'Critical' Age

[Dennis R. Preston]

Joe,

My bad. Language is indeed a proper subject for such investigation. The
19th Centry biologists (who borrowed the notion from contemporary
philologists, which is what I referred to) tacked onto a discredited notion
that languages themselves were evolving, not the obviously interesting
question of how human language evolved in the first place.

dInIs

>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


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