Milroy Questions

Milroy Questions

What is more common in language uniformity or variability?

In general sense, variability is more prominent characteristic in language than uniformity, but there are groups such as Valencian nationalists, for example, who stand for uniformity in order to maintain the “purity” of language.

What kinds of variability exist?

There are kinds of variability such as:

Inside the register we can find:

-Field

-Tenor

-Mode

-Style

Geographical (dialect)

Social (gender, age, social group the individual belongs to, etc…)

-Individual style

-Historical

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

Empirically: observing speakers’ use of grammar, register and pronunciation.

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?

Well, I believe that on the one hand this may be reasonable, because if we study language as the finite entities, we can observe, compare and contrast its changes at different periods of time. But on the other hand, if we take into consideration the fact that languages are variable - they constantly change, it may mean that there is more sense in studying 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?

Since I am Russian, I will not give any example of my own language, but an Spanish example could be the use of word “deo” instead of “dedo”. This attitude can also be applied to Valencian, for example.

It is also very important to mention that there is no official agreement whether the varieties (Valenciano, Catalán and Mallorquin) constitute different languages or not.

Many non-professional users of language consider it to be a “non-standard” dialect due to many factors, such as the use of constant castellanies or geographical variations. This “errors” are perpetuating the misconception of an irregular or deviant language, whereas actually, 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?

To show that he does not agree with the mentioned ideas, so he expresses ironical attitude towards them.

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

I believe that non-standard dialects, when they are used for communication, can not be considered incorrect, irregular, etc…They may only be treated as such when “standards” are required to be applied, in a case of writing, for example.

Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

Myself

Yourself

Himself

Herself

Ourselves

Themselves

Myself

Yourself

Hisself

Herself

Ourselves

Theirselves

Even though we can say that the second system is certainly more irregular, it is not considered to be standard because the terms “hisself” and “theirselves” are not commonly used since 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 account the following information about the usage of “hisself” and “theirselves”, which shows us that even though they are not considered to be grammatically correct, they may be dominant 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 England.”

“… 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?

We all learn spoken to speak, before learning to write. Many linguists consider that it is a written form of spoken language, which records the human sounds.

However, after being built, written language becomes more stable than spoken one (which is extremely variable), because most language users often pay no attention to grammatical or phonetical rules, use colloquial speech, etc…

We (non-professional users of language) use to trust more our eyes more than our ear, so that is why we tend to base the theories of change or interpretations on the written forms of language, rather than spoken forms.

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?

Prescription norms have rules that tend tocover such aspects as spelling, grammar, syntax, or rules of what is understood as socially correct, “standard language”. However, there are always exceptions to those rules, in the non-standard colloquial speech there is a tendency to overlook the conservative rules and shape the language in an Individual Style.

A given example: “he ate the pie already” is acceptable in American English, however, in British English it would be considered error, and since “he has already eaten the pie” is the one which is grammatically correct.

What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?

Descriptive grammar only tells (describes) us the rules. Meanwhile prescriptive one explains us the reasons why and tells us which option must be used for a correct speech. In other words:

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.

(http://www.english-for-students.com/Descriptive-and-Prescriptive.html)

Weinreich, Labov and Herzog’s (1968) empirical foundations of language change:

Constraints: which changes are possible and which 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 “Solidarity constraint” is when a particular social group tries to save there own way of speaking, without taking into account weather it is standard or not: Black Dialect, New Kassel Dialect, etc…

“Prestige motivation for change” refers to differences between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g., ethnicity, status, gender, level of education, age, etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social class or socio-economic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to place (dialect), language usage varies among social classes.

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

Post-vocalic /r/ in New York

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 Eastern New England and parts of the South, particularly the coastal area where the old ‘plantation’ culture once existed. It is also part of Black English Vernacular speech. Until recently, dropping the r was part of New York speech as well, though more and more New Yorkers seem to be perceiving it as ‘vulgar’ and avoiding this pronunciation. Even though there is no officially recognized ’standard’ English in the U.S., ‘r-speakers’ are clearly an overwhelming majority, something you hear reflected in the mass media.

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 England. It did not spread as far as Ireland and Scotland, which is why we hear the ‘r’ pronunciation from the Irish and the Scots today. Many of the original immigrants to the colonies were from Scotland and Ireland, although at the time of settlement most English speakers were still pronouncing r after vowel too.

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 Boston accent, and in New York City). In those accents with the merger father and bother rhyme, and Kahn and con are homophonous as [kɑn]. Unrounding of EME /ɒ/ is found also in Norwich, the West Country, the West