Reading this language preservation article and also doing other research for my project, I’ve been thinking a lot about the responsibility of language preservation. I personally feel that the governments of countries with endangered languages should fund and prioritize preservation projects. But I’m curious about other people who could get involved. Is this an issue that people from other countries, such as language activists, educators, and linguists should get involved in? Should this work be done more internally? These are just some bigger questions and maybe there’s no right answer but I think it’s interesting to keep this in mind.

This article addresses the traditional prescriptivist views of language usage and language errors. It then provides ample arguments to suggest that this strict view of language is flawed. It then highlights key characteristics of errors and the ways in which we naturally react to them. The argument presented may seem like a rejection of language rules, but it is more of a caution against a black and white, condemning view of language usage that aims to punish those who use “errors” in every day life. Here are some questions to consider:

• What “errors” tend to elicit negative reactions from you? From your peers? From your parents?
• In an academic setting, how do you think we can strike a balance between prescriptivism and a more anarchic view of language?
• What “errors”, if any, do you think should remain stigmatized in academic writing?