Language History and Change Hello! Some Definitions SUBFIELDS OF LINGUISTICS –Historical...

Language Language History and ChangeHistory and Change

Hello!

Some DefinitionsSome Definitions

SUBFIELDS OF LINGUISTICSSUBFIELDS OF LINGUISTICS

–Historical linguisticsHistorical linguistics (Ancestors of languages)

–Comparative linguisticsComparative linguistics (Languages compared)

–Diachronic LinguisticsDiachronic Linguistics (single features of language are traced over time)

–Synchronic LinguisticsSynchronic Linguistics (language structure at a certain point in time)

ANALYTICAL PROCESSESANALYTICAL PROCESSES

–Reconstruction of the ProtoLanguageReconstruction of the ProtoLanguage

–Comparative MethodComparative Method

Incredibly Different or Incredibly Alike?Incredibly Different or Incredibly Alike?

• Martin JoosMartin Joos (1957): unlimited and unpredictable differences

• ChomskyChomsky (1957): human speak a single language with many mutually unintelligible dialects. (The “Martian” view)(The “Martian” view)

The Tower of BabelThe Tower of Babel

Genesis 11:-1-9 AccountGenesis 11:-1-9 Account

Language OriginsLanguage Origins

• Neanderthals Neanderthals – Anatomy allowed only limited range of sounds.

• 5000 BCE5000 BCE – Oldest records of Indo-European Languages: Hittite, Snaskrit, ?Proto-Indo-European

• 500 CE500 CE – Emergence of Romance, Germanic Languages (Old English)

Proto-Language TheoryProto-Language Theory

• Sir William Jones (1786)Sir William Jones (1786) - In India, observed commonalities among Sanskrit, European and Middle Eastern languages.(So many similarities can’t be the effect of chance)

• Analogous to Darwin’s theories: thus became known as “The Family Tree”“The Family Tree” theory, formulated by A. Schleicher (1871).– “Languages change in regular, recognizable ways”

– the comparative method.

Sanskrit: a literary language of IndiaSanskrit: a literary language of India

SANSKRIT: : a language of India (studied by Pānini, a Indian 4th century BC grammarian)

Nostratic HypothesisNostratic HypothesisNostratic

Afro-Asiatic Afro-Asiatic (Hebrew, Arabic, Berber…)

Kartvelian (South Caucasian)Kartvelian (South Caucasian)

DravidianDravidian

EurasiaticEurasiatic

Indo-EuropeanIndo-European

Celtic, Italic, Greek, Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Greek, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Armenian, Albanian, Balto-Slavic, Armenian, Albanian, Indo-Iranian, (Tocharian), Indo-Iranian, (Tocharian), AnatolianAnatolian

UralicUralic

AltaicAltaicSource: The Atlas of Languages, 1996, London

Genetic Families – Linguistic TreeGenetic Families – Linguistic Tree

Indo-European Indo-European “Family Tree”“Family Tree”

Indo-European Spreading?Indo-European Spreading?

Indo-European Spreading?Indo-European Spreading?

The Comparative MethodThe Comparative Method

• August SchleicherAugust Schleicher (1821-68), German Linguist

• Proto-Latin **– Classical Greek: patēr– Sanskrit: piter– Latin: pater

• Italian: padre• Spanish: padre• French: père• Portuguese: pai• Catalan: pare

– Gothic: fadar– Old Irish: athir

Wave ModelsWave Models

• Difficulties with the “Family Tree” model:Difficulties with the “Family Tree” model:– Languages do not form uniform speech

communities– Language “splits” are not sudden—they have many

intermediate stages

• Wave ModelWave Model shows gradual and over-lapping relationships

Neither modelNeither model accounts for the evidence that languages can exhibit similarities without necessarily being related: pidgins & creoles, for example.

Darwinian ViewDarwinian View

• ““Progress, therefore, is not an accident, Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity…It is part of nature”but a necessity…It is part of nature”

• ““[in language] the better, the shorter, the [in language] the better, the shorter, the easier forms are constantly gaining the easier forms are constantly gaining the upper hand, and they owe their success upper hand, and they owe their success to their inherent virtue.”to their inherent virtue.” (Darwin 1871)

Flaws of Darwinian View:Flaws of Darwinian View: (the “Survival of the Fittest”) (the “Survival of the Fittest”)

• Implies that existing forms are better than old ones.

• Confuses progress/decay with expansion/decline

• Expansion/decline just reflects sociopolitical issues (not the intrinsic merit or decadence of language)

• Counter examples in history: dominant languages in the world reflect conquering (political, economic, military, technological) powers, not “betterness” of those languages (Gaelic example)