‘Some New Perspectives on Sound Change’
What is more common in language uniformity or variability?
Variability, because the history of a language is necessarily a history of variation.
What kinds of variability exist?
There are three kinds of variability: social, chronological and geographical.
How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?
Several factors influence us as historical, geographical, economical and political notions.
Saussure emphasized the importance of synchronic descriptions of languages rather than diachronic. He and his disciples (structuralists) focused on language at different periods as finite entities. Is this reasonable?
I don’t think so because a language is constantly changing and in order to understan the evolution of the language it would be better to study a language from a diachronic perspective.
The unattested states of language were seen as transitional stages in which the structure of a language was, as it were, disturbed. This made linguistic change look abnormal. Is it abnormal?
No, it isn’t. Languages are developing themselves constantly and they do that in order to adapt to the new situations.
Milroy (1992: 3) says “the equation of uniformity with structuredness or regularity is most evident in popular (non-professional) attitudes to language: one variety –usually a standard language – is considered to be correct and regular, and others –usually ‘non-standard’ dialects – are thought to be incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant. Furthermore, linguistic changes in progress are commonly perceived as ‘errors’. Thus although everyone knows that language is variable, many people believe that invariance is nonetheless to be desired, and professional scholars of language have not been immune to the consequences of these same beliefs.”
Can you think of any example of non-professional attitudes to your own language?
‘Me comío’, escribistes, asín.
Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?
Because he doesn’t totally agree with the non-professional ideas and people who criticise the use of word out of the ‘non-standard’ variety.
Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?
If they are being compared with a model as it is a standard variety, it could be said ‘yes’. But from my point of view I think they are just a determinated evolution of the language depending on the way a group of people speak in some places. Moreover, despite the fact this type of variation is non-standard, it’s correct as long as other collective understand you.
Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?
|
Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves |
Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves |
Although we coud think the second column is the incorrect because it doens’t fit with the grammatical norms it’s not incorrect but we use the first one as it is more ‘normative’.
“… much of the change generally accepted body of knowledge on which theories of change are based depends on quite narrow interpretations of written data and econtexutalized citation forms (whether written or spoken), rather than on observation of spoken language in context (situated speech). (Milroy 1992: 5) Why do you think this is so?
Any description of a language involves norms? Think of the descriptions of your own language. Why is this so? For example: He ate the pie already is considered to be non-standard in which variety of English and perfectly acceptable in which other?
I think this is true because if we look for a definition for the word ‘language’ we find that the definition includes the word ‘norms’. As this definiton from the Merriman webster says a language is a formal system of signs and symbols including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions. Moreover, depending on the context we can consider something acceptable or not. This is, we can consider acceptable ‘He ate the pie already’ if it is heard in a informal context as meeting with our friends is. But if we are in a more formal context it’s not acceptable and then we would use ‘He has already eaten the pie’.
What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?
Whilst a prescriptive grammar lays out rules about the structure of a language, a descriptive grammar deals with what the grammarian believes to be right and wrong, good or bad language use; not following the rules will generate incorrect language. Both types of grammar have their supporters and their detractors, which in all probability suggests that both have their strengths and weaknesses.
‘A prescriptive grammar is a set of norms or rules governing how a language should or should not be used rather than describing the ways in which a language is actually used.’
‘A descriptive grammar looks at the way a language is actually used by its speakers and then attempts to analyse it and formulate rules about the structure. Descriptive grammar does not deal with what is good or bad language use; forms and structures that might not be used by speakers of Standard English would be regarded as valid and included. It is a grammar based on the way a language actually is and not how some think it should be.’
http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/prescgramterm.htm
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/descriptive-grammar.html
Weinreich, Labov and Herzog’s (1968) empirical foundations of language change:
Constraints: what changes are possible and what are not
Embedding: how change spreads from a central point through a speech community
Evaluation: social responses to language change (prestige overt and covert attitudes to language, linguistic stereotyping and notions on correctness).
Transition: “the intervening stages which can be observed, or which must be posited, between any two forms of a language defined for a language community at different times” Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968: 101)
Actuation: Why particular changes take place at a particular time.
What do you think the “prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” mean? How are they opposed?
The ‘prestige motivation for change’ refers when we change our way of speaking in order to adecuate us to the environment. Language in most occasion make people classify others in social classes. Language in general is characteristic of one or other social layer. On the other hand a some languages tend to take English words for words that already exist in the other language. This is the case of the words ‘vestíbulo’ and ‘negocios’ in Spanish, which are being substitued by the English words ‘Hall’ and ‘Business’ because people think they are more fashionable and they looks more high-educated if they use them.
Moreover, the ‘solidarity constraint’ possibly refers to the type of situation in which people change their register according to the people to whom they are. this means that being with literature circle talking about ‘Aesthetic Revolutionaries’ is not the same than being with some hooligans in a football match. What we want here is to be accepted.
They are opposed because while the first one try to reach a level of correctness which fit with a certain class of the society, in the second one we change our vocabulary to adapt us and feel accepted by them. In this case we don’t mind to use slang words or not totally correct.
Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/.
This phenomenon is known as Rhotic and non Rhotic pronounciations: These terms were coined by the British phonetician John Wells. Non-rhotic accents are said to exclude [r] in th syllable coda. This is commonly referred to as postvocalic R, although that term can be misleading because not all R's that occur after vowels are excluded in non-rhotic English. Non-Rhotic speakers do not pronounce the letter r after vowels in words like world but rhotic speakers pronounce /r/ in all positions, including after a vowel.
The mainly rhotic and non-rhotic communities in the English-speaking world are:
- Rhotic. Canada; India; Ireland; south-western England; Scotland; the northern and western states of the US apart from the Boston area and New York City; Barbados.
- Non-rhotic. Black Africa; Australia; the Caribbean, except for Barbados; England apart, in the main, from the south-west; New Zealand; South Africa; the southern states, the Boston area of New England, and New York City vernacular speech; and Black English Vernacular in the US; Wales.
Most accents in the US are rhotic or becoming rhotic (Eastern New England is an exception) but the case of New York is especially interesting because of a classic study in sociolinguistics by William Labov showing that the non-rhotic accent is associated with older and lower-class speakers, and is being replaced by the rhotic accent.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-RHOTICANDNONRHOTIC.html
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Rhotic/
The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.
‘The father-bother merger is a merger of the Early Modern English vowels /ɑː/ and /ɒ/ that occurs in almost all varieties of North American English (exceptions are accents in northeastern New England such as the Boston Accent and in New York City. In those accents with the merger father and bother rhyme, and Kahn and con are homophonous as [kɑn]. Unrounding of EME /ɒ/ is found also in Norwich, the West Country, the West Midlands and in Hiberno English, but apparently with no phonemic merger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father-bother_merger#Father-bother_merger
Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?
To avoid mistakes of meaning between the doublets of words.
What is the biological metaphor in language change?
In the same way human beings have developed some part of the body to adapt them to their necessities, a language developes to adapt itself to the necessity of the speaker needs. Each generation has the necessity new concepts which maybe in the past the other generation didn’t have just because these concepts didn’t exist.
What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?
In trying to explain perhaps the most fundamental question in linguistic study, scholars have divided themselves into two camps. The question is why languages change, and members of the two camps promote either internal or external explanations. Those in favor of internal/language-inherent explanations focus solely upon structural or psychological motivations and argue that linguistic change is motivated by, for example, an inherent drive for structural regularity, functional economy, or naturalness. This view is espoused most clearly in the work of Martinet (1952, 1955), who argues for just such a functional view of sound change in which factors such as the phonological drive for symmetry play a crucial role. A more recent and, in the case of the present research, particularly relevant example of a purely internally based explanation of sound change is given in Hawkins's (1976) account of the shift of the New Zealand English short front vowels.
In contrast to this structural approach, proponents of external explanations claim that it is not possible to understand linguistic innovation and change within an internal vacuum. Rather, it is necessary to examine the historical and social factors that co-occur with linguistic shifts. It is widely recognized that the seminal work in this area is Labov's (1972) analysis of variation and change on Martha's Vineyard. Labov found that patterns of centralization in the diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/ could only be explained by examining the social context in which the linguistic changes were taking place, and particularly by making reference to the social characteristics of the speakers (their attitudes, affections, and aspirations) involved in the change.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb195/is_5_39/ai_n28876955
Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph or chapter?
The Neogrammarians' main contention was that language change was systematic: for example, the fact that Latin pisces (fish), tenuis (thin), and centum (100) correspond to the OE words fisc, þyn, hund(red), means that, normally, any word beginning in p-, t- or c- (=k-) in Latin would have f-, þ- or h- if it appeared in Old English. This is because the Indo European voiceless stops p,t,k remained unchanged in Latin, but became voiceless fricatives in Germanic.
http://www3.hi.is/~peturk/KENNSLA/11/TOPICS/01neogrammarians.html
Lexical diffusion is both a phenomenon and a theory. The phenomenon is that by which a phoneme is modified in a subset of the lexicon, and spreads gradually to other lexical items. For example, in English, /uː/ has changed to /ʊ/ in good and hood but not in food; some dialects have it in hoof and roof but others do not; in flood and blood it happened early enough that the words were affected by the change of /ʊ/ to /ʌ/, which is now no longer productive.
The related theory, proposed by William Wang in 1969 is that all sound changes originate in a single word or a small group of words and then spread to other words with a similar phonological make-up, but may not spread to all words in which they potentially could apply. The theory of lexical diffusion stands in contrast to the Neogrammarian hypothesis that a given sound change applies simultaneously to all words in which its context is found. William Labov, in Principles of Linguistic Change, takes the position that there are two types of sound changes: regular sound change (respecting the Neogrammarian hypothesis) and lexical diffusion. Labov lists a typology, according to which certain phenomena are typically or exclusively regular (example, vowel quality changes), while others (example, metathesis, or vowel shortening) tend to follow a lexical diffusion pattern.
Paul kiparsky, in the Handbook of Phonology (Goldsmith editor), argues that under a proper definition of analogy as optimization, lexical diffusion is not a type of sound change. Instead, Kiparsky claims it is similar to leveling, in that it is a non-proportional type of analogy.
Considering these two definitions we can conclude that Neogrammarians and lexical difussion are opposed terms which both refer to the language. This is the reason why both appear in the same entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_diffusion
Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?
With sufficient reason it has been said, ‘like cows, social norms are easier to recognize than to define’ (Basu 1998). Social norms are the motley of informal, often unspoken rules, guides and standards of behavior the authority for which is vague if not diffuse, and the communal sanction for which can be swift and cutting. These nonlegal rules and obligations are followed and fulfilled in part because failure to do so brings upon the transgressor such social sanctions as induced feelings of guilt or shame, gossip, shunning, ostracism, and not infrequently, violence. In one sense, to be sure, their authority and power is that of ‘the group,’ i.e., relations between individuals, multiplicity of relations, and relations among those relations (cf. Caws 1984). And that group is phenomenologically captured with ‘the Look’ of ‘the Other,’ the Look symbolizing those sanctions for norm violation that entail a disparaging glance or expression of disapproval or disgust, often as a prelude to shunning, ostracism or violence. This is one reason effective norms typically have strong roots in the soil of small groups and communities, as sanctions are ready at hand and swiftly applied.
Duing to the lack of knwoledge of the norms applied to language children to make errors speaking. This is the case of the participle of the verb ‘hacer’. In Spanish is ‘hecho’ and kids tend to say ‘hacido’ applying the regular norm of forminf participles in Spanish.
slips of the tongue are errors involving the uttering (Versprechen), or hearing (Verhören), or writing (Verschreiben), or reading (Verlesen) of a word and which entail an involuntary parody of the word, assuming the word is known. This kind of slip is an ordinary occurrence but is structurally related to the paraphasias found in pathological conditions.
Freud became interested in slips and word play in 1890, and discussed them in his correspondence with Wilhelm Fliess. Both resemble dreams in that they are part of normal behavior although they introduce an incongruous and, in the case of slips of the tongue and dreams, an involuntary element. Freud's interest arose from his conviction that it would be impossible to understand psychopathological processes without having a clear notion of their relation to normal mental processes. It was in The Psycho-pathology of Everyday Life (1901b) that he provided the first and most complete discussion of slips of the tongue, but he discussed them again at length in the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1916-1917a [1915-1917]).
In The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Freud made use of an earlier, essentially functionalist work on slips of the tongue and reading errors (Meringer and Mayer, 1895), which he contrasted with his own theory. He eliminated two hypothesis: that of the "contamination” of the sound of one word by another and that of "wandering" speech images, which interested Freud to the extent that these disturbances were located below the threshold of consciousness (1901b, pp. 57-58). Using numerous examples, some of which are undeniably comical, Freud illustrated the way in which repressed drives return in the disturbance of language.
Slips during reading and writing are not structurally different from those that occur in hearing or speaking, and the same motives are found in both, either libidinal or hostile. But slips provide infinite forms of expression for those drives, while disguising them, and some require a complex effort of interpretation that presupposes familiarity with the life and memories of their author. In general, slips of the pen are not as readily noticed by their authors as slips of the tongue.
Freud sums up the character of slips of the tongue as follows in the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis: "the suppression of the speaker's intention to say something is the indispensable condition for the occurrence of a slip of the tongue." However, the intention can be conscious or unconscious and still produce a slip. "In almost every case in which a slip of the tongue reverses the sense, the disturbing intention expresses the contrary to the disturbed one and the parapraxis represents a conflict between two incompatible inclinations."
Slips are especially interesting when they lead us, in trying to understand them, to dissociate the sound (the signifier) from the meaning contained in the word (the signified). The same was true for the most famous parapraxis made by Freud, forgetting the name Signorelli, to which Jacques Lacan (1966) devoted an entire essay. We find in both word play and jokes, as in slips or the forgetting of names, a complex dynamic and the same processes (displacement and condensation) that Freud showed to be operative in dreams, whose relevance for the study of the unconscious he recognized. Listening for slips of our own often has an immediate revelatory component, similar to that of the patient who hears himself say things that are unknown and yet familiar during the course of analysis.
http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol9.2/Odonnell.html