1- What is more common in language uniformity or variability

Milroy Sound change

1- What is more common in language uniformity or variability?

Variability is more common in language than uniformity. There are multiple ways of speaking in a same language and all of them are equally correct.

2- What kinds of variability exist?

There are some factors that affect variability. Social, geographical, formal but also the factor of the register.

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

In some cases it is easy to recognise certain languages or dialects (as in the cases of Chinese or Russian people) but other cases are more difficult and people put more attention in geographical aspects.

4- 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 point of view is reasonable because it ha been said that languages are considered variables. For that reason is more important diachronic disciplines in order to study the changes or evolution of a language during a period of time.

5- 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?

It is not abnormal because of the fact that languages are in a constant process of evolution and as a result of that evolution, languages reflect their changes in order to adapt themselves into the new circumstances of life and communication but that doesn’t mean that the language structure is disturbed.

6- 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?

Maybe an example of non- professional attitude in Spanish would be when people talk in a colloquial or informal register, saying vulgarisms like ‘ M’he quedao y tu t’has ío’ ‘pa’ que…’

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

He is expressing his disagreement.

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

I think like non- standard, those dialects would be ungrammatical because what makes a dialect or language grammatical or not is a set of rules and if it is a non- standard dialect once can supposes that it hasn’t this set of rules. Even though that my opinion is that any register dialect or language is as valid as anyone in order to communicate something to somebody.

9- 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 as we know that the personal pronouns in third person are him and their, but we can say that the first one although it has an irregular structure is correct in agreement with the grammatical normative. On the other hand the second example is not incorrect at all. Here is an extract of an internet source about this pronouns.

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 England.

10- “…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 think that theories of change are based on decontextualised forms because of variability of language. Also we have to take into account that it would be difficult to base these theories in situated speech because there are many people which not always find grammatical rules (as people of low classes or people without studies) and this implied the uses of colloquialisms and that is why it would be difficult to based on situated speech.

11- 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?

Following the grammatical rules we would say ‘He has already eaten the pie’. Even though many people (as I said in the last question) tend to talk with colloquialisms and this fact implied not to follow the rules of languages, so for that people the sentence ‘He ate the pie already’ would be correct and saying it in this way the would know that they are talking grammatically incorrect although the wouldn’t take it into account. In Spanish happens the same, most people talk in this ways. Some examples of sentences would be: ‘T’has equivocao’ ‘Me s’ha olvidao el bolso’

12- What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?

As I have understood, descriptive grammar focuses his theories in language which is already in use by speakers (that would be in a situated speech) and not focus its attention in if this way of speaking is correct according to the grammatical rules or not.

On the contrary, prescriptive grammar works on the structure and forms of the language following the norms that grammarians believed or have already established as right or wrong.

To clarify this explanation here is a definition of both terms.

Descriptive Grammar:

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.

Prescriptive Grammar:

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.english-for-students.com/Descriptive-and-Prescriptive.html

13- 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?

Prestige motivation for change refers to our view of our language and how other people speak it. Prestige motivation sometimes tends to express a superior posture with the speakers due to that some speakers use terms considered not grammatically correct. On the contrary, solidarity constraint requires the speakers to conform to local community norms rather than to norms that are viewed as ‘external’.

14- What is the biological metaphor in language change?

The biological metaphor is relating to the fact that languages go through generations.

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

Internal histories of a language usually focus on sound-change and morphological change whereas external histories of a language discuss for example the speaker-attitudes to a variation.

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

Both terms are intimately related because of its opposition. Neogrammarians hypothesis says that a diachronic sound change affects simultaneously all words in which its environment is met, without exception whereas lexical diffusion means that a sound change affects only a few words at first and then gradually spreads to other words.

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

Social norm- enforcement is the sociological term for the behavioral 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 behaviors. These rules may be explicit or implicit. Failure to stick to the rules can result in severe punishments, the most feared of which is exclusion from the group. They have also been described as the "customary rules of behavior that coordinate our interactions with others. 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.

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

Childish errors refers to the fact that sometimes children make mistakes when they are speaking and this happens by accident or don’t pronounce some words correctly due to a lack of knowledge.

Slips of the tongue happen when people make an accidental mistake when they are speaking.

The three terms mentioned have in common that usually, they happen by accident or not on purpose in oral language but they have influence in language change because they become part of the language, changing in some cases their structure or quality.