Botheration and Recognition of Prescriptive Rules

Passions flare up around the use and “misuse” of prescriptive rules. Where there is variation in language use, language judgment usually follows—attaching value judgment to linguistic variants forms the foundation of prescriptive ideology in English. Prescriptive attitudes prevail among speakers an...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Smith, Sara D
Format: Others
Published: BYU ScholarsArchive 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5582
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6581&context=etd
id ndltd-BGMYU2-oai-scholarsarchive.byu.edu-etd-6581
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-BGMYU2-oai-scholarsarchive.byu.edu-etd-65812019-05-16T03:24:33Z Botheration and Recognition of Prescriptive Rules Smith, Sara D Passions flare up around the use and “misuse” of prescriptive rules. Where there is variation in language use, language judgment usually follows—attaching value judgment to linguistic variants forms the foundation of prescriptive ideology in English. Prescriptive attitudes prevail among speakers and writers of English, who feel some pressure to use these forms to avoid a negative judgment. This study surveyed American English speakers using Mechanical Turk to determine which types of rules—spelling, syntactic, morphological, and lexical—bother people the most and inspire the harshest judgments when violated. The surveys asked participants to identify a violated prescriptive rule in a sentence, found using the magazine and newspaper registers of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, and then to indicate how much they were bothered by the violation. Results indicated that lexical rules separating subtle semantic differences—i.e. farther vs. further, comprise vs. compose—tend to be less bothersome and less recognizable than other types of rules. However, the type of category that a prescriptive rules falls under does not seem to explain why some rules are more bothersome or recognizable than others. It may be possible to generalize by assuming that lexical prescriptive rules will be less important to a general educated American audience than spelling or grammar rules, and that nonstandard dialectal forms will be even more bothersome. However, the ability to generalize these results is limited: there is some evidence for a “pet-peeve” effect. Individuals seem to simply be bothered by different rules, without strong patterns showing some types of rules sharply more important than others. Additionally other prescriptive rules, including those regarding nauseous and dove as the past tense of dive, were more recognizable and bothersome in their prescribed form than their proscribed, providing evidence for semantic shifts. 2015-06-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5582 https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6581&context=etd http://lib.byu.edu/about/copyright/ All Theses and Dissertations BYU ScholarsArchive prescriptivism descriptivism botheration language judgment standard English Linguistics
collection NDLTD
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic prescriptivism
descriptivism
botheration
language judgment
standard English
Linguistics
spellingShingle prescriptivism
descriptivism
botheration
language judgment
standard English
Linguistics
Smith, Sara D
Botheration and Recognition of Prescriptive Rules
description Passions flare up around the use and “misuse” of prescriptive rules. Where there is variation in language use, language judgment usually follows—attaching value judgment to linguistic variants forms the foundation of prescriptive ideology in English. Prescriptive attitudes prevail among speakers and writers of English, who feel some pressure to use these forms to avoid a negative judgment. This study surveyed American English speakers using Mechanical Turk to determine which types of rules—spelling, syntactic, morphological, and lexical—bother people the most and inspire the harshest judgments when violated. The surveys asked participants to identify a violated prescriptive rule in a sentence, found using the magazine and newspaper registers of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, and then to indicate how much they were bothered by the violation. Results indicated that lexical rules separating subtle semantic differences—i.e. farther vs. further, comprise vs. compose—tend to be less bothersome and less recognizable than other types of rules. However, the type of category that a prescriptive rules falls under does not seem to explain why some rules are more bothersome or recognizable than others. It may be possible to generalize by assuming that lexical prescriptive rules will be less important to a general educated American audience than spelling or grammar rules, and that nonstandard dialectal forms will be even more bothersome. However, the ability to generalize these results is limited: there is some evidence for a “pet-peeve” effect. Individuals seem to simply be bothered by different rules, without strong patterns showing some types of rules sharply more important than others. Additionally other prescriptive rules, including those regarding nauseous and dove as the past tense of dive, were more recognizable and bothersome in their prescribed form than their proscribed, providing evidence for semantic shifts.
author Smith, Sara D
author_facet Smith, Sara D
author_sort Smith, Sara D
title Botheration and Recognition of Prescriptive Rules
title_short Botheration and Recognition of Prescriptive Rules
title_full Botheration and Recognition of Prescriptive Rules
title_fullStr Botheration and Recognition of Prescriptive Rules
title_full_unstemmed Botheration and Recognition of Prescriptive Rules
title_sort botheration and recognition of prescriptive rules
publisher BYU ScholarsArchive
publishDate 2015
url https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5582
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6581&context=etd
work_keys_str_mv AT smithsarad botherationandrecognitionofprescriptiverules
_version_ 1719185919352766464