規範派 vs. 描述派，假議題的新出路
紐約時報刊載了超過三十年的語言專欄On Language，於2011年2月喊停，其實我真的不懂爲何要停。以下這篇2012年紐時以辯論形式發表於2012年的文章，留言數高達400多則，顯示有興趣、關心（英語）語言的讀者大有人在。
這篇辯論文應該是"prescriptive descriptivism"或"prescriptive descriptivist“這樣的新稱呼最早在網路上出現的地方，出自辯論一方的Greene（他是美國人，如今是經濟學人雜誌Johnson語言專欄的作者之一）。看到prescriptive descriptivist這詞，真的很高興，即便是七年多的後知後覺。多年來，一直覺得語言用法的規範派與描述派這兩種井水不犯河水又互婊以求自我感覺良好的陣營，讓我覺得格格不入，因爲一旦自稱描述派，就好像失去了說某某說法「文法錯誤」的權利（這其實是誤解描述派的立意），但我顯然早已看穿強硬規範派的荒謬與不實，更不可能以此自居。所以，我很開心終於找到一個標籤，讓我加入prescriptive descriptivist陣營，認爲語言用法應該與時代俱進，並有適當規範，但堅拒當今臺灣基本國民教育中的英文老師應該還在灌輸的那套數十年不改的死硬規範文法。
// Pinker saw no conflict in being a descriptivist and speaking of “correct” grammar. I consider myself a “prescriptive descriptivist,” and have no qualms with the word “error.” Even the “no such thing as an error” linguists whom you cite ring-fence their statements with things like “for the most part” (Trudgill and Andersson, 1990). They mean that “when expressing themselves as they intend to,” not hurried, tired, distracted or drinking, native speakers do not make mistakes. Instead, they would say that those speakers constitute their own idiolects (individual ways of speaking) and when their speech patterns line up, they constitute stable dialects, and when enough dialects overlap, they constitute languages. I would never say “native speakers can’t make an error,” but I do see what they’re aiming for: a correction of the centuries-old view that error is everywhere because most people are ignorant.
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/27/which-language-and-grammar-rules-to-flout
distracted用法 在 網路上關於distracted造句-在PTT/MOBILE01/Dcard上的升學 ... 的推薦與評價
網路上關於distracted造句-在PTT/MOBILE01/Dcard上的升學考試資源資訊整理-2022-07(持續更新) · 首頁 · acting中文 · acting職位中文 · acting · distracting · distracted用法 ... ... <看更多>