Cover not available
Part of
Normativity in Language and Linguistics
Edited by Aleksi Mäkilähde, Ville Leppänen and Esa Itkonen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 209] 2019
► pp. 103–124

A primer for linguistic normativists

A normative domain is a realm of action or thought in which it’s necessary to invoke the concepts of requirement/obligation, permission or prohibition. Closely associated with these is that of correctness. A rule of grammar, as this term is traditionally understood (e.g., the requirement that determiners precede the nouns with which they are associated) is accordingly normative in nature. This chapter explores some of the consequences of this fact, including: the relationship between the notions of rule and constraint; broad- vs. narrow-scope rules; and ascription of different kinds of ill-formedness to ungrammatical examples. Some attention is also given to the critique of grammaticality-based and intuition-grounded linguistic practice advanced by Sampson and Babarczy (2013), and motivation is offered for a warmer embrace of traditional grammar than is customary among linguists.
Keywords: grammar, grammaticality, etiological property, intuition, normative domain, norms, normativity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is a normative domain?
  • 3.What is a rule?
    • Case 1
    • Case 2
    • Case 3
  • 4.Is there such a thing as grammaticality? (1)
  • 5.Is there such a thing as grammaticality? (2)
  • 6.The place of linguistic intuition
  • 7.Normativity and prescriptivism
  • 8.Etiological analysis: Further discussion
  • 9.Should we love traditional grammar?
  • 10.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 4 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.209.04kac
References (15)
References
Brame, Michael K. 1978. Base Generated Syntax. Seattle: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray. 1976. Constraints on movement rules. Language 52(1): 18–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dretske, Fred R. 1974. Explanation in linguistics. In Explaining Linguistic Phenomena, David Cohen (ed.), 21–42. New York NY: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 1974. Linguistics and Metascience [Studia Philosophica Turkuensia 2]. Turku: Societas Philosophica et Phaenomenologica Finlandiae.Google Scholar
Kac, Michael B. 1978. Corepresentation of Grammatical Structure. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press and London: Croom Helm. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. The notion ‘rule of grammar’ reconsidered. In Mathematics of Language, Alexis Manaster-Ramer (ed.), 115–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. Grammars and Grammaticality [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 78]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. A nonpsychological realist conception of linguistic rules. In The Reality of Linguistic Rules [Studies in Language Companion Series 26], Susan D. Lima, Roberta L. Corrigan & Gregory K. Iverson (eds), 43–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1981. Language and Other Abstract Objects. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Koller, Alice. 1975. A Hornbook of Hazards for Linguists. Springfield VA: Clearinghouse for Federal and Scientific and Technical Information.Google Scholar
Meiklejohn, John Miller Dow. 1886. The English Language. Its Grammar, History and Literature, 23rd edn, published in 1902. London: Holden.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ringen, Jon D. 1975. Linguistic facts: A study of the empirical scientific status of transformational generative grammars. In Testing Linguistic Hypotheses, David Cohen & Jessica R. Wirth (eds), 1–41. Washington DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey & Babarczy, Anna. 2013. Grammar without Grammaticality. Growth and Limits of Grammatical Precision. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar