Questions: Milroy’s view on language change and variation
What is more common in language uniformity or variability?
Variability because, as everyone knows, one of the key features of human language is that it is constantly changing in time. Furthermore, we can also observe that languages tend to vary depending on the circumstances in which they are spoken or written, so that not only do they change in the course of history, but also we can notice change from a synchronic perspective. Taking all this into account, it becomes obvious that language is more related to the notion of “change” and “variability” than to that of “uniformity”.
What kinds of variability exist?
According to J. Milroy (1992: 1), languages “can be observed to vary geographically and socially, and according to the situational contexts in which they are used”. This phenomenon takes place, as Milroy himself states, “at any given time”, that is to say, from a synchronic point of view (the diachronic changes of language are explained earlier in the text). Thus, following Milroy, we can distinguish between four kinds of variability applied to language:
How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?
It is a well-known fact that language is essentially a means of communication between members belonging to a particular speech community. Hence, if a particular group of speakers are observed to share a common linguistic code which allows them to communicate with one another, and this code can be distinguished from other ones by the common set of linguistic features (related to grammar, phonology and so on) that characterise it, then we can say that this particular group belongs to a particular language or, more specifically, to a particular dialect of this language.
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?
No, it isn’t. As we have already said, language is continuously changing, and must then be seen as a variable structure rather than a perfectly uniform, stable one. If we followed the Saussurean view, and began to consider states of languages at different times as “finite” entities, we would be thinking of language as a perfectly stable system at certain times, and this would contradict the real nature of language, intimately linked to the notion of variation.
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?
Linguistic change isn’t at all abnormal; on the contrary, what is abnormal is to see languages as uniform structures bearing in mind that, as Milroy (1992: 1) himself claims, “change seems to be inherent in the nature of language”. It is true that Saussurean structuralism can lead to think of a language as a finite entity at some times and a mistaken entity at other times (the unattested states of language, considered to be transitional). But there is no such thing as a transitional stage taking into account that linguistic change is always in progress, that all languages are transitional languages, and that Saussurean stable states of languages are no less than idealisations.
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?
I think that the term non-professional, when applied to a particular attitude towards language, refers to that of the average people who speaks a language, and excludes that of those people who see language as an object of study (i.e. who are linguists or professional scholars of language). Then, it is in informal registers, and particularly in spoken communication, when we can find a major number of non-professional attitudes to language, since they tend to include many of the varieties of language that are typically seen as “incorrect” or “deviant”. In Spanish, for example, there is a growing tendency in spoken discourse to use of the pronoun “la dije” instead of “le dije”, although this construction is still considered to be “erroneous” according to the “standard” norms of language.
Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?
Because he wants to emphasise the fact that the multiple varieties of a language must never be considered “non-standard” or “errors” in the correct sense of the terms. According to Milroy’s view, we must always bear in mind that language is variable, and that there is no such thing as a unique, stable, and perfectly uniform “standard” language that would serve as a prescriptive model of correctness to other “non-standard” varieties of language.
Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?
No, they aren’t. Taking into account the fact that language is variable, it becomes clear that all dialects are correct since irregularity and change are inherent to the essence of language, and thus there is not a stable, “correct” and “standard” dialect upon which the other “incorrect” dialects should be based.
Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?
|
Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves |
Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves |
The first one, because it uses the prefixes “him” and “them” in the 3rd person singular (masculine) and the 3rd person plural, instead of using the prefixes “his” and “their” respectively. This latter system, which can be found in the second table, is more regular taking into account that the rest of the forms are also the result of adding the possessive pronoun (my, your, her, our) to the reflexive suffix “self”. However, as everyone knows, the only system which would be accepted as standard and “regular” in English is the first one; this fact shows that the belief that there is a unique standard, correct and “regular” variety of language is quite wrong.
“… much of the generally accepted body of knowledge on which theories of change are based depends on quite narrow interpretations of written data and decontextualized 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?
Because, although historical linguists have generally emphasised the importance of spoken discourse throughout the history of language, traditionally there were no technological means to investigate and analyse spoken language very thoroughly, and so the observation of spoken discourse in context has been rather limited.
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?
Yes, it is. As Milroy (1992: 6) points out, “A full description of the structure of a variety can only be successfully made if quite substantial decisions, or judgements, of a social kind are taken into account in the description.” These “decisions of a social kind” are no less than the “norms” of the language, if we understand these norms as being the result of social consensus among speakers within the speech community. Taking all this into account, it is undeniable the fact that an accurate description of a language must coincide with the norms that are agreed on socially by speakers of the language.
However, these norms must never be understood as being prescriptive; the accuracy of a description does not depend on the grammaticality of what is described, but it is a matter of accurately describing what is spoken, no matter how “ungrammatical” it is. For example, if we take the sentence “He ate the pie already”, we observe the [past tense + just/already] collocation, which is frequently used in American, Irish and Scottish English. In British (southern) English, however, it is more usual the occurrence of these adverbs with the perfect tense, as found in the sentence “He has eaten the pie already”. Therefore, it can be said that the sentence “He ate the pie already” would be considered non-standard in the latter case (in the sense that it is not agreed on socially by speakers) and perfectly acceptable in the former case.
What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?
Descriptive grammars aim at reflecting as accurately as possible the socially agreed norms of some particular community of speakers; they merely observe what is spoken or written, without giving any advice about how it should be spoken. In contrast, prescriptive grammars attempt to decide how people in a community ought to speak, by determining what is correct in a language and what is not. As Milroy (1992: 9) states, it is “the distinction between observing a norm for descriptive purposes and enforcing a norm prescriptively”.
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” occurs when a speech community adopts norms from another community which is highly respected and admired, and so considered to be more important or prestigious. On the other hand, the “solidarity constraint” occurs when speakers decide to maintain their local community norms rather than to incorporate forms that are viewed as “external”. Therefore, it becomes clear what is the difference between these two concepts; whereas the “prestige motivation for change” implies the adoption of foreign forms that are seen as prestigious, the “solidarity constraint” rejects the incorporation of these “external” forms and requires speakers to conform to their native forms.
Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/ The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.
Traditional studies of sound-change have generally focused on the “change” of sound-segments across time. They think of linguistic change as a change from A to B in a particular lexical set, such as in the case of post-vocalic /r/ in New York City or in the change of the long vowel [a:] to [o:].
The case of post-vocalic /r/ in New York City is an example of prestige motivation for change. In the United States, the most frequent and prestigious pronunciation (and thus considered to be standard) is that of pronouncing the /r/ after long vowels at the end of a word, such as in car [ka:r]. Nonetheless, in New York City the traditional norm has always been that of dropping the /r/ in such words – hence car [ka:]. Despite this, a growing tendency to pronounce the /r/ in such cases has been observed in the city – of course, this is due to a reason of prestige.
Now, let us focus on the second case of sound-change. The long vowel [a:] can be found in Old English words like stān and hām, but in the course of time it became an [o:] like in Present English stone and home. Some studies have demonstrated the northward progress of [o:] that took place in the Middle English period; however, it was not a uniform progress since the “new” rounded vowel has penetrated further northward in the west, that is, in Lancashire and the West Riding, than in the east, that is, in Lincolnshire.
Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PresE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?
Because it seems that the proximity of the velar consonant /k/ to a front vowel tends to lead to its palatalization, as it can be observed in some closely related European languages such as Swedish, Norwegian and English. This appears to be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one, since it does not happen in other closely related languages (Danish, German and Old Norse did not underwent palatalization: hence German käse in contrast to PresE cheese, and English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt) nor in other dialects of the same language (many Hiberno-English dialects have palatalization in words like car, whereas most other English dialects do not). That is why Milroy himself suggests that there must be other reasons favouring the change, and these reasons must be determined by social factors.
What is the biological metaphor in language change?
The biological metaphor of language gained special acceptance in the nineteenth century, when Trench claimed that language had a life “as surely as a man or a tree” (1888: 223-4), and Max Müller stated that linguistics was literally a physical science (on a par with geology, botany and biology) which dealt “with the works of God” and not a historical science which dealt with “the works of the man” (1861:22). The metaphor, then, is based on the belief that language is like a living thing, and, in the process of growing, has undergone changes across time. This idea has lost power since that period, but there are still many references in recent work to “language birth”, “language death” and the “roots of language” which show the repercussion of this belief.
What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?
Internal histories of language typically focus on sound-change and morphological change, whereas external histories aim at describing the political, social and attitudinal contexts of language. Traditionally, linguists have generally emphasised the importance of internal histories and have relegated external histories to a subsidiary role; however, Milroy (1992:24) states that “we cannot hope to explain change without inquiring into social factors”.
Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph or chapter?
Because the distinction between these two concepts corresponds to the traditional distinction between two points of view in historical linguistics that are diametrically opposed; the idea that sound-change operates blindly and without lexical exceptions (the Neogrammarian exceptionlessness hypothesis) is opposed to that of the lexical diffusion model, which claims that sound-changes are lexically gradual, often leaving a residue of items that do not undergo change.
Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?
They all are closely related to the question of the importance of social factors in language change, and how speakers can introduce changes into the structural parts of language. According to Milroy, there have been several scholars who have studied the role of speakers in language change; among them, E. H. Sturtevant was the one who emphasised this idea of social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue in the study of language change. His work, along with the theories developed by other scholars, has helped to increase awareness of the importance of social factors in the study of language change.
Ana Albalat Mascarell
March, 2009