Unfortunatelly I couldn’t make a link to each part of the page. So I’m affraid you’ll have to scroll down the page to check my work. Sorry.
MILROY’S ARTICLE
3.-
It depends on the common structures and features that people belonging to a determined social group share. pronuntiation, structure of senteneces, style���
4.-
The history of a language is a continuous process, it is not a series of pictures. If we want to understand how and why a language changes we have to think about it as a movie. Language changes continuously and has to be studies as a whole entity, not as a lot of finite entities.
5.-
It cannot be abnormal because if it were abnormal state of affairs, would not be an unreasonable way to look at language.
6.-
Some examples can be the transformation of the participle ends“-ado”,“-edo”,“-ido”. This ends are becoming in“*-ao”,“*-eo”,“*-io”. Another one is the addition of an“s” at the end of the second person of singular form in past tenses: viste--> vistes.
7.-
Because he uses terms with caution. He means that they are non-standard and errors-as it is written- but he cannot consider one language or concepcion of a language superior to another one.
8.-
Not necessary. According to the opinion of the academics it may be all of those things mentioned. But from the point of the cahnge and variety it has to be seen in a completely different way.
9.-
The column which includes “hisself” and “Theirselves” because are forms nearer to the form they come from(his and their) than him and them.
10.-
I think that means we know how the language has changed thanks to the observation of written data, not on observation of spoken language. But the best way to know how a language is changing is observating and paying attention to the spoken language.
11.-
Every language, those I know at least, have norms. I don’t know in the descriotions, but in the learning it does include norm. It’s compulsory, under my point of view, to exist a norm, even a very little one, of the language, then the varieties can exist and be more or less ecceptable.
The sentence “He ate the pie already” is well considered or barely acceptable in England and Wales.
12.-
The difference is that the prescriptive appeals to some idealized superordinate norm which is part of the standard or literary language, rather than a consensus community norm. It is like “It shoul be���”
Descrptive one is referred to the structure of the language used by the users of that language. It describes how it is, not how it should be.
SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND THE NEOGRAMMARIANS
1)
Because it appears to have no obvious function or rational motivation. For example, in change from [e:] to [i:] (as in need, keen, meet in the history of English) it is impossible to see any progress or benefit to the language or its speakers as the use of one vowel sound rather than another is purely arbitrary: there is apparently no profit and no loss.
2)
Present-day sociolinguistic research differs from the Neogrammarian position in a number of fundamental respects, these involve the data-base available for study and the methods used to study the data-base. Tor example, scholars now have access to bilingual and multilingual speech communities, in which cross-language patterns of variation can be studied. These approaches strongly question the principle that linguistic change is best studied by reference to monolingual states, as the Neogrammarians and others have assumed.
3)
Language change will depend on the degree of internal cohesion of the community ( the extent to which it is bound by ‘strong ties’, which resist change) and change from outside will be admitted to the extent that are large numbers of weak ties with outsiders. It also follows that if a change persists in the system, it has again to be maintained by social acceptance and social pressure.
4)
Because linguistic change in general is a result of changes in speaker-agreement on the norms of usage in speech communities and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that a whole ‘dialect’ replaces it, leaving only a few traces behind.
5)
Because it isn’t languages that change, it is speakers who change languages and such a view does not make sense from the perspective of the Neogrammarian notion that sound change is ‘blind’ to say that sound-change in phonetically gradual either. But it is definitely socially gradual: it passes from speaker to speaker and from group to group, and it is this social gradualness that sociolinguistics attempt to trace by their quantitative methods.
6)
It’s a kind of sound change which is socially gradual, abrupt replacement patterns and can be regular in some sense. In lexical diffusion the new form differs markedly from the older one.
7)
Is the displacement of one dialect by another which is, for some reason, socially dominant at some particular time. An example can be the gradual displacement of heavily inflected West Midland dialects of Middle English by weakly inflected
8)
They are norms existing in a language apart from the standard ones. They deal with the different dialects and these norms are observed by speakers and maintained by communities often in opposition to standardizing norms. These norms manifest themselves at different levels of generality. Community norms can be variable norms in contrast to standard norms, which are invariant.
We have used in class the term geographical varieties of a language, which refer to this dialects.
9)
That a change can persist as a variable state for seven or eight centuries without ever reaching the complete change.
10)
Speaker innovation is an act of the speaker that must be unstructured and irregular. Moreover, when we observe the speaker innovation we don’t know if it will lead to a change because is probably an error or defective usage.
On the other hand a change is manifested within the language system.
A change in the system is originated by a speaker innovation. For a speaker-innovation to become a change, it must be adopted by some community. It must pass from one speaker to others. Thus, the adoption of a linguistic change depends at the speaker-level on a process of borrowing.
11)
Is difficult to draw the distinction between sound change and borrowing as it relates to gradual and abrupt change. First, the origin of this abrupt change is equated with the change itself and second it is assumed that the spread of change is by borrowing and implied that the spread therefore does not involve sudden replacement- this is said to be aside from its spread by borrowing.
12)
All sound change is implemented by being passed from speaker to speaker, and it is not a linguistic change until it has been adopted by more than one speaker.
All sound change must be socially conditioned, simply because those so-called changes that arise spontaneously are not actually changes: they are innovations, and they do not become changes until they have assumed a social pattern in the community.
13)
Standard languages are not ‘normal’ languages as they are created by the imposition of political and military power; hence the sound patterns in them and the changes that come about in these sound patterns do not come about through blind necessity and they are not wholly explainable by reference to phenomena internal to the structure of language. These language states are planned by human beings maintained through prescription. The idea that there are discrete languages that can be treated as if they were physical entities is in itself a consequence of standardization and literacy- discreetness of languages is not inherent in the nature of ‘Language’ as a phenomenon.
14)
Clean data is information which have been largely normalized and which are provided by standard languages while dirty data is information which are relatively intractable, irregular and chaotic and is provided by vernacular languages.
INDOEUROPEAN VIDEO
Radio
What could these two languages, Punjabi and English have in common?
In fact, English and Punjabi as well as other languages of the north of
He was a judge who went out to
It’s surprising that no one spotted the resemblances earlier. Take the numbers again for example, the Sanskrit on the right has strong resemblance to Latin and Greek on the left.
The word ”one” “two” and “three” obvious four and five in the closer look to spot the connection. English have discovered rules that govern has sounds in different languages are related. Look at the fords for four. This is one of many examples where a word beginning with q in Latin, say, is similar to a Greek word beginning with t and a Sanskrit word beginning with k.
These sound correspondences can review how apparently unrelated languages are members of the same family. The question is how can you tell that the languages you’re looking at reflect a single original language and therefore form a family? The only way you can do that is by finding systematic similarities between these languages in every area of their grammar similarities and their sound similarities and other inflections similarities on the syntax of the language and so forth. And the similarities have to be very precise and they have to be interlocking for the assertion that these languages form a family are to be believable.
You take a look at an English word like ”tooth” and see that in Hindi is “dant” and the bites of that doesn’t mean very much. But you take a look at an English ten and the ---- Hindi as das and you see the same ---- emerging. You’ve got an initial t in English and an initial d in Hindi.
When you find that the word ”two”, the numeral, in English shows up in Hindi as do and you’ve got once again an initial t in English and an initial d in Hindi you begin to think that perhaps this is not an accident.
Linguists now establish that a whole range of languages stretching from Island to
POEM’S TRANSCRIPTION
/ʻdɪərɪst ʻkriːʧər ɪn krɪʻeɪʃən/
/ʻstᴧdɪŋ ʻɪŋglɪʃ prənᴧntsiʻeɪʃən/
/aɪ wɪl ʻtiːʧ jə ɪn maɪ ʻvɜːs/
/ʻsaʊndz laɪk ʻkɔːps/ ʻhɔːs ənd ʻwɜːs//
/aɪ wɪl ʻkiːp jə/ ʻsᴧzɪ/ ʻbɪzɪ/
/ʻmeɪk jə ʻhed wið ʻhiːt ʻgrəʊ ʻdɪzi/
/ʻtɪə ɪn ʻaɪ jə ʻdres jəl ʻtia/
/ʻkwɪə/ ʻfeə ʻsɪə/ ʻhɪə maɪ ʻpreə//
/ʻpreɪ/ kənʻsəʊl jə ʻlᴧvɪŋ ʻpəʊɪt/
/ʻmeɪk maɪ ʻkəʊt ʻlʊk ʻnjuː/ ʻdɪə ʻsəʊ ɪt/
/ʻʤᴧst kəmʻpeə ʻhaːt/ ʻbɪəd ənd ʻherd/
/ʻdaɪz ənd ʻdaɪet/ ʻlɔːd ənd ʻwɜːd/
/ʻsɔːd ənd ʻsɜːd/ rɪʻteɪn ənd ʻbrɪtən/
/ʻmaɪnd ðə ʻlætə haʊ ɪt ɪz ʻrɪtən/
/ʻmeɪd həz nət ðə ʻsaʊnd əv ʻbæd/
/ʻseɪ/ ʻsed/ ʻpeɪ/ ʻleɪd bət nət ʻplæd//
/naʊ aɪ ʻʃɔːlɪ wɪl nət ʻpleɪg jə/
/wɪð sᴧʧ ʻwɜːdz əz ʻveɪg ənd ʻeɪg/
/bət ʻbɪ ʻkeəfəl haʊ jə ʻspiːk/
/ʻseɪ ʻgᴧʃ/ ʻbʊʃ/ ʻsteɪk/ ʻstriːk/ ʻbreɪk/ ʻbliːk/
/ʻprɪːvɪəs/ ʻpreʃəs/ ʻfjuːʃə/ ʻvaɪə/
/ʻresɪpɪ/ ʻpaɪp/ ʻstᴧdɪŋseɪl/ ʻkwaɪər/
/ʻwəʊvən/ ʻᴧvən/ haʊ ənd ʻləʊ/
/ʻskrɪpt/ ʻrɪsiːts/ ʻʃuː/ ʻpəʊɪm/ ʻtəʊ//
/ʻhɪə mɪ ʻseɪ/ ʻdɪvɔɪd əv ʻtrɪkəri/
/ʻdɔːtər/ ʻlaːftər/ ənd ʻterpsɪʧɔːr/
/ʻtaɪfɔɪd/ ʻmiːzḷz/ ʻtɒpseɪl/ ʻaɪlz/
/ʻeksaɪlz/ ʻsɪmɪlz/ ʻrɪvaɪlz/