MILROY LINGUSTIC VARIATION AND CHANGE

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

Variability is more common in language. At any given time a language is variable. Languages are never uniform entities.

2) What kinds of variability exist?

Dialect: Geographical variability. Depends on the place the language is spoken

Social: Depends on the environment in which the speaker develops. The language used can be rude or polite.

Historical: Languages change through the history.

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

We decide it observing the historical, academic, social and economical aspects of their language. Moreover, we can take into account the linguistics, the grammar, and the phonetics used.

In some cases it is clear from where someone is; but in other cases it is very difficult to distinguish languages. A shibboleth is something that gives you a way to know where someone from is.

4) 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?

I believe it is not reasonable because we have to consider the fact that languages are changing all the time, they are variable. It makes more sense to study the language from a diachronic point of view, observing the language and its changes from one period of time to another, rather than studying the language at a particular point in 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?

No, it is not abnormal. Languages are always in a state of evolution. The process of evolution, where changes take place, is not disturbed; it is just that languages are changing to be adapted to new times.

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?

The case of the Catalan is a good example. Some people consider that the Valencian is another language, while others believe that it is a dialect of the Catalan. At school we were taught that Catalan is divided in different dialects, but some people don’t want to know this, and they prefer to say that they are two different languages.

In our language, there are a lot of errors. Some of these errors are ‘dequeísmo’, ‘leísmo’, the endings of some words, such as ‘mercao’ (instead of ‘mercado’). Most of these errors are a common attitude in speaking.

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

Milroy uses scare quotes with these terms to express that he does not agree with the terms. He uses the irony to indicate what in fact he thinks.

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

It depends on what we consider to be a non-standard dialect. Languages that carry out their communicative function and have their own grammar should not be considered incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.

9) Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

Myself

Yourself

Himself

Herself

Ourselves

Themselves

Myself

Yourself

Hisself

Herself

Ourselves

Theirselves

The first column is more irregular, although it is the standard one. The second row is more regular because all the words are composed by the possessive forms of the pronouns and the suffixes –self or –selves.

Our Living Language 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.*

10) “… 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 because of the extremely variability of the spoken language. It is easier to base theories on written language because it does not change as frequently as spoken does.

11) 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?

In all languages there are norms; however we should also consider that there are exceptions to said norms because in colloquial variety these exceptions are frequently used.

The sentence “he ate the pie already” is correct in colloquial speech, but in a formal context the sentence is incorrect and it should be said “he has already eaten the pie”.

12) 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. Both types of grammar have their supporters and their detractors, which in all probability suggests that both have their strengths and weaknesses.

http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/prescriptive-grammar.html

13) 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.

14) 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. It shows us how often we use language to prove our superior social status.

The solidarity constrains refers to the way we use language to feel in the same level as other people or to feel part of a group of people (to be integrated). We are influenced by a social context, depending on it we change our way of speaking. Moreover we try to imitate others’ language in order to be accepted.

These two terms, prestige motivation for change and solidarity constraint, are totally opposed due the fact that the first is referred to the indication of being in a superior social status, while the second one is referred to the idea of being accepted by a community of people.

15) 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 DIALECT 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

16) Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?

The place of palatization varied because there is a necessity to differentiate the meaning between the word doublets.

17) What is the biological metaphor in language change?

The biological metaphor in language change is relate to languages passing form one generation to the next.

18) What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?

INTERNAR HISTORY

The history of changes in the structure of a language, as opposed to its external history.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O36-internalhistory.html

EXTERNAL HISTORY

The history of a language as the means of communication in a community, as opposed to the internal history of a language system.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O36-externalhistory.html

19) Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph or chapter?

NEOGRAMMARIANS

The Neogrammarians (also Young Grammarians, German Junggrammatiker) were a German school of linguists, originally at the University of Leipzig, in the late 19th century who proposed the Neogrammarian hypothesis of the regularity of sound change. According to this hypothesis, a diachronic sound change affects simultaneously all words in which its environment is met, without exception. Verner's law is a famous example of the Neogrammarian hypothesis, as it resolved an apparent exception to Grimm's law. The Neogrammarian hypothesis was the first hypothesis of sound change to attempt to follow the principle of falsifiability according to scientific method. Today this hypothesis is considered more of a guiding principle than an exceptionless fact, as numerous examples of lexical diffusion (where a sound change affects only a few words at first and then gradually spreads to other words) have been attested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogrammarian

LEXICAL DIFFUSION

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. For example, in English, /uː/ has changed to /ʊ/ in good and hood but not in food; some dialects have it in hoof and roof but others do not; in flood and blood it happened early enough that the words were affected by the change of /ʊ/ to /ʌ/, which is now no longer productive.

The related theory, proposed by William Wang in 1969 is that all sound changes originate in a single word or a small group of words and then spread to other words with a similar phonological make-up, but may not spread to all words in which they potentially could apply. 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.

William Labov, in Principles of Linguistic Change, takes the position that there are two types of sound changes: regular sound change (respecting the Neogrammarian hypothesis) and lexical diffusion. Labov lists a typology, according to which certain phenomena are typically or exclusively regular (example, vowel quality changes), while others (example, metathesis, or vowel shortening) tend to follow a lexical diffusion pattern.

Paul Kiparsky, in the Handbook of Phonology (Goldsmith editor), argues that under a proper definition of analogy as optimization, lexical diffusion is not a type of sound change. Instead, Kiparsky claims it is similar to leveling, in that it is a non-proportional type of analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_diffusion

The concepts are often found in the same paragraph or chapter because the Neogrammarian approach is opposed to the theory of lexical diffusion.

20) Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?

A Social norm is the sociological term for the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group. They have been defined as "the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. 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."^[1] They have also been described as the "customary rules of behavior that coordinate our interactions with others."^[2] The social norms indicate the established and approved ways of doing things, of dress, of speech and of appearance. These vary and evolve not only through time but also vary from one age group to another and between social classes and social groups. What is deemed to be acceptable dress, speech or behaviour in one social group may not be accepted in another. Deference to the social norms maintains one's acceptance and popularity within a particular group; ignoring the social norms risks one becoming unacceptable, unpopular or even an outcast from a group. What is deemed acceptable to young people is often unacceptable to elderly people^[^{citation needed}^]; this difference is caused by the different social norms that operate and are tacitly agreed-upon in such different groups of people. Social norms tend to be tacitly established and maintained through body language and non-verbal communication between people in their normal social discourse. We soon come to know when and where it is appropriate to say certain things, to use certain words, to discuss certain topics or wear certain clothes and when not to. We also come to know through experience what types of people we can and cannot discuss certain topics with or wear certain types of dress around. Mostly this knowledge is derived experientially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(sociology)

Referring to childish errors in language, it can be mentioned that children make mistakes because they do not have a completely knowledge of the language. They have not already finished their learning process. E.g.: a child would say “I drinked my glass of milk” because they do not know the irregular verbs.

Slip of the tongue is an error in speaking in which a word is pronounced incorrectly, or in which the speaker says something unintentionally. E.g.:

stick in the mud > smuck in the tid (consonant segments exchange)
ad hoc > odd hack (vowel segments exchange)

unanimity  >  unamity (syllable deleted)
easily enough  >  easy enoughly (suffix moved)
tend to turn out  >  turn to tend out (words exchange)
my sister went to the Grand Canyon  >  the grand canyon went to my sister (whole phrase exchange)

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/slip+of+the+tongue

http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/psycholinguistics/Fromkin.html

BACK TO HISTORY INDEX