Febrero 24, 2009
What is more common in language uniformity or variability? Variability is more common in language.
According to Milroy there is no such thing as a perfectly stable human language, because languages are moving all the time, Uniformity is only found in Standardized languages that have been normalized.
What kinds of variability exist? You can find variability in many different areas such as, Geographical : dialects, accents , Historical and Social : gender, age, occupation; Registers: field, tenor, mode (Formality, Style, Grammar, etc)
How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language? We can observe their similarities or differences in Grammar, Phonetics, Basic Linguistics, and also non linguistic factors such as, the Geographics, Historical, Economics (to be efficient) Social and Political aspects in their language.
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 if languages change constantly, it’s more reasonable to study diachronic linguistics (to observe the looks and changes from one period to another), rather than studying the phonological aspects of a language at a stated time. it is not realistic to study only these finite states, without paying attention to diachronic descriptions of languages.
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? No, it is not abnormal- Every living language constantly undergoes changes and transitional evolution. As we do not have complete records of the history of language, there are bound to be unattested states of the language changes.
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?
An attitude is an opinion that is not based on fact. Opinions are not included in the description of a language. So any attitude to language that si not based on facts or data is non-proffesional.
Some non-linguistics and many linguistics think that the typical “dequeismo” or for example, the use of the word “dao” instead of the verb dado, are errors in spanish language usage.
I also have had the experience of non-professional discriminating attitudes with my “errors” speaking Spanish, I come from South California and English is my mother language, but I am also bilingual, so it happens that sometimes I think in English (English structure, phonetical sounds or literal meaning translations) but speak in Spanish, this usually means finding yourself in a comical misunderstanding in the conversation, but people that know me or are also bilingual, understand it.
Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?
Milroy uses scare quotes to show that he does not accept the term or does not entirely accept the term, expressing skepticism that its use is appropriate, suggesting that its use is potentially ironic, or making some other criticism of its use.
Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”? No, they are not. Eventhough it doesn’t have the institutional support that a standardized dialect has, it has its own vocabulary and an internally consistent grammar and syntax; and it may be spoken using different accents, this doesn’t mean that it is incorrect or inferior.
Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?
The non-standard forms are more regular than the standard forms.
|
Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves |
Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves |
The first row shows us the standard use, although the second row is more regular because the words are all composed of the possessive forms of the pronouns and –self or –selves.
“… 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?
Almost all the information about the history of English is written, so many linguists consider written language a written form of spoken language, which records the human sounds. This influenced theories of change of speech, throughout the history of language. Now with the tape recorder we can study spoken language in context.
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 for standards for spelling and grammar or syntax, or rules for what is deemed socially or politically correct. However, there are always exceptions to said rules, in the unstandard colloquial speech there is a tendency to overlook the conservative rules and shape the language economicaly. E.g.: “he ate the pie already” is the norm in American English, however, you say “he has already eaten the pie” in British English. Niether is better than the other.
What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars? ***
Prescription and description are often seen as opposites, in the sense that one declares how language should be while the other declares how language is.
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. - Linguistic constraints are different from Solidarity constraints.
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). Overt prestige: adopt RP pronunciation. Covert prestige: adopt non-standard forms to belong to a group.
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) See Bunyan example.
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? ***
Solidarity constrait society has an effect on the way language changes, including cultural norms, expectations, and context. The speaker must adopt local community norms, like local accents, etc. Many people are proud of thier accent- it is part of their identity.
Prestige motivation for change differs 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.
They are opposed because solidarity constraint affects internal norms of any community, and prestige external norms of only certain social groups.
Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/
British speakers today whose speech is closest to standard British English (called ‘Received Pronunciation’) do not pronounce r after vowel. 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. (The case of New York is especially interesting because of a classic study in sociolinguistics by William Labov showing that the non-rhotic accent is associated with older and middle- to lower-class speakers, and is being replaced by the rhotic accent.) So post vocalic /r/ is prestigious in USA and New Yorkers are adopting it.
The change from long ā to ō in southern dialects of British English: ( /ɑː/ and /ɒ/ ) So stan became ston in the South but not in scotland, for example.
Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?***
Palatalization may be a synchronic phonological process, i.e., some phonemes are palatalized in certain contexts, typically before front vowels or especially high front vowels, and remain non-palatalized elsewhere. This is usually phonetic palatalization, as described above, but need not to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization
Milroy says that this only is not enough, social conditons must also be favorable, we have to pay attention to the activities of the speakers in social contexts also. It could be possible, that the place and degree of palatization varied to differenciate meaning between doublets.
What is the biological metaphor in language change? When language is seen as a living organism. A growing tree, for example.
Milroy doesn’t belive that language changes on it’s own, it is people that change them, so language isn’t a living thing.
What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?
The history of changes in the internal structure of a language, as opposed to its external history: The history of any language can be divided into external (political and social developments in the community speaking the language, such as borrowing from foreign languages) and internal history, involves the changes which take place over time within the language itself.
Needless to say these two aspects are connected to each other but it is a one-way street: the external history can affect the internal one but not vice versa http://www.uni-duisburg-essen.de/SHE/HE_ExternalHistoryIntro.htm
History, external and internal
The history of a language is intimately related to the history of the community of its speakers, so neither can be studied without considering the other.
The external history of a language is the history of its speakers as their history affects the language they use. It includes such factors as the topography of the land where they live, their migrations, their wars, their conquests of and by others, their government, their arts and sciences, their economics and technology, their religions and philosophies, their trade and commerce, their marriage customs and family patterns, their architecture, their sports and recreations, and indeed every aspect of their lives. Language is so basic to human activity that there is nothing human beings do that does not influence and, in turn, is not influenced by the language they speak. Indeed, if Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956) was right, our very thought patterns and view of the world are inescapably connected with our language.
It is, of course, possible to view the history of a language merely as internal history – a series of changes in the inventory of linguistic units (vocabulary) and the system by which they are related (grammar), quite apart from any experiences undergone by the users of the language. http://histories.cambridge.org/extract?id=chol9780521264792_CHOL9780521264792A002
Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph or chapter?
Neogrammarians say that: sounds change throughout the whole language system, and their opponents say that: sounds change through lexical diffusion. They are opposite theories.
Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?
Childish errors and slips of tongue may be the causes of innovation and eventually of change.
Social norm-enforcement normally makes it less difficult for innovations to take hold.