,y name is Rosmina Zuchri. English Student from Indonesia Country. yes I will watch n listen your explanation about " Reasons for language change". thanks a lot Proffessor.
My recollection of Labov’s experiment is a bit hazy - but if I remember correctly, the lower prestige store attendants didn’t use the post vocalic ‘r’, while the highest prestige attendants used it sometimes. But it was the middle prestige attendants (Macy’s) who used it the most - and the term ‘hyper-correction’ was used to describe their (over)use of a particular sound. Also I think I remember hearing that they asked for women’s shoes which were always located on the ‘fourth floor’, to get two possible occurrences of the ‘high prestige’ r.
Brilliant lectures. Thank you so much for uploading. EDIT: You explained it a moment after I wrote! ~~Quick question: would it not be 'The boy *whom* I saw'?~~
1/How language vary according to geographical area? What are the fields of variation? 2/ Language vary according to geographical area and situation, if you are asked to judge the variety of language which area geographical or situation you think it is dominant than the other, if not clarify why and how? Hope get your answers
The first part has to do with whom giving way to who. That is, most native speakers of English today don't recognize the difference between these two forms. So we'll say "The boy who left town" and "The boy who I saw." However, there is a technical difference where in the latter sentence who replaces the object him as in "I saw him" but in the former sentence who replaces he--"He left town." Older forms of English marked this difference by saying "The boy whom I saw." You'll still score points in formal situations by observing this distinction; however, like I said most native speakers don't seem to know the difference any longer. In the video, he chalks this change up to a process of analogy whereby we treat who/m the same way as that or whose or which, which obviously don't have more than one form. I always saw it in somewhat simpler terms as a product of reanalyzing all relative clauses as Subject-Verb-Object in form, which is another step in the direction of English becoming a fixed word order type of language. But I guess his analysis works too, although I don't know if there's any way to test either of these hypotheses. The second part seems to me to rest on shakier ground. He's saying that in Old English the pronoun in subject position of "Me dremyd" changed to "I" by analogy with other SVO forms. Fair enough. The part where I think he goes a little off the rails is in his assertion that the former form had no subject. If "me" isn't functioning as a subject, then what is it? Obviously, the person doing the dreaming is me or I. (Of course, dreaming is not a volitional act so one could debate whether subjects should be restricted to only those cases--but one would have to extend this analysis to other forms like "I saw" or "I know," which don't exactly seem volitional either, so it can easily get messy. And what about cases in modern English like "Me and John went to the concert"? Me isn't a subject here either?) My educated guess here is that he's following a school of thought in linguistics where certain intransitive verbs (verbs without objects) are seen as derived from underlying forms where the surface subject used to be an object (this is called the Unaccusativity hypothesis). Certain languages called Ergative-Absolutive languages do mark subjects of intransitive forms of verbs this way. But subject-hood, so to speak, isn't always about marking--it's about the semantics of agency. I'd agree that "Me dremyd" isn't marked in the typical subject manner, although clearly a subject function is implied.
,y name is Rosmina Zuchri. English Student from Indonesia Country. yes I will watch n listen your explanation about " Reasons for language change". thanks a lot Proffessor.
My recollection of Labov’s experiment is a bit hazy - but if I remember correctly, the lower prestige store attendants didn’t use the post vocalic ‘r’, while the highest prestige attendants used it sometimes. But it was the middle prestige attendants (Macy’s) who used it the most - and the term ‘hyper-correction’ was used to describe their (over)use of a particular sound.
Also I think I remember hearing that they asked for women’s shoes which were always located on the ‘fourth floor’, to get two possible occurrences of the ‘high prestige’ r.
Brilliant lectures. Thank you so much for uploading. EDIT: You explained it a moment after I wrote! ~~Quick question: would it not be 'The boy *whom* I saw'?~~
I got confused here as well
@@rawanmk9745 repeat again your watching
A wonderful lecture. But it still does not explain complex phonetic changes, such as the Great Vowel Shift
Thanks a lot. And the GVS is explained in all details here: th-cam.com/video/zyhZ8NQOZeo/w-d-xo.html
1/How language vary according to geographical area? What are the fields of variation?
2/ Language vary according to geographical area and situation, if you are asked to judge the variety of language which area geographical or situation you think it is dominant than the other, if not clarify why and how?
Hope get your answers
can someone explain the analogy/reinterpretation stuff?
The first part has to do with whom giving way to who. That is, most native speakers of English today don't recognize the difference between these two forms. So we'll say "The boy who left town" and "The boy who I saw." However, there is a technical difference where in the latter sentence who replaces the object him as in "I saw him" but in the former sentence who replaces he--"He left town." Older forms of English marked this difference by saying "The boy whom I saw." You'll still score points in formal situations by observing this distinction; however, like I said most native speakers don't seem to know the difference any longer. In the video, he chalks this change up to a process of analogy whereby we treat who/m the same way as that or whose or which, which obviously don't have more than one form. I always saw it in somewhat simpler terms as a product of reanalyzing all relative clauses as Subject-Verb-Object in form, which is another step in the direction of English becoming a fixed word order type of language. But I guess his analysis works too, although I don't know if there's any way to test either of these hypotheses.
The second part seems to me to rest on shakier ground. He's saying that in Old English the pronoun in subject position of "Me dremyd" changed to "I" by analogy with other SVO forms. Fair enough. The part where I think he goes a little off the rails is in his assertion that the former form had no subject. If "me" isn't functioning as a subject, then what is it? Obviously, the person doing the dreaming is me or I. (Of course, dreaming is not a volitional act so one could debate whether subjects should be restricted to only those cases--but one would have to extend this analysis to other forms like "I saw" or "I know," which don't exactly seem volitional either, so it can easily get messy. And what about cases in modern English like "Me and John went to the concert"? Me isn't a subject here either?) My educated guess here is that he's following a school of thought in linguistics where certain intransitive verbs (verbs without objects) are seen as derived from underlying forms where the surface subject used to be an object (this is called the Unaccusativity hypothesis). Certain languages called Ergative-Absolutive languages do mark subjects of intransitive forms of verbs this way. But subject-hood, so to speak, isn't always about marking--it's about the semantics of agency. I'd agree that "Me dremyd" isn't marked in the typical subject manner, although clearly a subject function is implied.
"storehouse" is not an American term. We would say "department store".
I wonder if he's translating word-for-word from German "kaufhaus" = purchase house or store (dept. store in American English).
I'm sure you're right. My German vocabulary is extremely limited and "kaufhaus" is not part of it.
Much kudos !!!!
The lower class New York dialect lacks the post vocalic r... they were not trying to sound British.
thanks
what are the three main types of force for language change?