Prescriptivismu llingüísticu

El prescriptivismu llingüísticu o normativismu llingüísticu consiste nel establecimientu de regles pal usu d'una llingua. Dacuando, estes normes considérense obligatories pa los usuarios, yá sían falantes o escritores; n'otres ocasiones, namái son encamientos. Los autores d'estes regles ver como una modalidá d'estandarización de la llingua.

Nel casu del idioma español, el paradigma d'órganu normativu ye l'Asociación d'Academies de la Llingua Española, instituyida por iniciativa del presidente de Méxicu Miguel Alemán Valdés en 1951. Dientro d'esa asociación, la Real Academia Española (RAE) marca les directrices principales.

Nuna gramática normativa establécense les regles d'usu d'una llingua, pensaes pa daquién que primeramente yá sabe falar esa llingua. Afítase o prescribe lo que se considera correutu y lo incorrecto. En resume, díctase cómo se debe falar y, sobremanera, escribir. Nesta disciplina supónse codificación de les normes d'usu. Xeneralmente atribúyese más valor a la llingua escrita qu'a la oral, y se prestigian y perpetúen les modalidaes lliterariu y cultu. Según esti modelu, ente les categoríes lóxiques y les gramaticales asocede semeyanza o paralelismu. Un conceutu opuestu ye'l de gramática descriptiva, relativa al usu real d'una llingua.

Como fenómenu sociolóxicu, el prescriptivismo llingüísticu pue ser oxetu d'estudiu na sociollingüística. Tamién se-y venceya davezu col purismu, que consiste n'abogar pola defensa contra cualquier influencia esterna nuna llingua.

Les actitúes respeuto de la gramática prescriptiva varien ente los falantes y escritores d'idiomes del mundu. Pa munches llingües esisten instituciones reguladores, como la RAE pal idioma castellanu, o pal idioma francés, l'Academie française. Pero, por casu, l'inglés escarez d'una institución equivalente. Anque s'escriben obres prescriptives pa esta llingua, los sos autores son persones o agrupaciones privaes, ensin respaldu oficial dalgunu.

Criterios de la prescripción

La normativa llingüística basar nuna serie d'usos espresivos que tienen d'acatase pa falar y escribir correutamente un idioma. Pa la determinación del conceutu correutu» tomar en cuenta los criterios d'usu siguientes: ^{[ensin referencies]}

Conformanza d'un sistema llingüísticu a partir del so componente etimolóxicu y de la so evolución histórica.
Frecuencia na llingua lliteraria.
Imposición progresiva socialmente aceptada, ye dicir la norma culta».^[1]

N'ocasiones lo normativo almite diferencies según distintes variedaes llingüístiques. Exemplos dientro del territoriu de dominiu del español:

El seséu considérase norma culta n'Andalucía, Canaries y Hispanoamérica, pero non nel restu d'España.
El voseo acéptase como normativu n'Arxentina, pero non n'España, nin na mayor parte de Hispanoamérica, etcétera.

Los llingüistes y el prescriptivismo

Larry Trask define prescriptivismo asina:

Un enfoque pa la carauterización gramatical, unu de que los sos oxetivos primarios ye identificar formes que son consideraes pol analista 'correutes' y proscribir formes y usos percibíos como 'incorreutos'. Los criterios invocaos en tal enfoque son necesariamente los escoyíos pol analista y son por tanto esencialmente suxetivos; típicamente inclúin llamamientos a la 'lóxica', a factores estéticos, a la tradición o al usu lliterariu [...] La mayoría de los llingüistes modernos probablemente aceptaría que ciertu grau de prescriptivismo ye necesariu pa la educación, pero toos refugaríen puxantemente'l prescriptivismo como base de la carauterización gramatical.^[2]

Steven Pinker, nel llibru The language Instinct, cunta que:

La mayoría de les regles prescriptives de los [autu-titulaos] espertos del llinguaxe nun tienen sentíu a nengún nivel. Son cachos de folclor que s'aniciaron por razones escéntriques fai cientos d'años y perpetuáronse dende entós... Les regles nun s'atienen nin a la lóxica nin a la tradición, y si fueren siguíes forzaríen a los escritores a una prosa confusa, cabileña, verbosa, ambigua ya incomprensible, na que ciertos pensamientos nun son expresables.^[3]

Na mesma obra diz:

Unu puede escoyer encegolase coles regles prescriptives, pero estes nun tienen más que ver col llinguaxe humanu que lo que los criterios pa evaluar gatos nuna esposición de gatos tienen que ver cola bioloxía de los mamíferos.

Juan Carlos Moreno Cabrera, nel so llibru La dignidá ya igualdá de les llingües, opina lo siguiente:

Si la moderna ciencia llingüística nun sofita esta distinción ente formes correutes o bones y formes incorreutes o males de falar, ¿d'ónde surde, pos, esti interés en tachar unes fales d'incultes o incorreutes? [...] La idea de que'l vulgo incultu fala mal foi espublizada y afalada dende'l poder político y educativo pa facilitar que los falantes de variedaes llingüístiques non estándares abandonar y súmense a los modelos de fala consideraos cultos. D'esa manera consíguese, al traviés d'esti prexuiciu, que'l mesmu pueblu abandone les sos formes de falar de manera voluntaria y contribuya a la destrucción de les sos propies señes d'identidá llingüística (páx. 157).

Tamién espresa:

Dende un puntu de vista oxetivu y puramente llingüísticu, nun hai nada que faiga unes formes de falar peores o menos dignes qu'otres. Como repara'l profesor Borrego Nieto, les instancies educatives desempeñen equí un papel crucial. Sería interesante nun identificar correutu con normativu. Si nun se nos impon una norma, podemos aceptala llibremente, pero tenemos de tener presente qu'esa norma nun ye más correuta qu'otres posibles a cencielles porque la acepten o eponderen determinaes instancies sociales (páx. 160).^[4]

Noam Chomsky, nuna entrevista, declara lo siguiente:

Creo qu'un prescriptivismo sensatu tendría de formar parte de cualquier educación. [...] Los estudiantes tendríen de conocer el llinguaxe lliterariu estándar con toles sos convenciones, los sos absurdos, les sos convenciones artificiales y demás porque ye un sistema cultural real, ya importante. [...] Nun creo que naide tenga de crea-yos ilusiones sobre qué ye. Nun ye meyor nin más sensatu. Gran parte d'él ye una violación de la llei natural. [...] Asina que bona parte de lo que s'enseña na llingua estándar ye solo una hestoria d'artificialidaes, y han de ser enseñaes porque son artificiales.^[5]

Kirsten Malmkjær, nel so Enciclopedia de la Llingüística, cita como unu de los cinco principios de la llingüística moderna'l siguiente:

La Llingüística nun ye prescriptiva.^[6]

Según Anthony Kroch:

La llingüística moderna refuga dafechu'l prescriptivismo nel analís gramatical.^[7]

D'acordies con Schieffelin, Woolard y Kroskrity:

La llingüística científico y profesional de final del sieglu XX refugó'l prescriptivismo de manera casi uniforme y dacuando con cierta prepotencia.^[8]

Según James y Lesley Milroy:

[...] los estudiosos de la llingüística... siguieron (na so mayor parte) afirmando o asumiendo que la so disciplina ye descriptiva y teórica y que nun s'ocupa de la prescripción. N'Europa Occidental y Norteamérica la mayoría de los llingüistes teóricos afirmaríen entá que toles formes de llinguaxe son en principiu iguales.^[9]

Scott Sadowsky y Ricardo Martínez, nun ensayu tituláu «El normativismo y el poder», sostiense la tesis de que:

«[...] la supuesta norma culta nun esiste». Afirmen que'l prescriptivismo o normativismo nun forma parte de la Llingüística nin ta respondíu por por esta ciencia, una y bones ésta básase nel estudiu de la llingua tal como realmente ye, y non tal como a este o aquel autor gustaría-y que fuera.^[10]

Referencies

↑ Nota: el conceutu de norma culta nun s'usa fora del dominiu hispanofalante.
↑ A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics, Routledge, 1993 "Prescriptivism: An approach to grammatical characterization one of whose primary objects is the identification of forms and usages which are considered by the analyst to be ‘correct’ and the proscribing of forms and usages felt to be ‘incorrect’. The criteria invoked in such an approach are necessarily those selected by the analyst and are hence essentially subjective; they typically include appeals to ‘logic’, to aesthetic factors, to tradition and/or to literary usage; not infrequently, they also include appeals to the grammatical facts of other languages which are regarded as having greater prestige. Prescriptivism was strongly characteristic of a good deal of the work published on the grammar of English and of other European languages during the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly of the textbooks prepared for use in schools. Among the best-known prescriptivist statements about English are the insistence on It’s I and the rejection of It’s me, the condemnation of sentence-final prepositions and the condemnation of the so-called split infinitive. Most modern linguists would probably accept that some degree of prescriptivism is necessary for educational purposes, but all would vigorously reject prescriptivism as a basis for grammatical characterization."
↑ The language instinct, W. Morrow and Co., 1994 "The legislators of 'correct English,' in fact, are an informal network of copy-editors, English teachers, essayists, columnists, and pundits ... William Safire, who writes the weekly column 'On Language' for The New York Times Magazine, call himself a 'language maven,' from the Yiddish word meaning expert, and this gives us a convenient label for the entire group. To whom I say: Maven, shmaven! Kibbitzers and nudniks is more like it. For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make non sense on any level. They are bits of folclor that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since ... The rules conform neither to logic nor to tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible".
↑ La dignidá ya igualdá de les llingües. Crítica de la discriminación llingüística, Alianza, 2000
↑ Norma, estándar, esviación (n'inglés) "I think sensible prescriptivism ought to be part of any education. I would certainly think that students ought to know the standard literary language with all its conventions, its absurdities, its artificial conventions, and so on because that’s a real cultural system, and an important cultural system. They should certainly know it and be inside it and be able to use it freely. I don’t think people should give them any illusions about what it is. It’s not better, or more sensible. Much of it is a violation of natural law. [...] So a good deal of what’s taught in the standard language is just a history of artificialities, and they have to be taught because they’re artificial".
↑ The linguistics encyclopedia (2 edición), Routledge, 2002
↑ Sankoff, David, ed. (1978), «Grammatical Ideology and Its Effect on Speech», Linguistic variation : models and methods, Academic Press, ISBN 0-126188505 "Modern linguistics entirely rejects prescriptivism in grammatical analysis. Rightly so, since prescriptivism is simply the ideology by which the guardians of the standard language impose their linguistic norms on people who have perfectly serviceable norms of their own."
↑ «Introduction», Language ideologies: practice and theory, Oxford University Press, 1998 "Professional, scientific linguistics in the late twentieth century has nearly uniformly, and sometimes rather smugly, rejected prescriptivism."
↑ «1», Authority in language: investigating standard English (3 edición), Routledge, 1998 "Although linguistic scholars would certainly apueste the details of this pronouncement, they have continued (for the most part) to assert or assume that their discipline is descriptive and theoretical and that they do not deal in prescription. In Western Europe and America most theoretical linguists would still affirm that all forms of language are in principle equal."
↑ Scott Sadwosky, Ricardo Martínez: El normativismo y el poder Archiváu 2010-09-11 en Wayback Machine.

[1] Nota: el conceutu de norma culta nun s'usa fora del dominiu hispanofalante.

[2] A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics, Routledge, 1993 "Prescriptivism: An approach to grammatical characterization one of whose primary objects is the identification of forms and usages which are considered by the analyst to be ‘correct’ and the proscribing of forms and usages felt to be ‘incorrect’. The criteria invoked in such an approach are necessarily those selected by the analyst and are hence essentially subjective; they typically include appeals to ‘logic’, to aesthetic factors, to tradition and/or to literary usage; not infrequently, they also include appeals to the grammatical facts of other languages which are regarded as having greater prestige. Prescriptivism was strongly characteristic of a good deal of the work published on the grammar of English and of other European languages during the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly of the textbooks prepared for use in schools. Among the best-known prescriptivist statements about English are the insistence on It’s I and the rejection of It’s me, the condemnation of sentence-final prepositions and the condemnation of the so-called split infinitive. Most modern linguists would probably accept that some degree of prescriptivism is necessary for educational purposes, but all would vigorously reject prescriptivism as a basis for grammatical characterization."

[3] The language instinct, W. Morrow and Co., 1994 "The legislators of 'correct English,' in fact, are an informal network of copy-editors, English teachers, essayists, columnists, and pundits ... William Safire, who writes the weekly column 'On Language' for The New York Times Magazine, call himself a 'language maven,' from the Yiddish word meaning expert, and this gives us a convenient label for the entire group. To whom I say: Maven, shmaven! Kibbitzers and nudniks is more like it. For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make non sense on any level. They are bits of folclor that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since ... The rules conform neither to logic nor to tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible".

[4] La dignidá ya igualdá de les llingües. Crítica de la discriminación llingüística, Alianza, 2000

[5] Norma, estándar, esviación (n'inglés) "I think sensible prescriptivism ought to be part of any education. I would certainly think that students ought to know the standard literary language with all its conventions, its absurdities, its artificial conventions, and so on because that’s a real cultural system, and an important cultural system. They should certainly know it and be inside it and be able to use it freely. I don’t think people should give them any illusions about what it is. It’s not better, or more sensible. Much of it is a violation of natural law. [...] So a good deal of what’s taught in the standard language is just a history of artificialities, and they have to be taught because they’re artificial".

[6] The linguistics encyclopedia (2 edición), Routledge, 2002

[7] Sankoff, David, ed. (1978), «Grammatical Ideology and Its Effect on Speech», Linguistic variation : models and methods, Academic Press, ISBN 0-126188505 "Modern linguistics entirely rejects prescriptivism in grammatical analysis. Rightly so, since prescriptivism is simply the ideology by which the guardians of the standard language impose their linguistic norms on people who have perfectly serviceable norms of their own."

[8] «Introduction», Language ideologies: practice and theory, Oxford University Press, 1998 "Professional, scientific linguistics in the late twentieth century has nearly uniformly, and sometimes rather smugly, rejected prescriptivism."

[9] «1», Authority in language: investigating standard English (3 edición), Routledge, 1998 "Although linguistic scholars would certainly apueste the details of this pronouncement, they have continued (for the most part) to assert or assume that their discipline is descriptive and theoretical and that they do not deal in prescription. In Western Europe and America most theoretical linguists would still affirm that all forms of language are in principle equal."

[10] Scott Sadwosky, Ricardo Martínez: El normativismo y el poder Archiváu 2010-09-11 en Wayback Machine.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]