Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGlackin, SN
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-01T09:46:14Z
dc.date.issued2019-09-05
dc.description.abstractThe philosophical dispute about linguistic normativity is one battlefield in a larger war over the nature of language as an object of scientific study. For those influenced by Wittgenstein, language involves following – or failing to follow – public, prescriptive rules; for Chomsky and his followers, language is a property of individual minds and brains, and the grammatical judgements of any mature individual speaker – her competence – cannot be, in any linguistic sense, ‘wrong’. As I argue here, the recent ‘doge meme’ internet fad provides surprising evidence for the prescriptivist view. Normative attitudes towards linguistic practices are a ubiquitous feature of those practices, and there is no principled basis on which to regard them as non-linguistic.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 8 (1), pp. 108-123en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/38182
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal do Espírito Santoen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://periodicos.ufes.br/sofia/article/view/23778en_GB
dc.subjectChomskyen_GB
dc.subjectDogeen_GB
dc.subjectI-Languageen_GB
dc.subjectNormativityen_GB
dc.subjectPrescriptivismen_GB
dc.titleSo language. Very prescribe. Wow.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-08-01T09:46:14Z
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo via the link in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.eissn2317-2339
dc.identifier.journalRevista Sofiaen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-07-30
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-07-30
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-07-31T20:04:37Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2020-02-11T15:21:24Z
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record