What is more common in language uniformity or variability?

Variability is more common in language. Languages are never uniform entities.

What kinds of variability exist?

Languages can be observed to vary geographically and socially, and according to the situational contexts in which they are used.

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

We can decide it watching carefully some aspects of the language such as vocabulary and accent.

Saussure emphasized the importance of synchronic descriptions of languages rather than diachronic. He and is disciples (structuralists) focused on language at different periods as finite entities. Is this reasonable?

I think that it isn’t reasonable because language is a continuous process always in 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?

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 ‘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?

There are many examples of Spanish non-professional attitudes:

“Me he comprao un coche”

“Me se cayó la carpeta”

“Esto no es asin “

“Dila que no iré a cenar”

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

Because is a way to define the linguistic changes in progress.

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

Yes they are.

Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves

Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves

The more irregular is the second: hisself, theirselves. Because it isn’t the standard system.

“… 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?

Any description of a language involves norms?

Yes

Think of the descriptions of your own language. Why is this so?

Because we need to have norms to be able to speak, to read, to write...

 For example: He ate the pie already is considered to be non-standard in which variety of English and perfectly acceptable in which other?

What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?

Descriptive grammar refers to the structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. Prescriptive grammar refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used. Specialists in descriptive grammar study the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. On the other hand prescriptive grammarians lay out rules about what they believe to be “correct” or “incorrect” use of language.

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?

Some varieties of language are more prestigious than others. These prestigious varieties can influence less prestigious varieties which usually incorporate some features in order to become more prestigious. For example: the use of post-vocalic /r/ in New York.

Solidarity constraint requires the speaker to conform to local community norms rather than to norms that are viewed as external. It means that for example in the case of Belfast vernacular, the pronunciation of /ei/ was not motivated by the prestige. Prestige refers to the external norms, while solidarity constraint refers to internal norms.

So prestige factors and solidarity factors are pulling in opposite directions.

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

The post-vocalic /r/ is the norm in American English. New York English, is like RP in that there is no post-vocalic /r/. However whereas post-vocalic /r/ is prestigious in the USA, no post-vocalic /r/ is the prestigious form in England. Many New Yorkers are adopting post-vocalic /r/ so that their speech will be more prestigious. Long a changed to o in southern dialects of British English. So stan became ston in the South but not in Scotland, for example.

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

According to Milroy one condition could be that the proximity of the velar consonant to a front vowel may be necessary for the palatalization, but it is not a sufficient condition. He says thet social conditions must be favorable, which means we must take into account the activities of speakers in social contexts in addition to the internal structural properties of language.

What is the biological metaphor in language change?

Language is seen as a living organism. This contrasts with those, like Milroy, who stress that is people, not languages, which bring about change. A language is not a living thing.

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

Internal histories of the language put the emphasis on change within the language whereas external histories of the language put the emphasis on bottowing from foreign languages.

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

Because the opponents of the Neogrammarians say that sounds change through lexical diffusion and do not happen throughout the whole language system.

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

Childish errors and slips of the tongue might be causes of innovation and eventually of change. Social norm-enforcement normally makes it less difficult for innovations to take hold.

BACK