Language purism versus a relaxed approach

Language purism. Some call it Grammar Nazism. It’s a personality flaw where you feel compelled to correct everyone’s language almost all the time. Yes, I believe it’s a character flaw, because this kind of behavior is profoundly perplexing. Language purists can also be called prescriptivists – the ones who are convinced there’s a linguistic gold standard and everyone must adhere to it. If you don’t, then your language is sub-standard and language purists aren’t shy to let you know that your language is sub-standard. And they aren’t subtle about it, I assure you. It’s as though every conversation is a language exam. Nodding? Yes, I’m sure you know one or two language purists. Perhaps you’re one yourself?

Then, there are the descriptivists who listen to the spoken language but they don’t comment on the quality of the language. They are more relaxed in their approach. They are much less likely to pass judgment. They don’t correct everyone every five minutes.

Slang? No problem. Slang is actually one of the hardest aspects of the language to learn, because you need to be immersed in a given environment to master it. Anyone can look up a difficult word, or what passes for it, in a dictionary, but slang is localized. Yes, there are slang dictionaries but if it’s a really local slang with its own rich history, you’re not going to find any dictionaries. The locals from that area are your only walking, talking dictionaries. It goes deeper, with idiolect being a particular way of speaking pecular to an individual and ecolect, the language of a household or a family. To linguists, who seem to be mostly descriptivists, this is a gold mine of information about a person, a family, or a household.

Descriptivists know the rules of the language, of course, but they also know that languages evolve (words undergo amelioration – the meaning and associations change to more positive ones over time and pejoration – the opposite) and forcing everyone to follow outdated rules is counterproductive and causes conflict. It’s one thing to ensure, even enforce, the quality of the language and quite another to enforce outdated language constructs. Descriptivists treat language as a profile point. To them, it’s a window into someone’s thinking. Someone’s inner world. If there’s, shall we say, a non-standard use of grammar, or an accent one doesn’t hear often, you can bet a descriptivist is going to be intrigued rather than enraged. Whether one is a prescriptivist or a descriptivist usually tells us a lot about that person’s outlook on life.

What can we tell about a person who turns out to be the language purist? Depends on their intent. Some language purists mean well while others cover up their own issues by posing as great language experts, while the truth is more prosaic: they are devoured by the green-eyed monster (envy) and they use their grammar Nazism as a tool to demean rather than anything else.

A descriptivist is usually someone more open-minded, who appreciates linguistic diversity as an expression of each person’s unique life story. As mentioned, linguists are mostly descriptivists.

Ya, let’s not kid ourselves. Demons who happen to be language purists, now that’s the kind of mix you don’t want to come across. Israel’s enemies (or rather former enemies as they no longer pose a threat) stuck in the Hebrew Hell, where they must learn to speak Hebrew without a trace of a foreign accent (starting with the words Hashem and shibboleth) under the watchful eye, or ear in this case, of the demonic language purist. Sometimes, the former enemies are forced to dance, or even play the violin. They are also given false hope that they’ve escaped hell back to their former lives, only to end up in hell again, much to the amusement of demonic language purists. With new arrivals enriching hell every day, there’s no shortage of damned souls to correct.

Is language purism bad? As always, context is key. The above example shows it clearly.

And what is God’s preferred language? Is God a descriptivist or a prescriptivist? That’s a billion dollar question…