1

AN INVESTIGATION OF WHERE ENGLISH TEACHERS STAND ON THE

QUESTION OF DESCRIPTIVISM VS PRESCRIPTIVISM.

By Jeffrey Sani

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2

AIMS 3

DISCRIPTION OF DATA 3

ANALYSYS 4

CONCLUSIONS 5

EVALUATION 5

BIBILIOGRAPHY 5
 2

AN INVESTIGATION OF WHERE ENGLISH TEACHERS STAND ON THE

QUESTION OF DESCRIPTIVISM VS PRESCRIPTIVISM.

INTRODUCTION
Grammarians hold the view that there are two competing sides in the English
equation: descriptivists and prescriptivists.

In the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves, Lynne Truss Shows how an improper
punctuation mark can make all the difference. Unearthing examples of bizarre
and careless errors through the ages, this narrative history also shares witty
teasers and ambiguous phrases, all entirely dependent on the punctuation.
One such example lent the book its title:
A panda walks into a bar. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and
fires two shots in the air.
"Why? Why are you behaving in this strange, un-panda-like fashion?" asks
the confused waiter, as the panda walks towards the exit. The panda
produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up

Generally prescriptivism and descriptivism are contrasting approaches to

grammar and the usage thereof, particularly emphasising on how they are
taught. Both are concerned with the state of a language — descriptivism with
how it is used, prescriptivism with how it should be used.
Descriptivists describe, systematically recording and analysing the endlessly
changing ways people speak and write. use of English.
In the book Great expectations for example, Charles Dickens uses very
advanced language and punctuation as when he describes “ours was the
marsh country, down by the river, within, as the river wound, twenty miles of
the sea”.

Prescriptivists aim to help us use the English language properly. The

intention is noble: if we all speak the same language, we can communicate
much more effectively. But it’s a bit idealistic: if language was static, we’d all
still write like Geoffrey Chaucer (1343 – 1400)
Two rules below represent two of the more common prescriptive rules of
English grammar:

(1) a. It is ungrammatical to end a sentence with a preposition

b. It is ungrammatical to split an infinitive

If you were to violate these rules as I have below in (2), in the eyes of the
prescriptivist you have spoken or communicated ungrammatical English

(2) a. Poetry is what I live for

b. I want to boldly go where no man (or woman) has gone
before
 3

The problem for precriptivist is that the example in 2 sounds perfectly alright
to native English speakers and sentences like these are used regularly these
days.

The descriptivist on the other hand, simply aims describe how the language
is used today. This group is perhaps best embodied by the Urban Dictionary
a lexicon that is open to input from anyone who cares to contribute.
Unfortunately, this purely descriptive approach to language implies that
language doesn’t matter as long as intent can be communicated; generations
of poets would beg to differ.

Traditionally English teachers through the ages are known to frown at any
perceived improper use of the English language.

Aims:
In order to outline this investigation into how English teachers stand on the
question of descriptivism vs prescriptivism I have set about the preparation of
a planned experiment aiming to decide on key variables and to make an
hypothesis based on the results of my discoveries.

Description of data
I prepared a sample of a continued prose and intentionally entered errors of
the kind that prescriptionist would consider ungrammartical thus breaking
some grammar rules advocated by the prescriptivist. I then presented this
piece of work to 4 different English grammar teachers in a school other than
mine and I then requested that they mark it in the normal fashion as they
would a students homework.

The hardest part of this task was the actual preparation of the prose, as I had
initially intended to get as many deliberate mistakes in the sample prose as
possible.
Many version of the sample prose where drafted before I finally decided that
40% of the prose had to be deliberate errors of the kind that would make the
prescriptivist cringe.

The deliberate grammar errors consisted of the following elements:

• Sentences ending in prepositions, i.e. learning is what I live for.
• Some grammar with split infinitive. i.e. Retail prices are expected to
more than double in the next ten years.
• Some statements with double negatives. i.e. I can’t get no joy.
• Some missing patterns such as I feel bad (about the incident) instead
of I feel badly (about the incident).
• Some common misspellings. I.e. allways or all ways
• Some use of Apostrophes to indicate plural, i.e. Toy's like this are fun
• Some semicolons in place of commas, i.e ; instead of ,
• Misplacement of the adverbs as in:
“Gordon Brown addressed parliament today and said “We will not reward
the bankers, We will reward the tax payer. We will not fund the status-quo,
 4

We will only invest in reform”. What he meant to say was “We will not
reward the bankers, We will reward the tax payer. We will not fund the
status-quo, We will invest only in reform.

It was important I thought, That I should have as short a sample prose as

possible so as not to present too tedious an undertaking to the teachers and
in so doing be certain to have about 60% of correct prose in the sample.
I had hoped that by presenting prose in this form I would not arouse the
teacher’s suspicions to my true motives and that I would then receive back
from the teachers their most unbiased markings.

As planned 40% of the sample prose were indeed deliberate errors, for my
analysis I wanted to see:
• How many teachers would object to the prepositions at the end of
sentences, and how consistent were they.
• How they reacted to split infinitives and how consistent they were.
• How many teachers would react to double negatives in sentences such as
I can’t get no satisfaction, and how consistent they were in spotting this.
• How many teachers would object to missing patterns, and how consistent
were they.
• How many would pick on the common spelling errors.
• How many would notice the wrongful use apostrophes.
• How many would mark down for the wrongful use of semicolons.
• How many would notice misplacement of adverbs.

Analyses
I constructed a grid to record the results of my investigation, a number
represented each teacher on top of the grid and along the left side the grid
was the full list of all the deliberate errors that I had put into the sample prose.
The idea here was that I would represent the teachers marking by a tick of a
box to see what deliberate errors were noted and marked wrong.

I contemplated that had this test been effected a hundred years ago, how
different the results would have been. In my mind the teachers for whom I had
set the test where as myself (not I) products of my very familiar society where
being understood lent more meaning and normalcy than to being proper in the
grammatical sense.
It therefore came as no surprise to me that no single teacher marked down all
of the errors.
Examining my grid from the horizontal point of view and in precisely detail,
out of the 40% sum of deliberate errors:
• One of the teachers marked down 32%, which was the highest.
• Two teachers were joint 30% marking down of the sample prose errors.
• The last teacher marked down only 28% of the sample script prose errors.
 5

A more circumscribed examination of this data from the vertical point of view
of the grid revealed more precise differences in marking:

• All the markers objected, marked wrong and commented about the use of
common spelling errors
• All Teachers marked wrong the misplacement of apostrophes
• All teachers marked wrong the use of double negatives in sentences.
• There were inconsistencies in the marking of: the use of prepositions at
the end of sentences.
• Just one teacher was consistent all through with the marking style,
objecting all the way through where the others were content to pass a
couple and leave a comment.

It appeared that there were some usages that the markers were prepared to
pass or were deemed acceptable, This could largely be owing to the context
in which they were presented.
For example “My family is what I live for” was passed by three of the markers.

It is a cherished superstition that prepositions must, in spite of the incurable

English instinct for putting them late…be kept true to their name and placed
before the word they govern. H.W. Fowler 1994
.
The variations I was presented with left me in no doubt that the results could
habe been different on another day, if the sample deliberate error prose were
set in a different context. Many of the marked down errors may have scored
positively.

Conclusions
There are a couple outcomes that I can derive from this research, these may
be compared with the aims specified above along these lines:

• English teachers appear to lean towards decriptivism, They

dismiss or take lightly small elements of the doctrine that
prescriptivist profess.
• English teachers appear to be largely consistent in their marking
and tend to be accommodating to popular traits, they would appear
to question the logic behind reason.
• English teachers would reject completely common spelling
errors and the misplacement of punctuation marks.
• Descriptivist appear to be a minority in the English teacher
grammatical battlefield, whilst it is relevant to have an
understanding of the proper methods of grammatical use, they will
never convert everyone in this modern age.
• Descriptivists and prescriptivists will continue to dispute over the
respective importance of trends and traditions, English teachers
appear to be attracted to both sides in some circumstances.
 6

Evaluation
No piece of research is a perfect piece of work and this investigation on where
teachers stand on the issues of descriptivist and prescriptivist remains a
living document that can be fashioned and adapted to whatever change or
trend may come from the continued wranglings the descriptivist and
prescriptivist in the future.

Both doctrines present very good cases to support their doctrines on grammar
but both have failed to address the inconsistencies that prevail under their
individual shelters. One can only imagine that when both sides begin to
actively self criticise their own doctrines, there might then evolve a better
understanding and tolerance to the biological nature of grammar.

Bibliography
Eats, Shoots & Leaves, Lynne Truss profile books 2003
Great Expectation Charles Dickens 1861 Chapman and Hall
H.W. Fowler (A Dictionary of Modern English Usage)Wordworth edition 1994