Language change and variation
Even though we refer to norms and rules when we
discuss languages, we must also keep in mind that there are always exceptions
to said rules, and that in the colloquial variety there is a tendency to
overlook them. The phrase “he ate the pie already” might be considered as
acceptable in colloquial speech, however, in a more formal, academic context,
we ought to say “he has already eaten the pie”.
The terms represent polar values: (1) A descriptive
approach to language describes in full detail precisely how we use that
language. The chief values of this approach are accuracy and an unretouched
picture of usage, warts and all. (2) A prescriptive approach insists
that however many variables might be found, there are better and worse choices;
it will specify at least which is most appropriate, more likely which is
acceptable, or, in its most rigorous application, which is correct. Clearly,
the prescriptive approach is easier to teach—there is always one right
answer; the descriptive approach may offer several possible answers,
each appropriate in one or another context.
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.
The prestige motivation for change refers to
the way in which we view our language and the how others speak it. At times, we
do not speak in a certain manner because we do not feel that it would be
correct to do so, and we tend to stereotype others who use terminology
considered as ungrammatical or deviant. The prestige motivation for change
shows us how we often use language to express our superior social status.
With regards to the solidarity constraint, we
can observe the way in which we use language to feel on par with our peers.
This often means that our language will vary depending on the social context in
which we find ourselves. As a speech community, we tend to imitate others in
order to fit in and feel accepted, collectively altering our language.
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.
The place and degree of palatization varied in order to differentiate the meaning between the word doublets.
The biological metaphor in language change can
also be related to the fact that languages are passed from one generation to
the next, evolving step by step.
“All kinds of language change can basically be
assigned to one of two types: either the change is caused by a structural
requirement of the language — this is internally motivated change — or it does
not in which case one speaks of externally motivated change.
Internally motivated change usually leads to
balance in the system, the removal of marked elements, the analogical spread of
regular forms or the like. As language consists of various modules on various
levels, a change in one quarter may lead to an imbalance in another and provoke
a further change.”
(http://www.uni-due.de/SHE/HE_InternalExternal.htm)
The terms are often found in the same paragraph
because the theory of lexical diffusion is opposed to the Neogrammarian
hypothesis. As Milroy explains, lexical diffusion (a theory proposed by William
Wang in 1969) refers to the fact that all sound changes derive from a variation
of a single word or a small group of words that later affects other words with
similar characteristics, but don’t necessarily have an effect on all words that
they potentially could do. The Neogrammarian hypothesis states 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 (lexical diffusion), and that there is no evidence to support the
Neogrammarian assumption.
A slip of the tongue is an error in speaking in
which a word is pronounced incorrectly, or in which the speaker says something
unintentionally.