There are many different scientific approaches to language studies; one of them is the prescriptive method. This principle can generally be described as a set of rules that prescribe speaking or writing. Crystal (1987) notes that prescriptivism is a perspective that chooses one of the interpretations of a language as the standard and extends it to the entire society. This variation is most often found in formal speech and literature. An alternative perspective is a descriptive approach based not on standards but on the actual situation. The proponent of this method simply describes the facts of linguistic variousness (Crystal, 1987). They act as an observer, not constrained by the official framework.
Although these methods are opposite in meaning, each of them can be applied in the appropriate context. Crystal (1987) notes that exploring these methods often leads to an unrealistic depiction of the opposite side, the formation of prejudice and confrontation. However, both approaches should exist together, combining the positive aspects of each other. While the prescriptive approach allows the design of society to be arranged, the descriptive approach allows the recording of real language changes (Crystal, 1987). This, in turn, allows combining logic and the natural order of things.
However, not all language changes are received positively due to misconceptions. The clearest example is the belief that change means deterioration, as the old generation constantly complains (Crystal, 1987). In addition, language changes are associated with a decline in the quality of education and the negative impact of the media. Nevertheless, the author selects sufficient counterarguments to all these fears. The elders are always resentful of change, as evidenced by historical correspondence. Deterioration in the quality of education and social tension arises only if these changes occur abruptly.
Nevertheless, such cases are extremely rare, so I agree with these comments. As Crystal (1987) points out, it is common for the older generation to dislike the modern world, as evidenced by the literature. The influence of the media and the quality of education is not always necessarily linked to direct language changes. Therefore, my support for this position is based on the fact that people are usually afraid of change. Most people need the consistency of developed habits and methods in life. However, language change is a natural process that is not subject to official structures and is formed together with society and its most progressive members.