Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar

Peter Kirk has a post at the Better Bibles blog discussing what type of language the Bible should be translated into. (Note that I decline to respond to prescriptive grammarians by continuing to use a preposition to end my sentence with.)

Peter says:

It seems to me that the only people who have the right to prescribe the form of English are the speakers of the language taken as a whole, exercising their democratic right in the way that they actually speak and write. That implies that the only prescriptive grammar for English is in fact a descriptive one. For if there is any way in which we ought to speak or write, it is the way that the language is actually spoken or written.

I’m not sure that the language of “rights” is quite appropriate here, though history certainly indicates that whatever the grammarians try to do the people will prescribe the form of the language, and perhaps that is the best form of right!

Now if any writer or translator wants to communicate with an audience, they (singular they, eh?) must use language that the audience can understand. Thus it seems pretty obvious that a translation should be made into the form of language that people actually speak and understand, assuming that communication is the purpose. I’ve found an interesting phenomenon in classes I’ve taught on Bible translations. People don’t always hold communication to be the primary purpose of a Bible translation. In several classes, substantial minorities, though never a majority, have indicated they would prefer majesty of language. In general, I can get a lively debate going on the question of whether the Bible version used in scripture readings should be targeted at the church members or at whatever group they believe it is their mission to reach.

One may gather from my ramblings that I think communication is the primary purpose, and that mission tends to define who we are to communicate with. I personally feel very comfortable reading the Revised English Bible, but I tend most commonly to recommend the Contemporary English Version, simply because it is an easier read for my audience.

But this “prescriptive” vs “descriptive” grammar issue has another dimension, and here I have some appreciation for the prescriptivists. I would suggest that your elementary through high school grammar teachers should be very prescriptivist. In fact, there is a continuing role for prescriptive grammarians in society in trying to keep change in the language to a reasonable minimum. The prescriptive grammarians, represented especially by teachers, also have their democratic vote. All the speakers of a language are equal, one might say, but some are more equal than others.

None of which changes the final answer to Peter’s question about translating the Bible. For that endeavor, grammar must be strictly descriptive. How does the target audience speak, and what do they understand?