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

Variability is more common than uniformity in a language because the language is something variable, that is in movement ,that is it is always exposed to the changes.

2.What kinds of variability exist?

There are three main kinds of variability:

· Register: contextually based variability

· Dialect: geographical variability

· Social: a speech can be rude or polite.

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

In some cases it is clear thanks to the “shibboleth”, that is something that gives you a way to know where someone is from. (such as the accent, the pronunciation, some specific words, sentences...)

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?

· Synchronic: relating to a language as it is at a particular point in time.

· Diachronic: relating to the way a language has developed over time.

So, from my point of view it isn’t reasonable because the language is changing and developing all the time, in this way the best would be studying the language from a diachronic point, in order to obtain good information about the language and its change.

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?

I think that linguistic change is not abnormal because the change is a very important characteristic of any language,it couldn’t be named without being united to any kind of change(social,historical...),although it sometimes seems to be disturbed.

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?

In any language could be found non-professional attitudes, an example of them are the following words of my own language:

-“haiga”-- haya

-“me sa caio”—se me ha caído

-“asin”-- así

-“mercao”-- mercado

-“ayer ha muerto”—ayer murió

8.Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?

Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors to show that the word isn’t grammatically correct, however, the word with the error is often used by people.

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

I hold the point of view that non-standard dialects are incorrect, irregular because they are grammatically incorrect, for this reason, at the same time they are also ungrammatical. However, I don’t think that these non-standard dialects are deviant because they are a common attitude only when we speak because they are like a tendency due to some factors. (Accent, social environment...)

But, on the other hand, there is a problem: that some very liberal and modern people don’t talk about errors, everything they say is correct for them.

10. Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves

Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves

The second column is more regular than the first one because the terms “hisself” and “theirselves” aren’t grammatically correct, however, they are often used by the speaker because of the natural tendency. On the contrary, the pronouns of the first column are accepted as grammatically correct.

“… 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?

This is what I have said before referred to the use that each speaker make of the language ,so ,many people tend to use the language without following the rules and the norms and often use colloquialism, doing his/her own language and this is what can disturb the language

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?

We know that any language involves norms and rules that must be followed to speak a good language, but of course, these norms and rules are sometimes forgotten by the speaker because of the variety, the register...etc, in other words, in a colloquial register we tend to don’t keep in mind the rules. In this way,” He ate the pie already” must be said: “he has already eaten the pie”.

12. What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?

· 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.

· 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 suggest that both have their strengths and weaknesses.

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

13.What do you think the “prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” mean? How are they opposed?

I think that the prestige motivation for change could be the way the speaker use and change the language in order to show thought the language his or her superior social status, so we tend to usea specific terminology.

And from my point of view is the way the speaker adapt the language to the situation and to the circumstances, depending on the social context: job, friends, family...

So, it could be said that the prestige motivation for change and the solidarity constraint are opposed in aims. In other words, the process in both is the change of the language, but in the first one the speaker changes it in order to show a superior status, whereas in the second one, the speaker tries to fit in a “group”.

14.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

English pronunciation is divided into two main accent groups: A rhotic (pronounced /ˈroʊtɪk/) speaker pronounces the letter R in hard or water. A non-rhotic speaker does not. In other words, rhotic speakers pronounce written /r/ in all positions, while non-rhotic speakers pronounce /r/ only if it is followed by a vowel sound in the same syllable (see "linking and intrusive R").

In linguistic terms, non-rhotic accents are said to exclude the phoneme /r/ from the syllable coda. This is commonly referred to as the post-vocalic R, although that term can be misleading because not all Rs that occur after vowels are excluded in non-rhotic English. Pre-vocalic and post-vocalic rules only hold true at the syllable level. If, within a syllable, an R occurs post-vocalically, it is dropped from pronunciation in non-rhotic speech

· The change from long ā to ō in 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_low_back_vowels#Father.E2.80.93bother_merger

15.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. It is usually allophonic and it may go unnoticed by native speakers. As an example, compare the /k/ of English key with the /k/ of coo, or the /t/ of tea with the /t/ of took. The first word of each pair is palatalized, but few English speakers would perceive them as distinct.

The variation might be seen as allophonic variation as long as the "palatal" sound causing the palatalization is there. However, syncope or elision might delete this sound, and thus only the palatalization remains as a distinct feature. This process is widespread in Baltic-Finnic languages, which have lost their original (Uralic) phonemic palatalization but some have regained it. For a minimal pair, consider Estonian kass [kɑsʲ:] from *kassi "cat" vs. kas [kɑs:] (interrogative).

Sometimes palatalization is part of a synchronic grammatical process, such as palatalizing the first consonant of a verb root to signal the past tense. This type of palatalization is phonemic, and is recognized by the speakers as a contrasting feature. However, what may have started off as phonetic palatalization can quickly evolve into something else, so not all of the resulting consonants are necessarily palatalized phonetically.

16. What is the biological metaphor in language change?

17. What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?

If every productive form of linguistic expression can be described by some idealized human grammar, an individuals's variable linguistic behavior (Weinreich, Labov, & Herzog, 1968) can be modeled as a statistical distribution of multiple idealized grammars. The distribution of grammars is determined by the interaction between the biological constraints on human grammar and the properties of linguistic data in the environment during the course of language acquisition. Such interaction can be formalized precisely and quantitatively in a mathematical model of language learning. Consequently, we model language change as the change in grammar distribution over time, which can be related to the statistical properties of historical linguistic data. As an empirical test, we apply the proposed model to explain the loss of the verb-second phenomenon in Old French and Old English based on corpus studies of historical texts.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=D1595F204C52C53E3DA7F6886EB0D615.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=76723

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.

With the current kind of change the available structure of the language plays an important role. For instance English has maintained a distinction in voice among interdental fricatives as seen in teeth /ti:þ/ and teethe /ti:ð/ although the functional load is very slight.

http://www.uni-due.de/SHE/HE_InternalExternal.htm

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

· The Neogrammarians 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. This 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 have been attested

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

Both concepts are often found in the same paragraph because 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.

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

· Norm - enforcement: Dominant accounts explain norms by referring to their consequences. On this view, norms are enforced when they increase the welfare of group members. While useful, such approaches do not explain much of what we observe. The theory developed here argues that while sanctioning consequences are part of the explanation, characteristics of social relations – in particular, interdependence – have significant effects. The results show that the effects of sanctioning benefits and costs vary depending on the level of interdependence between group members. Further, interdependence itself has direct effects on both metanorms and norms. These results reveal that variation in interdependence may lead to under-enforcement of norms that contribute to group welfare, or over-enforcement of norms that are harmful. The research therefore suggests that explanations that focus on the direct consequences of enforcement, and that fail to incorporate characteristics of social relations, may produce inaccurate predictions. Accordingly, understanding the role of social relations is essential for explaining norms.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/8/8/3/p18830_index.html

· Childish errors: they are provoke due to the lack of knowledge that the children have,in this way they pronounce words in a different way.

· Slips of the tongue: is an example of the childish errors in which a word is pronounced incorrectly, or in which the speaker says something unintentionally.