Some New Perspectives on Sound Change
What is more common in language uniformity or
variability?
Language is continuously changing.[…] Change seems
to be inherent in the nature of language.
Languages
are never uniform entities, in Milroy's words, "at any given time a
language is variable"
On the other
hand the idea that language is static takes place in the roots of theory.
What kinds of variability exist?
There are different kinds of variability like registers (formal or informal), dialects
(geographical variability), social
factors (vocabulary used by different agents) or historical factors (diachronic).
How do we decide if a particular group of
speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?
We decide that fact basing on
historical and geographical factors and the most important ones as economical
and political notions.
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 think that is unreasonable because we should consider that languages, as
we said above, are variable (they are changing while I’m writing these
answers…). We have to study this point if we want to obtain a general view, or
a specific one, of the evolutional process of language.
On the other hand the
synchronic descriptions just take as reference a particular period of time, for
example the Victorian époque.
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 isn’t abnormal. Language is another grade of evolution; it changes as we
said, and those changes do not mean a “disturbed structure”. Language is the
most powerful tool that is capable to adapt to us. At the same time that we
change, language does the same. It is inevitable.
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?
It is obvious that Spanish is one of the global languages; you can speak
Spanish in Europe and in
But closer we have other examples like people in Andalucía have a different
pronunciation:
·
Casa **/´kaza/(to lisp) or sentado **/sen´tao/(ellipsis)
·
The use of “la” instead of
“le” (laísmo): **“La he corregido”
/ “Le he corregido”
Also people in
Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?
Because he is writing a different thing that he is thinking about. He
writes ironically. He knows that he is wrong or just it is not true.
Are non-standard
dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?
Firstly, we
have to reflect on what we understand as incorrect or deviant dialect. Those dialects are not standardised, that’s all. They are representing the
differences that exist geographically which obviously become reflected in the
use of language or the economical position.
Also, when we segment population into various groups taking as reference
their jargon or slang do not mean that those are deviant or incorrect. If they
can establish the act of communication those non-standard dialects are useful
and for extension correct.
Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?
|
Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves |
Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves |
While in one hand we could consider that the second column(non-standard) is more “regular” because we can
take as reference the possessive adjectives (my, your, his, her, and so on) it
isn’t considered standard; **“hisself” and **“theirselves” are
not commonly used because they are not correct in grammatical terms. The first column (standard) is considered as normative.
“… 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 contextualized 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?
Because we must consider that the basis of our theories are on written data
and a contextualized citation forms as Milroy said. I mean, the history of
language comes from the history of a spoken language, before all handwriting didn’t exist (imagine the primary sounds of our ancestors). Also, if you
have read exercise about non-professional attitudes, we can observe that
everyone or a community has their own personal speech patterns. We can find
difficulties when we interpret the changes that occur in speech; and because of
this, theories are generally based on decontextualized
language.
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?
Many linguistics or, better yet, theoretic try to fix rules and norms,
that’s all. If you don’t talk like they want you to do it you’re wrong. I have
to add that poetry use a figure of speech, hyperbaton (words that naturally belong
together are separated from each other for emphasis or effect) and that kind of unnatural separation is possible and acceptable.
In colloquial
contexts occur the same, people “change” the rules. The phrase
“he ate the pie already” could be acceptable in colloquial speech, however, in
a more formal, academic context, we will say “he has already eaten the pie”.
Received Pronunciation (RP)
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.
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/descriptive-grammar.html
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.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 first concept refers to
the way in which we assess our language and if the rest are capable to speak it
“properly”. It is related to the status
quo, depending on the social class people use a special kind of words or
expressions. We are “able” to stereotype other people who use a different
terminology than us, terminology that we consider deviant.
The solidarity constraint,
language varies depending on the social context in which we find ourselves. We
do not use the same terminology in all the contexts or with the same people (it
is not the same talking to your parents-apparently respectfully-that talking
with friends). We tend to imitate others to feel ourselves accepted in a speech
community, modifying our language.
Definitely “prestige
motivation for change” and “solidarity constraint” are
opposed.
Sound
change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/ The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.
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 Midlands and in Hiberno-English, but apparently
with no phonemic merger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_low_back_vowels#Father.E2.80.93bother_merger
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?
Biological metaphor analyses the real communicative
contexts in which the more extended analogy of ‘evolution’ occurs and
emphasizes three specific pragmatic sub-functions, i.e., descriptive and
explanatory function, definitional function, and evaluative and critical
interpretative function.
http://www.aitla.unimo.it/VII_Congresso_Milano_22-02-07/abstracts_pdf/stucchi.pdf
Languages keep
developing to adapt themselves
to the speakers’ necessities. Every new generation create new words and
uses different ones than other generations.
What is the difference between
internal and external histories of a language?
Internal is the change caused by structural
requirements of the language, 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.
With the current kind of change the available
structure of the language plays an important role. For instance English has
maintained a distinction in voice among interdental
fricatives as seen in teeth /ti:þ/
and teethe /ti:ð/ although the functional load
is very slight.
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?
They are found
in the same paragraph or chapter because the theory of lexical diffusion stands
in contrast to the Neogrammarian hypothesis that a
given sound change applies simultaneously to all words in which its context is
found.
In historical linguistics, lexical diffusion is both a
phenomenon and a theory. The phenomenon is that by which a phoneme is modified
in a subset of the lexicon, and spreads gradually to other lexical items.. Historical linguistics (also diachronic linguistics or
comparative linguistics) is primarily the study of the ways in which languages
change over time. [...] The English language is a West Germanic language that
originates in England. [...]
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Lexical-diffusion
Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?
The social norm
is the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values,
beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. 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. A common rule is that the some norms must frequently
be displayed; neutrality is seldom an option.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/social_norms.htm
The childish’
errors in language, we can mention that children make mistakes because
their language formation is not all completed, they need more information, they
need to learn more. As I say, everything is possible with the time. So, for
example, a child can not know that there are
irregular verbs and he/she uses an /–ed/ instead of the right form: “I eated
two apples”.
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/lingu/events/lanyu_fora/2004fall/KarenKirkeNYUabstract.pdf
The slips on the tongue is an
accidental and usually trivial mistake in speaking
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slip+of+the+tongue