Language Change Theories

Language Change Theorists 

Keith Chen S-Curve Model - shows language change in the form of an 'S' shape. Meaning that language change, perhaps a certain lexical item or grammatical function, is initially slow and gradually used, however is then frequently used as it becomes more and more accepted. After this period, the feature then slowly dips down in frequency and is just commonly accepted into language use.

Functional Theory - Theory developed by Halliday, where language changes and adapts to needs of its users. For instance, the introduction of initialisms such as CD and DVD.

Wave Theory - The theory that people close to the epicenter of 'change', primarily being London and dense cities, feel the tremors of language change, but people far away are less likely. However this is an old theory, and social media allows us to communicate with various sociolects therefore meaning that other regions not close to the 'epicenter of change' can still be impacted.

Jean Aitchison - She came up with three myths that encapsulated people's anxieties about language 'decay'.

Damp Spoon Syndrome 

The idea that people have become 'lazy' with language. She counter-argued this by saying that the only form of lazy speech is drunken speech.

Crumbling Castle View

Tendency for people to treat language as an ornate building that is falling down. Aitchison said language can never reach a 'peak', it is not possible to preserve something that is always changing as language is a static monolith,

Infectious Disease Assumption 

People pick up language change to fit in with social groups.

The Great Vowel Shift 

Major change in the pronunciation of the English language that took place in 1350 and 1600. Through the Great Vowel Shift, all Middle English long vowels changed their pronunciation. English spelling was becoming standardized in the 15th and 16th centuries, and the Great Vowel Shift is responsible for many of the peculiarities of English spelling.


Some quotes surrounding language change

John Humphries - texters are destroying our language: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped.

David Gelernter - in the 1970s and 1980s, arrogant ideologues began recasting English into heavy artillery to defend the borders of the New Feminist state

David Mitchell - when language changes, slang becomes correct, mispunctuation is overlooked and American spellings adopted, I feel that I'm a mug for having learnt all the old rules to start with.

New Words in the Oxford Dictionary

It was sourced by The Guardian, that the phrase 'post-truth' was named word of the year in 2016. It is said that the word of the year is to 'reflect the passing year in language'. Of course, this may be dependant on the events which occurred within that year, with one of the main events in 2016 being, of course, Trump. The dictionary definition of adjective 'post-truth', relates to 'objective facts which are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief'. With one of the main events of 2016 being Trump and Brexit, we can only assume that this word has been praised for it's relevance and usage in the year. Another example could be in 2009 when the neologism 'Simples', derived from the adjective 'simple', was crowned word of the year. The phrase was coined by advert 'Compare the Market (Meerkats)', a popular advert with a slogan of 'simples'. With this in mind we can perhaps assume that a majority of 'new words' are already crafted from existing words, yet with added morphemes/graphemes. In December 2016, over 500 words were added to the Oxford dictionary, with 'Youtuber' and 'Brexit' being most popular. Here, there is a clear relation to digital technology, with both words being used mostly on the Internet. Over the past decade, there have been thousands of neologisms deriving from computer mediated communication, with many of the 'new words' coming from this.

George Essay

YOUNG READERS SHOULD BE CORRECTED WHENEVER THEY MAKE A MISTAKE.

The process in which children learn to read is one that is considered to be vital for their further understanding of language, however there are different approaches in which children learn to read. One of the main obstacles that children encounter when they are learning to read are miscues, which often produces mistakes in children’s reading. One of the most foremost theories surrounding children’s cognitive development is that of Skinner’s operant conditioning, who theorises that children learn through positive or negative reinforcement. Throughout the text given, we can implement Skinner’s theory within the mother’s language, who uses both positive and negative reinforcement when correcting with George. For instance, the mother’s first utterance within the text is ‘yeah that’s right’, by praising George he is able to understand that he communicated the clause correctly. Yet later on in the conversation, the mother uses negative reinforcement with the response ‘nooo’, however what is most interesting about the response is the mitigation of ‘no’. If the mother were to directly respond with ‘no’, the child may become upset and unmotivated to read, perhaps suggesting that the choice of language by a caregiver is also vital when learning to read. This may suggest that the caregiver must be subtle in their language when correcting the child to allow them to want to continue. George then goes onto say ‘no we need’, here it is shown that George understands that he made a mistake and corrects himself to form the correct word. This reinforces the idea that children should be corrected when making a mistake, but also should be praised when they articulate or pronounce correctly.

Throughout the transcript, George’s mother frequently asks open questions, perhaps this could be to check that George is actually understanding what is happening and if he is understanding the book. This has some relevance to the bottom up theory, which shows that children decode the book, however they may not be able to actually understand what is going on. For instance, within the interrogative clause ‘whats happening’, this interrogative allows George to reflect back on what he has read and whether he has any connection with it. Here we can apply an Vygotskyan approach, with the mother using questions as a form of scaffolding to allow George to fully understand what is going on. It could be said that instead of young readers being corrected when making a mistake, they could actually be asked probing questions. However, the word that George has the most confusion with is ‘sandbags’, perhaps because the graphemes ‘b’ and ‘d’ are slightly similar visually. However, instead of the mother responding with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses, she instead uses scaffolding to allow George to articulate the word. By using the recursion of the concrete noun ‘sandbags’ and splitting the word into their separate morphemes, it allows George to be able to understand each section of the word. It could be debated that instead of actually ‘correcting’ the child, that instead the caregiver should use repetition to allow the child to understand and articulate the word correctly. It could be mentioned that negative reinforcement may have a bad impact on the child, discouraging him from reading further in the fear of being ‘told off’.

What makes reading so hard for children are the miscues within the text, however it is the ability for children to tackle these miscues to allow them to become competent readers. For instance, within the conversation George mistakes one word for another just by looking at the first few graphemes and guessing the rest of the word; word guessing errors. Later on in the conversation, George claims that ‘Mum looked upstairs’ yet the correct word in the clause was ‘upset.’ As well as this, text image cohesion in the book is used to show the mother walking up the stairs, therefore George intuitively deciphered that the two graphemes ‘up’ and the picture were to make the concrete noun ‘stairs’. Although George has made a ‘mistake’ here, it could be said that he is thinking imaginatively and is using the images as a tool for understanding the text, which can apply to Halliday’s heuristic language as George is thinking intuitively. Still, George’s mother corrects George ‘no (.) it looks like upstairs doesn’t it’, and through the process of correcting George, he is then able to recognise that he misinterpreted the word. Here it shows that correction is vital for children to be able to learn when they have made a mistake, otherwise they may be completely unaware of the mistake.

In conclusion, it is clear that without being informed that they have made a mistake, they may never be aware that they have made a mistake. The idea of positive and negative reinforcement is also prominent within the conversation, and this is what makes George to be able to recognise the mistakes he has made. However, instead of actually correcting the child, it could be debated that the caregiver could take on a phonic approach to teaching children specific words, as this will ensure that the child can fully articulate and understand the word. Whereas if the child was corrected without them being able to have another chance at articulating the word, then they may not be able to improve this when reading in the future. Perhaps it could be argued that scaffolding is a much easier way to allow the children to develop, as it could be mentioned that although negative reinforcement is a direct way of showing children that they have made a mistake, it could potentially dishearten the child and hinder their relationship with reading.

Language Choice Issue

Find two articles that show differing attitudes to a ‘language choice’ issue. Analyse the language used to represent the change/issue.

What I intend to analyse is the contemporary debate that texting can influence our language massively, with either a positive or negative impact. The work of David Crystal is one that simply advocates ‘text’ speak, whereas John Humphries believes different. Clearly the language used to represent their opinions will differ, and of course the audience that it is targeted towards will also manipulate their language.

David Crystal’s article extract ‘2b or not 2b?’ on The Guardian:

“People think that the written language seen on mobile phone screens is new and alien, but all the popular beliefs about texting are wrong. Its graphic distinctiveness is not a new phenomenon, nor is its use restricted to the young. There is increasing evidence that it helps rather than hinders literacy. And only a very tiny part of it uses a distinctive orthography. A trillion text messages might seem a lot, but when we set these alongside the multi-trillion instances of standard orthography in everyday life, they appear as no more than a few ripples on the surface of the sea of language. Texting has added a new dimension to language use, but its long-term impact is negligible. It is not a disaster.

Although many texters enjoy breaking linguistic rules, they also know they need to be understood. There is no point in paying to send a message if it breaks so many rules that it ceases to be intelligible. When messages are longer, containing more information, the amount of standard orthography increases. Many texters alter just the grammatical words (such as "you" and "be"). As older and more conservative language users have begun to text, an even more standardised style has appeared. Some texters refuse to depart at all from traditional orthography. And conventional spelling and punctuation is the norm when institutions send out information messages, as in this university text to students: "Weather Alert! No classes today due to snow storm", or in the texts which radio listeners are invited to send in to programmes. These institutional messages now form the majority of texts in cyberspace - and several organisations forbid the use of abbreviations, knowing that many readers will not understand them. Bad textiquette.”

Perhaps what is most interesting about Crystal’s article is how he states that texting is only a tiny part of language use, and how it only plays a small part in the ‘multi-trillion instances of standard orthography in everyday life’. It almost implies that out of all language use, perhaps it is not reasonable to blame technology when there are so many other factors that can manipulate our language use. Within the first compound clause, Crystal’s use of the word ‘wrong’ could be considered to be quite naïve and as although it is his opinion, the use of word ‘wrong’ almost shows that the statement is factual, rather than opinion. Throughout Crystal’s books, he often refers to texting and how it can have a big impact on children’s language development, especially in ‘Texting: The Gr8 Db8’ where he counter argues the proposition of texting changing children’s development. Crystal also compares the whole nature of language as a ‘sea of language’, with texting only being a ripple on the surface. The comparison of language to the sea provides semantic connotations, almost implying that language is so gargantuan that technology does not impose much threat. Perhaps it is also intriguing how Crystal claims that texters ‘enjoy’ breaking linguistic rules, however this can be interpreted in many ways. At first it may be perceived to be absurd that one would want to go against grammatical rules, however there may be several factors as to why. The main reason could be for efficiency when texting, those who want to compose their text and wish to send it quickly. Although it is now more used by teenagers who may wish to diverge their language away from adults. The word which may impose the most confusion is the word ‘textiquette’, which is a neologism crafted to describe the behavior of an individual when texting; whether they are a fast replier, if they know how to text etc.. Obviously when Crystal implemented this slang term, he believed that there would be some cultural awareness form the audience, imposing the question as to whether Crystal wrote this piece targeting a younger audience.

John Humphries’ article extract from ‘I h8 text messages’ on the MailOnline

It is the relentless onward march of the texters, the SMS (Short Message Service) vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours eight hundred years ago.

They are destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped.

This, I grant you, is a tall order. The texters have many more arrows in their quiver than we who defend the old way.

Ridicule is one of them. "What! You don't text? What century are you living in then, granddad? Need me to sharpen your quill pen for you?"

You know the sort of thing; those of us who have survived for years without a mobile phone have to put up with it all the time. My old friend Amanda Platell, who graces these pages on Saturdays, has an answerphone message that says the caller may leave a message but she'd prefer a text. One feels so inadequate.

Throughout the extract, Humphries uses the neologism ‘texters’, with the purpose of being an group noun. By using this phrase, it almost implies that he is diverging himself away from the group, perhaps meaning that he is positioning himself above the reader. When crafting the article, Humphries would have had to consider that the majority of his audience often use texting, thereby meaning that he would have to be subtle in his language to not cause offence. Although, Crystal goes on to describe texters to be ‘raping our vocabulary’ and ‘savaging our sentences’. Clearly the usage of material verbs ‘raping’ and ‘savaging’ are terms that are considered to be negative and to cause controversy. Perhaps what is most intriguing within the metaphor is that the writer is actually using dynamic verbs that are producing such vulgar connotations. Contextually, the Daily Mail is an institution which is considered controversial in itself for their somewhat debatable content. For instance, within Humphries article he compares texters to Genghis Khan, a military leader.  Which of course can seem quite extravagant considering that it’s only texting. Perhaps this is what is most different between the two articles, the usage of language that Humphries uses is very direct and in some cases, offensive.

The word 'SICK'

Independent Study for Half term: English Language: Usage of the word ‘sick’

Obviously, the act of being ‘sick’ is where one vomits, perhaps down to illness or several other biological reasons. However perhaps over the past decade, the usage of the word ‘sick’ has undergone amelioration and has been used to describe something as good or ‘cool’. Perhaps upon hearing the phrase, you would be led to believe that it may connote something negative, however the act of ‘being sick’ is now used as an empty adjective, such as ‘that’s sick’ or ‘how sick is that’. The phrase is used predominantly by millennial, those who have accessibility to digital technology and are frequent ‘texters’. It is said that the phrase first came from skateboarders in the US, who would describe certain tricks as ‘sick’ to define something as ill or absurd. It perhaps could be mentioned that even skaters have their own discourse, with phrases such as ‘gnarly’, ‘rad’ etc.. all being frequently utilized. Of course, this use of phrase may have spread due to social mobility and of course, the introduction of digital technology. An interpretation of this can be that others started to adopt this phrase into their language, perhaps to elevate their social status. Thereby meaning that more and more people started to use the phrase. It could also be said that the word ‘sick’ has not only gone through amelioration, but also through semantic conversion. Semantic conversion is the proposition that words change their actual word class over time, meaning the actual context in which we use the word may change.

 At first, the word ‘sick’ was purely a dynamic verb ‘being sick’, or the concrete noun ‘the sick’, but it has now shifted to an empty adjective. What makes the word ‘sick’ so interesting is how something which can be considered quite repellent, yet now carries connotations of something appealing. The same can be applied with the word ‘wicked’, which at first was an adjective to show something which was absurd and weird, however to call something ‘wicked’ it is now seen as pleasant. Now, a foremost contextual factor when considering the usage of these words is that it is mostly used by teenagers. For years there have been debates as to whether teenagers use certain language to ostracize themselves for their superiors. Perhaps implying that the usage of these words, which were once used in a negative context, are used by teenagers to diverge away from others.