Versatility?

[Lise Menn]

I think that a computational search of actual new words and a look at  
how they are coined might be helpful at this point.
I can't do it myself, but lots of people these days know how.
	Lise

On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:50 PM, A. Katz wrote:

> Dan,
>
> One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as  
> need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon.
>
> English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point  
> in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive  
> borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation.
>
> But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one  
> that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do  
> as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a  
> bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English  
> would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end:  
> because we can all say what we need to say in our own language.
>
> Best,
>
>
>    --Aya
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:
>
>> Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes  
>> a neologism and they are very rare.
>>
>> The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms.
>>
>> Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as  
>> they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could  
>> not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations  
>> (including contact) to do so.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote:
>>
>>> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick".  
>>> In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do  
>>> not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a  
>>> functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need  
>>> arises.
>>>
>>> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of  
>>> its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was  
>>> once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like  
>>> "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not  
>>> recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used  
>>> interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not  
>>> felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the  
>>> language that are ongoing even now.
>>>
>>> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most  
>>> languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a  
>>> small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a  
>>> historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers.
>>>
>>>  --Aya
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:
>>>
>>>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like  
>>>> 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't  
>>>> really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations.  
>>>> Neologisms are much rarer.
>>>>
>>>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack  
>>>> of use of blick.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew.  
>>>>> You just need a good and well functioning derivational system,  
>>>>> that's all.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Aya
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya.  
>>>>>> Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than  
>>>>>> loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral  
>>>>>> pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include  
>>>>>> propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our  
>>>>>> language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like  
>>>>>> in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the  
>>>>>> years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show  
>>>>>> 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never  
>>>>>> actually become a word of English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our  
>>>>>> language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the  
>>>>>> borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables  
>>>>>> us to communicate more efficiently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no  
>>>>>> evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information.  
>>>>>> That is just a linguistic slogan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to  
>>>>>>> show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change  
>>>>>>> leads to more versatility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to  
>>>>>>> another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that  
>>>>>>> the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the  
>>>>>>> borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential  
>>>>>>> between the two groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the  
>>>>>>> word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived  
>>>>>>> from the organic material of the language, using native  
>>>>>>> morphology and native phonology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words  
>>>>>>> this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and  
>>>>>>> in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume  
>>>>>>> that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in  
>>>>>>> its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There  
>>>>>>> is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing  
>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a  
>>>>>>> particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being  
>>>>>>> adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use  
>>>>>>> it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is  
>>>>>>> adapted to another purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a  
>>>>>>> better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the  
>>>>>>> circumstances or subject matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Aya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages  
>>>>>>>> could become more versatile over time. We have to ask  
>>>>>>>> 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for  
>>>>>>>> talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it  
>>>>>>>> isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages  
>>>>>>>> becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from  
>>>>>>>> languages in contact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at  
>>>>>>>> communication than others in particular environments. There  
>>>>>>>> is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively  
>>>>>>>> equal than that they are different. No study proves either,  
>>>>>>>> though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but  
>>>>>>>> not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the  differences  
>>>>>>>> that have been overlooked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tahir,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become  
>>>>>>>>> either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of  
>>>>>>>>> complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system  
>>>>>>>>> in the language results in a decrease of complexity  
>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in  
>>>>>>>>> language change, and language does not improve in efficiency  
>>>>>>>>> over time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be  
>>>>>>>>> demonstrably better for communication purposes than others,  
>>>>>>>>> and no one has ever been able to show this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --Aya
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing  
>>>>>>>>>> complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on  
>>>>>>>>>> versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile?
>>>>>>>>>> Tahir
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Lise Menn                      Home Office: 303-444-4274
1625 Mariposa Ave	Fax: 303-413-0017
Boulder CO 80302
home page:	  http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/

Professor Emerita of Linguistics
Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science
University of  Colorado

Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics]
Fellow, Linguistic Society of America

Campus Mail Address:
UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science

Campus Physical Address:
CINC 234
1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder