1. What is more common in language uniformity or variability?
Variability, languages are constantly changing in a lot of internal fields. We have to remember that all the languages have a community of speakers that use it daily to establish a communication with other members, so it’s logical that through the time and due to their usage they suffer series of modifications.
In words of Milroy “one of the most important facts about human language is that it is continuously changing. […] Languages are never uniform entities”.
2. What kinds of variability exist?
3. How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?
It depends on the common linguistic features that a group of speakers share. It’s in the oral environment where are more easily appreciable these characteristics (pronunciation, vocabulary and sentence’s structure are basic aspects to identify the use of a concrete dialect or language).
4. 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?
No, this isn’t reasonable. The study of a language should be done through all its temporal evolution because, as we have commented previously, languages are changing continuously and being built again taking themselves as a basis.
The only case in which these studies can result beneficial is in the situation that during a determined period of time the language has experimented so many variations that a deep view in itself would be considered a big help to understand orderly the new changes, but always without forgetting its entirely process of evolution and having it in mind.
With Milroy words “Linguistic change is always in progress, and all the dialects are transitional dialects. Stable states of language of the kind postulated in Saussurean theory are idealizations.”
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?
No, it isn’t. Although in the history of a language had existed episodes of disturbance that affected its structure, we should add that all class of changes depend on determined circumstances. In a language changes aren’t arbitrary and follow series of reasons with justification even though sometimes they seem inexplicable.
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.”
6. Can you think of any example of non-professional attitudes to your own language?
Yes, in my own language there are examples of one variety that is considered the correct while others don’t enjoy the same social privileges.
This happen with the Spanish case of dequeísmo that according to the linguistics and grammarians isn’t a mistake but is a phenomenon categorized as vulgar and uncultured.
7. Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?
Because these terms are used in an ironic way.
Milroy knows that the tendency of considering one language variety superior to another hasn’t got solid philological argument and for this reason write the words highlighting them in italic so that they don’t connote all their normal meaning.
8. Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?
No, they aren’t. As we have said before these pejorative adjectives are attributed to some dialects for popular decision. Grammatically they are correct and should enjoy the same social treatment that any other language.
9. Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?
|
Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves |
Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves |
The second system is more regular. This is due to the fact that these words are used generally in the oral speech in spite of being considered non-standard.
“… 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)
10. Why do you think this is so?
For reasons of comfort. It’s easy to extract conclusions from a study that have been done previously and taking it as a basis for posteriors theories. Following a criterion of narrow interpretations has been a tendency with a lot of adepts, furthermore we mustn’t forget that it’s simpler do a work about changes in language isolating a temporal period instead of seeing all the historical evolution. This last fact can produce descontextualization.
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?
Yes, in a high or low level. I emphasize the next quotation: We are not dealing with ungrammatically, but with a change in the norms of usage for some part of the community. […]In the case of “you” and “yous” the difficulty that arises for the descriptive linguist is to determine the extent of the community of speakers within which this particular structure is the consensus norm.
It’s frequent that different varieties exist inside a language and, as we realize, there are also various types of social facts (i.e. the sentence I did it already or I’ve done it already).
For this, “He ate the pie already” is considered to be non-standard for most speakers of British English but is more or less correct for English in England and Wales.
12. What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?
Prescriptive grammars don’t give you a choice, you must follow their content. Additionally, they used to specify the good model and the forbidden one.
Descriptive grammars are more informative, they don’t exalt an internal register of the language and consider all the possible variations accepted.
Weinreich, Labov and Herzog’s (1968) empirical foundations of language change:
13. What do you think the “prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” mean? How are they opposed?
I think these two expressions reflect a social attitude in response to a language change. “Prestige motivation” refers to a behaviour that benefit a linguistic standard variety while “solidarity constraint” is more related with a dialect that doesn’t enjoy the same social valuation.
Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York/ The change from long āto ōin some dialects of English.
14. Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?
There are diverse reasons that justify in these words the process of palatalization:
15. What is the biological metaphor in language change?
This metaphor consists of comparing a language with a life thing (a tree is the most common referent) in the sense that both have an origin and grow branching off. There is also the point that languages obtain their basis from one of these branches that at the same time are originated in other older language (which is called mother).
This theory is considered abrupt and clear out because can have problems related with the comparison between the two entities (example: when one die has the other to suffer the same chance?)
16. What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?
Internal history of a language is constituted by the processes that have formed it through time, facts that had a repercussion directly and contributed to its actual state.
External histories could influence the language in different degrees, but not in a direct form. They give the contexts to create a situation that can help to make changes, however aren’t linguistic proceedings.
17. Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph or chapter?
Because both deal with the aspect of phonological change in a language. Neogrammarians support the model that sound-change operates indiscriminately in all the items without making any type of exceptions and at the same time while the lexical diffusion theory defends that sound-changes could occur in a gradual manner.
18. Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?
Social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue are ideas to justify the tendency that linguistic change is subjected to social origins. Sturtevant in the book Linguistic Change introduce these terms as a proof for the theory.
Saturnino Figueroa
March 2009
RETURN TO INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY INDEX
GO TO INDOEUROPEAN VIDEO TRANSCRIPTION
GO TO VOCABULARY AND INTERESTING INFORMATION