体系化并且客观的看待语言研究并非易事。目前盛行的关于语言学的辩论正在逐渐退化为痛骂和争论。由于语言属于每—个人，所以大多数人认为他们有权利对语言持有己见。当意见出现分歧的时候，个人情绪就会激昂上涨。各种争论可以很轻易地从对无足轻重的词汇用法的辩争发展成为对重大语言学习政策的论争。

It is not easy to be systematic and objective about language study. Popular linguistic debate regularly deteriorates into invective and polemic. Language belongs to everyone, so most people feel they have a right to hold an opinion about it. And when opinions differ, emotions can run high. Arguments can start as easily over minor points of usage as over major policies of linguistic education.

然而，语言是一种非常公开的行为，所以在运用语言方面的不同之处自然而然的容易受到人们的关注和批评挑剔。任何社会部分或者社交行为都无法避免这样—个事实：语言因素可以影响到我们对个人个性、智力、社会地垃、教育水平、工作能力以及个人身份和涉及社会交际的其他方面的评判。所以，对语言的使用进行无情地攻击击很容易伤害到别人，同时被攻击者也很容易受到伤害。

从取宽泛的层面来看，规定主义(prescriptivism)认为一种语言变体与生俱来的会比其他的更有价值，应该将此种变体强行推广到整个言语社团之中。特别是在语法和词汇的相关领域，这种观点广泛存在，并且在语音方面常被提及。此理论所偏爱的这种语言变体通常就是我们所称的标准书面语，尤其存在于文学作品中或者一些正式场合里最贴近此种风格的口语中。这种语言变体的追随者被认为是“正确的”语言应用者，而运用异于此种变体的人群被认为是“错误的”。

Language, moreover, is a very public behaviour, so it is easy for different usages to be noted and criticised. No part of society or social behaviour is exempt: linguistic factors influence how we judge personality, intelligence, social status, educational standards, job aptitude, and many other areas of identity and social survival. As a result, it is easy to hurt, and to be hurt, when language use is unfeelingly attacked.

尤其在18世纪编写语法规范和字典的过程中，所有的主流语言都在规范层面被研究探索过，这些早期的语法学家主要有这样三个目的：(1)编写语言应用的基本原则，以显示语言的运用在表面上的混乱之下存在着—个体系；(2)建立—个解决各种语言应用方面纷争的方法：(3)指出他们所认为的通常错误，利于完善语言的应用。这种语法规范化的专横性很好的体现在其对语法条例的依赖上。“规范的”用法要被推广学习并且要准确遵守：“非规范的“语言需要避免。在这个早期阶段，语言的运用不存在中间状态：非对即错，并且语法学家的任务并非简单地记录各种可替代的语言用法，还要对它们进行判定。

这些论调至今仍然存在着，并且激发了对于语言规则应被坚持维护的广泛思考。然而，学术界又葫发了另一种观点，这种观点关心的更多的是语言应用的既定现实而非规定标准。这种观点可以被概述为语言学家的任务是描述而非规定语言，也就是应该记录现实应用中的各种语言形式，而非企图评价语言变异或者停止语言变化这项不可能的任务。18世圮后半期已经出现了此种理论的拥护者，例如约瑟夫·普里斯特利(Joseph Priestley)，其在1761年完成的著作《英语语法入门》(Rudiments of English Grammar)中坚持认为”说话时的习惯是任何语言最原始并且是唯—正当的标准”。并且还声称，语言中的争议问题是无法依靠逻辑和立法的途径解决的。这种观点已经成为以现代语言学方法进行语法分析的信条。

In its most general sense, prescriptivism is the view that one variety of language has an inherently higher value than others, and that this ought to be imposed on the whole of the speech community. The view is propounded especially in relation to grammar and vocabulary, and frequently with reference to pronunciation. The variety which is favoured, in this account, is usually a version of the `standard' written language, especially as encountered in literature, or in the formal spoken language which most closely reflects this style. Adherents to this variety are said to speak or write 'correctly`; deviations from it are said to be 'incorrect!

当今时代，“描写主义者”和“规定主义者”分别描画出关于对方理论的不切实际景象，他们之间的对立之势经常趋于极端。由于描写主义语法学家对一切语言形式都—视同仁，所以创新常被认为是不关注语法的规定标准。而规定主义语法学家则被认为是—群对历史悠久的传统的盲从者。他们两者的对立性甚至被视作类似政治界里的极端自由主义和杰出保守主义。

All the main languages have been studied prescriptively, especially in the 18th century approach to the writing of grammars and dictionaries. The aims of these early grammarians were threefold: (a) they wanted to codify the principles of their languages, to show that there was a system beneath the apparent chaos of usage, (b) they wanted a means of settling disputes over usage, and (c) they wanted to point out what they felt to be common errors, in order to' improve * the language. The authoritarian nature of the approach is best characterised by its reliance on `rules, of grammar. Some usages are 'prescribed: to be learnt and followed accurately; others are 'proscribed! to be avoided. In this early period, there were no half-measures: usage was either right or wrong, and it was the task of the grammarian not simply to record alternatives, but to pronounce judgement upon them.

These attitudes are still with us, and they motivate a widespread concern that linguistic standards should be maintained. Nevertheless, there is an alternative point of view that is concerned less with standards than with the facts of linguistic usage. This approach is summarised in the statement that it is the task of the grammarian to describe, not prescribe-to record the facts of linguistic diversity, and not to attempt the impossible tasks of evaluating language variation or halting language change. In the second half of the 18th century, we already find advocates of this view, such as Joseph Priestley, whose Rudiments of English Grammar (1761) insists that 'the custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language! Linguistic issues, it is argued, cannot be solved by logic and legislation. And this view has become the tenet of the modern linguistic approach to grammatical analysis.

In our own time, the opposition between 'descriptivists' and 'prescriptivists' has often become extreme, with both sides painting unreal pictures of the other. Descriptive grammarians have been presented as people who do not care about standards, because of the way they see all forms of usage as equally valid. Prescriptive grammarians have been presented as blind adherents to a historical tradition. The opposition has even been presented in quasi-political terms - of radical liberalism vs elitist conservatism.