1. 【本月原始】 descriptive和prescriptive英文教材的差別与关联性

　　【V1】

　　第一段 先说这两种的差别，descriptive是讲文法的，prescriptive是讲人们平常怎么说的。

　　第二段 则说但是这两种却是有关连的，虽然prescriptive的manual不教文法，但若提的正确讲法与文法呼应，就是支持文法的基础。(有考descriptive和prescriptive的关系，我是定位在这)不过近来有些manual提供了错误讯息

　　第三段 则举了个例子，说明manual怎么提供错误讯息，但也指出，若实际上有人就是这么说，也不能说这是错误的(有考第三段举这例子的目的)

　　第四段 则说语言本来就是看人怎么说怎么用，若不同地方有不同用法，那么manual就该跟着调整才是。(有考第四段的结构论述是属于哪一类)

　　【V2】

　　另一篇讲的是 两种英语课本， 两种课本怎么不一样，一种是 讲语法的基本的，一种是讲 怎么用的，第二种就像说明书 (user manual)。

　　P1： 两种课本

　　P2： 两种的不同

　　P3: 有考题，问这一段的作用。 给了两个例子，说明经常用的语言，第二种书说是grammatically incorrect.

　　P4: conclusion.

　　【考古待确认…】

　　【2013.11考古】惯例(传统)和描述性语法

　　【本月原始】

　　阅读：考了一篇 两本英语词典的，长约一屏半，饭饭有考古了。 题目不太难。 另外两篇失忆。。。。。By verawu

　　V2一篇是说descriptive 和 prescriptive 语法书的区别。有点记不清了。

　　首段是说， 这两种语法书的区别和功用。 比如descriptive 是 what the grammar is 而prescriptive是说how it can be used， 以及告诉人们如何用是正确的，如何用是错误的。 首段最后一句是prescriptive跟一个mxxx 有关，(该xxx是全文的主要考点，实在不记得了抱歉)。

　　第二段说了一些两者的应用和区别，比方， mxxxx 虽然主要是在prescriptive相关，但是descriptive会成为其base。 并且指出一个flaw of the mxxxx 是很多时候prescriptive的语法书会说语法not standard的是错误的，informal的也是错误的，并且给出 例句。1(a), 1(b) (1中是标准和不标准的的区别)和2(a) 2(b) (2中是正式和非正式的区别)。而实际上2中的informal不应该称作语法错误(仅仅是不同的约定俗成conventional的说法，并不是错误。

　　末段说，任何语法都应该根据人们怎么说怎么写为base。 而不是说informal的就是错误的。因此prescriptive 等语法说应该在标明表述方法时同时表明同一个意思的不同表达方式 (show the variation)而不是定义其为错误的。

　　由于整理太晚，可能有些地方记错了。 题目一个时关于主旨的，一个是关于最后一段的结构， 一个是关于那个1(a) 1(b) 2(a) 2(b)例句的，句子本身不用细读，只要说出做者支持其中的哪个应该在语法书中标注是对的哪个应该标注成错的。

　　V3

　　【段落大意】：

　　第一段：介绍这两种语法,先给出了几点区别

　　大概介绍了descriptive grammar 和prescriptive grammar的概念和区别。

　　第二段：继续说明二者的区别,好像讲了满多用法的不同

　　进一步说区别，后半段主要说的是prescriptive grammar中包含一种usage manual(考点：下面哪个选项不是作者在文中提到关于usage manual的信息，实在不记得选了什么了，但是好好读第二段应该没有问题)，usage manual 大概就是prescriptive的一种语法规则，虽然它可以知道人们哪些是对的哪些是错的语法，但它的区分有时是不正确的。

　　第三段：矛盾的例子

　　紧接着开始举例说明为什么它的区分不正确(考点：举例作用题，我选的就是举了一例子说明文章的一个观点)。例子里包含两组对比，第一个对比是standard structure和Unstandard structure，文中表示usage manual 来区分这两种是正确的(就是说unstandard structure确实不正确)。第二个对比是formal language和informal language，文中指出这种对比是不对的，因为不能说informal language就是incorrect grammar，其实就是说informal language同样正确(考点，问在accurate prescriptive grammar book里面，下面哪种说法正确，我选了a)。

　　第四段：作者说其实二者之间的区别不是太重要,重要的是人.只要人能使用,就不在乎。

　　说这些grammar rule虽然存在，但其实语言是人们流传下来的，人们根据自身的习惯来决定到底什么不正确什么正确。这里也有考点，问作者的观点，忘了我选了哪个了，错误选项中好像有说必须得了解语言的历史才能学好语言，还有必须在语法规则的指导下才能正确运用语言。

　　【题目】：

　　1)文中例句按照description的语法惯例来看哪个是对的，我选的好像是B?

　　2) 以下哪个代表文中观点-好像是两种语法都支持什么什么fact还是啥。。

　　V2记得是D重视语法P包括方言和style,原JJ作者提到的1a,1b,2a,2b就是这部分内容，有一道死绕的题……

　　3)最后一段的结构，选assumpiton，consideration，conclusion

　　V2第三题问说哪三个词归纳了最后一段的内容，选项是类似assumption, elaborate, conclusion这么个结构，很怪异……

　　V3有一个问结构的题。我选了defination,…………，summarize

　　4)问题四：base啥啥。。不记得了，定位最后一段

　　V2最后一个题目问了对最后一段的归纳。最后段记得讲不管哪种语法，最后还是以人们经常和习惯说的为主。人们才是authority。

　　【背景资料1】：

　　Descriptive grammar (definition #1) refers to the structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. Prescriptive grammar (definition #2) refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used.

　　Both kinds of grammar are concerned with rules--but in different ways. Specialists in descriptive grammar (called linguists) study the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. On the other hand, prescriptive grammarians (such as most editors and teachers) lay out rules about what they believe to be the “correct” or “incorrect” use of language。

　　Descriptive grammarians generally advise us not to be overly concerned with matters of correctness: language, they say, isn't good or bad; it simply is. As the history of the glamorous word grammar demonstrates, the English language is a living system of communication, a continually evolving affair. Within a generation or two, words and phrases come into fashion and fall out again. Over centuries, word endings and entire sentence structures can change or disappear.

　　Prescriptive grammarians prefer giving practical advice about using language: straightforward rules to help us avoid making errors. The rules may be over-simplified at times, but they are meant to keep us out of trouble--the kind of trouble that may distract or even confuse our readers.

　　【背景资料2】：

　　For the past half-century, these terms have served as useful labels for two contrasting approaches to the study of grammar and usage and especially to the teaching of these matters. They have also long served as epithets in the recurrent name-calling that quarreling over correctness, appropriateness, and permissiveness in language seems to elicit. The terms represent polar values: (1) A descriptive approach to language describes in full detail precisely how we use that language. The chief values of this approach are accuracy and an unretouched picture of usage, warts and all. (2) A prescriptive approach insists that however many variables might be found, there are better and worse choices; it will specify at least which is most appropriate, more likely which is acceptable, or, in its most rigorous application, which is correct. Clearly, the prescriptive approach is easier to teach—there is always one right answer; the descriptive approach may offer several possible answers, each appropriate in one or another context. This book uses both approaches. Users are seeking help, and they should find it. The problem is that a simplistic “correct” answer may seem helpful, but often when it appears to contradict users’ experience, they will either shrug off the prescription or find themselves unable to accept it. For example: to say succinctly that irregardless is not a word or at least that it ought to be treated as though it were not a word, is prescriptive. The “rule” being promulgated is: Don’t use irregardless; pretend it doesn’t exist, because, in fact, it’s not in Standard English. But, in fact, that’s not true. It is a word, and therefore it is in the dictionaries; many people use it, including some who in other respects speak Standard English. A descriptive account of the word will show who uses it and when, where, and why. Irregardless, it turns out, occurs regularly in Common and Vulgar English, but in Standard its only acceptable use is jocular. A descriptive account will end by pointing out that the inadvertent use of irregardless in Standard English can be a shibboleth. The prescriptive commentator then impatiently inquires, Why all the fuss? Why pussyfoot about? Just tell the world not to use irregardless—that’s simple, sound, and teachable. The descriptive commentator will offer at least two objections: (1) The word may be Substandard now, but you can’t be sure it won’t change in status. In fact it may be in the process of such change even now: it may be fading to an obsolete status (in which case we can stop talking about it), or it may someday become Standard. (2) Even more important, sometimes standard speakers do use irregardless; the issue is where and how. Even in spelling and pronunciation, where prescription may seem less problematic, description may sometimes be more nearly accurate. Prescription says judgment is the correct spelling, but description accurately points out that even Edited English considers judgement correct too. And although the teacher may prescribe DEK-uh-dent as the correct way to say decadent, the student will discover other teachers who say (also in Standard English) dee-KAI-dent. This book, as it must, uses both approaches, depending on the problem. See the entry on RULES AND GENERALIZATIONS for an account of the aptness of each approach to particular kinds of questions: Where real rules apply, prescription is the way to go. But much of grammar and most of usage require generalizations rather than rules, because what so often we must provide is some current best advice on a problem that is undergoing change even as we discuss it. Description faces up to complexity and raggedness and avoids simplistic glossing over of existing variation in pronunciations, forms, or meanings. Rigorous prescribers often charge describers with being permissive, and the countercharge of describers is that prescribers are simplistic, peddling half-truths and lies as though they were true. But in the end, a guide to usage must give advice, and so this manual prescribes for its users when it can. The difference is that it also explains such other experiences as users are likely to encounter and where possible explains what they mean. See also CONSERVATIVES IN LANGUAGE MATTERS; CONSERVATIVE USAGE; LIBERALS IN LANGUAGE MATTERS; LIBERAL USAGE; PURISTS.