Language use and identification Centralization of vowels in Marthas Vineyard.
-
Upload
leah-graham -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
3
Transcript of Language use and identification Centralization of vowels in Marthas Vineyard.
Language use and identification
• Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard
Language use and identification
• Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard [] [] and [] []– while, pie, night
– out, house, trout
Language use and identification
• Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard [] [] and [] []
Age ay aw
75- 25 22
61-75 35 37
46-60 62 44
31-45 81 88
14-30 37 46
Geographical distribution of centralization
ay aw
Down-island 35 33
Up-island 61 66
Degree of centralization and orientation towards Martha’s
Vineyard
Persons Orientation ay aw
40 Positive 63 62
19 Neutral 32 42
6 Negative 09 08
Register variation
• Complexity of the speaker’s competence– T’as pas vu le flic ?– N’avez-vous vu le policier ?
• Lexical choices (policier / flic)• Syntactic choices
– subject pronoun / verb inversion– omission of ne
• Phonological choices: Tu as vs. T’as• Social deixis: tu vs. vous
Register variation
• Complexity of the speaker’s competence– You seen the cop?– Have you seen the policeman?
• Lexical choices (policeman / cop)
• Syntactic choices– omission of perfect aux have
• Phonological choices– you : [j] vs [ju:]
Register variation
• Complexity of the speaker’s competence– Have you seen the policeman?– Might you perhaps have seen the policeman
• Addition of modal elements might, perhaps
Register variation
• Complexity of the speaker’s competence– She don’t talk to them boys no more.– She doesn’t talk to those boys any more.
• Morphological choices– don’t vs doesn’t (as 3rd pers sg auxiliary)– them vs those (as plural demonstrative)
• Syntactic choices– double negation
Diachronic variation: English
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; Si þin nama gehalgod to becume þin rice gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; Father our thou that art in heavensSi þin nama gehalgod be thy name hallowedto becume þin rice come thy kingdomgewurþe ðin willa be-done thy willon eorðan swa swa on heofonum. on earth as in heavensurne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg our daily bread give us todayand forgyf us ure gyltas and forgive us our sinsswa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-usand ne gelæd þu us on costnunge and not lead thou us into temptationac alys us of yfele soþlice but deliver us from evil. truly
This version of the Lord's Prayer is from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 140 [WSCp], a translation of the Gospels written in Bath in the first half of the 11th century; edited by Liuzza (1994). Read by Cathy Ball (Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University) for Edward Vanetten's Sunday School class.
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/paternoster-oe.html
Diachronic variation: English
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice.
Old English, circa 1000 (West Saxon Gospels)
Oure fadir that art in heuenes halewid be thi name, thi kyngdoom come to,
Middle English, circa 1400 (Wyclif Bible)
Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come.
Early Modern English, circa 1600 (King James Bible)
Our Father, who is in heaven, may your name be kept holy. May your kingdom come into being.
Contemporary English
Diachronic variation: English
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
Our Father, who is in heaven
• Syntactic changes– Position of genitive pronoun ure (=our)
• Morphological changes– Conjugation of be– Case: heofonum is the dative plural of heofon– Second person pronoun þu (þ = th)
Diachronic variation: English
• Semantic change– on > in
• Phonetic change– Fæder [fædr]– ure [ur]
• Spelling system– æ þ ð
Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnesSet anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne: Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;
(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Phonological change: Carles/Charles, castel/château ; reis / roi ; nostre / notre, altaigne/hautaine
Pronunciation of final s
Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;
(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Morphological change:
Carles, reis, magnes : -s = subject case
Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnesSet anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne: Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;
(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Syntactic change:*Charles sept ans a été en Espagne*Jusqu’à la mer (il) conquit la terre haute
Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;
(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Lexical change (word replacement):
magne > grand; tresque > jusque; remanoir > rester
Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;
(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Lexical semantic change:
altaigne = hautain, only the metaphorical sense remains
Phonological change
Latin Français Italien
• cantum > chant canto
• campum > champ campo
• carrum > char carro
• carum > cher caro
• caballum > cheval cavallo
Phonological change
• casus > cas (emprunt médiéval au latin)
• campania > campagne (emprunt au provençal ou au picard ou aux deux)
Phonological change
Latin Français Italien
• tēlam toile tela
• tēctum toit tetto
• sēram soir sera
• rēgem roi re
Morphological change: analogy
Latin Old Fr (1200) French
• amo aim j’aime
• amas aimes tu aimes
• amat aimet il aime
• amamus aimons nous aimons
• amatis aimez vous aimez
• amant aiment ils aiment
Conclusion
• Why the interest in variation?– Not all variation is possible. Possible variation
tells us about the structure of linguistic knowledge
– Avoid simplistic analyses: • double negation is illogical• meaning and syntax of modal auxiliaries in English• confusion of diachronic and synchronic
explanations
Conclusion
• Central object of linguistic inquiry: the individual speaker’s competence
• But– Complexity of that competence (multiple
systems for one speaker)– Inter-speaker variation