trembles