Contributions by Steve Long

[Stanley Friesen]

At 03:33 PM 10/12/99 +0100, Larry Trask wrote:
>Stanley Friesen writes:

>[on my Yugoslav example]

>> This actually accords with what one book on linguistic change suggested is
>> the *main* cause of language change: a social desire to differentiate one's
>> group from some other group.  ...

>I don't know of any book or article which makes such a strong claim as this,
>and I must confess I find it implausible.  But there *has* been some recent
>work showing that this desire for linguistic distance has been a major factor
>in certain cases.

I may have slightly overstated (without the actual book, I cannot get a
quote: all I know is the source of this is certainly NOT Hock's book).

But I am fairly certain that the book at least cast doubt on the importance
of "mis-hearing" by children in language change.  So, I think saying the
author asserts that it is the most important cause of change is reasonable.

>> There is another way out of this dilemma.  At least in many cases
>> substantial language change occurs in a *single* generation.  In the
>> history of English, one such case occurred during the Wars of Roses, and
>> separates Middle English from Modern English.

>Perhaps, but I find it very hard to believe that *most* linguistic change
>occurs over a single generation.  The evidence seems to be clearly against
>this.

It is hard to be certain.  In so many cases we just lack evidence.  The
Latin to separate Romance languages transition is hidden behind the
persistent tradition of writing in classical Latin.  I suspect that the Old
English to Middle English transition is actually equally hidden by a
persistence of an older literary tradition (with OE spellings and case
forms continuing in use well after they have changed or disappeared in speech).

>By the way, what was there that was so dramatic during the Wars of the Roses?

The wars themselves.  They were bloody, and disruptive of the stability of
government.  Most noble families were killed off during those wars, leaving
few indeed of the old Norman families alive afterwards (and Henry VII
eliminated many of those).

But that in itself is not sufficient to explain language change.  I suspect
there was also an matter of some sort of profound "generation gap" as well.

>> And it is occurring right now for the Blackfoot language, with older tribe
>> members speaking Old Blackfoot, and the younger ones speaking New
>> Blackfoot.  The changes are quite substantial, and include replacement of
>> vowel+glottal stop with a long/creaky vowel.

>I have encountered comparable cases elsewhere.  But, again, it seems doubtful
>that language change mostly occurs in sudden and dramatic jumps, or
>saltations, to borrow a term from evolutionary biology.

>> One of two places:
>> 1. at some historical point where there was a major break between
>> successive generations.

>At what point?

I don't know, as I haven't studied the issue.

>Anyway, I think it's improper to pick a contemporary speaker as the judge.
>Everybody at every stage can normally understand the speech of the two or
>three immediately preceding or following generations.  My grandparents would
>probably have understood their own grandparents better than I could have, had
>I ever been able to meet them.

Actually, I am not so sure about that.  Language fashions, like clothing
fashions, often go in circles.  I suspect you might have been able to
understand your great great grandparents better than you think.   Certainly
I have no trouble understanding Mark Twain, even though he was about the
same age as my great great grandparents!  Indeed, I find him more
accessible and readable than the more recent F. Scott Fitzgerald, who was
my grandfather's contemporary.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com