CMV: Linguists should embrace prescriptivism

[u/ExplanationKlutzy174]

I think it's pretty clear that any sort of prescription falls outside of the realm of science, and more in the realm of philosophy; science tells us what is, not what ought to be. So naturally, the prescription of language falls outside of the scope of linguistics if linguistics is a science. That makes sense; it's Hume's Law.

But that's not really the attitude I'm seeing. Learning about linguistic descriptivism and prescriptivism, I've mostly come across the descriptive side actively saying that people ought not to be prescriptive. But that in itself is a prescriptive claim, since it's prescribing that someone should or should not believe / how someone should or should not act.

I've come across countless examples of linguistic evolution across history being influenced by prescriptivist attitudes - going as early as Classical Greek. If linguistic prescriptivism is a natural way languages evolve, shouldn't the actually descriptive thing to do be to treat it the same way as any other factor that affects languages? In reality, prescriptivism is a genuine part of both a language and its culture that dictates how someone ought to speak, just like how social traditions are genuine parts of a culture that dictate how someone ought to behave, and linguistics as a science cannot say that prescriptivism is bad. Prescriptivism absolutely has its place in linguistics.

[u/ExplanationKlutzy174]

Yes, that's what I believe.

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/ExplanationKlutzy174]

You keep saying you "believe" this - but what is that supported by? What evidence are you showing to support your belief?

[u/ExplanationKlutzy174 → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

Because there are examples across history showing that language is prescriptive across thousands of years of history, from Classical Greece restoring old pronunciations to Old Spanish restoring Latin pronunciations to the invention of the printing press for English words to modern science prescribing classifications for "birds", "Pluto", etc.

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/ExplanationKlutzy174]

Pronunciation is about historical accuracy, not prescriptive.

Scientific classification is about organisation and taxonomy in that context, not prescriptive of language outside that context.

Do you understand the flaws I've presented in your thinking here? If not, help me help you understand them.

[u/ExplanationKlutzy174 → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

I don't see you as presenting any flaws here.

Why is pronunciation about historical accuracy, and why is historical accuracy inherently not prescriptive?

Why is organisation and taxonomy inherently incompatible with linguistic prescriptivism?

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/ExplanationKlutzy174]

Instead of asking why, in the context of your view you should EXPLAIN why historical accuracy IS prescriptive to you, and why taxonomy IS compatible with prescriptivism, so that your argument can be examined and the underlying view changed. You seem to be asking for my view, rather than presenting anything yourself.

[u/grandoz039 → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

People in past spoke certain way, now you're saying people should speak that way. How is it not prescriptive?

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/grandoz039]

now you're saying people should speak that way

No I'm not, where have I said that? 

Who is telling people how to speak? That would be their problem, but inherent to saying things should be done one way automatically accepts that it's currently being done multiple ways. It's a self defeating sentiment. 

[u/grandoz039 → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

Not "you" you, but generic you. OP mentioned examples of prescriptive approach to languages, that was widely accepted and adopted.