What is more common in language
uniformity or variability?
Variability means that
languages are constantly changing inside internal fields and a uniform language
means that it is conformed to one principle,
standard, or rule. Variability is a far more prominent characteristic in
language than uniformity.
What kinds of variability exist?
Variability in language can
depend on temporal, geographical and social factors. The variability depends on
the place, statement and register too.
How do we decide if a particular group of speakers
belongs to a particular dialect or language?
It depends on the linguistic
features that a group of speakers shares. The use of the language is not the
same if someone lives in the North of England or lives in the South. I would
like to emphasize that we can decide if a particular group of speakers belong
to a particular dialect in oral situations. It is due to their pronunciation
and the vocabulary used.
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?
It is unreasonable if we take into account the fact that languages are
variable. The story of a language is a continuous process; it is not a series
of pictures because is changing all the time. If want to know how a language
changes we have to consider it as a movie because it has no cuts.
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. Although language is in constantly changes
and is perhaps relevant and correct to the period, we must not forget that languages
progress in order to adapt us to new situations. If it were abnormal, it would
not be a reasonable way to analyse the language.
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?
My own language, Valencian, is not considered a language in itself. Many
people show contempt for the language and consider it as a “non-standard”
dialect because of the use of constant castellanisms
and their geographical situation.
As my own language, I think that Valencian is a standard dialect of
Catalan, in spite of the differences between both.
Why does Milroy use “scare
quotes” around non-standard and errors?
Because these terms do not connote their normal meaning in the context,
where are situated. I think that Milroy try to be ironic using the scarce quotes
because he is expressing ideas, which he does not agree with.
Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and
deviant”?
No, they are not.
These pejorative adjectives are attributed to some dialects for popular
decision and not because they are really incorrect, irregular and
ungrammatical. These dialects are simply different to the other dialects or
languages, which are considered standard, but it does
not mean that they must be upper.
Which of these systems is
more irregular? Why?
|
Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves |
Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves |
The right column is more irregular than the left column because the
terms “hisself” and “theirselves”
are not commonly used. The terms in the left column are grammatically
acceptable.
“… 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 think that thanks to the observation of the written data and not the
observation in the spoken language, we can know how the language has changed. But the best way to know how it changes, is observing and
paying attention to the spoken process in a 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?
When we talk inside an academic and more formal context, we make use of rules,
but when we are in a colloquial context, we can leave these rules. For this
reason, the phrase “he ate the pie already” might be
considered as acceptable in colloquial speech; however, in a more formal
context it would not be acceptable.
What is the difference
between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?
Descriptive grammar refers to the
structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. Prescriptive
grammar refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used.
Both kinds of grammar are concerned with
rules--but in different ways. Specialists in descriptive grammar (called linguists)
study the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases, clauses,
and sentences. On the other hand, prescriptive grammarians (such as most
editors and teachers) lay out rules about what they believe to be the “correct”
or “incorrect” use of language.
http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/grammarintro.htm
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?
Solidarity constraint refers to the way in which the speakers are more likely to introduce methods to
protect their language. The prestige motivation for change is the opposite
because is the change of speakers who are socially motivated to change the way
they speak and express themselves through language.
“Prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” are
opposed due to the fact that the first want to stand out
and indicate a superior social status, whereas the second is related to the
idea of fitting in socially.
Sound change: post-vocalic
/r/ in
The realization of postvocalic
/r/ in words like thirty, car, or father is one of the most important criteria
in any attempt to classify regional and social varieties of English around the
world. It is also one of the most significant features of pronunciation in
differentiating between the two major standard varieties of English: American
English is stereotypically a rhotic variety and
British English a nonrhotic variety. But the picture is more complex, as there are r-ful dialect regions in
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_speech/v076/76.3schonweitz.html
Actuation: Why did /k/
palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?
In order to difference the meaning between two words. There are, of course, well-known examples of varying developments of
this kind: amongst the continental Skandinavian
languages, Swedish and Norwegian have palatization of Old Norse /k/, whereas
Danish now usually has a velar.
What is the biological
metaphor in language change?
This metaphor
consists of comparing a language with a life thing in the sense that both have
an origin and grow branching off. There is also the point that languages obtain
their basis from one of these branches that at the same time are
originated in other older language (which is called mother).
What is the difference
between internal and external histories of a language?
Processes, that have formed
it through the time, and facts, that had a repercussion and contributed to its
actual state, constitute internal history of a language. External histories
could influence the language in different degrees, but not in a direct form.
Look
up Neogrammarians
and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph
or chapter?
The terms are often found in
the same paragraph because the theory of lexical diffusion is opposed to the Neogrammarian hypothesis. They state that a given sound
change applies to all words with related features simultaneously. Milroy tells
us that sound changes have normally been observed to spread gradually through
the lexicon, and that there is no evidence to support the Neogrammarian
assumption.
Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?
The norm
enforcement function derives from the idea that certain public tasks can be
delegated to international organizations to perform.
Childish means marked by or suggestive of
immaturity and lack of poise errors, in this case errors
in the language. Children often make mistakes due to their lack of knowledge of
possible linguistic irregularities.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/childish
Slip of the tongue means an accidental and usually trivial mistake
in speaking
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slip+of+the+tongue