'Critical' Age

[Joe Pickett]

I'd like Dennis to explain his remarks below, because I don't understand them.

If speech is a natural biological phenomenon, and language acquisition at least
has a basis in genetics, then why shouldn't language be a fitting object of
evolutionary theory?

Joe






"Dennis R. Preston" <preston at PILOT.MSU.EDU> on 03/10/2000 06:17:20 PM

Please respond to American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>

To:   ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Joe Pickett/Trade/hmco)
Subject:  Re: 'Critical' Age



Nope, cause it's the other way around. Nineteenth-century philological
investigations partly inspired the evolutionary trend in the physical
sciences. "Evolution" in language has long since gone the way of other bad
ideas, but it still works pretty well for the physical sciences (except in
Kansas).

dInIs

>Reading thus stimulated a question, "Has anyone ever analyzed the evolution of
>language from the perspective of evolutionary theory?"
>
>Bob
>
>"A. Vine" wrote:
>
>> "Aaron E. Drews" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > My question: is there a 'critical age' when we stop acquiring new forms
>> > (mostly lexical items, since the critical age for other aspects of the
>> > grammar are more or less established).  dInIs obviously stopped aquiring
>> > new forms when he left high school.  I stopped around 18, too.
>> >
>> > One example in C&T lists 5 different age groups for Appalachian 'done':
>> > 8-11; 12-14; 15-18; 20-40;  40+. These categories strongly suggest a
>> > critical age of 18-ish and any new forms we acquire after 18 are flukes.
>> >
>> > It looks like I've answered my own question, but only based on three
>> > examples, two of which are self-reports.  Has anyone ever said "after 18,
>> > the use of innovative forms rapidly declines"?  Has anyone actually tried
>> > tying in the critical period hypothesis to sociolinguistics? Or has it
>> > only been hinted at as part of a bigger age-grading issue, as in C&T?
>> >
>>
>> Well, I have a theory (which is mine and belongs to me - a-hem! The next
>>thing I
>> will type will be my theory - a-hem!), and that theory is:
>>
>> It seems that a lot of "young people's" vocabulary comes from a
>>school/hanging
>> out environment.  It seems that new language is more likely to develop
>>when a
>> group of folks are thrown into the same situation.  There is no more
>>stable time
>> than school to produce this sort of environment.  Once folks leave
>>school, the
>> only opportunity to be immersed in a large group experiencing something
>>similar
>> is work.  Workplaces produce jargon, but it tends to be specific to the
>>type of
>> work.  The reason young people's language is more universal is that their
>> immersion experience is more universal.  School covers a wide range of
>>topics,
>> so it makes no sense to develop language around one of those topics.
>>Instead
>> the language centers around their common activities, like attending school,
>> going out with friends, buying things, sports and activites, etc.
>>
>> I notice no-one mentions college-speak, but it definitely exists.  It is
>>a less
>> universal experience, however.
>>
>> Now, I realize that this is probably not an original theory.  I'm sure
>>there are
>> studies somewhere which confirm this.  This is merely a theory based on
>> observation.
>> --
>> Andrea Vine, avine at eng.sun.com, iPlanet i18n architect
>> Guilty feet have got no rhythm.
>> -- George Michael


Dennis R. Preston
Department of Linguistics and Languages
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
preston at pilot.msu.edu
Office: (517)353-0740
Fax: (517)432-2736