1

What is more common in language uniformity or variability?

I think that variability is more common in language that uniformity, because the language is more easy that vary that rest without changes.

What kinds of variability exist?

There are different types of variability in language: historical, geographical and social factors (it depends on different social classes, time reference, contextual differences and differents registers).

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

We decide if the speaker belong to a particular dialect or language depending on historical, geographical, economical and political concepts.

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 think that this is not reasonable, because in my opinion, the language change and develop over the time, so emphasized in synchronic description s of languages is wrong; the correct are the diachronic descriptions, that are based on the differents evolutions that the language suffer.

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?

Obviously, linguistic change is not abnormal. A linguistic change is necessary in all languages, because it help to develop the language; it is normal that a language evolve by the passage of time. So, the changes are the most clear sample that a language is devoloping, but never that it was disturbed.

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?

My own language is the Valencià/català. The valencian society is divided because many of them prefer call this language català in front of people that prefer call it valencià.

On the other hand, sometimes also it is consider as a non-standard language, because it is usual the use of castellanisms and because there are a lot of geographical variations (apitxat, oriental, occidental...).

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

It maybe because Milroy is expressing a non-professional idea which he doesn’t agree with.

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

In my opinion, a non-standard dialect can’t be irregular, incorrect, ungrammatical and deviant, because a dialect serves to comunicate people and which has a correct set of gramaticals rules, although is different from the standard dialects.

Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

Myself

Yourself

Himself

Herself

Ourselves

Themselves

Myself

Yourself

Hisself

Herself

Ourselves

Theirselves

In this case, is obviously that the first system is more irregular than the second, because the first system is more common in the English language than the second. In the second system, for example “hisself” or “theirselves” aren’t used commonly, we never see these forms.

Finally, it is obviously that the first system is more standard than the second.

… much of the 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?

In my opinion, people think uniformity means regularity (non-expert says that), because uniformity and regularly don’t mean the same.

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?

In my opinion, language involves norms and rules, although in all norms or rules are exceptions, in this case the most times that these exceptions success are in the colloquial language.

The phrase He ate the pie already, it is considered non-standard in the colloquial English language, because in the standard and normal English language it would be: “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)

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.

The solidarity constraint, we can observe the way in which we use language to feel on par with our peers.

The solidarity constraint is a social movement while the prestige motivation for change indicates a superior social status.

Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York. The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.

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

Because is a particular change that take place at a particular time, and the place of palatization change to differenciate the meaning between two sounds.

What is the biological metaphor in language change?

The biological metaphor in language change can be attribute to the fact that language pass from one generation to another.

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.

I nternally 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?

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)