Wikipedia

Dereadegezh (yezhoniezh) : diforc'h etre ar stummoù

Merdeiñ etreoberiat en istor
Kemm nevesoc'h →
Endalc’h diverket Danvez ouzhpennet
GweletWikitestenn
Neal (kaozeal | degasadennoù)
36 397 kemm
lañs
 
Neal (kaozeal | degasadennoù)
36 397 kemm
DDiverradenn ebet eus ar c'hemm
Linenn 1:
{{LabourAChom}}
 
Er [[yezhoniezh]] e vez implijet an termen '''dereadegezh ''' ([[Saozneg|saoz]]: [[:en:Linguistic prescription|''prescription'']]) evit komz eus ar fed ma vez kinniget reolennoù normativel evit implij "reizh" ur [[yezh]] resis bennak, da lâret eo ur [[yezh unvan]] ganti reolennoù [[Yezhadur|yezhadurel]] ha [[Reizhskrivadur|reizhskrivañ]] unvan.
 
Ne rank ket klotaat dre ret ar reolennoù normativel a gaver en ur "yehzadur dereadegel" pe "normativel" gant an doare ma vez implijet ur yezh gant an dud e gwirionez ha daosut ha ma kemm ar reolennoù dereadegel a-hed ar wezh e kemmont kalz goustadikoc'h evit implijoù gwirion ar yezhoù hervez an doare ma vezont komzet ha skrivet gant an dud, da skouer daosut ha ma ne vez ket implijet ar [[Rannig (yezhoniezh|rannig nac'hañ]] "ne" e [[galleg]] dre gomz perrliesañ, e ranker e implijout dre skrid atav.
In [[linguistics]], '''prescription''' is the laying down or ''prescribing'' of normative rules for the use of a language, or the making of recommendations for effective language usage. It includes the mechanisms for establishing and maintaining an interregional language or a standardized spelling system. It can also include arbitrary declarations of what particular individuals consider to be good taste, and if these tastes are conservative, prescription may be (or appear to be) resistant to language change.
 
Diouzh un tu e talvez reolennoù ur yezhadur deraedegel da unvaniñ ur yezh ha da sikour an dud d'en em gompren an eil re gant ar re all en desped da diforc'hioù lec'hel hag all. Diouzh an tu all avt e c'hell talvez evit muzuliañ pegen desket eo un den bennak hervez ma oar implijet pe get reolennoù ma rankont bezañ desket gantañ er skol hag all.
Prescription is typically contrasted with ''description'', which observes and records how language is used in practice, and which is the basis of all linguistic research. Serious scholarly descriptive work is usually based on text or corpus analysis, or on field studies, but the term "description" includes each individual's observations of their own language usage. Unlike prescription, descriptive linguistics eschews value judgments and makes no recommendations.
 
Gant ar [[yezhoniezh]] a-vremañ avat e klasker [[Deskrivelezh (yezhoniezh)deskrivañ]] reolennoù mont-en-dro gwirion ar yezhoù hep lâret hag-eñ eo "reizh" pe "mat" an doare ma vez implijet pe get.
Prescription and description are often seen as opposites, in the sense that one declares how language ''should be'' while the other declares how language ''is''. But they can also be complementary, and usually exist in dynamic tension. Most commentators on language show elements of both prescription and description in their thinking, and popular debate on language issues frequently revolves around the question of how to balance these.
 
==Authorities==▼
[[Image:Egypt Hieroglyphe2.jpg|frame|[[Egyptian hieroglyphics]] from the [[Ptolemaic period|Ptolemaic]] [[Temple of Kom Ombo]] preserve written norms that date from the [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt]], a thousand years earlier.]]
__TOC__
{{-}}
 
==Aims==
The main aims of linguistic prescription are to define standardised language forms either generally (what is Standard English?) or for specific purposes (what style and register is appropriate in, for example, a legal brief?) and to formulate these in such a way as to make them easily taught or learned. Prescription can apply to most aspects of language: to spelling, grammar, semantics, pronunciation and register. Most people would subscribe to the consensus that in all of these areas it is meaningful to describe some kinds of aberrations as incorrect, or at least as inappropriate in formal contexts. Prescription aims to draw workable guidelines for language users seeking advice in such matters.
 
Standardised languages are useful for interregional communication; speakers of divergent local dialects may understand a [[standard language]] used in broadcasting more readily than they would understand each other's. One can argue that such a [[lingua franca]], if needed, will evolve by itself, but the desire to formulate and define it is very widespread in most parts of the world. Writers or communicators who wish to use words clearly, powerfully or effectively often use prescriptive rules, believing that these may make their communications more widely understood and unambiguous. The vast popularity of books providing advice on such matters shows that prescription meets a real, or at least widely perceived need.
 
▲==Authorities==
Prescription usually presupposes an authority whose judgment may be followed by other members of a speech community. Such an authority may be a prominent writer or educator such as [[Henry Watson Fowler|Henry Fowler]], whose ''[[Fowler's Modern English Usage|English Usage]]'' defined the standard for British English for much of the 20th century. The ''Duden'' grammar has a similar status for German. Though dictionary makers usually see their work as purely descriptive, they are widely used as prescriptive authorities by the community at large. Popular books such as [[Lynne Truss]]'s ''[[Eats, Shoots & Leaves]]'', which argues for stricter adherence to prescriptive punctuation rules, have phases of fashionability and are authoritative to the degree that they attract a ''de facto'' following.
 
However, in some language communities, linguistic prescription can be regulated formally. The [[Académie française]] (French Academy) in Paris is an example of a widely respected national body whose recommendations, though not legally enforceable, carry great authority. In Germany and the Netherlands, recent spelling reforms were devised by teams of linguists commissioned by government, and were then implemented by statute. See for example [[German spelling reform of 1996]]. The Russian language was heavily prescribed during the Soviet period, deviations from the norm being purged by the [[Union of Soviet Writers]].
 
Other kinds of authorities come into play in specific settings, such as publishers laying down a [[house style]] which, for example, may either prescribe or proscribe a [[serial comma]].
 
==Origins==
Historically, a number of factors are found that give rise to prescriptive tendencies in language. Whenever a society reaches a level of complexity to the point where it acquires a permanent system of [[social stratification]] and [[hierarchy]], the speech used by political and religious authorities is preserved and admired. This speech often takes on [[archaism|archaic]] and [[honorific]] colours. The style of language used in [[ritual]] also differs from everyday speech in many cultures.
 
When [[writing]] is introduced into a culture, new avenues for standards are opened. Written language lacks voice tone and inflection, and other vocal features that serve to disambiguate speech, and tends to compensate for these by stricter adherence to norms. And since writers can take more time to think about their words, new avenues of standardisation open up. Thus [[literary language]], the specific [[register (linguistics)|register]] of written language, lends itself to prescription to a higher degree than spoken language.
 
The introduction of writing also introduces new [[economics|economies]] into language. A body of written texts represents a [[sunk cost]]; changes in written language threaten to make the body of preserved texts obsolete, so writing creates an incentive to preserve older forms. In many places, writing was introduced by religious authorities, and serves as a vehicle for the values held to be prestigious by those authorities. [[Alphabet]]s tend to follow religions; wherever [[western Christianity]] has spread, so has the [[Latin alphabet]], while [[Eastern Orthodoxy]] is associated with the [[Greek alphabet|Greek]] or [[Cyrillic alphabet]]s, and [[Islam]] goes hand in hand with the [[Arabic alphabet]]. Similarly, the prestige of [[China|Chinese]] culture has preserved the usage of [[Chinese character]]s and caused their adaptation to the very different languages of [[Korean language|Korea]] and [[Japanese language|Japan]]; the prestige of Chinese writing is such that, even when the [[Hangul]] alphabet was devised for Korean, the shapes of the letters were designed to fit the square frames of Chinese [[calligraphy]].<ref name="coulmas"/>
 
[[Bureaucracy]] is another factor that encourages prescriptive tendencies in language. When government centres arise, people acquire different forms of language which they use in dealing with the government, which may be seated far from the locality of the governed. Standard [[writ]]s and other legal forms create a body of precedent in language that tends to be reused over generations and centuries. In more recent times, the effects of bureaucracy have been accelerated by the popularisation of [[travel]] and [[telecommunications]]; people grow accustomed to hearing speech from distant areas. Eventually, these several factors encourage standards to arise; this phenomenon has been observed since [[Egyptian language|ancient Egyptian]], where the spelling of the [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt|Middle Kingdom]] was preserved well into the [[Ptolemaic period]] in the standard usage of [[Egyptian hieroglyphics]].<ref>Allen, James P., ''Middle Egyptian — An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs'', (Cambridge University Press, 1999) ISBN 0-521-65312-6</ref>
 
All language in developed societies therefore tends to exist on a continuum of styles. Privileged language is used in legal, ceremonial, and religious contexts, and tends to be prized over local and private speech. Written styles necessarily differ from spoken language, given the different stratagems used to communicate in writing as opposed to speech. Where the discontinuity between a high and a low style of language becomes marked, a state of ''[[diglossia]]'' arises: here, the privileged language requires special study to master, and is not instantly intelligible to the untrained. The very difficulty of the systems inspires a preservationist urge, since instruction in them represents a large effort. The writer who has mastered [[Chinese calligraphy]] or [[English spelling]] has put a great deal of time into acquiring a skill, and is likely to resist its devaluation through simplification.
 
==Sources==
The primary source of prescriptive judgments is descriptive study. From the earliest attempts at prescription in classical times, grammarians have observed what is in fact usual in a prestige variety of a language and based their norms upon this. Modern prescription, for example in school text books, draws heavily on the results of descriptive linguistic analysis. Because prescription is generally based on description, it is very rare for a form to be prescribed which does not already exist in the language.
 
However, prescription also involves conscious choices, privileging some existing forms over others. Such choices are often strategic, aimed at maximising clarity and precision in language use. Sometimes they may be based on entirely subjective judgments about what constitutes good taste. Sometimes there is a conscious decision to promote the language of one class or region within a language community, and this can become politically controversial — see below.
 
Sometimes prescription is motivated by an ethical position, as with the prohibition of swear words. The desire to avoid language which refers too specifically to matters of sexuality or toilet hygiene may result in a sense that the words themselves are obscene. Similar is the condemnation of expletives which offend against religion, or more recently of language which is not considered [[politically correct]].
 
It is sometimes claimed that in centuries past, English prescription was based on the norms of Latin grammar, but this is doubtful. [[Robert Lowth]] is frequently cited as one who did this, but in fact he specifically condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language".<ref>''A Short Introduction to English Grammar'', p. 107, condemning [[Richard Bentley]]'s "corrections" of some of [[John Milton|Milton]]'s constructions. </ref> It is true that analogies with Latin were sometimes used as substantiating arguments, but only when the forms being thus defended were in any case the norm in the prestige form of English. A good example is the [[split infinitive]]: supporters of the construction frequently claim the old prohibition was based on a false analogy with Latin, but this seems to be a [[straw man argument]]; it is difficult to find a serious writer who ever argued against the split infinitive on the basis of such an analogy, and the earliest authority to advise against the construction, an anonymous American grammarian in 1834, gave a very clear statement basing his view on descriptive observation.<ref>{{cite journal | author = "P." | title = Inaccuracies of Diction. Grammar | pages = pp. 467–470 | journal = The New-England Magazine | volume = 7 | issue = 6 | date = December 1834 | url = http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?root=/moa/nwen/nwen0007/&tif=00479.TIF&frames=1&view=50 | accessdate = Oct. 26, 2006}}</ref>
 
==Education==
Literacy and first language teaching in schools is traditionally prescriptive. Both educators and parents often agree that mastery of a [[acrolect|prestige variety]] of the language is one of the goals of education. Since the 1970s there has been a widespread trend to balance this with other priorities, such as encouraging children to find their own forms of expression and be creative also with non-standard speech-patterns. Nevertheless, the acquisition of spoken and written skills in normative language varieties remains a key aim of schools around the world.
 
Foreign language teaching is necessarily prescriptive. Here the students have no prior idiom of their own in the target language and are entirely focused on the acquisition of norms laid down by others.
 
==Problems==
 
While most people would agree that some kinds of prescriptive teaching or advice are desirable, prescription easily becomes controversial. Many linguists are highly sceptical of the quality of advice given in many usage guides, particularly when the authors are not qualified in languages or linguistics. Some popular books on English usage written by journalists or novelists bring prescription generally into disrepute by making basic errors in grammatical analysis. Even when practiced by competent experts (as in text-books written by language teachers), giving wise advice is not always easy, and things can go badly wrong. A number of issues pose potential pitfalls.
 
One of the most serious of these is that prescription has a tendency to favour the language of one particular region or social class over others, and thus militates against linguistic diversity. Frequently a standard dialect is associated with the [[upper class]], as for example [[Great Britain]]'s [[Received Pronunciation]]. RP has now lost much of its status as the Anglophone standard, being replaced by the dual standards of General American and British NRP (non-regional pronunciation). While these have a more democratic base, they are still standards which exclude large parts of the English-speaking world: Scottish, Irish, Australian or African-American speakers of English may feel the standard is slanted against them. Thus prescription has clear political consequences. In the past, prescription was used consciously as a political tool; today, prescription usually attempts to avoid this pitfall, but this can be difficult to do.
 
A second problem with prescription is that prescriptive rules quickly become entrenched and it is difficult to change them when the language changes. Thus there is a tendency for prescription to be overly conservative. When in the early 19th century, prescriptive use advised against the [[split infinitive]], the main reason was that this construction was not in fact a frequent feature of the varieties of English favoured by those prescribing. Today it has become common in most varieties of English, and a prohibition is no longer sensible. However, the rule endured long after the justification for it had disappeared. In this way, prescription can appear to be antithetical to natural language evolution, although this is usually not the intention of those formulating the rules. This problem is compounded by the fact books which gain a following can remain in print long after they have become dated. This is the case, for example, with Strunk & White, which remains popular in the United States although much of its text was formulated in the 19th century.
 
A further problem is the difficulty of defining legitimate criteria. Although prescribing authorities almost invariably have clear ideas about why they make a particular choice, and the choices are therefore seldom entirely arbitrary, they often appear arbitrary to others who do not understand or are not in sympathy with the criteria. Judgments which seek to resolve ambiguity or increase the ability of the language to make subtle distinctions are easier to defend. Judgments based on the subjective associations of a word are more problematic.
 
Finally, there is the problem of inappropriate dogmatism. While competent authorites tend to make careful statements, popular pronouncements on language are apt to condemn. Thus wise prescriptive advice may identify a form as non-standard and suggest it be used with caution in some contexts; repeated in the school room this may become a ruling that the non-standard form is automatically wrong, a view which linguists reject. (Linguists may accept that a form is incorrect if it fails to communicate, but not simply because it diverges from a norm.) An interesting classic example from 18th-century England is Robert Lowth's tentative suggestion that preposition stranding in [[English relative clauses|relative clauses]] sounds colloquial, a subjective but perfectly legitimate view; from this grew a grammatical dogma that a sentence should never end with a preposition, a much derided example of foolish prescription, for which Lowth, rather unfairly, has often been blamed.
 
 
===Descriptive approaches===
Linguistics has always required a process called ''description'', which involves observing language and creating conceptual categories for it without establishing rules of language. However in the 16th and 17th centuries, in which modern linguistics began, projects in lexicography provided the basis for 18th and 19th century [[Comparative method|comparative work]] - mainly on [[classical languages]]. By the early 20th century, this focus shifted to [[modern languages]] as the descriptive approach of analyzing speech and writings became more formal. Despite this following appearance, the more fundamental ''descriptive'' method was used prior to the advent of ''prescription'', and is the key to linguistic research. The reason for this priorhood is that linguistics, as any other branch of science, requires observation and analysis of a [[natural phenomenon]], such as the order of words in communication, which may be done without prescriptive rules. In descriptive linguistics, nonstandard varieties of language are held to be no more or less correct than standard varieties of languages. Whether or not observational methods are seen to be more objective than prescriptive methods, the outcomes of using prescriptive methods are also subject to description.
 
== Gwelit ivez: ==
Adtapet diwar « https://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dereadegezh_(yezhoniezh) »