Language variability
What is more common in language uniformity or variability?
I think variability is more common than uniformity. A language change during the time, so invariability is inevitable.
What kind of variability exist?
Variability in a language depends on: geographical, historical and social factors.
How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?
Usually we decide that a person belongs to a particular dialect or language basing on geographical, historical, economical and political notions but sometimes we can also do a distinction depending on the use of vocabulary or pronunciation.
Saussure emphasized the importance of synchronic descriptions of language rather than diachronic. He and is disciplines (structuralism) focused on language at different periods as finite entities. Is this reasonable?
I think that diachronic description should be more reasonable than synchronic, because of the fact that language is always changing.
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 changes aren’t abnormal, because as we said before, language is always changing, so language progress in order to adapt to new situations.
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?
For example in some territories they use “la” instead of “le”: “La he dicho” / “Le he dicho” ,
It is also heard the word “de” added to some words, which is called “Dequeismo”: Le dijo de que iba a pagarle. Le dijo que iba a pagarle.
Another common sentence order we can hear in spanish is: me se ha caido, instead of- se me ha caido.
In some places, but specially in the south of spain, it is common to say: dejao’ pagao’ sentao’ instead of : dejado, pagado, sentado.
It is common too, add an –s in some words were it shouldn’t appear, for example: te fuistes, instead of ,te fuiste.
Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?
He is speaking ironically, he is speaking about ideas he doesn’t agree with.
Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?
They aren’t incorrect or irregular, they aren’t standardised, they represent the differences that exist in people geographical situation, which is reflected obviously in the use of language
Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?
I think that the first one is more irregular than the second one. However, it is the standard and the correct one because “hisself” and “theirselves” are not considered 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 decontexutalized 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?
Some people speak following colloquialisms rather than adjusting to the rules. I mean, spoken language has had a lot of importance within the history of language and its development, because oral transmission of language has always helped people to acquire knowledge. So, though written changes are “easily” interpreted (more or less), speech-based ones usually have problems because changes in speech are more difficult to interpret (colloquialisms and stuff like that), so these theories are often based on decontextualized 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?
I think it all depends on the context we find this sentence, for example if it is written or said. So, “he ate the pie already” would not be correct in an academic or formal context, but it would be fully acceptable if we were speaking in a colloquial situation
What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?
Descriptive grammar: based on how a language is spoken nowadays, not looking at if that language is being used properly or not. Prescriptive grammar: dictate rules about the use of language. If you do not follow those rules, you will be using language incorrectly.
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?
Both terms are opposed, “prestige motivation for change” is linked to the notion of wanting to stand out and indicate a superior social status, while “solidarity constraint” is a collective movement, related to the idea of fitting in socially.
Prestige motivation for change: it is the way in which we view our language and 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. The prestige motivation for change shows us how we often use language to express our superior social status
Solidarity constraint: it is the way in which we use language to feel on par with our peers. So it will vary depending on the social context in which we find ourselves. People tend to imitate others in order to fit in and feel accepted.
Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York. The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.
Many of those who speak English as a native language pronounce words like darling, far, bore or near the same as we write them: with vowel followed by r in the same syllable. But there are many other English speakers who do not pronounce the r - sound in this place (called ‘postvocalic r’) - although they have the sound everywhere else, like at the beginning of a word. Linguists use the classy terms rhotic and non-rhotic for these two pronunciations.
In some people’s speech this ‘dropped’ r reappears when the word is followed by a vowel, so you sometimes hear nevah but never again. Such speakers occasionally go on to insert an r where it doesn’t belong, and say sofa but sofer and chair.
Looked at geographically, American speakers who most commonly drop the r 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.
Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?
The place and degree of palatization varied in order to differentiate the meaning between the word doublets.
What is the biological metaphor in language change?
This metaphor refers to the similarities of the changes in the trees that growth makes on them, as well as it is done in language by the changes it acquires when its structures or words change.
What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?
“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.”
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. 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.