Linguistic Change: Dynamics, Causes, and Evolution
Introduction to Linguistic Change
Historically, linguists like Saussure and early structuralists distinguished between diachronic and synchronic studies:
- Diachrony: Describes language change and language development over time.
- Synchrony: Describes language structure at a given point in time, without considering ongoing linguistic changes.
Early structuralists believed that:
- Changes that had occurred in a language were irrelevant in a synchronic analysis.
- Language change affected particular individual elements in the language, not the system as a whole.
However, at the First International Congress of Linguists in 1928, the strict dichotomy between synchronic and diachronic studies was rejected. Scholars like Trubetzkoy and Jakobson (among others) argued that:
- Synchrony and diachrony, when combined, can provide fruitful linguistic analyses.
- By referencing earlier historical periods, we can account for some aspects of the present state of a language.
Trubetzkoy and Jakobson further emphasized that:
- The diachronic viewpoint must consider the interdependence of all linguistic elements in the system.
- Any change will affect the whole system.
For example, phonological changes can have consequences on the lexicon:
- OE
/y:/> ME/i:/- OE cynn > ME kin
- OE pytt > ME pit
- OE fyr > ME fire
Phonological changes can also have consequences at the morphological and syntactic levels:
- Middle English reduction of unstressed vowels to
/ə/. - Loss of Old English inflectional patterns.
- Syntactic change: Loss of case system, leading to a more strict word order.
Thus, a sound change may affect the whole linguistic system. This leads to two main reasons to discard the strict dichotomy between synchronic and diachronic linguistics:
- The interconnectedness of linguistic elements means a change in one area impacts the whole system.
- At any given moment, there will be coexisting elements at different stages of development.
- E.g., Middle English: -eth / -es (loves, loveth).
In a complete description of a language, there is always a ‘core’ or fixed structure and variation. Synchronic variation is the mechanism that enables change. Labov claimed that variation in pronunciation can be interpreted as ongoing sound change.
Origin and Transmission of Linguistic Change
Early linguists, such as Bloomfield, stated, “The process of linguistic change has never been directly observed.” Similarly, Hockett noted, “No one has yet observed sound change; we have only been able to detect its consequences.”
However, linguists have now realized that language change can be observed. The pioneer in this field is William Labov. He recognized that variation and “fuzziness,” which had often been ignored, might indicate ongoing changes in language.
For instance, Labov observed in Martha’s Vineyard that the sounds /`H/ and /`T/ were becoming /.?H/ and /.?T/. Initially, the new sounds fluctuated with the existing ones, but eventually, the new forms took over.
The Neogrammarians proposed that a sound change affects all words in which that sound occurs simultaneously. Examples include:
- Devoicing of final stops (as in Catalan or German).
- OE
/y:/> ME/i:/- OE wyf > wife
- OE lyf > life
- OE bryd > bride
However, contemporary linguists have demonstrated that changes do not occur simultaneously in all words. For example, the change of /æ/ to /ɑː/ before a fricative in British English is seen in words like pass, fast, and disaster, but not in gas or mass.
This suggests that a change spreads gradually through the lexicon, a concept known as the Theory of Lexical Diffusion. According to this theory, sound change originates in a single word or group of words and then spreads by analogy to other words. The change may not spread to all words in which it could potentially apply.
Examples of incomplete lexical diffusion:
- ME
/oː/> EModE/uː/(e.g., good, hood), but not in food. - EModE
/uː/> PDE/ʌ/(e.g., flood, blood).
Causes of Language Change
While Bloomfield claimed, “The causes of language change are unknown,” the exact causes are often complex and difficult to pinpoint, usually resulting from a combination of factors.
External Factors
- Foreign Influence:
- Substratum: Occurs when a language community learns another language, and the new language is modified by linguistic patterns carried over from the native language. E.g., French is Latin with Celtic articulatory habits.
- Superstratum: Happens when conquering or migrating people learn the language of the native population and influence it. E.g., the influence of French on English after the Norman Conquest.
- Adstratum: Refers to borrowing that occurs across linguistic boundaries between languages of equal prestige. E.g., English in South Africa is influenced by Afrikaans.
- Fashion: Fashion might impose certain linguistic habits and cause certain linguistic forms to become obsolete.
- E.g., it was fashionable in the Middle English period to borrow words from French.
- Social Causes:
- E.g., the originally plural pronoun you is now also used as a singular pronoun.
Internal Factors
- Functional Need:
- The vocabulary must adapt to our changing world.
- Words referring to obsolete objects may be lost, while new words may be introduced to refer to new concepts or objects (e.g., e-mail, e-commerce, dot-com).
- Analogy: The extension of a regular pattern to less regular forms.
- E.g., OE bōc-bēc > ModE book-books.
- Simplification: This is a relative concept, as it may produce complexities in other parts of the system.
- E.g., Old English inflections like stānas (“stones”), scipūs (“ships”), nāman (“names”), word (“words”) underwent a process of regularization to -es, leading to the loss of inflections and an effect on syntax.
- Structural Pressure: Linguistic systems are normally balanced, and changes can occur to maintain or restore this balance.
Language Evolution: Progress or Decay?
As the saying goes, “Time changes all things: there is no reason why language should escape this universal law.” Saussure echoed this sentiment, stating, “Everything is in a permanent state of change, and language, like everything else, is also continually changing.”
In spite of this, many scholars condemn language change and consider alterations to be due to ignorance or laziness. Samuel Johnson, for example, famously remarked, “Tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration.”
This puristic attitude was at its height in the 18th century. Many scholars believed that language was perfect in its beginning but was constantly in danger of decay. Change was often seen as a degeneration from an original, pure state of the language. The proto-language from which Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit were derived was often considered to be the most ‘pure’ form of language.
Max Müller, a 19th-century scholar, claimed that in the written history of all the languages of Europe, he could observe only “a gradual process of decay.” This puristic attitude is still widespread today; comments from the press often show that many people still consider language change as corruption.
However, what is truly important is the usage of speakers. If a new word is accepted and used by a number of speakers, that word can be considered a new addition to the lexicon of the language.
The question remains: Is language evolving to a more efficient state? As the text concludes, “Progress in the absolute sense is impossible, just as it is in morality or politics. It is simply that different states exist, succeeding each other, each dominated by certain general laws imposed”