Author Topic: New Languages Rapidly Spring from Old Ones (Read 3682 times)

Jonathon · « **on:** February 03, 2008, 05:19:42 PM »

link

I just read this Scientific American article and found it interesting. It seems to line up with what I know about sociolinguistics—that groups of people will differentiate their language based on different identities. One of my professors found this sort of effect while studying Utah English. Basically, the Mormons have an accent that is distinct from the non-Mormon accent in several ways. It's not surprising at all to find that this phenomenon extends to vocabulary and other features as well.

goofy · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2008, 01:29:55 PM »

I'd like to read a linguist's opinion on this.

Quote

"We treat the words that different languages use almost identically to the way we use genes: … The more divergent two species are, the less their genes have in common, just as the more divergent two languages are, the less their words have in common."

I'm not so sure. English and French are more divergent than English and German, and yet English and French (and Latin) share a large vocabulary that is not shared by German.

The author is an evolutionary biologist, who also did this study, discussed here:

Quote

Researchers scoured grammatical texts dating back to the days of Old English, cataloguing all the irregular verbs they came across. Among them: the still irregular "sing" / "sang," "go" / "went" as well as the since-regularized "smite" which once was "smote" in Old English but since has become "smited," and "slink," which is now "slinked" but 1,200 years ago was "slunk." They located 177 verbs that were irregular in Old English and 145 that were still irregular in Middle English; today, only 98 of the 177 verbs have not been "regularized.'"

The thing is that "sing" used to be regular in PIE, but the regularity was obscured in Old English when ablaut was lost. It's not just that commonly used verbs become more regular, it's much more complicated than that.

Jonathon · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2008, 02:20:55 PM »

Quote

Quote
"We treat the words that different languages use almost identically to the way we use genes: … The more divergent two species are, the less their genes have in common, just as the more divergent two languages are, the less their words have in common."

I'm not so sure. English and French are more divergent than English and German, and yet English and French (and Latin) share a large vocabulary that is not shared by German.

That does seem like somewhat of an oversimplification. Not only are words the most likely features to be borrowed, thus obscuring genetic relationships, but if you're just looking at words then you miss the relationships shown by things like syntax and morphology.

Quote

The thing is that "sing" used to be regular in PIE, but the regularity was obscured in Old English when ablaut was lost. It's not just that commonly used verbs become more regular, it's much more complicated than that.

True. And though I think it's interesting to see non-linguists take a crack at this kind of thing, I do think it would be helpful if linguists were part of the research.

Farmgirl · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2008, 01:40:14 PM »

Wait.... when did "smote" become replaced by "smited"

No one told me!

Jonathon · « **Reply #4 on:** February 05, 2008, 01:45:50 PM »

I've heard both. Same with "slunk" and "slinked." Actually, I think I'm more familiar with the irregular forms.

Porter · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2008, 02:28:28 PM »

Drank, drunk.

Jonathon · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2008, 02:32:49 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean.

Porter · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2008, 02:37:35 PM »

It's another irregular verb pairing that I hear used interchangeably. "I've heard both."

Jonathon · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2008, 02:48:31 PM »

Okay. The article is actually talking about irregular verbs that have regularized, though. For that to count, we'd have to have drank and drinked.

Porter · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2008, 02:50:04 PM »

I just wanted to join in with the cool kids. :sniffle:

Jonathon · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2008, 02:57:18 PM »

The preterite and past participle of drink are noteworthy for other reasons, though. People seem to have an aversion to the form drunk, possibly because of the negative connotations. Some people use drank as the past participle instead, but I have heard drinken too.

So you can be cool too.

Porter · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2008, 02:59:39 PM »

Someday.

*hopeful*

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2008, 12:14:41 AM »

Quote

Drank. Drunk.

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean.

Mormons. Sheesh!

Farmgirl · « **Reply #13 on:** February 06, 2008, 08:45:27 AM »

Quote

I have heard drinken too.

Yep, that's what I used to do on Saturday nights when you. We'all would go out drinken.

Jonathon · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2008, 08:49:18 AM »

I'm talking about the past participle form, not the present participle drinking or drinkin'. As in "I have never drinken alcohol in my life."

Farmgirl · « **Reply #15 on:** February 06, 2008, 10:42:55 AM »

ah, Jon Boy. You take life too serious. I was just trying to say that in my best drunk voice...

Jonathon · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2008, 10:51:21 AM »

I don't take life too serious. I just took your statement seriously.

pooka · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2008, 12:34:08 PM »

I've been known to say "drinken" and "boughten". My husband says it's because I'm a freak.

Zalmoxis · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2008, 01:50:19 PM »

Drunken Botten will Lazer Beamify you all.

--------

Re: Mormons and language

I'm wondering what the status of up-talk and "in the name of thy son" (used to end a testimony with) will be as the generation that uses them matures and moves into leadership positions. Will they take on the linguistic patterns of their fellow (older) leaders? Or will they maintain them?

My current theory is that they will lose the patterns. They're okay now because their peers are all using them, but as they become dispersed into family wards and as they emulate the vocabulary and speech patterns of the more prominent members of their own wards, they'll lose it.

But I could be wrong.

Funny sidenote: I definitely took on some of the speech patterns and gestures of my mission president. He was a fantastic orator. But not entirely (and I haven't entirely lost my California dude accent, either).

However, a recently returned missionary spoke in my grandparents ward in the mid-90s who clearly was emulating LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie. His impression dead on and definitely sincere. And it was all rather uncanny because he was too young to be talking like that. I wonder how he did it to because he would have been nine or ten when McConkie died.

Jonathon · « **Reply #19 on:** February 06, 2008, 01:52:46 PM »

Quote

I'm wondering what the status of up-talk and "in the name of thy son" (used to end a testimony with) will be as the generation that uses them matures and moves into leadership positions. Will they take on the linguistic patterns of their fellow (older) leaders? Or will they maintain them?

I wasn't aware that it was a generational thing.

Zalmoxis · « **Reply #20 on:** February 06, 2008, 01:57:56 PM »

I have no idea what the data might show, but in my experience it's young American Mormons ages 15-30 who comprise the majority of the uptalkers.

And "in the name of thy son"ners really tend to be those who are currently 20-25.

Porter · « **Reply #21 on:** February 06, 2008, 02:01:10 PM »

What is uptalking?

Jonathon · « **Reply #22 on:** February 06, 2008, 02:06:37 PM »

I'll have to pay attention and see if I can spot any trends.

I assume Zal is using "uptalking" to mean "trying to speak in fancy or formal language" or something to that effect.

Zalmoxis · « **Reply #23 on:** February 06, 2008, 02:10:14 PM »

No, no. I'm sorry -- I probably have the wrong term for it.

Up talk is where every sentence ends with an rising inflection. I believe it's a permutation of valley girl talk that is used primarily by Mormon youth in the Western U.S.

I have no idea how to describe it linguistically.

Jonathon · « **Reply #24 on:** February 06, 2008, 02:15:39 PM »

Oh, sorry. I have head that term before, but for some reason I blanked and didn't recognize it. It looks like the more technical term would be "high rising terminal."