You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism is the master-discourse of this whole topic: almost every Section B text about language can be located somewhere on the line between these two poles, and almost every other debate (Standard English, political correctness, texting) is a special case of it. For AQA Paper 2, you need to do three things with this debate: understand the positions and their history, recognise the linguistic signals that mark a text as prescriptivist or descriptivist, and use that recognition to power both the 40-mark analysis and the 30-mark directed writing.
Key Definition: Prescriptivism — the belief that there are fixed rules of "correct" usage and that deviations from them are errors to be corrected. Descriptivism — the approach (adopted by modern linguistics) that describes how language is actually used, in all its varieties, without ranking forms as right or wrong.
It is vital to understand from the outset that these are not symmetrical opposites. Descriptivism is a methodology — the empirical study of real usage. Prescriptivism is an ideology — a value system about how language ought to be. A linguist can describe prescriptivism as an object of study; prescriptivism cannot return the favour, because it is not in the business of neutral description. Seeing prescriptivism as an ideology, not a neutral fact about language, is the single most important conceptual move in this lesson.
The idea that language should follow rules laid down by authorities is not timeless — it crystallised in English in the eighteenth century, driven by particular social conditions.
One historical thread is worth knowing in detail, because it recurs in modern discourse. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, eminent figures wished to establish an English Academy on the French model that would "fix" the language and rule on correct usage. Jonathan Swift's Proposal of 1712 is the most famous call; other prominent writers of the period voiced similar hopes. The aspiration reveals the core prescriptivist fantasy: that change could be halted and the language frozen at a moment of supposed perfection.
It never happened. No official body was ever created to regulate English, and the language went on to become the most widely used in human history without one — a fact descriptivists relish, because it demonstrates that a language needs no central authority to function, flourish, and spread. Even Samuel Johnson, who began his Dictionary (1755) hoping to fix the language, concluded in his Preface that the lexicographer who imagines he can "embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay" is chasing a fantasy, since no living language stands still. The failure of the academy project is a powerful piece of evidence for directed writing: when a modern columnist demands that someone "stop the rot," you can note that the wish to freeze English is three centuries old, has always failed, and rests on the illusion that there was ever a perfect state to preserve.
The introduction of the printing press to England by William Caxton in 1476 created pressure towards standardisation. Printers had to choose between competing regional spellings and forms, and their choices hardened into conventions. The printed word acquired an authority manuscript culture never had: if it was in print, it looked fixed and official.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, English writers looked enviously at French, regulated by the Académie française (founded 1635), and at Italian, regulated by the Accademia della Crusca. They felt English was chaotic and wished to "fix" it. Jonathan Swift, in his Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue (1712), explicitly called for an English Academy to "ascertain" (settle) the language permanently and halt change. No such academy was ever founded — a fact descriptivists relish, since English flourished as a world language without one.
| Grammarian | Key Work | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Robert Lowth | A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) | Codified many rules still cited today: no preposition at sentence-end, no split infinitive, no double negative |
| Lindley Murray | English Grammar (1795) | The best-selling grammar of the nineteenth century; popularised Lowth's rules for the mass market |
| Samuel Johnson | A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) | The landmark English dictionary; in his Preface Johnson admits the wish to "fix" the language is futile and that the lexicographer cannot "embalm" a living tongue |
Key Definition: Prescriptive grammar — a set of rules stating how language ought to be used, often based on the usage of a particular class or on Latin, treating other forms as errors. Contrast descriptive grammar: an account of the rules speakers actually follow, derived from observing real data.
Robert Lowth was a bishop and Oxford Professor of Poetry. Crucially, several of his most enduring rules were modelled on Latin, not on how English works:
David Crystal (The Fight for English, 2006) argues these rules were never derived from observation of English — they were imposed from outside on a false analogy. Yet they persist, because they function as social shibboleths: knowing them signals education and class.
The most exam-relevant single source on this debate is Jean Aitchison's 1996 BBC Reith Lectures, published as The Language Web. Aitchison, a linguist, set out to dismantle three common prescriptivist views of language change. She gave each a memorable metaphorical name — and then rejected all three. (Candidates frequently get this wrong and attribute the views to Aitchison; she is criticising them.)
Key Definition: Aitchison's three metaphors (Reith Lectures, 1996) — three prescriptivist images of language change that Aitchison identifies and refutes: the damp spoon, the crumbling castle, and the infectious disease.
Aitchison's overarching argument is that language change is natural, inevitable, and not a symptom of decline. Being able to cite her — accurately, as the critic of these metaphors — is one of the most powerful and well-targeted moves available in Section B. When a Section B text uses disease lexis ("infecting," "spreading," "virus") to describe a usage, you can name the "infectious disease assumption" and note that a linguist has explicitly refuted it.
The reason Aitchison's three metaphors are so useful in the exam is that prescriptivist texts keep reaching for exactly these images, often without realising it. A column lamenting "sloppy" speech is reproducing the damp-spoon view; a piece mourning a lost golden age of "real English" is building a crumbling castle; an article warning that "Americanisms are creeping in and infecting our vocabulary" is reciting the infectious-disease assumption almost word for word. When you spot the metaphor, you can do three things in quick succession: name the device, identify which of Aitchison's three views it embodies, and note that a linguist has explicitly and persuasively rejected that view. That sequence — feature, frame, refutation — is precisely the conceptualised AO3 analysis the top bands demand, and it works because you are bringing an external scholarly position to bear on the text rather than merely paraphrasing it.
Because Section B rewards accurate, specific reference, it is worth knowing what each major descriptivist actually argued, rather than simply listing names.
Key Definition: Descriptive grammar — a systematic account of the rules speakers actually follow, derived from observing real data, with no judgement about correctness. It is what linguists produce; prescriptive grammar is what style guides produce.
A word of caution that runs through this entire course: only cite what you can attribute accurately. It is far better to write "as Aitchison argued in her Reith Lectures" and stop there than to invent a date, a study, or a quotation. Examiners reward precise, modest reference and are unimpressed — or worse — by confident-sounding fabrication. If you are unsure whether Crystal said something specific, attribute the general position to him ("Crystal consistently argues that…") rather than risk a false quotation.
Both the prescriptivist case and its history are illuminated by Milroy and Milroy's concept of the complaint tradition (Authority in Language, 1985). Their crucial observation is that complaints about declining English are not new and not occasional — they form a continuous tradition stretching back centuries, in which every generation believes that English reached perfection just before they were born and has been deteriorating ever since.
This is a devastating argument when turned on a contemporary text. If a 2020s columnist complains that the young can no longer write properly, and a Victorian commentator made the identical complaint, and an eighteenth-century writer made it too, then either English has been declining steadily for 300 years (which would by now have rendered it unusable) or — far more plausibly — the complaint itself is a recurring cultural reflex that tells us nothing about the actual state of the language. The Milroys argue the complaints persist because they express the standard language ideology and a wish to maintain linguistic authority. Linking a Section B text explicitly to this tradition lets you position it historically and expose its underlying motive in a single move.
Descriptivism describes language as it is actually used, without ranking forms. It is the foundation of modern linguistics.
Each of these principles has a sharp analytical application. The "rule-governed" principle lets you counter any text that calls dialect "lazy" or "broken." The "change is natural" principle lets you puncture any golden-age nostalgia. The "no variety is superior" principle exposes the confusion of social prestige with linguistic quality. And the "usage establishes the language" principle is the deepest of all: it means that the prescriptivist's appeal to "the rules" is ultimately circular, because the only thing that can make something a rule of English is the very usage the prescriptivist is trying to overrule. When a Section B writer thunders that a widespread usage is "not real English," you can observe that, on any descriptivist account, widespread usage is exactly what makes something real English — the writer has mistaken their own preference for a law of the language.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.