All physical aspects of the universe and all aspects
of human life are subject to change, and languages are so no exception.
Individual changes can be quite abrupt and obvious, as when new words make an
appearance and become popular. Normally,
however, language change is gradual, almost imperceptible, as with the slow
alterations in pronunciation when one generation speaks slightly differently
from another. Linguistic changes tend to be the result of two equivalent forms
coexisting as variants for some time, and
one giving way to the other. Small linguistic changes maybe evident in
everyday experience, and people may notice (and some disapprove) when words are
used or pronounced in different ways; but language change is most obvious on a
large scale when we look at older texts of a particular language, and the
further back we go in history, the more obvious the changes become.
here the language has changed almost out of all recognition. a linguistic discussion of the passage would go beyond the scope of this introduction, but it's evident that only small number of words of the modern language still carry obvious traces of their heredity, and even these have changed in various ways, e.g. freondlice, luflice > friendly, lovely. some of the letters used have disapeared from modern English.
this is in many ways, including the pronunciation, very close to modern English. but there are still obvious differences on all linguistic levels, especially with regard to grammar and vocabulary. in the second person singular of verbs, we notice the ending -st in dar'st and the singular personal pronouns thoulthee besides you. the negative sentence she holds me not would be expressed in modern English as she does not hold me, and the word order of your hands than mine are quicker for a fray sounds definitely peculiar today. none of the words looks particularly unusual, although in some cases their meanings have changed. the word coil, for example, will be familiar to many because it also occurs in Hamlet's famous phrase 'shuffled off this mortal coil'. but they will almost certainly not know its 16th century meaning of 'turmoil'.
in looking at a particular language over a longer period of time, it becomes apparent that language change does not result in different distinct stages of a language but in a historical continuum, so that speakers easily understand the language of the generations immediately before and after them, but meet increasing difficulties in understanding chronologically remote stages of their language. this closely resembles the well-known phenomenon of the dialect continuum: adjacent geographical varieties of a language are mutually intelligible, but dialect speakers may have problems with geographically remote varieties of their language. the close relationship between temporal and spatial linguistic differences may also be noticeable in another respect:this, travelling though rural Britain from south to north or from east to west can in many ways resemble a journey through the history of English, since rural dialects have often preserved older forms of language.
linguistic change, then, is not restricted to particular languages or generations, but is a universal fact. this does not mean that people will always be happy to accept the inevitable.
this is in many ways, including the pronunciation, very close to modern English. but there are still obvious differences on all linguistic levels, especially with regard to grammar and vocabulary. in the second person singular of verbs, we notice the ending -st in dar'st and the singular personal pronouns thoulthee besides you. the negative sentence she holds me not would be expressed in modern English as she does not hold me, and the word order of your hands than mine are quicker for a fray sounds definitely peculiar today. none of the words looks particularly unusual, although in some cases their meanings have changed. the word coil, for example, will be familiar to many because it also occurs in Hamlet's famous phrase 'shuffled off this mortal coil'. but they will almost certainly not know its 16th century meaning of 'turmoil'.
in looking at a particular language over a longer period of time, it becomes apparent that language change does not result in different distinct stages of a language but in a historical continuum, so that speakers easily understand the language of the generations immediately before and after them, but meet increasing difficulties in understanding chronologically remote stages of their language. this closely resembles the well-known phenomenon of the dialect continuum: adjacent geographical varieties of a language are mutually intelligible, but dialect speakers may have problems with geographically remote varieties of their language. the close relationship between temporal and spatial linguistic differences may also be noticeable in another respect:this, travelling though rural Britain from south to north or from east to west can in many ways resemble a journey through the history of English, since rural dialects have often preserved older forms of language.
linguistic change, then, is not restricted to particular languages or generations, but is a universal fact. this does not mean that people will always be happy to accept the inevitable.
source : Schendl, Herbert. Historical Linguistics. 2001. Oxford University Press
0 Comments