A WP post of today on the Attraction Grammar and the forthcoming journal of The English Historical Review suggest that there is already a new form of orthodoxy.
Since it is of both that because it is of recent origin and because there is no generally accepted principle in which to determine what is descriptively correct and what is not, the prevailing orthodoxy seems to become an issue of mere a comparably personal taste and choice for individuals' judgement than the formal linguistics. The starting point of understanding the orthodoxy is then its commitment to relativism—intellectual, cultural, or moral wherein the paradoxicality is yet immediately apparent.
The orthodoxy, the term by itself, if not defined under religious ecclesiasity, is here no doubt difficult to define or understand, particularly in the context of non-canonical or prerogative conventions of academic disciplines in which literature reviews promote generally accepted norms and linguistic conventions.
So which style is to choose? Subjective?
The competing relativism no doubt reveals both an implicit and explicit tone for reasons. However, since relativistic thought, in principle, rejects any notion of absolutes, most importantly the notion of denying the existence or even the possibility of an objective truth, the new form of orthodoxy also seems to promote emotions and objective realty than thoughts in absolutes sense.
Then the revolution tends to be here attracted by abstracts that do not lie on the realm of formal descriptive patterns of academic discourse but on the inherent domain of the public discourse as the guardian to its orthodoxy.
More readership certainly.