5. OE > Mode, Changes.Quer Copy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
F. Plank, Ways of Change 1 WAYS OF CHANGE //under construction// F. Plank, Ways of Change 2 “Languages constantly change” Locke, John. 1689. An essay concerning human understanding. London: Basset, Ch. 22: “Hence also we may see the reason, why languages constantly change, take up new and lay by old terms. Because change of customs and opinions bringing with it new combinations of ideas, which it is necessary frequently to think on and talk about, new names, to avoid long descriptions, are annexed to them; and so they become new species of complex modes. What a number of different ideas are by this means wrapped up in one short sound, and how much of our time and breath is thereby saved, any one will see, who will but take the pains to enumerate all the ideas that either REPRIEVE or APPEAL stand for; and instead of either of those names, use a periphrasis, to make any one understand their meaning.” “Language constantly changes” Stone, Alison. 2007. An introduction to feminist philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press, p115: “Language constantly changes. Lacan infers that any encounyer with language is frustrating. Any words and phrases that one encounters promise to be meaningful, yet have no definite meaning. [...] As such, when any child enters language, it becomes gripped by a new force: desire, specifically the desire for meaning.” ... F. Plank, Ways of Change 3 But do they? Why should they? Given a speech community which is (i) none too large and (ii) reasonably homogeneous, (iii) with its members socially well interconnected, and (iv) which inhabits a circumscribed, coherent, none-too-big territory, and (v) largely keeps to itself, we might expect that its members – and especially its new members as they are acquiring the linguistic know-how that defines and delimits this speech community – have very similar linguistic experiences. Since mental lexicons- and-grammars are formed on the basis of experience, they might end up as very similar across the members of the speech community. And unless mental lexicons-and-grammars change (deteriorate?) over the life-spans of individuals, producing different speech acts as they grow older, the linguistic experiences of the following generation might be very similar to those of their predecessors. same/similar linguistic experiences ⇒ same/similar linguistic know-how So, why would mental lexicons-and-grammars ever be different/change from one generation to another? F. Plank, Ways of Change 4 Here are the reasons (= driving forces of change, often mutually antagonistic): • When learners have the same linguistic experiences, this does not guarantee that they will end up with same mental lexicons-and-grammars: often, more than one hypothesis of learners will be compatible with the primary linguistic data they encounter. (A simple example: If you hear, in English, [´."neI.pr´n], you may analyse these three syllables as expressing a noun phrase consisting of an indefinite article and a noun, alternatively segmented as /´/indefArt /neIpr´n/N or /´n/indefArt /eIpr´n/N: both segmentations into meaningful chunks are consistent with what you hear. Unless you later hear utterances such as [´."nju."eI.pr´n], which establish that the noun is /eIpr´n/ rather than /neIpr´n/, you’d have to live with this uncertainty. Actually, the English noun apron was borrowed from French, and the French original was napperon.) • Hearers sometimes mishear and misanalyse what speakers say, and then proceed according to their mishearings and misanalyses in their own constructions and pronunciations. F. Plank, Ways of Change 5 • Speakers sometimes misconstruct and mispronounce what they intended to say, and then they themselves and their hearers proceed according to what their misconstructions and mispronunciations. • Man in general and homo linguisticus in particular is lazy, abiding by the Principle of Minimal Effort: Only learn and do as much as is necessary for expressing and communicating your ideas – which may be less than what was done by a preceding generation. • However, since speakers want to be able to express their ideas and sentiments, and to express them clearly, the dangers of a lack of expressive power and of misunderstanding owing to unclarity need to be precluded – which may require improvements of the lexicon-and-grammar of the preceding generation. (Expressivity and Clarity often antagonistic with Ease.) • Rules of grammar and grammatical and lexical subsystems may be too complex to learn: through being mislearned or misremembered, they will end up being simpler. F. Plank, Ways of Change 6 • Members of speech communities are generally conformists, but sometimes they also want to be different, even extravagant, distinguishing themselves from all others. (Conformism antagonistic with Extravagance.) • The assumption of homogeneity is counterfactual: there is always variation in speech communities, and given different models, learners or also accomplished speakers may follow one or the other. • The assumption of isolation is also often counterfactual: few speech communities are desert islands; rather, there often is contact between communities, and individuals, when they acquire a first language as well as later, will encounter even more variation and will have even more models to follow or not to follow; in intense contact, they will even learn more than one language – and untutored L2 learning tends to result in mental lexicons and grammars rather different from those which an L1 learner would arrive at given the same input. F. Plank, Ways of Change 7 To appreciate this last point, compare Modern Icelandic with Modern English and Afrikaans. All three are Germanic languages, but their external histories have been rather different: there has been relatively little contact between the Icelandic and other speech communities, whereas both English and Afrikaans have been in intense contacts with other languages. How does this show in their lexicons and grammars? F. Plank, Ways of Change 8 Kinds of changes Lexical change — loss or acquisition (borrowing, creation) of words — major, high-frequency word becoming less frequent, used with a more marginal, contextually more restricted meaning, or vice versa — morphologically complex words re-analysed as simple Semantic change (of forms, of constructions) Sound change — phonetic change — phonological change Morphological change — creation, replacement, loss of inflectional or derivational morphology: forms and categories — “analogy” F. Plank, Ways of Change 9 “Grammaticalisation” — looser > tighter constructions (syntax > morphology); — lexical words (N, V, A) > grammatical words (adpositions, conjunctions, articles, auxiliaries, ...) > clitics > affixes > Ø Syntactic change — word order change — change in word class categorisation — ... F. Plank, Ways of Change 10 Lexical change • words discontinued (and usually replaced by other words for the same meanings, which may be native or loans): rād ‘reckoning, account’ (survived in hund-red), ræd ‘advice, plan, policy’ and related words; gavol ‘tribute’ (cf. gavel [gœvl] ‘small hammer’, a chance similarity); brōga ‘terror, danger’; mæg ‘kinsman’; œðel-ing ‘noble-man, prince’ eafora ‘son, heir’ þēod ‘folk, people’ (cf. German deut-sch) greut ‘gravel’; hron ‘whale’; grorn ‘sad’; swīðe ‘very’; F. Plank, Ways of Change 11 raðe ‘soon’; weorðan ‘become’ weorpan ‘cast’ niman ‘take’ ge-frīnan ‘learn, hear of’ ... (and several more especially from Beowulf) Is there an expected constant rate of lexical replacement? Are particular words particularly susceptible to replacement or to retention? (Compare, for example, numerals, pronouns, colour terms, and intensifying adverbs.) Why would lexical items be replaced, quickly or slowly? (non-optimal form–meaning? better words available?) F. Plank, Ways of Change 12 • words marginalised (with other words taking their place as central vocabulary): sweart ‘black, dark’, as central word replaced by black (which was more marginal in OE), but surviving more marginally in swarthy ‘dark-complexioned’; hergian ‘raid, ravage’ (derived from OE high-frequency noun here ‘(hostile) army’), surviving more marginally, next to several near- synonymous verbs, as harry ‘ravage, harrass’; hebban, PRET hof ‘lift up, raise’, as central word replaced by lift and raise, surviving more marginally in heave ‘lift with great effort; utter with effort or resignation; rise and fall rhythmically or spasmodically’ F. Plank, Ways of Change 13 • words newly acquired by borrowing (and partly/wholly nativised): beef, veal, pork, mutton, all Romance (vs. old Gmc. cow, calf, swine, lamb for animals, as opposed to their meat) advice, plan, policy, tribute, terror, danger ...; beige [beIZ], garage ["gœrAZ, g´"rAZ], schwa, schnapps, schmaltz, schnitzel [SC...] ... • words newly coined (a rare kind of event): gas (after Ancient Greek chaos, originally Flemish, then borrowed by many languges, including English, 17th c.); aspirin, and other brand names; meme (‘an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture’; actually, a shortening (modeled on gene) of mimeme (from Ancient Greek μίμημα [míːmɛːma] mīmēma, ‘imitated thing’, from μιμεῖσθαι mimeisthai ‘to imitate’, from μῖμος mimos ‘mime’); coined by the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976)); ... F. Plank, Ways of Change 14 • words now simple, formerly complex (and originally semantically and formally transparent: fully compositional) (a) morphologically complex: English lord, lady – formerly compounds: hlāf-weard