There is an xkcd comic which deals with linguistic prescriptivism. For those not invested in the ongoing culture war surrounding grammar and linguistics, prescriptivism is the idea that there is a singular, ideal, correct version of language to which everyone ought adhere. This is distinct from linguistic descriptivism, which maintains that language is better thought of not as a set of rules, but as a set of norms; and that to try and enforce any kind of order on language is doomed to failure. In short, prescriptivism prescribes idealized rules, while descriptivism describes existing norms.
The comic presents a decidedly descriptivist worldview, tapping into the philosophical question of individual perception to make the point that language is inherently up to subjective interpretation, and therefore must vary from individual to individual. The comic also pokes fun at a particular type of behavior which has evolved into an Internet Troll archetype of sorts- the infamous Grammar Nazi. This is mostly an ad hominem, though it hints at another argument frequently used against prescriptivism; that attempts to enforce a universal language generally cause, or at least, often seem to cause, more contention, distress, and alienation than they prevent.
I am sympathetic to both of these arguments. I acknowledge that individual perceptions and biases create significant obstacles to improved communications, and I will agree, albeit with some reluctance and qualifications, that oftentimes, perhaps even in most cases, that the subtle errors and differences in grammar (NB: I use the term “grammar” here in the broad, colloquial sense, to include other similar items such as spelling, syntax, and the like) which one is liable to find among native speakers of a similar background do not cause significant confusion or discord to warrant the often contentious process of correction.
Nevertheless, I cannot accept the conclusion that these minor dissensions must necessarily cause us to abandon the idea of universal understanding. For that is my end goal in my prescriptivist tendencies: to see a language which is consistent and stable enough to be maximally accessible, not only to foreigners, but more importantly, to those who struggle in grappling with language to express themselves. This is where my own personal experience comes into the story. For, despite my reputation for sesquipedalian verbosity, I have often struggled with language, in both acute and chronic terms.
In acute terms, I have struggled with even basic speech during times of medical trauma. To this end, ensuring that communication is precise and unambiguous has proven enormously helpful, as a specific and unambiguous question, such as “On a scale of zero to ten, how much pain would you say you are currently experiencing?” is vastly easier to process and respond to than one that requires me to contextualize an answer, such as “How are you?”.
In chronic terms, the need to describe subjective experiences relies on keen use of precise vocabulary, which, for success, requires a strong command of language on the part of all parties involved. For example, the difference between feeling shaky, dizzy, lightheaded, nauseated, vertigo, and faint, are subtle, but carry vastly different implications in a medical context. Shaky is a buzzword for endocrinology, dizzy is a catch-all, but most readily associated with neurology, lightheadedness is referred to more often for respiratory, nausea has a close connection with gastroenterology, vertigo refers specifically to balance, which may be either an issue for Neurology, Ophthalmology, or an ENT specialist, and faintness is usually tied to circulatory problems.
In such contexts, these subtleties are not only relevant, but critical, and the casual disregard of these distinctions will cause material problems. The precise word choice used may, to use an example from my own experience, determine whether a patient in the ER is triaged as urgent, which in such situations may mean the difference between life and death. This is an extreme, albeit real, example, but the same dynamic can and will play out in other contexts. In order to prevent and mitigate such issues, there must be an accepted standard common to all for the meaning and use of language.
I should perhaps clarify that this is not a manifesto for hardcore prescriptivism. Such a standard is only useful insofar as it is used and accepted, and insofar as it continues to be common and accessible. Just as laws must from time to time be updated to reflect changes in society, and to address new concerns which were not previously foreseen, so too will new words, usages, and grammar inevitably need to be added, and obsolete forms simplified. But this does not negate the need for a standard. Descriptivism, labeling language as inherently chaotic and abandoning attempts to further understanding through improved communication, is a step backwards.