Variability is more common in language that uniformity, uniformity is an ideal far from reality.
There are different types of variability in language: historical, geographical and social.
We decide if the speaker belong to a particular dialect or language depending on historical, geographical, economical and political concepts.
I think that this is not reasonable, because in my opinion, the language change and develop over the time, so emphasized in synchronic description s of languages is wrong; the correct are the diachronic descriptions, that are based on the differents evolutions that the language suffer.
Obviously, linguistic change is not abnormal. A linguistic change is necessary in all languages, because it help to develop the language; it is normal that a language evolve by the passage of time. So, the changes are the most clear sample that a language is devoloping, but never that it was disturbed.
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.”
My own language is the Valencià/català. The valencian society is divided because many of them prefer call this language català in front of people that prefer call it valencià.
On the other hand, sometimes also it is consider as a non-standard language, because it is usual the use of castellanisms and because there are a lot of geographical variations (apitxat, oriental, occidental...).
It maybe because Milroy is expressing a non-professional idea which he doesn’t agree with.
A non-standard dialect can’t be irregular, incorrect, ungrammatical and deviant, because a dialect serves to comunicate people and which has a correct set of gramaticals rules, although is different from the standard dialects.
|
Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves |
Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves |
The first system is more irregular than the second, because the first system is more common in the English language than the second. In the second system, for example “hisself” or “theirselves” aren’t used commonly, we never see these forms. It is obviously that the first system is more standard than the second.
Most of the people think uniformity means regularity (non-expert says that), because uniformity and regularly don’t mean the same.
Language involves norms and rules, although in all norms or rules are exceptions, in this case the most times that these exceptions success are in the colloquial language.
The phrase He ate the pie already, it is considered non-standard in the colloquial English language, because in the standard and normal English language it would be: “he has already eaten the pie”.
“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 suggests that both have their strengths and weaknesses.”
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.
The prestige motivation for change refers to the way in which we view our language and the how others speak it.
The solidarity constraint, we can observe the way in which we use language to feel on par with our peers.
The solidarity constraint is a social movement while the prestige motivation for change indicates a superior social status.
Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York. The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.
Because is a particular change that take place at a particular time, and the place of palatization change to differenciate the meaning between two sounds.
The biological metaphor in language change can be attribute to the fact that language pass from one generation to another.
“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.”
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 social norm is the sociological term for the behavioural 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 behaviours. These rules may be explicit or implicit. 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.