This misconception about descriptivism recurs so often in our discussions about language that I thought a dedicated thread to fight ignorance on the matter might be helpful. Here’s a recent assertion of the persistent fallacy that descriptivism means “anything goes”:
First of all, descriptivism and linguistics are synonymous. Linguistics is a science, and all of science is descriptive. Prescriptivism has a place (and we can discuss exactly what that is), but it is not science. There is no such thing as “prescriptive linguistics”.
And deriving scientific knowledge about the world through empirical observation clearly does not imply that there are no rules. Let’s draw an analogy with physics.
Medieval Prescriptivist: Planets orbit the Sun in circles. That’s what I was always taught, that’s God’s law. Any planet that does not orbit in a circle is doing it wrong.
Descriptivist Astronomer: In fact, the data show that a planetary orbit may be any type of ellipse. Here are the equations of motion.
Obviously the difference here is not rules vs “anything goes”. It is incorrect rules vs objectively correct rules.
You might think that this is a poor analogy. But it’s not, because there are a whole lot of rules of language that are just as strict as the orbits of planets. These unambiguously correct rules never come up in prescriptivist threads because literally everyone knows those rules and follows them 100% of the time. It’s also worth nothing that we follow these rules unconsciously, and most people could not articulate exactly what they are. For example:
She bread eats.
This is objectively an error, because it violates a universal empirical rule in all dialects of English. Literally everyone agrees on that. If a native English speaker said this, nobody would think that makes it a grammatical sentence in the English language. They might suspect some neurological issue.
The fascinating thing with language is just how the rules are established. Humans have innate language ability, but exactly what is innate is a matter of considerable scientific controversy. Perhaps there are some innate underlying rules, but on some level the diversity of human languages and their evolution through time show that a wide range of different rules are possible. However, within each language (or each dialect) the rules are consistent. Individual speakers don’t just get to make up their own rules, and no language was deliberately “invented”. The rules of a language seem to evolve through a mysterious process of spontaneous consensus-forming in communities of speakers. Well before the internet, real time observation of the emergence of new languages (pidgins and creoles) showed that this spontaneous consensus-forming could be remarkably quick across large communities.
When these prescriptivist/descriptivist arguments come up, nobody is arguing about the indisputable true rules of language like SVO/SOV word order. If something were a universal consensus rule in a language, by definition nobody would be disputing whether it’s a rule. So what are people usually arguing about? Well, a cynical rule of thumb is that if a prescriptivist is claiming that a rule is being violated, it is probably not a true rule - or at least not a universal true rule. So what is really happening?
(1) The rules of language may be changing. Eloquence and literacy are valued and respected, and we are all strongly attached to the dialect of our own time and place. As language evolves, we may find it disconcerting that something that would once have been deemed an error is now becoming widespread standard usage. A common evolution that can be especially disconcerting is when a usage that in the past was acceptable only in informal social settings becomes widely accepted in more formal usage.
(2) The rules of language are different among dialects. This may be something as trivial as an American not realizing that they are hearing a perfectly standard British usage. But both Britain and America have an army and a navy, and at least treat each other’s dialects as variants on an equal footing, whereas unfortunately it’s common to characterize the use of non-hegemony dialects as ignorant. In fact, all dialects have their own different but equally strict rules. Anyone who doesn’t understand why ignorant prescriptivism sometimes gets harsh pushback should read this article about the treatment of Rachel Jeantel:
Language Log » Rachel Jeantel’s language in the Zimmerman trial
(3) Subjective stylistic advice is presented as a claim that there is an objective rule about what is right or wrong. Language can be beautiful, but subjective judgment on aesthetics is not empirical science, and should not be misrepresented as such. This is the true and distinction between descriptivism and prescriptivism, and shows the value and role of each. There’s a slight gray area here in discussing the language register that’s appropriate to a given social situation. But unfortunately there’s also an overlap with the disparagement of the dialects of marginalized groups that I described in (2). We can certainly celebrate the beauty of a piece of literature, and we can teach students to speak and write elegantly. But I always look askance at people who seem less concerned with beauty, and more concerned with disparaging what they think is ugly or what they claim is wrong. When we’re celebrating elegance in visual arts or in music, how often do we frame our observations in such a negative way?