MILROY’S ARTICLE

What is more common in language uniformity or variability?

I believe that variability is more common in language.

What kinds of variability exist?

There are many different types of variability; this includes grammatical, phonetic, social,  regional variabilities (with are called ‘dialects’i8

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

Because they share some characteristics, whchi are different from an other language or dialect.

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?

The answer to this question is yes and no.  Although language is an organic process that constantly changes and is perhaps relevant and correct to the period of time, we must not forget that many words, sounds and expressions exist in the languages we speak today. 

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 don’t believe that linguistic change is abnormal.  There are many critics of linguistic change who believe that this change damages the integrity of the language and that when the reasons for the change are unknown the linguistic change is abnormal.  I completely disagree with this opinion and also one should note that languages have been changing linguistically for thousands of years.

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?

People,  who did not have the opportunity to go to Universities since they belonged to the working class, but they read a lot so they can know lots of thins only by reading books.

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

Because non-standard and errors could  not be considered “non-standard” and erroneous.

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

I think the vast majority of the population would answer ‘yes’ to that question, because since were are child we are told to follow, but as far as I am concerned, social prestige has a lot more to do with the dialect, much more than the grammatical aspects, and power too.

Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

The system on left would be considered more irregular due to the presence of “hisself” and “theirselves”.  This is because it is non-standard and the system provokes judgement of the social speaker.

“… 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 because this body of language is based on data collected by Neogrammarians.  They based their data collection on the language and language change instead of the speakers.

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 Spanish “cantado” o “cantao” are both acceptable.

What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?

Descriptive grammar denotes the grammar that is actually used by speakers and prescriptive grammar is grammar that is the standard form.

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?

The prestige motivation for change depicts the change of speakers who are socially motivated to change the way they speak and express themselves through language.  Solidarity constraint is the opposite.  These speakers are more likely to introduce methods to protect their language.  The groups associated with solidarity constraint may be nationalistic and sometimes these groups feel strongly about the language because for these speakers it represents their identity.

Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/ The change from long āto ōin some dialects of English.

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

This is because this palatalization was considered to be more socially prestigious.

What is the biological metaphor in language change?

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

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

This is because they are opposing ideologies.

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

These abnormalities of language can be a catalyst for language change. 

UNIT 1