Cartoon Theories of Linguistics
Part XI—Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism
Phineas Q. Phlogiston, Ph.D.
Unintentional University of Lghtnbrgstn
Those in need of an introduction to Cartoon Theories of Linguistics, please review previous installments in the series.
Now let us consider the finer distinctions between Prescriptivism and Descriptivism:
Coming up:
Syllables.
References
- Bessant C., A. M. McEnery (1992). Computational Linguistics: A Handbook & Toolbox for Natural Language Processing.
- Cameron, D. (2004). Verbal Hygiene.
- Gleason, H. A. (1961). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics.
- Johnstone, B., and D. Baumgardt. (2004). ‘Pittsburghese’ online: vernacular norming in conversation. American Speech 79(2).
- Johnstone, B., J. Andrus and A. Danielson. (2006). Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese.” Journal of English Linguistics 34.
- Johnstone, B., N. Bhasin, and D. Wittkofski. (2002). “ ‘Dahntahn’ Pittsburgh: monophthongal /aw/ and representations of localness in southwestern Pennsylvania.” American Speech 77(2).
- Labov, W., S. Ash and C. Boberg. (2006). Atlas of North American English: phonetics, phonology, and sound change.
- McElhinny, B. (1999). “More on the third dialect of English: linguistic constraints on the use of three phonological variables in Pittsburgh.” Language Variation and Change 11.
- Milroy, J., and L. Milroy (1998). Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation.
- Müller, M. (1861). Lectures on the Science of Language.
- Stainton, R. J. (1996). Philosophical Perspectives on Language.
- Wisnosky, M. (2003). ‘Pittsburghese’ in Pittsburgh humor. Master’s thesis in Linguistics.
