8th International Prescriptivism Conference
24-26 June 2026
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Venue: HOEK 38 (in the center of Brussels)
Theme: Prescriptivism: Beyond Norms and Usage
Keynote speakers:
- Anne Curzan (University of Michigan)
Prescriptivism, Education, and the Public: Lessons Learned - Emma Humphries (Queen’s University Belfast)
From 19th-century letters to 21st-century social media: Strategies of critique and justification in language commentary on French - Linda Pillière (Aix-Marseille Université)
Prescriptivism through the back door: How standard language ideology is perpetuated in popular culture - Loreta Vaicekauskienė (Vilniaus universitetas)
The tyranny of the red pen: Prescriptivism and politics
Call for papers
We are delighted to announce that the 8th Prescriptivism Conference will be hosted by Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and will take place at HOEK 38, in the city centre of Brussels, on 24-26 June 2026.
Building on the success of previous conferences held in Sheffield (2003), Ragusa (2006), Toronto (2009), Leiden (2013), Park City, Utah (2017), Vigo (2021), and Aix-en-Provence (2024), this edition continues the tradition of exploring prescriptivism in its many historical, cultural, and linguistic manifestations.
The theme of the 2026 conference is: Prescriptivism: Beyond Norms and Usage
With this theme, we aim to shift the focus beyond the conventional view of prescriptivism as the unidirectional imposition of norms on language use. Instead, we seek to foreground the dynamic interplay between norms and usage by attending to the roles of contexts, ideology, policy, and agency.
We welcome papers examining prescriptivism across languages and periods, and from a range of perspectives. Topics may include, but are not limited to:
- Prescriptivism and ideologies, agencies, and actors
- Prescriptivism and identity
- Prescriptivism and language planning
- Prescriptivism and standardization
- Prescriptivism and language teaching and pedagogy
- Prescriptivism and minority languages
- Prescriptivism in media, politics, and public discourse
- Methods and approaches to the study of prescriptivism
The conference plenary speakers are:
- Anne Curzan (University of Michigan)
Prescriptivism, Education, and the Public: Lessons Learned - Emma Humphries (Queen’s University Belfast)
From 19th-century letters to 21st-century social media: Strategies of critique and justification in language commentary on French - Linda Pillière (Aix-Marseille Université)
Prescriptivism through the back door: How standard language ideology is perpetuated in popular culture - Loreta Vaicekauskienė (Vilniaus universitetas)
The tyranny of the red pen: Prescriptivism and politics
We welcome proposals for individual papers and posters. Paper presentations will consist of a 20-minute talk followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Posters will be presented in a dedicated session during the conference.
Please submit an abstract with a maximum of 400 words (including title and references). Indicate clearly at the top of your abstract whether your submission is intended as a paper or a poster. Abstracts must be fully anonymized. Authors are allowed to submit two abstracts if at least one of them is co-authored.
Abstract submission is via EasyChair at https://easychair.org/conferences?conf=prescriptivism2026. The deadline for submission of abstracts is 1 December 2025.
For further updates and practical information, please visit: historicalsociolinguistics.be/prescriptivism2026
We look forward to welcoming you to Brussels in June 2026!
Timeline
Previous editions
-
2003, Sheffield:Histories of prescriptivism. Alternative approaches to the study of English 1700-1900
-
2006, Ragusa
-
2009 Toronto:Linguistic prescriptivism and patriotism: from nationalism to globalization
-
2013 Leiden:Prescriptivism and Tradition
-
2017, Park City, Utah:Value(s) of Language Prescriptivism
-
2021, Vigo, Spain (online):Modelling Prescriptivism: Language, Literature, and Speech Communities
-
2024, Aix-en-Provence:Transmitting Prescriptivism and Norms
Organizers
Main organizers:
Eline Lismont, Nelle Simonet, Rik Vosters
Vrije Universiteit Brussel & Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO)
Scientific committee:
Carol Percy (University of Toronto)
Chiara Monaco (Ghent University)
Chris De Wulf (Universiteit Antwerpen)
Don Chapman (Brigham Young University)
Ian Cushing (Manchester Metropolitan University)
Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Leiden University)
Jane Hodson (University of Sheffield)
Javier Calle Martin (Universidad de Málaga)
Jenny Brumme (Universidad Pompeu Fabra)
Joan Beal (University of Sheffield)
Kate Burridge (Monash University)
Lieselotte Anderwald (University of Kiel)
Machteld De Vos (Radboud University)
Marco Wiemann (University of Kiel)
Morana Lukač (Groningen University)
Nicola McLelland (University of Nottingham)
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza (Universidade de Vigo)
Olivia Walsh (University of Nottingham)
Petar Vuković (University of Zagreb)
Spiros Moschonas (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens)
Theresa Heyd (University of Heidelberg)
Viktorija Kostadinova (University of Amsterdam)
Sponsors
-
- TBA
Plenary speakers
Anne Curzan (University of Michigan)
Prescriptivism, Education, and the Public: Lessons Learned
For more than two decades, I have been working through a fundamental question facing linguists studying prescriptivism: How can we effectively challenge deeply entrenched ideologies of language correctness in both education and the public discourse? The question asks us to consider the language we ourselves use and the relationship of academic research and public scholarship.
An important step in challenging ideologies of language correctness has been the historical work to reveal how these ideologies developed and have been perpetuated, as well as the comparative work to understand how usage does and does not correspond to prescriptive guidance. This research provides a critical foundation to challenge the status quo. At the same time, we as linguists and educators must provide viable, persuasive alternatives for how to think and talk about language “correctness,” how to teach–or not—standardized English, and how to encourage language curiosity over gate-keeping.
The previous sentence, and its call to linguists to provide a viable alternative, assumes a prescriptive enterprise in our public scholarship, in the spirit of Deborah Cameron’s argument in Verbal Hygiene that we should ask not whether to prescribe but “who prescribes for whom, what they prescribe, how, and for what purposes” (11). This talk, focused on the U.S. context, considers current debates about teaching standardized English in writing classrooms and the ideologies that linguists and non-linguists share and don’t share about standard and nonstandard varieties, “grammar,” and prescriptive rules about what constitutes “good usage.” I then offer lessons learned from my experiences as a public-facing linguist and higher education leader about what is required to intervene effectively and present a different path forward.
Emma Humphries (Queen’s University Belfast)
From 19th-century letters to 21st-century social media: Strategies of critique and justification in language commentary on French
France is often considered to be a ‘special case’ of prescriptivism, in some ways more extreme than in other geographical contexts. In part, this is due to the long history of codifying and metalinguistic texts produced on the French language. Studying the texts which form part of this tradition provides insight into how language is viewed and portrayed. In particular, analysis of the imagery, tropes and metalanguage used in language commentary reveals the extent to which the judgements and comments made are underpinned by prescriptivism.
Given the longevity of the genre of language commentary, examining it across two or more time periods offers an important perspective on the evolution of linguistic ideology. A diachronic, comparative approach makes it possible to trace both stability and change in attitudes towards standard and non-standard language varieties and in constructions of linguistic authority. It also allows us to observe how tropes first used by seventeenth-century grammarians are reused by nineteenth-century language experts and reinterpreted by twenty-first-century bloggers. Essentially, we will explore how similar or different the strategies of critique and justification of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ usages are in nineteenth-century language advice publications compared to twenty-first-century social media commentary.
To address this question, I will draw on four dialogic sources (Le Courrier de Vaugelas (1868–1881), Courrier des internautes (2011–2017), Langue sauce piquante (2004–2017), and Bescherelle ta mère (2018–2019)). This focuses the discussion on two key periods of societal change in France. The late nineteenth century saw the introduction of free, compulsory education; the twenty-first century has witnessed the rise of digital platforms that democratise linguistic discourse. Importantly, the use of dialogic forms of language commentary offers us two viewpoints: not only that of language ‘experts’ (which we can similarly access in traditional monologic metalinguistic texts), but also that of the audience, comprising readers ranging from language enthusiasts through to the elusive ‘ordinary’ language users.
Linda Pillière (Aix-Marseille Université)
Prescriptivism through the back door: How standard language ideology is perpetuated in popular culture
While grammars and usage guides explicitly promote “correct” forms of language, there exist numerous covert manifestations which operate more subtly and of which the linguistic community remains unaware. This presentation will explore how standard language ideology is perpetuated within mainstream fiction, both through the interventions of copy editors, but also within the narratives themselves where characters correct one another or where other varieties of language or accents are presented as “nonstandard”. Finally, reference will be made to films and TV series where one variety is also presented as “correct”, thus shaping public attitudes towards language variety. In all these instances, prescriptive attitudes are reproduced and reinforced even in the absence of explicit reference to formal linguistic rules.
Loreta Vaicekauskienė (Vilniaus universitetas)
The tyranny of the red pen: Prescriptivism and politics
This talk explores prescriptivism as a political tool. At its centre are school-based corrections of language ‘errors,’ examined through a broader lens of cultural policy and language teachers’ professional identity.
Prescriptive practices are universally sustained not only by the myth of declining literacy but also by the modernist belief that language can be fully standardised and by the conflation of linguistic ‘correctness’ with nationhood. Under certain conditions, these sensitive ideological points can be instrumentalised in the pursuit of political power. Drawing on data from the Lithuanian language community, the talk shows how language ideologies and policies are reshaped under totalitarian regimes, with educators made agents of their implementation.
Alongside the analysis of educational discourses and teachers’ attitudes, the study draws on a database of authentic school essays spanning almost seven decades since WWII. The collection includes more than 7,500 files annotated by year of writing, grade level, evaluation, and other criteria, representing the writing of nearly 950 Lithuanian pupils – from primary school to upper secondary level. This corpus offers an ideal basis for comparing the normalisation of literacy under differing political conditions.
Qualitative and quantitative data on the correction of various types of language ‘errors’ suggest that Soviet totalitarianism enacted prescriptivism as an instrument of discipline and power. While in the West normative grammar teaching was gradually replaced by utilitarian, communication-oriented didactics, on the other side of the Berlin Wall prescriptivism was embedded in the pseudo-scientific discipline of Sprachkultur, and the teaching of linguistic expression became highly error-focused. Yet the more surprising finding is that post-totalitarian democracy did not bring democracy into education: it failed to adopt the linguistically-informed and emancipatory approaches to language teaching introduced elsewhere after 1990. The totalitarian ideology was absorbed into the new political order by further formalising the idea of linguistic correctness and adapting it to the new technocratic demands of national testing. This likely explains the marked rise in the number of corrections observed during this period. Thus, although over time the colour of pencils gradually shifted to green, language teachers’ professionalism remains dominated by the mechanistic application of prescriptive rules, mixed with romantic nostalgia and the post-1990 linking of normativity with patriotism.
The talk concludes with a discussion of the limits of prescriptivism-based pedagogy and the consequences of ‘error hunting’ for young people’s self-perception as literate individuals.