Motivation of Language Change - Coursework Example

Language Change Introduction Language is always undergoing changes in aspect such as grammar, meaning, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling. One of the debates that has been rife in historical linguistics relates to the relative contributions made by internal (system-driven) and external (contact-driven) factors within linguistic change, as well as extra-linguistic motivations (socio-political and economic) factors shaping language change, as well as sociopsychological factors, especially those relating to attitudes and identities. Language change is usually a continuous, but slow process that is difficult to detect when and how it is generated. The paper explores the notion of internal, external and extra-linguistic motivations for language change and their efficacy in propelling language change. Personally, I consider internal motivations of language to be more potent in effecting language change. The internally-driven language changes may take the form of syntacticization, grammaticalization, and automation of pragmatically or internally-driven preferences. In most cases, the characteristics of a language are largely the product of language-internal grammaticalization rather than the product of language contact. Comparison of External and Internal Motivations Language change, which is largely apparent in the spoken language relative to written language, possesses internal (intra-systematic), external (contact-based), and external –linguistic (socio-political, and economic) motivations (Hock and Joseph 2009, p.259). Internal explanations highlight the structural or psychological motivations and assert that a linguistic change is propelled by the intrinsic drive for regularity, naturalness, and functional economy (Jones and Esch 2002, p.17). In contrast to the structural approach, external explanations stipulate that it is impossible to comprehend linguistic change and innovation in an internal vacuum. Internal and external motivations of language change are straightforward; internal factors relate to the intrinsic and synchronic state of the language system while external factors relate to the forces emanating from the location and utilization of language within the society. Extra-linguistic motivations, on the other hand, involve forces that are “wider-than-linguistic” inclinations such as socio-economic and political forces (Gerritsen and Stein 1992, p.9). The syntactic change (reanalysis) is generated mainly by internal motivations; however, external motivations such as foreign influence and expressivity may also play a role. Nevertheless, the change can also be caused by foreign influence as demonstrated by the borrowing of a subordinating conjunction from English to Dutch that features English VO rather than Dutch OV order. Syntactic changes of type three are driven by external factors that shape the deep structure based on external factors such as age, sex, social standing, and prestige (Gerritsen and Stein 1992, p.5). The Internal Motivations of Language Change Language change can be internally-driven by principles of vowel change and other factors such as dialect contact, which play a decisive function in shaping the progress of the shift. The approach examines language change based on aspects such as vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and meaning of words (Yang 2000, p.231). Internally-driven change usually yields to balance within the system, the elimination of marked elements, or the analogical dissemination of regular forms of language. Internally-driven change generates regularity within the grammar (Dornyei 2003, p.6). For example, a change within the pronunciation of a language can influence the morphology of the language. Some of the internal factors that favour language change include processes of habitualization, copying, convergence, and conventionalization. In most cases, open social networks are linked to comparatively high population mobility and foster rapid change; however, close-knit, highly stable social networks with strong local ties are less open to change (Jones and Singh 2005, p.4). Language change may be occasioned by accommodation by speakers towards a social group bearing linguistic features, or dissociation from social groups whose speech are viewed as undesirable (Aitchison 2013, p.161). The inclinations and factors of language changes are inherently constructed owing to the psychological, physiological, and anatomical nature of human beings. For instance, consonants are gradually lost owing to weak articulation, accelerated and compounded by the difficult of hearing the sounds. The other natural process relates to the tendency to link sounds together, whereby as speakers learn a new language, they become highly affluent and separate words and sounds connecting them to a soft style of speech (Hickey 2004, p.19). This may also be caused by assimilation (in which two sounds are adjacent) or omission (collection of sounds gathered together). As sound changes, there are corresponding syntactic changes, which reinforce the view that universal mental inclinations are corresponding to physical ones. The External Motivations of Language Change External change is essentially caused by the adoption of borrowing while internal change is driven by the adding up and loss of sounds and lexical items, coinages of fresh words and extensions. For instance, the significant shift in long vowels and the diphthongisation of the high vowels that started within the late Middle English period was externally-driven. The development of colloquially of synthetic modes of auxiliary verbs, especially American English, is an example of external-driven change (Yang 2000, p.232). For example, swear words usually possess high turnover since they lose their force for speakers when they are utilized, which explains the need for fresh and more forceful terms. The society can alter its language by the utilization of borrowings or creation of new words so as to establish the language to fresh domains or stylistic registers. Language habits are shaped by human interaction that possesses a levelling or a differentiating effect, as well as the spontaneous behaviour of individuals. Some of the factors that shape levelling processes include linguistic level, frequency, and geographical range. Language change can also be generated by political, social, and technological issues that play a critical role when language is employed in communication. External factors encompass the relationship between the speaker and the society defined in terms of ethnicity, geographical regions, or nationality. Three sociolinguistic causes of language change can be outlined, namely: foreign influence, fashion, and social need. The social need essentially focuses on the functional view of language change, whereby new words are coined as considered necessary, especially when old words become over-used and lose their influence, which prompts the introduction of new words. The definition of the determinants of linguistic change requires consideration of the socio-demographic facts relates to gender, level of urbanization and industrialization, age and class distribution, numerical strength, and population density (Yang 2000, p.231). The external motivation of language change plays a frequent part relative to internal motivations in propelling language change. Furthermore, there is more evidence that has been presented to demonstrate that internal factors play a more vital role within the process of language change (Jones and Esch 2002, p.7). However, this does not mean that internal causation is not necessary, especially given that the knowledge structure and methods of probing the structure and the internal forces driving the change are highly sophisticated relative to extra-linguistic factors. A weak internal motivation for change can be regarded as being less convincing as a cause, relative to a strong external motivation, but the potential of causation should also be considered. Theoretical Perspective on Language Change The theory of language change features two core components, namely: theory of language acquisition by child learners, whereby language changes since learners acquire diverse grammars from the parents. Furthermore, as children grow to become parents, their linguistic expression, which makes up the acquisition, is conveyed to the next generation. The restrictiveness of human language space, combined with the similarities has made linguistics assert that human languages are delimited within a finite space of possibilities. Language change can manifest in the form of sound change, semantic change, and grammatical and lexical change. Sound change is also attributed to social and historical reasons and spotlights a connection between linguistic instability and political instability. Sound change can be categorized into three groups, namely: unconditioned (generic) changes; conditioned (combinatory) changes; and, sporadic (miscellaneous) changes. Unconditioned (generic) changes represent a change that influences each occurrence of a certain sound. Conditioned or combinatory changes represent the changes that occur only under a rigid set of conditions. Sporadic changes can be categorized in the form of epenthesis, vowel mutation, elision, assimilation, metathesis, and dissimilation. Grammatical change represents the change within grammar and vocabulary, whereby the members of a grammatical set are enhanced or minimized in number and the means engaged within the marking grammatical categories are broadened. Analogy represents a process by which linguistic patterns, combination of morphs, or morphs are modified, or new ones created in line with those manifest within a language. Lexical changes can manifest in the form of loss of lexical items, alteration of meaning, and generation of new lexical items. There are numerous causes of change of meaning based on the linguistic, environmental, historical, and psychological factors. Internal borrowing usually starts as slang that later on become an acceptable meaning. Semantic change can be occasioned by alterations caused by linguistic reasons; alterations brought about by historical reasons, and alterations brought about by social stratification. Phonetics represents the optimization of syllable structure and combination of unstressed syllables with stressed ones. Morphology and syntax represent clarity of structure with form and content, symmetrical and regular sets of word forms with correspondence of linear order. The linked changes that fall under the heading of “grammaticalization” are characteristically accorded functional explanation relative to a formal explanation. Research on dialect levelling indicates that language-internal factors play a big role; however, sociodemographic and other extra-linguistic factors also account for the salience. The present theme within contact linguistics represents the interplay between external (contact-based), internal, and a wide range of extra-linguistic factors within language change. The functional view of language typifies language as an instrument of social communication. The approach views language within its instrumentality for human interaction, which heralds language to social praxis and incorporates use and structure. Any theory of grammar that is functional must prioritize semantics, pragmatism and discourse as the interface between language structure and language usage and deliver morphological, syntactic, and phonological levels of language structure to the scope. Both formal and functional factors within language change present asymmetry between functionalists and formalists. The rejection of the potential of functional explanation of language change does not essentially involve the embracing of formal explanation (Hickey 2004, p.20). How Contact shapes Language Change Contact is a significant catalyst and is considered a modification of the activating experience. Reanalyses do not necessarily have to be realized as language changes that trigger a discussion of the interacting tensions between innovation and continuity (Milroy 1997, p.311). The impact of a language on another is not essentially about primary social differences between the speakers. For example, language contact can yield to change that does not seem to have been shaped by social factors as is the case of Old English during the 9th and 10th centuries in Scotland and North England. The results of dialect and language contact can be perceived as a collection of “dependent” variables which encompasses the linguistic component; simplification versus complication, reduction (impoverishment), Admixture, and levelling. The outlined outcomes infer to a collection of language-internal and extra-linguistic factors. Regional dialect levelling encompasses aspects such as geographical diffusion, levelling, and non-contact while extra-linguistic factors such as ideology and attitude and identity yields to the adoption of features considered attractive (Jones 2002, p.83). Levelling, on the other hand, represent the reduction of the number of variants following speaker accommodation via face-to-face interaction. Levelling unique from regional dialect levelling) since the latter is essentially restricted to smaller geographical areas including compact regions or new towns. Case Studies on Language Change: English Language Language change, which takes the form of phonetics, morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics, may also arise out of language contact through borrowings. Language contact is mostly socio-political motivated but may also be linguistically accidental. The outcomes of language contact hinges on extralinguistic factors. Language contact is directed by different social parameters of the contact situation coupled with the overall architecture of the languages in contact. The most prominent outcome of language contact is change through borrowing of words. For instance, English is known to have a significant percentage of loan words (close to 75% of the total vocabulary mainly taken from Latin and French). A significant percentage of the loan words flooded the English language after Normans conquer of England in 1066, which brought French language along. The presence of loan words in English is an indication of contact with the donor language (Thomason 2001, p.11). The Norman Conquest of 1066 heralded Norman French and subjected the Old English dialects on an equal footing. Close to half of common vocabulary of modern English derives from Old English, whereby word forms differ based on syntax (case endings, inflection, and declension) and grammatical order. Numerous words undergo changes including on aspects such as tense and mood of verbs, case or number of nouns, gender of nouns, agreement of adjectives, as well as other distinctions. Middle English exemplify contact influences between native Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian owing to the Viking invasions during the 9th and 10th century; nevertheless, controversy reigns on the degree of the Scandinavian impact on English grammar. Contact can yield to the borrowing of syntactic features as is the case of Anglo-Saxon contact with Scandinavian. English language has undergone some changes through morphosyntactic structures diffusion, in which sound changes are not spread throughout different structures at the same time, but rather change spread from one structure to the next gradually. In the Old English, only 3% of the words had been borrowed from the other languages; however, this rises to 70% within Modern English. The drastic change is linked to French and Scandinavian influence. The Scandinavian languages and French language infiltrated English at different social stratums, whereby Scandinavian consistently gained access to ordinary people through settlers, while the French language was associated with the highest tiers of the society. The southern and southern dialects in Old and New English vary significantly within their verb-movement syntax, which highlight typological distinction in the Germanic language family. The contact with Scandinavian yielded to the change in grammar via induced simplification of the subject-verb agreement pattern manifest in the northern English. Scandinavian influence on English language is demonstrated by certain names of places ending in –thorp, -by, -beck, -toft, -dale, as well as names of persons highlighting predominance of the invaders. The suffixes are not manifest within the English proper noun such as Whitby, Brainwaite, Lowestoft, and Goldthorp, in which the suffixes carry meaning of “hamlet” and “village.” The impact is also manifest in personal names ending in –son such as Jonson, Gibson, and Thomson, which demonstrates Scandinavian preponderance. Some of the Scandinavian words that survive include “want” owing to agreement with Old English “wan” delineating “wanting” and “wana” delineating “to want.” In addition, the Scandinavian word “ill” was preserved since it agreed with Old English “evil.” Historical records highlight that some of the language changes may be fuelled by colonization, migration, and invasions. Over the historical period, language change has taken place at each level of structure, namely: phonology, vocabulary, morphology, and syntax. Sound changes emanate from phonological process while morphological change is mainly analogical or by model leveling. Language change occurs regularly and systematically; in a case study by Niyogi and Berwick (1998), the authors traced the historical change from classical Portuguese and European Portuguese to internal motivations (Niyogi 1998, p.192). In a case study on syncretism, in German definite articles, Trijp contends that the evolution of the model has been stimulated by the constraints and needs of language usage. Syncretism has rendered the New High German system highly efficient for processing, perception, and pronunciation relative to its historical predecessor devoid of harming the language strength at disambiguating utterances (Trijp 2013, p.105). The example of French-English and Spanish-English bilinguals demonstrates how the fluctuations within the expression of verbal features and nominal within bilingual speech can be regarded as reminiscent of shared processes of historical, linguistic development. The change in the specification of grammatical features should not necessarily signal loss of formal linguistic properties. Language loss through convergences is mostly viewed as selective and does not necessarily influence all linguistic domains equally. As such, the phonology may be influenced in convergences, while the syntax may remain static. Significance of Internal and External Factors shaping Language Change Language change represents code-external or extra-linguistic factors such as the outcome of contact with other codes in relation to socio-political circumstances. Linguistic elements manifest structural properties that render them “attractive” in change, variation, and acquisition. Evidently, it is possible for linguistic change to be triggered by structural tendencies, but extra-linguistic social, psychological, or cognitive factors, which are crucial for the actual change. Languages change owing to diverse reasons including historical, economic, social, and political pressures, coupled with the natural evolution of the language. In order for change to be effected, the individuals have to assimilate the new vocabulary, sentence structures, and sounds, and then convey them throughout the community and the subsequent generations. The internal and external causation of language change are often depicted as being mutually exclusive (Jones and Esch 2002, p.4). Such a viewpoint would be readily justified is there was some foundation for a complete separation in the sense that some form of change always emanated from internal causation and others were entirely resultant of external factors. Nevertheless, in practice, it is hard to establish this as a case, which reinforces the view that contact always emanates from convergent processes between languages; however, this does not rule out divergent changes that are internally caused, especially given that it is difficult to separate internal and external motivations of language change based on their outcomes. Some scholars argue that, simple labels such as externally-motivated and internally-motivated connection does not fully capture the many in which speakers act linguistically within their community (Labov 2008, p.90). This reinforces the perception that linguistic reality is too intricate to be captured wholly by a simple binary categorization of internal and external causes of change. Nevertheless, it is essential to appreciate that the two labels do not constitute mutually exclusive dichotomy, but rather prominent sources that can be highlighted in language change. Criticism on theories of internal motivations of language change tends to focus on the empirical predictions, especially on whether the change is “catastrophic” as the approaches tend to predict. The other criticisms relate to the principles and parameters approach to syntax and the idea of grammatical construction dispenses in line with syntactic change. The approach is considered as being too restrictive and incapable of accounting for the bulk of reanalyses implicated within the grammaticalization. Conclusion The language changes can be considered inevitable and a constant fact of life. Languages continuously change and diverge when separated. Language change is essentially fuelled by speakers, rather than the language itself. Linguistic change is mainly speaker-based and language contact represents contact between speakers of diverse languages. It is difficult to predict language change (external and internal); however, despite the absence of predictability, one can view that certain forces are applicable of diverse levels of language. The perception of the language change as being mutually-exclusive entrenches the “either-or” mentality in which scholars have to make a decision between external and internal motivations when explaining language change. In practice, internal motivations are often elevated and considered potent relative to external motivations. References List Aitchison, J. (2013). Language change: Progress or decay?, Oxford, Cambridge University Press. Pp.161. Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications, New York, Wiley. Pp.6. Gerritsen, M. (1992). Internal and external factors in syntactic change, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.7-9. Hickey, R. (2004). Motives for language change, New York, Cambridge University Press. Pp.18-25. Hock, H. H., & Joseph, B. D. (2009). Language history, language change and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.258. Jones, M. & Singh, I. (2005). Exploring language change, New York, Routledge. pp.4. Jones, M. C. & Esch, E. (2002). Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. Pp.17-9. Jones, M. C. (2002). Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.83-5. Labov, W. (2008). Principles of linguistic change, Oxford, Blackwell. Pp.90. Milroy, J. (1997). Internal vs external motivations for linguistic change, Multilingua, 16 (4), pp.311-323. Niyogi,P. (1998). The logical problem of language change: A case study of European Portugeuse, Syntax, 1 (2), pp.192-205. Thomason, S. (2001). Language contact, Edinburg, Edinburg University Press. Pp.10-11. Trijp, R. V. (2013). Linguistic asessment criteria for explaining lnguage change: A case study on syncretism in German definite articles, Language Dynamics and Change, 3, pp.105-132. Yang, C. D. (2000). Internal and external forces in language change, Language Variation and Change, 12, pp.231-250. Read More