1. What is more common in language uniformity or variability?
Variability is more common in language, although
it is problematic. People like uniformity.
2. What kinds of variability exist?
There are different kinds of variability:
geographical , social , diagraphical and
historical variability.
3. How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a
particular dialect or language?
We decide if a particular group of speakers
belong to a particular dialect or language listening to them and focusing on
the pronounce words, the verbs tenses they use and mainly, the vocabulary.
However, there are some cases which are very difficult to distinguish a
language for instance, catalan-
valencian. They are two varieties, but the problem is if they are the same
language or not. We can decide it using history, academics, etc.
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, that is not reasonable because languages are
variable, they constantly change so, it is not a finite entity.
Synchronic descriptions
of languages study the language on a particular period of time; and diachronic descriptions of languages
study the change of the language on the 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
constantly change and progress in order to adapt to new situations, stages.
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.”
6. Can you think of any example of non-professional attitudes to your
own language?
7. Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?
Milroy uses ‘scare quotes’ to show the readers that he does not agree
with the ideas that are express by that term. The term is expressing
non-professional ideas which he does not agree with.
8. Are non-standard dialects
“incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?
I think that this depend on what we consider to be a standard and
non-standard dialect. Any language has its own rules and I think that they
shouldn’t be regard as incorrect, ungrammatical and deviant. Any language has
different variations inside of the same language so, we shouldn’t consider
‘non-standard’ dialects as 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 second is more regular than the first, but the second is not the
standard. The first column is the standard.
In this question, we have to remark, that the pronouns ‘Hisself’ and
‘Theirselves’ can be used in certain contexts although, they are not considered
as grammatically correct.
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
due to the variability of the spoken language. If we analyze the spoken
language, we will find the fact that a lot of people don’t follow grammatical
rules when they are in speech. They don’t follow the rules and this lead to the
destructuralisation of language. Due to that, we can have complications when we
try to interpret the changes which occur in speech.
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?
I have to say that there are
norms and rules in all the languages but at the same time, there are a lot of
exceptions, too. Moreover, we can affirm that norms and rule disappear in
colloquial register.
The phrase ‘he ate the pie already’ couldn’t be considered correct in a
formal context. However, it could be considered correct in informal or
colloquial speech.
12. What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive
grammars?
Descriptive
grammar looks at the way a language is actually used by its
speakers and then attempts to analyze 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 how some think it should be.
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/descriptive-grammar.html
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 type 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’ is the way in which we observe our
language and how other people use it.
‘Solidarity constraint’ refers the way we adapt our language depending
on the social context. Our language will vary depending on the context in we
find ourselves.
‘The prestige motivation for change’ and ‘solidarity constraint’ are
opposed, because the first is concentrated in our wish to be accepted by
others; and the another must consider our desire to be in a superior social
status.
15. Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/ The change from long āto
ōin some dialects of English.
Post vocalic /r/ in New York
The
general vocalization of post-vocalic /r/ is an eighteenth-century phenomenon. The basic vernacular of New York City was
consistently r-less in the nineteenth century and the first half of the
twentieth. r-less pronunciation, as a characteristic of British Received
Pronunciation, was also taught as a model of correct, international English by
schools of speech, acting, and elocution in the United States up to the end of
World War II. It was the standard model for most radio announcers and used as a
high prestige form by Franklin Roosevelt.
r-pronunciation
was examined in some detail in the sociolinguistic study of
New
York City (Labov 1966). The variable (r) is defined as tautosyllabic (or coda)
/r/. This excludes intervocalic /r/, which is never vocalized in the white
community, and word-final /r/ before a vowel-initial word, which is vocalized
at a much lower rate. The result showed a fine-grained stratification in the
use of constricted [r] in formal styles, while in casual style there was a
sharp division between (younger) upper middle class speakers and everyone else.
There is some evidence of variable r-pronunciation in New York City
before World War II which may have provided the raw material for the norm of
constricted /r/ (Frank 1948), but the shift to a positive evaluation of r-pronunciation
affected all New Yorkers born after 1923 (Labov 1966: Ch. 11). Parallel shifts
towards an r-pronouncing norm can be observed in Boston.2 Recent
re-studies of New York City speech show that a consistent pattern of r-vocalization
characterizes the spontaneous speech of all but the upper middle class and the
upper class.
r-pronunciation
is primarily a feature of formal speech: a superposed dialect, with a rate of
increase of about 1.5 percent a year (Fowler 1986; Labov 1994: 83–87). Feagin
(1987) reported a more radical shift to r-pronunciation across three
generations in Anniston, Alabam.
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/Atlas_chapters/Ch07_2nd.rev.pdf
The change from long ato oin 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).[1][2][3] 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.
16. Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE:
cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?
If we analyze this case, we can observe that there are a conflicting
patterns of change and stability in languages and dialects of similar structure.
I believe that the place of palatization varied in order to
differentiate the meaning between the word doublets.
17. What is the biological metaphor in language change?
This term is used by Müller who thinks it does not seem to have a
metaphor at all.
The metaphor has weakened since Müller wrote, but there have been many
publications on language history since then that have been based on the idea of
the independent ‘life’ of language.
The acceptance of this metaphor is widespread enough for it to appear in
the title of a book on linguistics.
18. What is the difference between internal and external histories of a
language?
Internal history of a language
refers to the historical development of its linguistic forms (phonology,
morphology, syntax and lexicon) and semantics. It is contrasted with external history, which refers to the
social and geopolitical history of the language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_history
19. Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph
or chapter?
The terms
‘Neogrammarians’ and ‘lexical diffusion’ are often found in the same paragraph
or chapter because they are opposed and are sometimes compared.
Lexical diffusion (Wang, 1969) holds that sound-change may be lexically gradual. In
change from /e:/ to /i:/ ( such as the EModE, change in words as meat, peace, leave) items are that do
not get transferred (in this case such words as great, break, steak).
Neogrammarian theory has been interpreted to mean that the relevant class of items all
undergo the change at the same time, that is, that sound-change is phonetically
gradual and lexically sudden.
Neogrammarian hypothesis are part of
the lexical rule component, whereas Neogrammarian exceptionless change is
accounted for by post-lexical rules.
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." They have also been described as the "customary
rules of behavior that coordinate our interactions with others." 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; 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28sociology%29
Childish errors
Slips of the tongue
For thousands of years, the scholars and
philosophers interested in the nature of language have believed that language
and speech are composed of discrete units of sound and meaning. Although the
sound represented by the letters d-o-g may be continuous on a physical level,
the word can be considered to be composed of separate sounds. This is as true
of languages without a written alphabet (and there are thousands of such
languages spoken in the world) as those like English with a written form.
While these units are not normally observed in error free speech, speech errors
which move or substitute, delete or add sounds or words or phrases show the
existence of such units, as illustrated in the the following examples:
(1) stick in the mud > smuck
in the tid (consonant segments exchange)
(2) ad hoc > odd hack
(vowel segments exchange)
(3) unanimity > unamity (syllable deleted)
(4) easily enough > easy enoughly
(suffix moved)
(5) tend to turn out > turn to
tend out (words exchange)
(6) my sister went to the Grand Canyon > the
grand canyon went to my sister (whole phrase exchange).
http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/psycholinguistics/Fromkin.html