What is more common in language uniformity or variability?

  In a language is much more common to find variability rather than uniformity because there are a lot of factors that contribute to its changing. The only uniform languages are the dead ones, like Latin, for example, which is not used anymore.

What kinds of variability exist?

There are a lot of kinds of variability, influenced by a lot of factors. We can distinguish between geographical, social, historical, each one with its own characteristics..

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

We can decide this based on our notions about history, culture, geography and politics. Each language has its specificities and it is easy to recognize the deviation from the standard norms.

 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?

I don’t think this can be like they state because languages are permanently changing. Like any other object or even history, things that aren’t “dead” still evolve and change and for this reason, but not only, is preferable to study diachronic linguistics.

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?

I do not think we can regard language changes as abnormal because most languages that are spoken are submitted to all kinds of situations and this makes normal the evolution and the instability of the language system.

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?

This question is very difficult for me to answer because I don’t have much knowledge about the grammar of the Spanish language. Although, I think (though I’m not very sure) that the language spoken by the persons with a education and culture above the medium ( teachers, doctors...) should speak a more correct language, thing which not always happens because they have a tendency to shorten certain words by omitting some sounds.

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

I think he uses “scare quotes” to emphasize the fact that he does not agree with this idea from a subjective point of view, although other consider the language changes as errors.

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

I do not think this can be considered as wrong, but it depends on each person’s view about the language. The set of standard rules which each language has aren’t necessary broken when you speak a dialect as long as the persons around you understand you.

Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

 The second system is more irregular because not all the pronouns are possessives.

“… 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?

Because of the changes produced in language, technology as well evolves and helps the study of this system. I think this can be one of the factors that affect the narrowing of this vision, along with the variability that language presents. Each person has its personal way of speaking, its personal vocabulary and in these conditions is hard to study a language.

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?

 Each language has its norms and rules that are applied when constructing sentences and phrases. Although these rules are made in order to talk correctly, many times they are overlooked and ignored. People know that they are not speaking by the rule, but sometimes they do not take this into consideration. This phrase could be considered correct in colloquial speech (maybe in American, Scottish and Irish English) but in a more formal environment, it is preferred to say “he has already eaten the pie”.

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.

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

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?

I think that these two terms are opposed exactly by their definition. “Prestige motivation for change” could mean the necessity to adapt to a more standard language or the usage of the neologisms of the time. The solidarity constraint could mean the necessity to use a certain language in order to adapt to a certain circle of people. This constraint may change depending on the people we are talking to. I think that the people who use this are altering each and every one the standard language.

As a conclusion, these terms are opposite because the first one means a try to reach a certain level of correctness in the language and the second means exactly the opposite, a tendency to use more informal words in order to feel accepted in a place.

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

A well-known feature of New York English is its r- lessness (or "r-dropping"), a pattern in which syllable-final /r/ is not pronounced. It is too simple a statement, however, to say that the dialect simply drops them. A more accurate statement is that even though syllable-final /r/ is dropped, it is still somehow "visible." That is, it leaves its mark in one of several ways. In words like burr, the vowel is longer and has a different quality than in standard American English. In words with pre-rhotic /o/, , and /i/, the /r/ is replaced by a schwa.

We have seen that r is not simply dropped; it has an effect on the vowel it leaves behind. It is also retained in certain environments; for example, between vowels, like in carry or Arizona.

http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~lsp/Northeast/NewYorkEnglish/nyphon.html< /span>

In Modern English, a new phoneme /ɑː/ developed that didn't exist in Middle English. The phoneme /ɑː/ comes from three sources: the word father lengthening from /a/ to /aː/ for an unknown reason (thus splitting from gather);[4] the compensatory lengthening of the short /a/ in words like calm, palm, psalm when /l/ was lost in this environment; and the lengthening of /a/ before /r/ in words like car, card, hard, part, etc. In most dialects that developed the broad A class, words containing it joined this new phoneme /ɑː/ as well. The new phoneme also became common in onomatopoeic words like baa, ah, ha ha, as well as in foreign borrowed words like spa, taco, llama, drama, lava, Bahamas, pasta, many of which vary between /ɑː/ and /æ/ among different dialects of English.

Exceptions are accents in northeastern New England, such as the Boston accent, and in New York City.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep12.html

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

In the history of many Indo-European languages, front vowels altered preceding velar consonants, bringing them forward to a palatal, postalveolar, or alveolar place of articulation.

This historical palatalization is reflected in the orthographies of several European languages, including the "k" in Norwegian and Swedish. English follows the French pattern, but without as much regularity. However, for native or early borrowed words affected by palatalization, English has generally altered the spelling after the pronunciation (Examples include cheap, church, cheese, churn from *[k] yell, yarn, yearn, yeast from *[g].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K

What is the biological metaphor in language change?

 I think that this may refer to the fact that a language, like any other “living” thing may have the capacity to change, to evolve and to be transmitted from generation to the other.

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

Internal history of a language refers to the historical development of its linguistic forms (phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon) and semantics. It is contrasted with "external history", which refers to the social and geopolitical history of the language.

External history of a language refers to the social and geopolitical history of the language: migrations, conquests, language contact, and uses of the language in trade, education, literature, law, liturgy, mass media, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_history

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

 The theory of lexical diffusion is in contrast to the Neogrammarians that says that sound change applies concurrently to all words in which its context is found. For example, /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 lexical diffusion model affirms that sound-changes may be lexically gradual: words are transferred at different rates, often leaving a remain of the items that  get transferred.

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

A social norm is the sociological term for the behavioural expectations and cues within a society or group. They have been defined as “the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. These rules may be explicit or implicit. The social norms indicate the established and approved ways of doing things, of dress, of speech and of appearance. These vary and evolve not only through time but also vary from one age group to another and between social classes and social groups. What is deemed to be acceptable dress, speech or behaviour in one social group may not be accepted in another. Deference to the social norms maintains one’s acceptance and popularity within a particular group; ignoring the social norms risks one becoming unacceptable, unpopular or even an outcast from a group. What is deemed acceptable to young people is often unacceptable to elderly people; this difference is caused by the different social norms that operate and are tacitly agreed-upon in such different groups of people. Social norms tend to be tacitly established and maintained through body language and non-verbal communication between people in their normal social discourse. We soon come to know when and where it is appropriate to say certain things, to use certain words, to discuss certain topics or wear certain clothes and when not to. We also come to know through experience what types of people we can and cannot discuss certain topics with or wear certain types of dress around. Mostly this knowledge is derived experientially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(sociology)

Childish errors mean the errors that people make when talking, errors which we make unconsciously.

 A slip of a tongue is an error which we make in a word, it is very similar to the childish errors.