| what does "prescriptive regulation" mean to you? regulations that give "closed" instructions
Explanation:
I have come across this quite frequently in connection with construction contracts, where a prescriptive condition gives a detailed specification of what is to be done, e.g. telling you exactly what materials and equipment to use, giving exact sizes etc. A non-prescriptive condition would be performance-based, laying down what is to be achieved but leaving open the detail of how it is to be achieved.
uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061101142728AA2W9dl
" ... Act 1974 sets the basis for regulation of health and safety. It provides a non-prescriptive regime of general duties to keep the risks arising from ... "
www.stb07.com/management/performance-based-standards.html
"Non-Prescriptive Standards, A prescriptive standard is one that specifies exactly what has to be done — it provides no flexibility. For example, a rule may requir"
"In the literature, the terminology used to describe specification methods is varied and confused. Items in a specification are either performance-based (open), or prescriptive (closed). A specification is likely to contain a mix of such items. Proprietary specifications are the most closed (i.e. least room for manoeuvre by contractor, most responsibility taken by specifier). Silence is the most open form of ‘specification’.
http://www.thenbs.com/training/educator/specification/specIn...
Specification text can be either bespoke (custom-written) by the specifier, or it can pre-exist and be cited (referenced) by the specifier."
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2014-02-12 08:31:08 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Ignore the line below "
http://www.thenbs.com/training/educator/specification/specIn... which I meant to delete. That link relates to the text above it.
| B D Finch
France
Local time: 14:01
Works in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 16
|
|
3 hrs confidence:   peer agreement (net): +1 | what does "prescriptive regulation" mean to you? 'telling what to do' (no thinking!)
Explanation:
prescriptive = just do it
restrictive = don't do it
advisory = make a judgement
Various roadsign types are good examples.
My take on the text is that there are more issues to be considered than are already covered by routine 'follow this' regulations. These may include if-then, conditional rules, just-in-case rules for creating a safety margin, etc.
"Think!" is more than just a prescriptive regulation. It can be followed, but the outcomes are still diverse, are capability based. Yet, they are generally better than not thinking. Napoleonic regimentation and blind obedience being the alternative ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2014-02-12 09:54:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I think "The definition of a reference tunnel for comparing structural measures with alternative safety systems may consider systems reliability and efficiency that may not be found in prescriptive regulations." IMHO means that the construction considerations and standards here may go "above and beyond" (although not literally!) whatever construction and operation regulations are prescribed.
| Václav Pinkava
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:01
Native speaker of:  Czech, English
|
| |
2 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +2 | what does "prescriptive regulation" mean to you? "prescriptive" is used here non-restrictively
Explanation:
"Prescriptive" does not have a special meaning here. It means what it usually means, which is what Catharine has said: giving instructions about what must be done.
The reason I have added another answer is that I suspect this doesn't really answer your question, since you presumably knew that "prescriptive" means this (any dictionary will tell you). But why do they say "prescriptive" regulations? Aren't all regulations prescriptive? Can there be non-prescriptive regulations?
This puzzled me too. I assumed that "prescriptive" here was a tautology — superfluous. The meaning would be the same if they had omitted "prescriptive" and simply put "that may not be found in regulations"; but I wondered why it had been added. So I looked on the Internet and found what I think must be the document you are working on. This clarifies the question. (I won't post a reference to it because I imagine it may be confidential.)
It is about the safety of tunnels, and the whole lengthy document is based on a distinction between the prescriptive approach to tunnel safety, based on laying down rules that have to be complied with, and other approaches. The prescriptive approach, establishing regulations, has shortcomings. The regulations do not take the individual characteristics of a particular tunnel into account, and do not eliminate all risk. The argument is not that regulations (on tunnel design and construction) are unnecessary, but that they are insufficient, and must be supplemented by practical experience and risk analysis of the specific tunnel.
The context you have posted, as Tony has commented, expresses this idea: it refers to the limitations of regulations for ensuring safety. The reference tunnel reveals aspects of reliability and efficiency that are not addressed by regulations.
So the adjective "prescriptive" is being used non-restrictively. It is not distinguishing prescriptive regulations from some other kind of regulations. It is effectively saying "regulations, which are (by definition) prescriptive", and contrasting this with other methods (which are not prescriptive: not fixed in advance). "Prescriptive" is included not to add information but to invoke a concept that has been present all through the discussion.
There's another possibility: perhaps prescriptive regulations are being contrasted with non-prescriptive regulations, meaning practical principles derived from analysis and experience. This is, in fact, part of the point being made, but I don't think the document supports this reading. To call practical principles of this kind "regulations" would be very forced, and this word is consistently used in the document in its proper sense of prescriptive rules laid down in advance and applicable to all tunnels.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2014-02-12 07:47:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
This non-restrictive use of adjectives is not marked in English. It is marked in some languages, such as Spanish, where (as a general rule) restrictive adjectives follow the noun and non-restrictive adjectives precede it. But the principle involved is marked in English relatives (when properly) used. If we say "regulations, which are prescriptive", we are describing the nature of regulations, saying, in effect, that all regulations are prescriptive: this is a non-restrictive relative. If we say "regulations that are prescriptive" we are referring to a particular kind of regulations and contrasting them with those that are not prescriptive: this is a restrictive relative. The use of "prescriptive" in your text corresponds to the first type, not the second.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2014-02-12 08:07:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Here's a reference to supplement the point I've been making:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective#Restrictiveness
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2014-02-12 08:58:59 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with the spirit of what B D Finch and Václav have said, but as I have said, I don't think the use of "prescriptive" here involves an implicit contrast with some other kind of regulations. In other words, I don't think what they are saying is a correct linguistic explanation of this expression.
The writer (I am drawing here on the wider context) is not arguing that we need regulations of a different kind, non-prescriptive regulations, in order to ensure tunnel safety. He/she is arguing that we need regulations, which are prescriptive, plus other things, which are not prescriptive. These other things are various procedures, including risk analysis, specific to the particular tunnel. It can and should be laid down in advance that these things should be done, but what they will involve in particular cases cannot be specified in advance.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2014-02-12 09:10:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In this context, regulations (on tunnel design and construction) are not contractual specifications but legal requirements: quantified minimum standards laid down for all tunnels. There is no suggestion here that "closed" regulations should be replaced with "open" ones, that say, in effect, "do whatever is necessary to ensure that the tunnel is safe". In matters of public safety, regulators are not going to leave constructors that degree of discretion; they have to ensure that minimum standards are maintained. But merely meeting these minimum standards will never be enough, so regulations alone are not enough.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 hrs (2014-02-12 16:53:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry to extend what is already a very long answer, but B D Finch's cogent and documented argument that there are such things as non-prescriptive regulations calls for further clarification.
The notion that the author is distinguishing between prescriptive and non-prescriptive regulations could be sustained on the basis of this sentence alone, but not in the context of the whole document. As I said before, regulations (and guidelines) are consistently equated with a prescriptive approach, and contrasted with a"risk-based approach". Here is the passage where the idea is introduced:
"In the past in many countries the safety design of road tunnels to a great extent was based upon regulations and guidelines: if the applicable prescriptions of relevant guidelines were fulfilled the tunnel was regarded as safe. [...]
However, this prescriptive approach has some shortcomings which are particularly evident in accidents exceeding the range of existing operational experience:
- Even if a tunnel fulfils all regulative requirements it has a residual risk which is not obvious and not specifically addressed
- A prescriptive approach defines a certain standard of tunnel equipment etc. but is not suited to take the specific conditions of an individual tunnel into account.
Hence, in addition to the prescriptive approach, especially for complex systems a supplement is needed which specifically addresses emergency situations: a risk-based approach."
At no point does the document envisage any kind of regulations that are not prescriptive; "regulations" and "prescription" are treated throughout as synonyms. Therefore the idea of non-prescriptive regulations is irrelevant; it forms no part of the author's scheme of ideas.
| Charles Davis
Spain
Local time: 14:01
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 80
|
| | Grading comment | Your clear explanation and detailed research helped me a lot. thanks you very much! |
|
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also: Search millions of term translations
You can request verification for native languages by completing a simple application that takes only a couple of minutes.
Review native language verification applications submitted by your peers. Reviewing applications can be fun and only takes a few minutes.
View applications
|
|
|
