Questions 1 – Milroy. Language change and variation

Ø What is more common in language uniformity or variability?

Language is variable. Languages are never uniform entities; they can be observed to vary geographically and socially, and according to the situational contexts in which they are used. The idea that language is uniform has also penetrated into the roots of theory, and much of the linguistic theory of this century has been based on the perceived need to treat language as if it were uniform and static.

Ø What kinds of variability exist?

Synchronic variability: focused on states of language at given times as finite entities.

Historical or diachronic variability: relegated to a subsidiary roles and was often conceived of as an exercise in comparing these finite states of language at different times.

Geographical variability.

Ø How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?

The language is the system of communication of speech and writing that is used by people of a particular country or area, while the dialect is the form of a language that is spoken in one area with grammar, words and pronunciation that may be different from other forms of the same language.

Ø Saussure emphasized the importance of synchronic descriptions of languages rather than diachronic. He and is disciples (structuralists) focused on language at different periods as finite entities. Is this reasonable?

Yes, because we want to come closer to understanding why and how languages change, and it is easier to analyse a still photograph and a historical description to a comparison of a series of still photographs taken at different times.The history of language is a continuous process.

Ø 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?

If linguistic change were abnormal state of affairs, this would not be an unreasonable way to look at language: change could then be seen as something that strikes a language from time like a disease.

Ø 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?

Ø Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?

He uses ‘scare quotes’ because he is using some words as metaphors or he is talking about ideas he isn’t agree with.

Ø Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?

It depends on consensus among speakers within the community or communities concerned and will differ from one community to another. It is not ungrammatically, only there is a change in the norms of usage for some part of the community. Language descriptions are normative because to be accurate they have to coincide as closely as possible with the consensus norms of the community concerned while the dialect reflects the socially agreed norms of some particular community of speakers.

Ø Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves

Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves

The first one is more irregular and the second one is more regular because it is formed with the personal possessive. However the correct one is the first one.

Ø “… 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?

Ø 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?

Ø What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?

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://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/descriptive-grammar.html

A prescriptive grammar lays out rules about the structure of a language. Unlike a descriptive grammar it 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.

http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/prescriptive-grammar.html

Ø 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.

Ø What do you think the “prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” mean? How are they opposed?

‘Prestige’ motivation is to adopt RP forms while the solidarity constraint requires the speaker to conform to local community norms rather than to norms that are viewed as ‘external’.

Ø Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/ The change from long āto ōin some dialects of English.

Ø Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?

Ø What is the biological metaphor in language change?

Ø What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?

Internal history typically focusing on sound-change and morphological change. The external history of the language discussing speakers-attitudes to variation as they were expressed by seventeenth- and eighteenth century commentators. Both of these appoaches can of course yield insights;however, it is commonly believed that the external history is relatively unimportant.

Ø Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph or chapter?

Ø Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?