It is not easy to be systematic and objective about language study. 要系统及客观地研究语言不是一件容易的事情。 Popular linguistic debate regularly deteriorates into invective and polemic. 较为流行的关于语言学的争论通常分为抨击型和争辩型两类。 Language belongs to everyone, so most people feel they have a right to hold an opinion about it. 语言属于每一个人，因此大多数人都认为他们有权利保留自己对语言的看法。 And when opinions differ, emotions can run high. 当人们的意见不一致时，情绪就会变得很激烈。 Arguments can start as easily over minor points of usage as over major policies of linguistic education. 语言使用的细微差别和语言学教育的主要政策一样，都很容易引起人们的争论。

Language, moreover, is a very public behaviour, so it is easy for different usages to be noted and criticised. 语言更像是一种公共行为，因此，不同的使用方式更容易被注意到甚至受到批判。 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. 没有任何一个社会领域或行为能够例外：语言因素影响我们如何去判断他人的性格、智力、社会地位、教育水平、工作才能及身份和社会生存中的许多其他方面。 As a result, it is easy to hurt, and to be hurt, when language use is unfeelingly attacked. 正因为如此，当语言使用受到无情攻击的时候，人们很容易伤害他人，也很容易受到伤害。

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. 就其最通常的意义而言，规范主义的观点就是一种语言在价值上要高于其他语言，而且这一定律应该被应用于整个语言社会。 The view is propounded especially in relation to grammar and vocabulary, and frequently with reference to pronunciation. 特别是在语法和词汇甚至是发音方面，这一观点尤其深刻。 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. 在这种情况下，受到偏爱的这种语言通常就是“标准”的书面语言版本，特别是在文学领域或是最能反映此类风格的正式场合的口语中。 Adherents to this variety are said to speak or write ’correctly; deviations from it are said to be 'incorrect! 这一语言的追随者被认为是说或写得正确，反之则错误。

All the main languages have been studied prescriptively, especially in the 18th century approach to the writing of grammars and dictionaries. 所有主流语言都已经被规范化地研究过了，尤其是在 18 世纪语法和字典的编写过程中。 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. 这些早期的语法专家们的目的有三：把语言的原则编辑成法典，以证明在表面错综复杂的使用方法下隐藏着固有的体系；寻找关于解决不同用法争端的途径；指出他们认为的普遍错误，以便改进语言。 The authoritarian nature of the approach is best characterised by its reliance on 'rules' of grammar. 这一方式的独裁性本质及其对语法规则的依赖为最明显的特征。 Some usages are ‘prescribed’, to be learnt and followed accurately; others are 'proscribed’, to be avoided. 有些用法是“规定”好的，只能学习或精确地遵循其规则；反之则被“禁止”，避免使用。 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. 在早期的时候，根本没有中和的标准：用法非对即错，而语法专家的任务不是简单地记录其他选择，而是对这些用法的对错进行判决。

These attitudes are still with us, and they motivate a widespread concern that linguistic standards should be maintained. 这些态度至今依然存在，并且激发起了关于语言标准应当受到维护的广泛关注。 Nevertheless, there is an alternative point of view that is concerned less with standards than with the facts of linguistic usage. 然而，另一种观点却认为语言用法的事实比规则标准更为重要。 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. 这一观点可以被总结为：语法专家的任务是去描述而非规定；是去记录语言多样性的事实，而非试图去完成评估语言演变或阻止语言变化这类根本不可能完成的任务。 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’. 在 18 世纪的下半叶，我们就已经有了这一观点的倡导者，如 Joseph Priestley。在他的著作《基础英语语法》(1761) 中，Priestley 写道：“语言习俗是任何一种语言最原始也是唯一公正的标准。” Linguistic issues, it is argued, cannot be solved by logic and legislation. 语言问题是无法用逻辑和立法来解决的。 And this view has become the tenet of the modem linguistic approach to grammatical analysis. 而这一观点已经成为现代语言学关于语法分析方法的宗旨。

In our own time, the opposition between 'descriptivists’ and 'prescriptivists’ has often become extreme, with both sides painting unreal pictures of the other. 在当今这个时代，“描述主义”和“规范主义”之间的对立经常极端化，双方常常相互诋毁。 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. 描述主义的语法专家们被认为不在意标准，因为他们认为所有语言用法都是有效的。 Prescriptive grammarians have been presented as blind adherents to a historical tradition. 而规范主义的语法专家被认为是历史传统的盲目追随者。 The opposition has even been presented in quasi-political terms - of radical liberalism vs elitist conservatism. 两者的对立甚至演变成一种政治概念——激进的解放主义和精英的保守主义之间的对抗。