Linguistic
Variation and change
What is more common in language
uniformity or variability?
Variability
is a far more prominent characteristic in language than uniformity. In Milroy's
words, "at any given time a language is variable" (p.1).
What kinds of variability exist?
Variability
in language can depend on historical, geographical and social factors.
How do we decide if a particular group
of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?
We
generally base our conclusions on 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 believe
that this standpoint is unreasonable if we take into consideration the fact
that languages are variable- they constantly change. This means that it makes
sense to study diachronic linguistics in order to obtain a better understanding
of the overall evolution of the language.
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 is not abnormal- languages naturally undergo a state of evolution. The
changes brought about by this evolutionary process in no way reflect a
“disturbed structure”, they simply show us that languages progress in order to
adapt to 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?
Even
though it is not my vernacular language, I believe that we can productively
apply these ideas to the current situation of Valencian.
First of
all, we can point out that there is a clear lack of consensus as to whether the
varieties (Valenciano, Catalán
and Mallorquin) constitute different languages or
not.
Many also
show a disregard towards the language and consider it as a “non-standard”
dialect due to many factors, such as the use of constant castellanisms
or geographical variations. This “incorrect” usage is perpetuating the
misconception of an irregular or deviant language, whereas, in reality, we are
simply observing a necessary evolutionary process brought about by the years of
suppression that Valencian underwent.
Why does Milroy use “scare quotes”
around non-standard and errors?
He does
this because he is expressing non-professional ideas which he does not agree
with.
Are non-standard dialects “incorrect,
irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?
I suppose
that this would depend on what we consider to be a non-standard dialect. Any
language which serves for the purpose of communication and which has a set of
grammatical rules that are complied to shouldn’t be regarded as incorrect,
irregular, ungrammatical or deviant, they are simply different to the languages
commonly thought of as “standard” ones.
Which of these systems is more
irregular? Why?
Myself
Yourself
Himself
Herself
Ourselves
Themselves
Myself
Yourself
Hisself
Herself
Ourselves
Theirselves
Whilst we
can say that the second system is certainly more regular than the first one, it
isn’t considered as standard because the terms “hisself”
and “theirselves” are not commonly used because they
are not correct in grammatical terms. We can affirm that the reflexive pronouns
in the first column are accepted as grammatically “normative”.
We can
also take into consideration the following information about the usage of “hisself” and “theirselves”, which
shows us that even though they are not considered as grammatically correct,
they are prevalent in certain contexts-
“Speakers
of some vernacular American dialects, particularly in the South, may use the
possessive reflexive form hisself instead of himself
(as in He cut hisself shaving) and theirselves or theirself for
themselves (as in They found theirselves
alone). These forms reflect the tendency of speakers of vernacular dialects to
regularize irregular patterns found in the corresponding standard variety. In
Standard English, the pattern of reflexive pronoun forms shows slightly
irregular patterning; all forms but two are composed of the possessive form of
the pronoun and –self or –selves, as in myself or
ourselves. The exceptions are himself and themselves,
which are formed by attaching the suffix –self/–selves to the object forms of
he and they rather than their possessive forms. Speakers who use hisself and theirselves are
smoothing out the pattern’s inconsistencies by applying the same rule to all
forms in the set. •A further regularization is the use of –self regardless of
number, yielding the forms ourself and theirself. Using a singular form in a plural context may
seem imprecise, but the plural meaning of ourself
and theirself is made clear by the presence of the
plural forms our– and their–. Hisself and theirselves have origins in British English and are still
prevalent today in vernacular speech in
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company.)
“… 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 decontexutalized
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?
I believe
that this is due to the extreme variability of spoken language in context. If
we were to attempt to base our theories of change (in languages) on situated
speech, we would find that most people don’t tend to follow grammatical rules
and often use colloquialisms, which lead to the destructuralisation of
language. We can also refer to the fact that everyone has their own personal
speech patterns (idiolects). Due to these factors, complications can arise when
we interpret the changes that occur in speech, and because of this, theories
are generally based on decontextualized language.
As Milroy
says, "speech is a social activity in a sense that writing is not, and the
primary focus of speech is conversation... The first principle for a
socially-based model of language change therefore concerns the observation of
language in use."
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?
Even
though we refer to norms and rules when we discuss languages, we must also keep
in mind that there are always exceptions to said rules, and that in the
colloquial variety there is a tendency to overlook them. The phrase “he ate the
pie already” might be considered as acceptable in colloquial speech, however,
in a more formal, academic context, we ought to say “he has already eaten the
pie”.
What is the difference between
descriptive and prescriptive grammars?
For the
past half-century, these terms have served as useful labels for two contrasting
approaches to the study of grammar and usage and especially to the teaching of
these matters. They have also long served as epithets in the recurrent
name-calling that quarreling over correctness,
appropriateness, and permissiveness in language seems to elicit.
The terms
represent polar values: (1) A descriptive approach to language describes
in full detail precisely how we use that language. The chief values of this
approach are accuracy and an unretouched picture of
usage, warts and all. (2) A prescriptive approach insists that however
many variables might be found, there are better and worse choices; it will
specify at least which is most appropriate, more likely which is acceptable, or,
in its most rigorous application, which is correct. Clearly, the prescriptive
approach is easier to teach—there is always one right answer; the descriptive
approach may offer several possible answers, each appropriate in one or another
context.
This book uses both
approaches. Users are seeking help, and they should find it. The problem is
that a simplistic “correct” answer may seem helpful, but often when it appears
to contradict users’ experience, they will either shrug off the prescription
or find themselves unable to accept it. For example: to say succinctly that irregardless is not a word or at least that it ought
to be treated as though it were not a word, is prescriptive.
The “rule” being promulgated is: Don’t use irregardless;
pretend it doesn’t exist, because, in fact, it’s not in Standard English.
But, in
fact, that’s not true. It is a word, and therefore it is in the
dictionaries; many people use it, including some who in other respects speak
Standard English. A descriptive account of the word will show who uses
it and when, where, and why. Irregardless,
it turns out, occurs regularly in Common and Vulgar English, but in Standard
its only acceptable use is jocular. A descriptive account will end by
pointing out that the inadvertent use of irregardless
in Standard English can be a shibboleth.
The prescriptive
commentator then impatiently inquires, Why all the fuss? Why pussyfoot about?
Just tell the world not to use irregardless—that’s
simple, sound, and teachable. The descriptive commentator will offer at
least two objections: (1) The word may be Substandard
now, but you can’t be sure it won’t change in status. In fact it may be in the
process of such change even now: it may be fading to an obsolete status (in
which case we can stop talking about it), or it may someday become Standard.
(2) Even more important, sometimes Standard speakers do
use irregardless; the issue is where
and how.
Even in
spelling and pronunciation, where prescription may seem less
problematic, description may sometimes be more nearly accurate. Prescription
says judgment is the correct spelling, but description accurately
points out that even Edited English considers judgement correct too. And
although the teacher may prescribe DEK-uh-dent as the correct way to say
decadent, the student will discover other teachers who say (also in
Standard English) dee-KAI-dent.
This book,
as it must, uses both approaches, depending on the problem. See the entry on RULES AND GENERALIZATIONS for an account of
the aptness of each approach to particular kinds of questions: Where real rules
apply, prescription is the way to go. But much of grammar and most of
usage require generalizations rather than rules, because what so often we must
provide is some current best advice on a problem that is undergoing change even
as we discuss it. Description faces up to complexity and raggedness and
avoids simplistic glossing over of existing variation in pronunciations, forms,
or meanings. Rigorous prescribers often charge describers with
being permissive, and the countercharge of describers
is that prescribers are simplistic, peddling half-truths and lies as
though they were true. But in the end, a guide to usage must give advice, and
so this manual prescribes for its users when it can. The difference is
that it also explains such other experiences as users are likely to encounter
and where possible explains what they mean.
http://www.bartleby.com/68/45/4745.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 to the way in which we view our language
and the how others speak it. At times, we do not speak in a certain manner
because we do not feel that it would be correct to do so, and we tend to stereotype
others who use terminology considered as ungrammatical or deviant. The prestige
motivation for change shows us how we often use language to express our
superior social status.
With regards
to the solidarity constraint, we can observe the way in which we use language
to feel on par with our peers. This often means that our language will vary
depending on the social context in which we find ourselves. As a speech
community, we tend to imitate others in order to fit in and feel accepted,
collectively altering our language.
We can
conclude by saying that the “prestige motivation for change” and the
“solidarity constraint” are opposed due to the fact that the first is linked to
the notion of wanting to stand out and indicate a superior social status,
whereas the second is a collective movement, related to the idea of fitting in
socially.
Sound
change: post-vocalic /r/ in
Post-vocalic
/r/ in
Many of us
who speak English as a native language pronounce words like darling, far, bore
or near the same as we write them: with vowel followed by r in the same
syllable. But there are many other English speakers who do not pronounce the r
- sound in this place (called ‘postvocalic r’) - although they have the sound
everywhere else, like at the beginning of a word. Linguists use the classy
terms rhotic and non-rhotic
for these two pronunciations.
In some
people’s speech this ‘dropped’ r reappears when the word is followed by a
vowel, so you sometimes hear nevah but never again.
Such speakers occasionally go on to insert an r where it doesn’t belong, and
say sofa but sofer and chair .
Looked at
geographically, American speakers who most commonly drop the r (in what follows
we’ll occasionally call this the ‘r-less’ pronunciation) are those from
British
speakers today whose speech is closest to standard British English (called
‘Received Pronunciation’) do not pronounce r after vowel. Postvocalic r was
still regularly pronounced in English speech back in Elizabethan times, and it
was around that time (l6th century) that the ‘r-less’ pronunciation started
spreading across much of
http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/southern/dahling
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
Actuation:
Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE:
cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets
shirt/skirt?
The place
and degree of palatization varied in order to
differentiate the meaning between the word doublets.
What is
the biological metaphor in language change?
Like a
biological species defined by the potential of its members to interbreed and
procreate offspring of the same kind, a language can be defined as “a
population of idiolects that enable their hosts to communicate with and
understand one another”
(Exploring
Language Change By Mari C. Jones, Ishtla
Singh Edition: illustrated, revised. Published by Routledge, 2005).
The
biological metaphor in language change can also be related to the fact that
languages are passed from one generation to the next, evolving step by step.
What is
the difference between internal and external histories of a language?
“All kinds
of language change can basically be assigned to one of two types: either the change is caused by a structural requirement of
the language — this is internally motivated change — or it does not in which
case one speaks of externally motivated change.
Internally
motivated change usually leads to balance in the system, the removal of marked
elements, the analogical spread of regular forms or the like. As language
consists of various modules on various levels, a change in one quarter may lead
to an imbalance in another and provoke a further change.”
(http://www.uni-due.de/SHE/HE_InternalExternal.htm)
Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often
found in the same paragraph or chapter?
The terms
are often found in the same paragraph because the theory of lexical diffusion
is opposed to the Neogrammarian hypothesis. As Milroy
explains, lexical diffusion (a theory proposed by William Wang in 1969) refers
to the fact that all sound changes derive from a variation of a single word or
a small group of words that later affects other words with similar
characteristics, but don’t necessarily have an effect on all words that they
potentially could do. The Neogrammarian hypothesis
states that a given sound change applies to all words with related features
simultaneously. Milroy tells us that sound changes have normally been observed
to spread gradually through the lexicon (lexical diffusion), and that there is
no evidence to support the Neogrammarian assumption.
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)
With
regards to ‘childish’ errors in language, we can say that children often make
mistakes due to their lack of knowledge of possible linguistic irregularities
(I “drinked” my water etc.).
A slip of
the tongue is an error in speaking in which a word is pronounced incorrectly,
or in which the speaker says something unintentionally.
(http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/slip+of+the+tongue)