1. Normative or legal statements (like IDs required, No smoking, Transit visa mandatory, etc.

) require

the use of language for the description of objects and events that are removed in time and place.

What kind of design feature can you relate to this phenomenon? Do you think linguistic creativity is

at play behind this design feature?

Most animals only have the capacity to communicate regarding things in their present environment.
They are unable to discuss things or concepts removed in space or time. Even though they possess a
substantial communication system using which they are able to covey messages between each other,
this is where its utility ends. Human beings are the exception to this phenomenon, they are just as
easily able to talk about things that are absent.

This feature of language to discuss and converse about things that are not spatially or temporally
present is known as Displacement. This displacement is one of the most noteworthy dissimilarities
between human languages and that of of all other animals. Unlike other animals, humans are able to
enjoy this phenomenon, and discuss varied subjects and topics, no matter how far removed they may
be in time or space. An exception to this general rule is the communication of honey bees.

After finding a nectar supply, a honeybee scout goes back to the hive and dances, garnering notice
from other bees. The direction, distance, and quantity of nectar are all communicated to the bees
observing this dance. This is displacement: watching bees act by taking off to find the nectar in
response to the dancing bee's knowledge about a location it visited in the past but is now unable to
see. The bee dance is unique in the non-human world as no other animals are able to communicate in
the same way, and even the bee dance has very limited expressive potential.

Normative and legal statements are also communicated through this feature of language. They are not
descriptions of the present but tell us about future possibilities as well as certain necessities that must
be adhered to.

Displacement further allows for linguistic creativity as well as productivity.

As we are aware, animals are limited linguistically, as they are only able to communicate certain
things repeatedly. This restriction is not present in human language, in which humans can make
entirely novel sentences that have never been uttered before and still be understood.

This feature of human language allows for conceptual and abstract thinking, as humans were no
longer restricted to only discussing the present, but could also deliberate on the events of the past, as
well as future possibilities. We don't limit our conversation to predefined messages or any particular
set of subjects. It is possible to discuss novel ideas with the use of a limitless array of sentences.
Being able to think creatively and innovatively, humans are also able to create art, as well as engage
in artistic expression. This further fosters universality as art can be understood beyond the barriers of
language, and hence leads to unity amongst people.

2. What is glottal stop? It is often said that Cockney English, including some parts of the UK, replaces

the final sound [t] in words like what, get, it with a glottal stop. Do you think the use of glottal stop in

these cases gives rise to any sort of meaning change?

The glottal stop, also known as the glottal plosive, is a form of consonantal sound that is generated by
blocking airflow in the vocal tract. The glottal vibration either stops or becomes uneven with a low
rate and sudden decrease in intensity due to the restriction of the airflow in the glottis. The most well-
known use of the glottal stop in British English is when pronouncing "butter" as "bu'er" in Cockney
pronunciation.

Phonemes are the smallest unit of speech that distinguish one word from the other, such as the
element t in “cat”, which separates that word form “cab”, “cap” and “can”. A phoneme may have
more than one variant, known as an allophone which functions as a single sound; for example, the p’s
of “pat,” “spat,” and “tap” differ slightly phonetically, but that distinction, which is dependent on
context, has little relevance in English.

The glottal stop is used differently in different variations of English, but T-glottalization is the main
method by which it enters most forms. This indicates that it functions as an allophone of the T-sound,
or possibly an alternative. Though it is one of the allophones of the t sound, the glottal stop is not a
distinct phoneme or sound. Therefore, it doesn't alter the meaning of words; rather, it can make your
speech appear more natural to listeners. Even though there are differences in the sounds, these are not
phonemic.

A minimal pair consists of two words that have only one phoneme difference. Languages frequently
utilize minimal pairings to illustrate how two sounds differ from one another. For instance, we can use
simple pairs like sip and tip to show how [s] and [t] contrast in English. We can deduce that both
words belong to different phonemes since the sole difference between them is the [s] vs. [t].

Minimal pairs are, in essence, instruments for demonstrating that two or more sounds are contrastive.
3. For African-American English (AAE) speakers, the two sound changes (i) [θ] → [f] (like, ruth is

pronounced as [ruf]) and (ii) [ð] → [v] (like [brʌðər] is pronounced as [brʌvər]) are very

commonplace at the ends of the syllables. Do you think this kind of loss of interdental fricatives

would help detect the identity of an offender? Justify your answer.

One of the most common stereotypes of African-American English" is the variable absence of
interdental fricatives. Interdental fricatives are frequently substituted with a t- or d-sound, as in tink
and dem, in word-initial positions, such as in thought or them. It becomes clear that the voiced th (θ)
is replaced by the voiced d -sound in this instance, whereas the voiceless th (ð) is replaced by the
voiceless t -sound.

However, this phonological element is not unique to AAE. It can also be found in other non-standard
forms of the language, such as working-class vernacular in New York; however, this does not
necessarily imply a relationship between AAE and New York City variants.

As a result, the lack of interdental fricatives by itself is not a valid sign of AAE usage.

Linguistic profiling has been defined as “racial identification on the basis of speech” and occurs when
a listener uses auditory cues to identify social characteristics, such as the race, gender of the speaker.
It is a natural and automatic psychological process and although it is not inherently discriminatory, it
can contribute to racial profiling. There are several ways that linguistic profiling interacts with the
law, both in discriminatory and non-discrimination ways. Witnesses' statements have been based on
linguistic profiling of the perpetrator taken place during the crime. Numerous instances involving
racial discrimination in the housing market have been taken to court as a result of linguistic profiling.
In other instances, linguistic profiling has resulted in the rejection of witness testimony due to the
discrimination attached to their speech.

Courts must take care to prevent discrimination as a person's color or speech pattern does not make
them more likely to have a criminal record. Additionally, they must acknowledge that the use of
linguistic profiling has adverse effects on individuals' lives in relation to housing, work, and other
situations where discrimination is prohibited by law. Lastly, judges need to exercise caution to
maintain the use of discriminatory language profiling from influencing the weight of witness
testimony and jury choices.

Even though AAE's inflections could reveal something about the speaker, they should only be viewed
as one piece of the puzzle when figuring out who the speaker or offender is. To get more accurate
conclusions, additional contextual information supporting these indications should be included,
such as possible intentional linguistic changes made by them in order to mislead the person in
question. It is in my belief that a mere accent cannot be used as the sole piece of evidence when
making an assumption regarding the identity of the supposed offender, as it is not the most reliable
source and may be easily manipulated.