Language change



Language change

Linguists have traditionally studied variations in a language occurring at the same, time (synchronic study) or how language develops over time (diachronic or historical study). Both can be useful aids to understanding.

The study of language change is often narrowed to consideration of change in one aspect of language: lexis, semantics or syntax, say. But you should have a sense of the broad historical development of English. Later, you may wish to study more fully how the language developed at a particular period. For the 20th century, we are able to study some kinds of change over a very short time, as there is plenty of evidence. The further back we go, the longer may be the periods over which change can be observed. Before the 20th century, most of the evidence that survives is of written forms. We have some second-hand written evidence of spoken language forms, but no recorded speech earlier than that allowed by modern recording technology.

[pic]

The Indo-European languages

The language family to which English belongs is sometimes known as the Indo-European group, a description which indicates the geographical spread of the languages in this family over a long historical period.

One convenient way to represent the long-term change as new languages arise out of protoype or “parent” languages is to use a diagram like a family tree or genealogy. This kind of diagram is helpful so long as you are aware of its limitations. For example, it might lead you to suppose that new languages appear in a definite way, to which we can assign a date (as with the birth of a child). But this is never the case (except with invented languages, like Klingon). Language change does not occur at the same rate in all places. Thus the language of the 14th century author of Pearl and Gawain and the Green Knight has many features we find in Old English, while Chaucer, writing at more or less the same time, uses a variety (or varieties) of written English which are far closer to the forms we use today. This may be associated with a north-south divide, though we know too little to assert this with any great confidence.

[pic]

The early history of English

The period before English began: The original inhabitants of the British Isles did not speak English, but Celtic languages. (Modern forms include Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Erse [Irish] and Breton, as well as dead languages like Cornish and Manx.)

The beginnings of English (ca. 450-1066): English comes from the language of the Germanic tribes who arrived in England in the 5th and 6th centuries AD. These were Jutes, Saxons and Angles. They organized themselves into kingdoms (such as the West Saxons, South Saxons, East Saxons and East Angles). Once they settled in England, their language developed separately from the various forms found in what is now Germany. The Angles were the Engla, the country Englalond and their tongue Englisc. The form of English spoken at this time is Old English (sometimes known as Anglo-Saxon).

About half of the common vocabulary of Modern English comes from Old English, especially names of everyday objects and basic processes. Forms of words varied according to syntax: inflection, case endings, declensions and grammatical gender are all found (as in modern German). Nearly all of these have disappeared from the language as spoken today. English was first written by Roman missionary priests or monks. Their spelling approximated to that used for similar sounds in Latin, and was not standardized.

At the end of the 8th century the first Viking raiders came to Britain. In the 9th century, their raids became more frequent, culminating in invasion, conquest and the establishment of the Danelaw: this was the area of England (most of it) subject to Viking rule, with its capital at York. Ordinary people were not generally harmed once the Vikings were settled in the country. In 937 century the West Saxon royal house under Aethelstan defeated the Vikings at Brunanburh, and within a few years, the Danelaw came to an end. But there were still Viking rulers who claimed the throne (Sweyn and Cnut in the 11th century). On the death of the Saxon king of all England, Edward the Confessor, one of his nobles, Harold, seized power. At Stamford Bridge in 1066 he defeated another Harold, a Norwegian invader, but fell at Hastings to William. William was also a Viking; but the Normans had long been settled in France and their language was French.

[pic]

An outline history of the English Language

[pic]

|Before English began - up to ca. 450 AD |

|British (Celtic) tribes: language related to modern Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish (Erse) · Only real connection with Modern English is in lexis (mostly in place |

|names). |

|Origins of English - ca. 450 AD to 1066 |

|Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrive from north Germany · Language (Old English) is at first spoken · only writing is runes · Written form comes from Latin-speaking monks, |

|who use Roman alphabet, with new letters (æ, ð and þ) · About half of common vocabulary of modern English comes from OE · Word forms vary according to syntax |

|(inflection, case endings and declension) and grammatical gender · Vikings establish Danelaw · some erosion of grammar and addition of new vocabulary. |

|Middle English Period - 1066 to 1485 |

|Lexis: terms for law and politics from Norman French · General expansion of lexis, esp. abstract terms · Case-endings, declension and gender disappear · Inflection |

|goes except in pronouns and related forms · Writers concerned about change · want to stabilize language · 1458: Gutenberg invents printing (1475: Caxton introduces it |

|to England) · enables some standardizing. |

|Tudor Period - 1485 to 1603 |

|Rise of nationalism linked to desire for more expressive language · Flowering of literature and experiments in style · idea of elevated diction · Vocabulary enlarged |

|by new learning Renaissance) · imports from Greek and Latin · Lexis expanded by travel to New World, and ideas in maths and science · English settlers begin to found |

|colonies in North America. |

|The 17th Century |

|Influences of Puritanism and Catholicism (Roundhead and Cavalier) and of science · Puritan ideas of clarity and simplicity · reasonableness and less verbose language ·|

|English preferred to Dutch as official tongue of American colonies. |

|The 18th Century |

|Age of reason · Ideas of order and priority · Standardizing of spelling (Johnson; 1755) and grammar (Lowth; 1762) · Classical languages seen as paradigms for English ·|

|Romantic Movement begins · interest in regional and social class varieties of English. |

|The 19th Century |

|Interest in past · use of archaic words · British Empire · huge lexical growth · English travels to other countries · Modern language science begins with Jakob Grimm |

|and others. |

|The 20th and 21st Centuries |

|Modern language science developed · descriptive not prescriptive · Non-standard varieties have raised status · Ideas of formal and informal change · Modern recording |

|technology allows study of spoken English · Influence of overseas forms · US English dominant · becomes global language (e.g. in computing, communications, |

|entertainment). |

[pic]

Language change and standardization

In order to study this area of language change reflects you should have a theoretical understanding of standard and non-standard (n/s) forms. This is an important are of sociolinguistics. Those who urge standard forms on the public may be more or less aware of this academic theory.

Popular language myths

You should note the difference between a linguist like Randolph Quirk who advocates teaching standard forms in schools as a form of social empowerment and a politician like Norman Tebbitt (1985; quoted by Professor Jean Aitchison in The Language Web and the 1996 BBC Reith Lectures) who argues that n/s forms are linked to crime (although this is plausible - the incidence of reading difficulty for the UK prison population is higher than that for the whole UK population). Professor Quirk does not prescribe the use of standard forms for their own sake, but because society expects them in some contexts.

You should also be aware of non-expert commentators, like Prince Charles, who endorse a model which reflects a mistaken belief that English is modelled on (or, even worse, "descended from") classical languages, or, like Gillian Shephard, former Secretary of State for Education, favour a "standard" partly defined negatively as not being so-called "Estuary English". Since her comments (1995) this alleged variety has not become established. Confusingly "Estuary English" has been described as a new (demotic or popular) standard form! (See Coggle, P; 1993; Do you speak Estuary? The new standard English).

Language myths refuted

Aitchison's first 1996 Reith lecture: A Web of Worries (Chapter 1 of The Language Web) gives much of the historical background anddisposes of many myths, which she groups under three metaphorical headings: the "damp teaspoon syndrome", the "crumbling castle view" and the "infectious disease assumption". Try to find out what these are.

Classical literary Greek and Latin do not change. The reasons for this are obvious - grammars to explain them were written after the languages were no longer in use. This is the source of the illusory standard advocated throughout the history of English but especially loudly in Chaucer's time, in the classical revival of the 17th and 18th centuries, and in our own day. The advocates of this myth seem to believe, mistakenly,

• that classical languages did not change (wrong - none is alive today),

• that Greek and Latin are in some way ideal or perfect languages, and

• that English is “derived” from these dead languages.

All these are contentions which modern language science contradicts.

About this we can say two things with confidence: many people, learned or ignorant, with many motives have sought to impose standard forms on other people; none has succeeded. But we can qualify this by noting that over shorter periods standard forms for particular purposes (e.g. writing a business letter or pleading in the High Court) have been accepted.

Invented standards may be prescribed but will be observed only if speakers or writers are coerced - which is a problem for English-speaking countries which guarantee (some measure of) freedom of speech. On the other hand, some standards may be accepted out of respect for the authority from which they are derived, or for powerful pragmatic reasons - such as the use of agreed conventions for air-traffic control.

In discussing influences on standardization you should note how and in what way they are accepted (e.g. the OED, Webster or Microsoft indicate standard spelling forms but few writers use these with complete consistency).

You may wish to organize these influences chronologically or by category - although in some cases influences in a given period may more or less correspond to language category. Below is a selection of events in the history of English that have influenced language change or standardization, and comment on these.

Standard forms in early English

English is at first a dialectal variant of a contemporary Germanic language. Grammar is not enforced by a standard, but conventional and stable forms have been described and reconstructed from old texts by modern scholars (e.g. H. Sweet, C.L. Wrenn and Bruce Mitchell) . Written English is rare, and comes from Latin-speaking monks, who used the Roman alphabet, with new letters (Æ/æ [ash], ð/Ð [eth] and Þ/þ [thorn]) usually to record texts for others to read aloud or in public (mostly the scriptures). The arrival of the Vikings and establishment of the Danelaw bring about change - some erosion of grammar and addition of new vocabulary.

Standard forms in Middle English

After the Norman Conquest the language of government is mediaeval French, but in 1362 (under Edward III) English becomes the official language. Writers express concern about change - Chaucer describes this change, while Ranulph Higden bemoans the strange sounds of English in a way that anticipates Gillian Shephard's 1995 outburst against "Estuary English": the English, says Higden, practise "strange wlaffyng, chytering, harryng and garryng grisbittyng" (stammering, chattering, snarling and grating tooth-gnashing).

In 1458 Gutenberg invents printing (in 1475 Caxton introduces it to England) - this enables some standardizing. But note that there is no widespread standard form of spelling nor of punctuation. Some publishers may attempt in-house consistency. Also, for some time after the invention of printing, more books than previously are produced by hand - printing is at first reserved to books likely to justify the time taken to set up type. The press provides the technical means to guarantee standardizing of spelling, but this will wait for some 300 years.

Standard forms in the Tudor Period - 1485 to 1603

This period sees experiments in style and debates about composition and diction. We catch hints of these in Shakespeare's plays - Falstaff's speaking in "Cambyses' vein" (Henry IV, Part i, Act 2, scene 4) or Pyramus and Thisbe (A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 5, scene 1). Trade and discovery bring about rapid change, especially in the lexicon, and while some settling down of spelling may appear, it is far from being standardized.

Like a modern teenager, Shakespeare spells his name in many different ways. Modern school editions of the text of his plays may mislead you, as the spelling in these is in 20th century standard forms mostly. On the other hand, modern editions of Elizabethan poetry may retain archaic spelling variants - as (in John Donne's poetry, say) of personal pronouns ending in -ee - mee, hee or shee (like thee). Richard Mulcaster writes that it would be "verie praiseworthie…if som one well learned and as laborious a man, wold gather all the words which we use in our English tung…into one dictionarie".

Standard forms in the 17th Century

It is in this period that the debate about standard forms becomes most strident. Lexicographers attempt to create dictionaries. In 1604 Robert Cawdrey produces the first English dictionary which uses synonyms to describe or define the 3,000 entries. Daniel Defoe proposes the creation of an Academy (as in France) to supervise and regulate the language. Far more influential in establishing a mature model of English prose and verse is the publication in 1611 of the "Authorized Version"(never authorized, in fact) of the Bible. This translation was intended to produce a Bible for public reading aloud.

Standard forms in the 18th Century

In 1712 Jonathan Swift writes to the Lord Treasurer, urging the formation of an English Academy to regulate usage as "many gross improprieties" could be found in the language of "even the best authors". Dr. Samuel Johnson, in the preface to his 1755 Dictionary of the English Language, notes that "tongues…have a natural tendency to degeneration" but mocks the lexicographer who imagines that his dictionary "can embalm his language", as "to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride". In the act of giving us the most enduring of our authorities for standard forms, Johnson sees its limitations.

In 1721 Nathan Bailey produces the first substantial dictionary, the Universal Etymological English Dictionary which, by the 1736 revision contains 60,000 words. His definitions lack illustrative support and he is vague about usage. This is remedied dramatically by Johnson in his Dictionary of the English Language. It has some 40,000 words (fewer than Bailey has) but has extensive quotations to support descriptions or definitions of words. Johnson had earlier sought to regulate and control the language - now, having considered its history more thoroughly, he recognizes this as folly. Nevertheless, his dictionary does establish models for spelling most of which are still accepted today.

In 1762, Robert Lowth publishes A Short Introduction to English Grammar - here are found many of the invented “rules” that Jean Aitchison dismisses in the first of her 1996 Reith Lectures (A Web of Worries). Lowth establishes the prescriptive tradition, mistakenly prescribing Latin-derived models. Lowth's ideas still enjoy support today.

Standard forms in the 19th Century

In this century, Noah Webster establishes American standard spelling in his 1828 dictionary. Differences from Johnson's are relatively few but mostly notorious. Most familiar are variants on the affixes -our and -re (Webster has -or and -er: e.g., color, labor; theater, center). In the UK Sir James Murray begins work on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in 1879 - he takes five years to reach ant. The researches of the brothers Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm lay the foundations for modern language science, and show that English is not "descended" from Latin but from a Germanic original. So attempts to explain it by the categories of Latin, or to make speakers or writers conform to classical models are historically mistaken. Yet such "Flat Earth" views persist.

Standard forms in the 20th and 21st Centuries

Modern language science develops and the idea of prescription becomes less persuasive. Attempts at spelling reform and artificial international languages provoke interest but no long-term standardization. The invented languages (such as Esperanto) are less widely spoken today than Klingon (invented by a fan of Star Trek). But English has become the global language - which may help establish an International standard.

Modern recording technology and mass broadcasting give currency to the idea of standard spoken forms. Finally, computer technology provides a powerful means for encouragement of standard written forms with spell-checking and grammar-checking. Interestingly, these allow the user to choose which standard to follow: US English, UK English, Australian or NZ English or International standard forms.

Studying standardization and change by language category

Although a chronological model gives us a sense of succession and of history as narrative, it can make it hard to see the theory or outline of a question or contemporary opinion. It can also lead us to see historical divisions (the end of a century) as having more importance than is really the case. In what follows aspects of change and standardization are considered in terms of language categories. Some of these will affect spoken or written English only (e.g. phonology or spelling, respectively) while others (lexis, semantics, syntax) are common to both or (like style) affect both but possibly in different ways.

Grammar

Models or examples that we imitate may become real or de facto standards. Texts with a large audience may thus create patterns to which we conform. Prescriptive rules are compiled because the writer presumably wishes to "correct" some real language tendency - these invented rules (akin to matters of etiquette or table manners) are likely to fail, but may in the meantime promote social attitudes about "correct" or "incorrect" English that are confused with genuine rules.

Some "rules", like those drawn up by Lowth in 1762, have acquired currency: for example, that one should not put a preposition at the end of a sentence, use double or multiple negatives, split the infinitive, or use they as a gender-neutral pronoun. Professor R.W. Zandvoort describes how English usage ignores these pseudo-rules, while Jean Aitchison in her lecture A Web of Worries gives historical and modern examples to show what Zandvoort describes.

Lexis and semantics

This is less problematic or, rather, the problems are readily grasped. Some lexical items with some meanings are certainly standard features of English at a given time - the OED is full of them. Equally, some other items are obviously not standard or have n/s meanings. And many items are in the process of becoming or ceasing to be standard. Thus, in spite of continual language change, we can create a standard lexicon at any time. We can take this further and show how a given lexical item with a given meaning may be standard in a given context or within a variety but be n/s as regards the mainstream.

For example Hoover began life as a brand name, a proper-noun equivalent to generic vacuum cleaner. Nowadays, in spoken UK English Hoover or arguably hoover is acceptable as a generic name or common noun. At the turn of the century supplements to the OED recorded various forms of Kodak (small portable camera) including kodaker (photographer) and kodakry photography. These are no longer standard although Polaroid is acceptable to denote the instant photographs produced in such cameras.

Both lexis and semantics (especially semantic change or drift) may be culturally determined. They may depend on some other thing (a process or object) which ceases to be familiar, and so the word disappears or the meaning shifts. This has happened to words like wireless, telegram or terms from imperial measurement and pre-decimal currency (foot, inch, gallon, bushel, halfpenny [do you know the standard pronunciation of this?], and shilling.

Spelling

Discussion of spelling is bedevilled by strong social attitudes. Even teachers, who should know better, characterize n/s spelling by epithets such as "bad", "poor", "awful" or "appalling" - as if the writer wilfully ignored the standard form. The National Curriculum draws attention to many other features of written performance as well as spelling, but the social attitudes persist. Yet Chaucer, Shakespeare and Milton (necessarily) wrote without regard to a standard, so standard spelling can hardly be a measure of merit. The allegation that n/s spelling confuses the reader is often false (as with n/s omission or adding of a second consonant or n/s e before -ing in verbs). Non-standard spellings used in marketing (Kwik Fit, Kwik Save, Toys R Us) rarely appear unintentionally in children's writing, as any teacher knows. On the other hand, the commonest "errors" such as alot for (standard) a lot, grammer for (standard) grammar or belive for standard believe all make clear what the writer intends.

Johnson's dictionary establishes a standard because it is not prescriptive but descriptive. It records what is in Johnson's (very wide) reading the most common form, making allowance for consistency of like elements, and showing etymology, for those who know other languages. Thus cede (verb=give, from Latin) and seed (noun) are differently spelt though homophones (having more or less the same sound value). Johnson also disarms critics by quoting usage, not merely laying down a preferred form.

The modern reader sees Noah Webster's variants as distinctly American (ax, color, plow, theater, waggon) but often Webster has recorded an older English form than Dr. Johnson.

Punctuation

Punctuation, which may be more critical to communicating meaning than spelling, provokes much less strong social attitudes - perhaps because n/s forms are less obvious, perhaps because punctuation has no defining moment like the publication of Johnson's dictionary, but has evolved gradually and has standard forms but is open to change.

From the 18th century onwards one sees most punctuation marks which are considered standard today. Some have changed their use - in general, late 20th century texts, especially non-literary texts, have less frequent use of marks which are deemed optional. In modern German, a comma to separate clauses is obligatory, but not in English. Businesses use so-called “open punctuation” of addresses (no comma after each element). In many cases ignorance or confusion about conventions may cause writers to avoid some marks: the semi-colon and colon are problematic, while the great difference of function between hyphen and dash may be confused by lack of difference in appearance: on a typewriter the same key served for both (some typists would repeat the stroke for a dash). Some modern computer software restores the difference, where the grammar checking can detect that the context calls for the (longer) dash. (HTML character sets seem not to distinguish between the hyphen and dash, so I can't show you the difference in appearance here.)

Some writers may have caused punctuation marks to lose impact by over-use. Teachers will be familiar with multiple exclamation marks, or with exclamation marks in contexts where only mild emphasis is intended.

Phonology

Before the advent of modern recording and broadcasting technology debate about sounds was reliant on written transcripts, which could at best approximate to real phonology. Much is made of inference from, for example, rhyming words in poetry - did the poet use imperfect rhyme or have sounds changed in, for example, John Donne's "And find/What wind/Serves to advance an honest mind". Does US (rhymes with lurk) or UK (rhymes with dark) pronunciation of clerk preserve the older English form - or have two rival sounds fared differently in separate locations? And what of lieutenant? US loo-ten-unt (with stress on first or second syllable) is closer to the French original than UK lef-ten-unt (stress on second syllable).

The various phonetic alphabets give a symbolic representation of sounds that are described in terms of physical performance (for example the position of tongue relative to teeth). Modern recording technology can be used to give a far more precise and objective description of a sound produced, as a waveform or a measure of frequency and so on.

As sound recording is now more than a century old, we can observe change and standardizing tendencies in spoken English. Received Pronunciation (RP) is a notional standard form of pronunciation. RP is associated with prestige and formal public spoken discourse, such as the law, parliament, education or broadcasting. In some of these it may be in tension with regional variations. RP currently is a modified form of the accent heard in independent and grammar schools or spoken by newsreaders; the accent is largely neutral as regards region, but long/soft vowels are preferred to hard/short vowel sounds. Listening to a recording of a broadcast from an earlier period (a Pathé newsreel or Alvar Liddell [an early BBC radio broadcaster] reading the news for the BBC) will show how far RP has changed over time - the earlier RP survives in part in the accent of Queen Elizabeth II, who speaks with much less clearly differentiated (or less open) vowels than the modern RP speaker (the stiff upper lip is literal as well as a metaphor). Our notion of RP in earlier times may also derive from the accents heard in UK feature films (think of Celia Johnson in Brief Encounter). We have no easy way of knowing how far this corresponded to the prestige accent of the time.

Invented rules

You may understand this subject better by looking at some invented rules. These are not descriptions of general usage but inventions of Robert Lowth and others. Some of them have so influenced past generations that they are accepted as normative. Here are examples of some of the more commonly-encountered pseudo-rules.

They and them are not to be used as singular pronouns.

Example: If anyone calls, tell them I'm in a meeting.

Comment: Such use may be inelegant style but does not break any real rule of grammar. Professor R.W. Zandvoort (The Fundamentals of English Grammar - Arnold's Card Guides; London, 1963) says, "Where sex is unknown he or they may be used of an adult, he or it of children". Jean Aitchison (The Language Web, p. 8) quotes examples from the 18th century to the present day of writers who disregard this "rule", including William Thackeray, Lewis Carroll, Virginia Woolf and George Bernard Shaw.

The infinitive should not be split (separated from to by a qualifier)

Example: The mission was to boldly go where no man had ever gone before.

Comment: There is no justification at all for this supposed rule.

Double negatives are really affirmatives.

Example: I don't know nothing about that.

Comment: This derives from Robert Lowth ("Two negatives… are equivalent to an affirmative") but is deeply entrenched in popular attitudes to language. It arises from confusing vernacular languages with logic or theory of number. Now the double negative is often used to signal an affirmative, but indirectly, as in that's not unreasonable. Aitchison finds a multiple (fourfold) negative for emphatic negation in Chaucer's General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Of the knight, we are told

he never yet no vileynye ne sayde

In al his lyf unto no maner wight

(He never even no wicked thing not said in all his life to no kind of person).

Different should be immediately followed by from (not than or to)

Comment: Aitchison finds examples of different to and H.W. Fowler's Modern English Usage labels the preference for different from a "superstition". But different to and different than may have other distinct uses. Consider these examples:

• After the room was painted it looked different to me.

• After the room was painted it looked different from how it did before.

• A dog is different from a wolf. A slug is different from a wolf. But a slug is more different than a dog from a wolf.

Most prepositions function in ways that are not coherent or logical. Many languages do not have them. Since their use is a matter of convention, the idea of style or fitness (as with the double negative) may now argue against different to.

Prepositions should not come at the end of a sentence.

Example: This is the man who/that I spoke to.

(Preferred form given as This is the man to whom I spoke.)

Comment: The suggestion that the preposition should come before the verb phrase has no justification. The second example above may be more elegant, but rigid enforcing of the "rule" can have the opposite effect, as in the notorious: This is English, up with which I will not put.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download