(My theory, which I posted on Metafilter a minute ago. NB I briefly discussed this topic w/ Sarang some time ago. I lost the exchange but he has probably influenced my views. Note also that there is a pretty good Language Log post on this subject.)

There is no prescriptivism. There is no descriptivism. These words don’t describe mutually exclusive opposed positions. If you try to define them rigorously you will not be able to cleanly distinguish them. I think we owe their vernacular ubiquity to the success of Language Log (note that I’m not claiming LL invented them).
“Prescriptivism” in particular is a kind of culture-war tag for a certain family of popular, non-professional language criticism, like “Eats Shoots and Leaves” or “The Elements of Style.” These works are often pedantic, and they often include stylistic pronouncements based on usage errors or false generalizations. Furthermore they often include a more-or-less explicit social conservatism (language was better in the good old days; it is okay to criticize poor people for deviating from Standard English). So the fit isn’t one-to-one, but I think it makes sense to think of “prescriptivism” as a label for a family of populist linguistic-conservate rhetoric.
Continue reading
_(Proto)_%5BHack_by_Starmen.Net_v1.0%5D_(~EarthBound_-_Easy)-7.jpg)