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

In language variability is more common. We can make reference to a Milroy’s quote: ‘[...] at any given time language is variable’ (page 1)

2. What kinds of variability exist?

We can find three kinds of factors within variability is seen:

Historical

Geographical (dialect)

Social (rude, polite)

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

In the majority of the case it is clear. We can observe their Grammar, Phonetics, Linguistics, and also observe the Geographic, Historical and Social aspects of their language.

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?

No, I think it is unreasonable because languages are changing all the time. So, it’s more reasonable to study diachronic linguistics in which we can observe the changes from one period to another, rather than studying other aspects of a language at a stated 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?

Linguistic change is not abnormal- languages naturally undergo changes and transitional evolution. These changes don’t reflect a disturbed structure of a language they simply show us that languages have a progress to adapt to every situation it face up to.

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?

In my own languages, which are Spanish and Valenciano we could find a lot of examples of non-professional attitudes.

First of all, those that we daily find in our speech, for example: ‘haiga’ à haya; ‘me se ha caido’ à se me ha caido; ‘mercao’ à Mercado (-ado à-ao); etc.

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

Milroy use scare quotes in order to indicate that he does not entirely accept the way we call those things. These scare quotes could also mean that they are quoted by other authors and Milroy don’t want to pretend that we think they are from his terminology. And, finally Milroy has used the scare quotes because he does not totally consider them as errors or non-standard dialects, he can think that they are not errors and that they are standard dialects.

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

Although non-standard dialects are not considered to have institutional support that doesn’t mean that those dialects have their own vocabulary and expression, their own grammar and their own speech. We know that they are not correct but I think we can accept them.

7. Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves

Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves

The first column is used as the standard system but that does not mean that it is the most regular one. The second column is more regular than the first because the words are all composed of the possessive form of the pronouns.

We have never noticed it because we have always learnt the standard style, however, one day, when I was teaching it to a child he asked me why they are formed in the second way and not in the first one and I realised that the second form is more regular.

8. “… 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?

I believe that this is due to the extreme variability of spoken language in context. If we 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 give us to the destructuralisation of language. We can also refer to the fact that everyone has their own personal speech patterns. For these factors, troubles came when we interpret the changes that occur in speech and so theories are generally based on decontextualized language.

9. 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?

We know that any description of a language involves rules and norms but when we are speaking that rules are not considered, so sometimes we can say thing such as ‘he ate the pie already’. We have a tendency to make ‘errors’ in speech, but most of the people who do it know that they are not following the correct rule.

10. What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?

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: 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.

11. 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 we view our language and the way others speak it. The prestige motivation for change shows us how we often use language to express our superior social status.

In reference to the solidarity constraint, we can say that it means the way in which we use language to feel in the same level as other people. We can observe that for that reason we are influenced by the social context in which we are in a certain moment, so we try to imitate others so as to be accepted in a group.

To conclude we can say that the “prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” are opposed owing to the fact that in the first one we try to use a language in a high social status and in the second one we try to accommodate our language depending on the social status we are, even if it is colloquial or not.