‘Oxford introductions to Language Study Series Editor H.G. Widdowson Published in tis series: z Guy Cook: Applied Linewistce Rod Elis: Second Language Acquistion Claire Kramsch Language and Culture ‘Tim McNamara: Language Testing Peter Roach Phonetics Thomas Scovel: Psycholinguistics Bernard Spolsky: Sociolinguistics Peter Verdonk: Stylistics 2 H.G.Widdowson: Linguistics George Yule: Pragmatics OXFORDOXFORD Asin ck re A Gp Tor Chee Nair ‘Sangha Tai Tokyo Toes rh Ono Uni Pr ar No wnenbaed pocopins rents elon ceca ‘em age i he sae ao i orem seen at gn ror IUrechics iy caries, Contents Preface suney Language change as a matter of fact Aatieudes to language change Language sate and process ‘The aims and scope of historical linguistics Reconstructing the past: data and evidence “The data of historical linguistics The writen evidence Sources of evidence Comparing and reconstructing languages Correspondences between languages Laws ofchange Internal reconstruction Vocabulary change Coining new words ‘Changes of meaning ‘Why do word meanings change? Grammatical change Morphological change Syntactic change Sound change low sounds are produced Phonetic change Phonemic change 5 5 26 3S 38 43 46 se8 Language contact Borrowing from other languages Convergence and linguistic areas Language birth: pidgins and ereoles anguage death 7 How and why do languages change? Functional explanations Psycholinguistic explanations: language acquisition Sociolinguistic explanations ‘The origin and spread of changes 8 Postscript farther developments Socio-historical linguistics and historical pragmatics volutionary linguistics Standardization and language planaing Conclusion Readings References Glossary ss 3s 59 6 68 na 76 Br sr S 83 8 3 Preface Purpose ‘What justification might there be fora series of introductions ro language study? After all, linguistic is already wel served with introductory texts: expositions and explanations which are comprehensive, authoritative, and excellentin cheir way. Generally Speaking, however, their way isthe essentially academic one of| providing a detailed initiation into the discipline of linguistics, and they tend tobe lengthy and technical: appropriately so, given their purpose, But they can be quite daunting to the novice. There is nso a need for a more general and gradual introduction «0 language: transitional texts which will ease people into an understanding of complex ideas. This series of introductions is designed to serve this need “Their purpose, therefore isnot to supplant but to support the ‘more academically oriented introductions to ingsties: to prepare the conceptual ground. They are based on the belief thar itis an advantage t have a broad map of the erain sketched out before fone considers its more specific features on a smaller scale, a ‘general context in reference co which the derail makes sense. Itis Sometimes the case that students are introduced to detail without it being made clear what itis a detail of. Clearly, a general understanding of ideas is not sufficient: there needs to be closer scrutiny. But equally close scrutiny can be myopic and mean- ingless unless itis related tothe larger view. Indeed it can be said thar the precondition of more particular enquiry isan awareness fof whan, in general, the particulars are about. This series isdesigned to provide this large-scale view of different areas of language seudy. As such it can serve as preliminary to (and precondition for) the more specific and specialized enquiry which Students of linguistics are required ro undertake But the serics is not only intended to be helpful to such students There are many people who take an interest in language without being academically engaged in linguistics per se. Such people may recognize che importance of understanding language for their own lines of enquiry or for their own practical purposes, ‘or quite simply for making them aware of something, which figures so centrally in their everyday lives. If linguistics has revealing and relevant things to say about language, this should presumably not be a privileged revelation, but one accessible to people other shan linguists. These books have been so designed as| toaccommodate these broader interests too: they are meant to be introductions to language more generally 2s well as linguistics asa discipline. Design The books inthe serie sare four parts: Survey, allcutto the same basic pattern. There eadings, References, and Glossar. Survey ‘This isa summary overview of the main features ofthe area of language study concerned: its scope and principles of enquiry, its basic concerns and key concepts. These are expressed and ex plained in ways which ae intended to make them as accessible as possible ro people who have no prior knowledge or expertise in the subject. The Survey is written to be readable and is un clutered by the customary scholarly references. In this sense itis simple. But ies aot simplistic, Lack of specialist expertise des ‘ot imply an inability to understand or evaluate ideas. Ignorance means lack of knowledge, not lack of intelligence. The Survey, therefore, is meant to be challenging. It draws a map of the subject afea in such a way as‘ stimulate thought and to invite a Critical participation in the exploration of ideas. This kind of ‘conceptual cartography hasits dangers ofcourse: the selection of ‘whats significant and the manner of is representation, will not be to the liking of everybody, particularly not, perhaps, ta some ‘of those inside the discipline. But these surveys are written inthe belie tae there must be an alternative toa echnical account on the one hand, and an idiots guide on the other if linguistics sto bbe made relevant to people in the wider world Readings Some people will be content to read, and perhaps re-read, the summary Survey. Others will want ro pursue the subject and so willuse the Survey as the preliminary for more detailed study. The Readings provide the necesary transition. For here the reader is presented with txts extracted from the specialist literature. The ‘purpose ofthese Readings is quite different from the Survey. [eis {ogetreadersto focus onthe specific of what issaid, and how itis sai, in these source texts. Questions are provided to further this purpose: they are designed to direct attention to points in each text, how they compare across rexts, and how they deal withthe issues discussed in the Survey. Te idea iso give readers an intial familiarity with the mote specialist idiom of the linguistics literature, where the issues might not be so eadily accesible, and to encourage them into close critica reading Refer One way of moving into more detailed study is through the Readings. Another is through the annorated References in the thied section of each book. Here there is a selection of works {books and articles) for farther reading. Accompanying comments indicate how these deal in more detail with the issues discussed in the different chaprers ofthe Survey. Glossary (Certain terms inthe Survey appear in bold. These are terms used ina special or technical sense in the discipline. Their meanings acemade clear inthe discussion, bu they are also explained inthe Glossary at the end of each book, The Glossary is cross referenced tothe Survey, and therefore serves a the same time as an index. This enables readers to locate the term and what it signifies inthe more general discussion, thereby, in effect, using the Survey asa summary work of reference.Use “The series has been designed so as to be flexible in use. Each ttle ie separate and self-contained, with only the basic format in| ‘common. The four sections ofthe formar, as described here, can he drawn upon and combined in different ways, as required by the needs, o interests, of different readers. Some may be content with the Sarvey and the Glossary and may not want to follow up the suggested References, Some may not wish to venture into the Readings. Again, the Survey might be considered as appropriate preliminary reading for a course in applied linguistics or teacher fducation, and the Readings more appropriate for seminar discussion during. the course. In short, the notion of an ineroduction will mean different things to different people, but in all cases the concern isto provide access to specialist knowledge tnd stimilate an awareness ofits significance. This series as a ‘whole has been designed to provide this access and promote this {wareness in respect to different areas of language study. Author's acknowledgements The fact that the Oxford Introductions 10 Language Study include a volume on historical linguistics bears wimess othe fact fat this time-honoured linguistic discipline has taken up a tenteal place within the field again. This book tries to make the Subject accessible to the uninitiated reader and to show how closely historical linguistics is inked to the other linguistic areas Covered in the series, My thanks go to Oxford University Press And the series editor, H.G, Widdowson, fr including this volume in the series, Quite a: number of people have provided me with valuable input and have helped to make this a better and more readable book. First and foremost, I owe a very special debt of gratitude to HG, Widdowson for his continuous support and invaluable advice through all the stages of my writing; he has made numerous proposals for improvement, both in regard 10 the overall structure of the book and to countless details, and has painstakingly read through the various drafts ofthe manuscript. ‘The following fiends and colleagues have read the whole or substantial parts of the manuseriptin various stages and have made valuable suggestions: Clausdirk Polines, Hans Plazes, Angelika Hirsch, Ute Smit, Barbara Seidlhofe, Gunther Kaltenbéck Nikolaus Rite provided me with valuable information on ‘nco-Darwinian evolutionary theory. My heartfele thanks to all of them. Iam much indebted to the people at Oxford University Press forall their support. Las, but not least, my special thanks 0 £0 my wife, who has not only read hoth the manuscript and the proofs, but has also been a constant source of encouragement. London, October 2000SECTION 1 Survey4 Language change as a matter of fact All physical aspects ofthe universe and all aspects of human life re subject to change and languages reno excepion-Individual Changes can be que abrupe and obvious, as when new words | ake an appearance and become popular. Normally, however, language change is gradual, almost imperceptible, a withthe slow alterations in pronunciation when one generation speaks Slghly diferey from anothe. Linguistic changes tend to he the esl of two equivalent forms coensting a variants for some | ime, and one giving way tothe oter Two words, for example, {— Grtwo ways of pronouncing the same word, may coexist inthe Same specch community for some time, hut may be used. hy diferent subgroups oF on different ocssions. However, for reasons tobe discused Inter, such variant forms may begin 0 onypete an finally one wll dominate andthe othe deci. Sill ingusde changes may be evident in everyday exper ace, and people may notice (and sometimes disapprove) when ‘words are ied of pronounced in different ways; but language Change is mos obvious ona large scale when we lok at older texts ofa particular language, and the Further back we go i history, the more obvious the changes become. Here is an example of Old English, eaken from the time of King Allred the Late noth century aD}, for which a translation ia modem English given below (1) Alfred kyning hated gretan Werfer® biscep his wordum Iufice ond freondlice ond Qe cyan hate, fet mecom wide oft on gemynd, hwelce wiotan iu waron giond Angeleyan aegier ge godcundra hada ge woruldcundra, ond hu sgesliglicatida 0a waron giond Angeleynn. LANGUAGE CHANGE 3,[King Alfred sends greetings t0 Bishop Warferth with his loving and friendly words, and I would declae to you that it has very often come to my mind what wise men there were formerly throughout the English people, both in sacred and in secular orders, and how there were happy. times. then throughout England.) Here the language has changed almost out of all recognition. [A linguistic discussion ofthe passage would go beyond the scope ofthis ingroduction, but itis evident that only a small number of ‘words ofthe modern language sill carry obvious traces oftheir heredity, and even these have changed in various ways, e4 freondlice,lflice > friendly, lovely. Some ofthe eters used have disappeared from modern English, such as Ofor modern th, or forthe vowel in modern standard English hat ‘Aux here is an example from Middle English, almost half ‘of millennium later, taken from the Prologue of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (2) Ye goon to Caunterbury—God yow speede, ‘The blisul mastir quite yow youre moede! ‘And wel woot, as ye goon by the weye, Ye shapen yow to talen and o pleye; For tewely, confort ne myrthe is noon ‘Taide by the weye doumb as a stoon; The language here i less remote. There are obviously several differences in spelling, for example, the endings of verbs (goon, talen, both with plural ending (et, and in some word forms {woot know", ye"you'). Ifyou heard the passage read aloud, the distance from mosen English would be somewhat greater But most of the features in (2} we can recognize as related to the English language as we use it today. ‘And finaly, heres passage from Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night’ Dream iti. 335) writen about two centuries after (Chaucer, at the end ofthe sixteenth century (5) Lysander Now she holds me not. Now follow ifthou dart, to try whose eight, (Of thine or mine, is most in Helena Demetrius Follow! Nay, I'l go wih thee, cheek by jow. Hermia You, mises, all this coils long of you: Nay, go not back. Helena Lill no erase you, No longer stay in your curst company Your hands than mine are quicker fora frays My legs are longer, though, to run ay. ‘This isin many ways, including che pronunciation, very close to modetn English, But there ace still obvious differences on all linguistic levels, especially with regard to grammar and vocabu: lary. In the second person singular of verbs, we notice che ending «tn dart and the singular personal pronouns thoulthe besides Jot. The negative sentence she holds me not would be expressed inmodern English as she does wot hold me, and the word order of Your hands than mine are quicker fr a fray sounds definitely peculiar today: None of the words looks particularly unusual, though in some cases their meanings have changed. The word ti for example, wll be familia to many because it also occurs in Hamers famous phrase shuffled off cis moral coil’. But they twill almost certainly not know its sixtenth-century meaning of arm’ Tn looking at a particular language over a longer period of time i becomes apparent that language change does noc esult in iifferent distinct stages of a language but in a historical con- tinuum, so that speakers easly understand the language of the generations immediately before and after them, but meet increasing diffculties in understanding chronologically remote stages oftheir language. Ths closely resembles the well-known phenomenon of the dialect continaum: adjacent geogeaphical Yarieties of a language are mutually intelligible, but dialece Speakers may have problems with geographically remote varieties oftheir language. The close relationship beeween temporal and spatial linguistic differences may also be noticeable in another respect: thus, revelling through rural Britain from south to north for from east go 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 lan- guages or generations, bu is a universal fact. This does not mean | that people wil always be happy to accept the inevitable.Attitudes to language change Languageis so closely associated with social identity thatitis not surprising that people have steong felings about it. Language change can be unsettling anda widespread attitude istosee tas.a ‘change forthe worse. Speakers of cifferent periods and cultures have often tended to think that their own language is inferior ro thae of their forebears. For them, language change is a matter of decline or decay. In some societies this attitude can be traced back to the biblical account of the Tower of Babel. Here the change from one common language toa diversity of different languages is presented as divine punishment for sinful behaviour. Ta the history of European languages, negative statements on language change as corruption and decay clearly predominate ‘over neutral ones, while positive views sem ro be conspicuously absent. In mos of the emerging European national languages we Find increasing atcempts to “purify” sind coliy the language, ie tox prescriptive rules of correct usage and thus stop language change. This task was partly undertaken by offical institutions, so-called ‘language academies, such as the Accademia della Ceusea in Florence (founded in 1382), che French Académie francaise (1635), and various German ‘language societies’ ofthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In England the eighteenth century, with its striving for regulariey and order, was especially hostile to the idea of linguistic change, but here eoditetion was ‘mainly carried out by influential individuals. Many of the leading intellectual and literary figures of the period, such as Jonathan Swift and Samuel Johnson, vehemently opposed the idea of language change. For Johnson, author of the famous Dictionary ofthe English Language (1755) for instance al linguistic change was ‘of tself an evil In the Preface o his Dictionary, he states: (4) tongues [i.e languages) like goveenments, have a natural tendency 0 degeneration; we have long preserved our ‘constitution, ler us make some struggles for our language. ‘This comparison of language with human institutions like governments was in no way restricted to England. For the ‘American politician Benjamin Franklin, language reflected social reality and the supposed ‘degeneration’ of language directly tmicrored the degeneration of contemporary society. 4 ‘This‘complaine ration’ (as ithas been called) has continued tp t0 the present century. Here is a recent example from a popular book on linguistic correctness by an American art critic, expressing a view echoed by educated laypersons in many ‘countries. (See also Section 2, Readings, Text 1. (s) [Bly and large, linguistic changes are caused by the ignorance of speakers and writers, and in the last few centuries—given ou school, dictionaries, and books on grammar—such ignorance could have been, like the live netle or poison iy itis, uprooted {John Simon, Paradignss Lost, 1976) ‘Notonly individuals, But also governmental instirtions have shown emotional or ideologically motivated attudes towards certain changes. In Navi Germany attempts were made to assert the integrity of the language by promoting words of German character even for established foreign words (Femsprecher ‘telephone’, literally “distant speaker’, instead of Telephon). But even democratic governments are not immune from nationalistic tendencies in tying t0 stop excessive borrowing of foreign "words. A recent case in point has been the French government’ (unsuccessful) measures against the use of “ranglais', English borrowings such as le weekend and le shopping, by means of governmental deroes and attempts to replace chem with French tvords coined by an official committe, e.g le baladeur for le twalleman. Though reversion to a real or imagined earlier (and ‘purer) state of language also involves change, this type of change is seen to be ‘inthe sight diretion’ and acceptable for political reasons. Een professional linguists have in the past heen prone to a conservative attitude 10 language change. Early nineteenth- century scholars regarded language asa growing organism witha stage of grout, a brief moment of evolutionary perfection, and subsequent decay. Thus, for example, the disappearance of case inflections between Old English and Modern English or from Latin eo French, and their partial replacement by prepositional phrases (for example, Old English freondes vs. English of the [Fronds Latin amici vs, French de ami“of the friend) was seen 8 indicating decineContemporary linguists in general hold a neutral ot ev positive atitude towards change. On the positive side it has been aimed that changes are a necessary development to make languages more communicatively effective as they become attuned to changing socal needs. This also applies to che promotion of conscious linguistic changes to achieve this goal, suchas language planning and measures to make langage “politically correct (cf. ‘Chapter 8). Furthermore, changes have been viewed as necessary therapeutic measures to restore the halance and symmetry of the Tinguistc system, o a8 moves towards the simplification of the grammar. In such a view, the change of language over periods of time ia function oF influences operating at any given time. In this respect, the study of history (of language or of anything else) depends on an understanding ofthe present, just as the present is tobe understood by reference tothe past. Language state and process [Nevertheless in much modern linguisties past and present have been separated into different areas of enguity. It has been a ‘common assumption that synchronic linguistics, which concerns itself withthe state of languages ata given time, in particular the present, is most conveniently carried out in distegard of the Findings of historical or lachrone linguistics about the processes of language development overtime, However, this strict division is based on a misunderstanding ofthe relationship between these two aspects of the study of language. On the one hand, the synchronie study of linguistic systems can provide insights chat can be used in reconstructing thee past. On the other hand, we Should also recognize that the implied assumption that syn ron linguistic systems are completely systematic, static and hhomogeneous, is a fiction. All of them are in some respects tunsystematc: the numerous irregular relics of eaier systems (he ‘exceptions’ to the rule}, which are simply inexplicable in synchronic terms, can only be explained by reference to past States and developments. The unstable state ofa language at any tiven point ofimeis the consequence of historical processes, and its very instability is evidence that these processes continue to ‘operat in the present. Fqually, there is a close inerrlationship between synchronic linguistic variation, ic. the coexistence of mote or less equivalent variants at given time, and diachronic linguistic change. The [growing awareness of these facts over the past thirty yearshas led to a major reorientation in the discipline, wit historical linguist ies again taking its rightful place in the eld of language stu. The aims and scope of historical linguistics “The beginning of historical linguistic studies inthe modern sense ‘of the word dates back more than two hundred years, though there isa much older tradition of language study in some cultures. Soi isnot surprising that there have been very differen scholarly traditions and approaches to historical linguistics, each of which sets particular research objectives. and. calls’ for different rethodologis. Wecan identify these broad areas of enquiry 1 The study ofthe history of particular languages on the basis of existing writen data, 2 The study of the prehistory of languages by means of ‘comparative reconstruction, whereby the unrecorded past is inferred on the evidence ofthe data that are available from late period, 5 The study of ongoing changes in a language, ie. changes happening at the present cme. However fascinating these issues may be in their own right (especially for historical linguists themselves) they should be linked to other and more abstract aims, namely the discovery of ‘mote general, possibly universal, aspects of language change. By relating che descriptive fats about a particular language to what is common across all (or most) other languages, the historical Tinguis seks to explain wy languages change, and how these changes spread in space and time, The most promising area for finding answers to these questions is the study of ongoing, changes, especially when caried out within a framework which femphasizes the interrelationship between socal factory sj chronic linguistic variation at any one time, and diachronic linguistic change overtime.iid & Reconstructing the past: ‘The data of historical linguistics “The synchronic description of living languages in the present can by based on a wide range of data suchas the introspection ofthe linguise (asa native speaker), the guided elicitation of data from ative informants, and observation including the use of coxpora} Different linguistic schools have placed different emphases on these types of data, The data of historical linguistics, on the other hand, are much mote restricted. Obviously, much ofthe pasts not accessible through introspection or elicitation. We only have its observable traces to go on, most importantly the limited orpos of written texts as a record of actual Ianguage use in former times. Fortunately, many languages have along recorded past, which provides evidence for the development of the individual lan {guages and also for more general properties of linguistic change But there aze clear limitations with regard to both the quantity and the quality of the data. In general, the further back we go in time, the more sparse and unreliable the data become, while at the same time the language becomes more and more remote Frequently we lack suficientextralinguistic information on old texts, such as theie author, purpose, or audience. Equally the range of text types is limited, and authentic spoken daca are altogether lacking before the twentieth cencury. The recon: Struction of older written langage is difficult enough, but its ‘ren more difficult to reconstruct older speech from written data ‘We must beat in mind too that this reconstruction is not a straightforwaed matter of facts, The interpretation—and eventhe selection—of the available data is always informed by undeelying general assumprions about language or a specific theory to which the historical linguist subscribes. This means that, as with other aspects of history, we will find competing explanations ofthe past. ‘Whenever che beginning of human language may have heen — and most modern estimates vary between $0,000 and 100,000 years ago, though some extend it substantially 10 one milion years ago or even more—it is obvious that the evolution of language is documented only for a very small percentage of is total history, and even this applies only to relatively few ofthe 5,000 fo. 6,000 human languages said to exist in-the-world at present. The lack of data from these unrecorded stages, i. from the prehistory of languages, can however be partly overcome by systematic comparison of the oldest writen records of related languages even f they are now extinct. These canbe as fascinating, a8 dinosaus eges or Foss of extinct species and, just like these winesses ofthe pas, they can help us to extend our knowledge of linguistic evolution further hack into prehistoric sind wnrecorded time. The reconstruction of the prehistory of languages isthe domain of comparative reconstruction discussed later in this chaptet The written evidence Written texts provide the most important data for historical linguistics, and it is a crucial matter how these data are interpreted as evidence for earlier spoken language as well as for linguistic systems. Such interpretation may present almost insurmounable dlfculkies in the case of extinct languages with unknown writing systems. The deciphering of extinct languages ‘writen in such systems often depends on the existence of bi- or trilingual texts, in which a east one ofthe languages is known. A famous casein point isthe Rosetta Stone found inthe course of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt and now in the the trilingual inscription on tis stone in ancient two different versions ofthe ancient Payptian script provided the key to the decipherment of the Egyptian hirogyphs. Bat interpreting written data as evidence of language systems and speech is not unproblematic, even for languages whose ‘weiting systems are known and. well established. Consider alphabetic writing as used for English and the other European languages. Whereas in other weting systems symbols might stand for syllables or words, here they represent sounds, 4. vowels and consonants, more or less directly, whether in the Latin, Greek, or Cyrillic alphabet. These alphabers stand in a long tradition and their basie writing conventions have been handed down for centuries. But even so, the nature of the correspondences berwen ‘letters’ and ‘sounds’ ig by no means ‘easy {0 determine, Speech and writing are wo distinct though clearly relaced systems, but the nature of this relationship may change over time. It is widely agreed that alphabetic writing inically aimed ac rendering the distinctive sound units of a language and tended to neglect non- distinctive differences: chus the letter in Latin, Old English, Old French, et. represents the distinctive unit! as opposed 0 l/l, et), but does not ell ws anything about its specific realization as atriled,retofle, oF ‘guttural sound (cf che different quality of /e! in English, Seoss, French or German), Furthermore it safe to assume thatthe scribes who ist used the Latin alphabet to write down languages such as Old English ‘or Old High German adhered to the Latin spelling conventions, since they had been fist trained in writing Latin. Forunately, these conventions are quite well known as a result of the unbroken Latin tradition in Western civilization. However, the Latin writing system had to be adapted in a number of ways to these newly written languages, Fr example, Latin did nothavea sound corresponding tothe iia sound in English thing, while ‘Old English did. Here, the Old English scribes adopted two alternative solutions: they either used a letter fom the old runic alphabet, namely 6 ,orthey slightly changed the Latin eter dinco the form 3 ‘The originally more-or-less direct relationship between letters and sounds, or more generally, between writing and speech became, however, blurred as a esult of language change, since spelling tends to be conservative and either does not record changes at all or docs 0 only after a considerable time-lag. An additional complicating factor may be the mixing of different Bregional or national spelling conventions due to cultural contact. ‘Thus Anglo-Norman conventions appear widespread in English texts after the Norman invasion of England in 2066. To give a simple example from the history of English: the Old and Middle English forms of house were both pronounced with long i (the ‘vowel in modern English goose) and the Old English spelling hus for fhu ellets the original Latin-based one-to-one relation between specch and writing, The new Middle English spelling bous(e) fr the same pronunciation /husis due tothe adoption of the Anglo-Norman convention of writing ow for fa! (et modern French jour ‘day’, pour ‘for). This spelling is stil Tetained today, though “tl was diphthongized in the Karly “Modern period, yielding modern English ‘haus. Weean say that English writing started asa system which was secondary 0, i dependent on, specch, but became increasingly autonomous and unrelated to actual pronunciation, (For the relation beoween| ‘writing and speech see also Readings, Text 3.) Sources of evidence “The hypotheses of th historical linguist depend crucially on the interpretation ofthe daa. Iris not justa matter ofthe amount of data available but primarily of their quality, To evaluate the ‘quality of old texts, we have to find out as much as possible abou theie extealingustc context (such as the author, scribe, purpose, and location of a text, et.), and about the textual tradition, including the original form and date of composition and copying, ‘Thisis the task of che philologist, for whom auxiliary disciplines such as history and palaeography, the study of ancient waiting, are of major importance. ‘Only very few old texts are inthe authors own hand, and even these may shaw various kinds of textual errors. Mostly they are the result of mulple copying by diferent scribes in diferent regions and over long period of time. Some textsare compilations hy a specific author from linguistically divergent, possibly orally transmitted original sources, as with Homer’ Iliad and Odyssey, or the Rigveda, the oldest collection of religious texts written in Sanskrit, Such texteal history may resultin linguistically composite texts witha mised language fill of srbal errors due to negligence ‘or insffcient competence in the language(s) or varieties of the original. These diferent linguistic layers, whether dialectal or tiachronic, must be disentangled and scribal errors detected before the textcan he used as data fr forming hypotheses about specific stages of a language, Furthermore, old texts are often translations, e from Latin into Old English, or from Greek into carly Gothic or Old Church Slavic, so that we have fo reckon With linguistic influence fom the original language. “Though written texts constitute the maj source fr historical linguistics, other types of data may provide imporeant sop- plementary evidence. For example, archaeological findings such as pieces of pottery, grave findings, and ther historical material have contributed substantially to our knowledge of the setle- ment history of early Anglo-Saxon England, which again may help in reconstructing te dialectal distribution of Old English, ‘OF particular interest as daca are diocr descriptions of and ‘explicit comments on a language by contemporary speakers. Such ‘metalinguistic’ evidence is, however, raze for the early sages of most languages and not always reliable, though there are excellent early grammars of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin. The bulk of such information for European languages only dates from the modem period. Some detiled desriptions of English sounds and even phonetic transcriptions of texts date hack tothe sixteenth century and we have numerous surviving glossaries, ‘word lists and translations of Latin and other languages, which provide information about word meanings in medieval Europe. ast but not least, modem dialeets and related languages can provide valuable information to help construct oF test our bbypotheses. Let ws now look at how data are wed to reconstruct linguistic history. Comparing and reconstructing languages [A basic hypothesis in historical linguists is that for all their ‘curren differences languages may originate from one common source (or prototanguage), to which they are this genetically felated. We have unambiguous linguistic and extalinguistic historical evidence for such genetic relationships in the case ofthe6 modern Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, Romanian, et.) These are the direc descendants oF laughter languages of Latin (more precisely of its different spoken forms, Vulgar Latin), from which they have evolved in the course of centuries as 4 result of geographical distance and isolation, social factors and political developments, and chrough contact with oher languages. Genetically related languages form language families and they show systematic and recurrent formal correspondences, i. similarities and differences which are too ‘regular and frequent to be mere chance or the result of borrow. ing. These correspondences become more evident and regular the farther back we go in language history. They are; for example, stronger between Old French and Old Spanish than beeween Modern Prench and Modern Spanish "The most famous and bestresearched language family isthe Indo-European (TF) one, witha long extual tradition in a wide range of geographically divergent daughter languages. Indo- European languages have long been spoken from India to the western borders of the European continent, and have in more recent times been exported all over the world. They ate grouped inco-a number of subfamilies (or branches) such as Germanic, Italic (including Latin and che Romance languages), Balto-Slavie (including the Slavie languages Russian, Czech, Bulgarian, ete), Geki, Greek, and Indo-Iranian (with Persian, Kuedish, Sanskrie and a mumber of modern Indian languages). The reconstruction ‘ofthe common ancestor of these languages, Proto-Indo-European, was one of the outstanding achievements of nineteenth-century comparative linguists. “The most widely used way of showing genetic relationships graphically sche fam tree model. The diagram on the next page tives a simplified family tee ofthe Germanic languages, which disregard lite stages such as Old Norse a the common, ancestor of lelandic and Norwegian, and the older stages of the ‘modern languages such as Old English, Old High German, ec Linguists vary in their interpretation of the informational value of such family tres. For some this is only a convenient way of visualizing the degree of genetic eelationship between lan- ‘guages, and labels such as North Germanic are seen as a cover term fora group of languages showing closer similarities beeween Family tree of Germanic languages roto-Germanic West Germanic NorthGermanic East Germanic Duh Danish Gothic English Ieelandic Fesian Norwegian High German ‘seednh ow German cach other than with th other languages of the family. For others {and this was how it was fist conceived) this is a model of linguistic change which directly shows the way in wich proto- languages diversify into daughter languages. In such a view a label such as North Germanic sands for an actual language, an ancestor which acted as an intermediate proto-language. (Foran alternative tothe family tree model, see Readings, Text 4.) Correspondences between languages “The comparative reconstruction tha enables us to establish such language families is based on identifying correspondences between related languages. These correspondences are most evident on the levels of phonology and morphology, i. sounds and inflections, and are accessible through the systematic comparison of so-alled ‘cognates. These are words which are similar both in form and meaning and which go back to a common source. Cognates are particularly frequent in the basic vocabulary of daughter languages, since words which relate ro basic aspects of lfe orto ‘common human experience (such as time, place, food, or socal relations) tend to be les readily replaced by borcowings from other languages. ‘The following simple example demonstrates the basic principles of comparative reconstruction. French champ, Italian ‘compo, Spanish and Portuguese campo all derive from Latin ‘campus ‘eld and are thus cognates. Fven if Latin had noe been "preserved in a wealth of writen records, we could partly recon Struct it by comparing such cognate forms of its daughter languages, as illustrated inthe table below (the meanings ofthe respective words in English re (x) ‘dea’ (2) ‘eld (3) house) Correspondences between Latin and Romance languages “Tata French alan Spanish Porragnese T carnaikh—cher(fer|caro(k]—caro(k]caro[k] 2 campue(k) champ) campo) campo tk] campo tk) 3 cack] cheelfel'a caua{k] caualk} casa The table above shows three sets of cognates from four different Romance languages, as well asthe Latin form, Having established the sets on the basis of ther similarities of form and meaning, we now proceed to recoastruct the original sounds of the proto-form of each set. For this purpose we establish systematic sound correspondences within and between the sets of cognates: in all three sets, for example, the French initial ‘eonsonant[f] (asin English shoe) corresponds o [ke] inthe cree ‘other Romance languages. There are evidently three possible sources for these intial consonants in the common proto- language: (i) it was (k} a8 preserved in Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese; in this case, the original sound would have undergone a change only in French; or (i it was original [f] asin French, in which ease it would have changed ico [k] in the other three languages or (i) it was neither [k) nor {s}, but another consonant from which therwo attested ones developed as result of diffeent sound changes. Asis evident from these hypotheses, the reconstruction of the proto-sound also involves. recon seructing the sound changes which occurred in the individual daughter languages. There are certain general methodological principles that we «an bring to bear on deciding on the proto-sound. The most important of these are: (i) Any reconstruction should involve sound changes tha are phonetically plausible, The phonetic plausibility of a change is evaluated on the basis of general phonetic considerations as to how sounds ae formed as wellas onthe extensive documentation ‘of sound changes in other languages. On tis evidence, a change from {ki to [f] is more frequent and plausible (and hus mote ‘natura’ than a change inthe opposite direction, [j] > [x leis even more natural i ie proceeds via an intermediate stage [Uf], ‘whose existences well documented in the history of French, This stage is also reflected in carly English borrowings from older French such as Charles, chief, which have preserved this earlier French pronunciation with [tf]. On the basis ofthis principle of phonetic plausibility or ‘naturalness’ we reconstruct “[k] a the initial consonant ofthe above sets 1-3 for Proto-Romance, in which che asterisk * indicates a reconstructed form, without written evidence Ui) A second, though lest rciable principle, isthe ‘majority principle. Any reconstruction should involve af few changes berween the proto-language and its davghter languages a5 possible. Thus, the sound which is more frequently met in the related forms is more likely to be the original one. In sets 1-3, three languages have (k} while only one has [f]. The secon: structed proto-sound *[k] isnot only more frequently found in the corresponding sets, but also involves only one sound change inthe history of the daughter languages for French), while inthe case of reconstructed "Ij three languages would have undergone the same change *[] > [k. Continuing. with our reconsteucion in. this manner will eventually resale for sets 2-3 inthe Proto-Romance forms "caro, “campo, *casa, although this reconstruction is not always a¢ casy and straightforward as with *[k]. These reconstructed Proto-Romance forms are quite close tothe attested Latin forms given in the table (as an inflected language, Latin actually had the ase forms caro, cmp) In the case ofthe Romance languages we are obviously in the fortunate positon of being able to verify our reconstructions to a lange extent, and thus 10 test our methodology and basic assumptions, In general, however, we can only reconstruct those fearures ofthe proto language which have left atleast some trace in one of the daughter languages. Thus the quality of our reconstruction crucially depends on the quality of the survivi evidence Ac the same time, the individual reconstructed sounds must also forma plausible complete sytem, which should furthermore 9conform to more general principles of sound systems. Languages tend to have symmetrically struceured sound systems and there ‘would have to be compelling evidence to disregard this general tendency for a reconstructed proco-language. To illustrate this with an example or two: a language having a set of so-called “voiceless stops’, ie. [p. . KJ and the corresponding ‘voiced ‘stops [b, 4, ] i moze likely (or natural) than one with [p, 1, &] butonly b, gh ie- without (]—chough gapsin asystem do occur in natural languages. Similarly there are no known languages ‘which have only nasal vowels (asin French champ, cf. above) and ‘no 'pure’,e-non-nasal vowels, and only very few which have no nasal consonants Sach general "typological considerations mast influence the final shape of any reconstructo ‘We should aote here thar there ate certain reservations about this method of analysis. In the first place, the reconstructed roto-language i (misjrepresented as an idealized homogeneous system, whereas in face natural languages are necessarily hetero iencous and variable. Secondly, sound changes ace presented as being regular and occurring without exception in all identical ‘contexts. As we shall se later, both these views have come under attack in recent decades, though the main esuls of comparative reconstruction, ie. most ofits hypotheses about the shape of a number of proto-languages, have stood the rst of time. (For a discussion of the status of reconstructed forms, see Readings, Text.) Laws of change In the reconstruction of linguistic relaionships and develop- iments we identify certain processes of change that ate so regular a tbe considered las. One ofthese is evident in the develop ment ofthe Germanic branch of Indo-European, The Germanic languages show a series of distinctive and related sound changes involving certain Indo-European conson- ants. These are accounted for by Grimm's Law, named aftr the jerman linguist who discovered it It tates that Indo-European stops, ie: consonants produced with a bref closure such as [p,b, 1d, k, gh regularly changed into different consonants (the stops Ip. Kh, for example, becoming the fricatives [f, 8, ah, i. consonants produced with an audible friction due to the narrowing of two speech organs; see Chapter 5 for phonetic decals). More specially, Grimms Law staes the following, stands for ‘develop into’ ‘voicedvoiceess refers tothe presence br absence of vibration of the vocal folds ‘aspirated refers to an atadile breath) voiceless stops [pt k]> voiceless fricatives [fx] voiced stops [b, dd] > voiceless stops [p, tk] voiced aspirated stops [b8, db, gh > voiced plain stops, do] This law applies to all Germanic languages. Other Indo European languages, such as Greek or Sanskrit, basically show the original sounds of Proto-Indo-European. This may be seen in the following table, which gives (i) one example each of two changes of voiceless stops to voiceless frcatives (lp >My [t> 8) and of voiced stops to voiceless stops (fd > tp fg > k) inthe old German languages (Gothic, Old English "OE", Old High 2 ‘OHG'}, (i) examples of their preservation in two non- manic Indo-European languages (Sanskrit and Latin), and (i) the reconstructed Proto-Iado-Furopean (PeE") forms. Reflexes ofthe working of Grimm's Law Sanskrit Latin Gothic OE ONG Pile pad: fot fot fox *p “Toot trdyas rial brie det tthe" dau). duo tai tw usd dew! fras’ gems tant cmd haat “g “ace [As shown above, comparative reconstruction is based on consideration of related forms in genetically related languages, Its basic methodology ca, however, also be used to reconstruct unattested ealir stages or gaps in the tradition of a language by ‘comparing related forms from within a single language. This is the domain of intemal reconstruction, which relies on the linguistic races leftin a language from its earlier stages.Intermal reconstruction Alllanguages show patterned alternations in diferent realizations ‘of morphemes, the smallest meaningful units of language. Thus the English regular plural morpheme is cealized in three different variants (or allomosphs), namely 2! and Fl, cf. ats (kets), dogs [dog borses [hss]. Internal reconstrction starts fom ‘the assumption that such synchronic alernation is in general the result of regular sound changes and chat the different forms have developed from a single non-altenating form. A simple example toillustrate this German words endingin voiceless tops, While some of these, such as Rat [e] ‘advice’ and Lack [k] ‘varnish’, "etain the voiceless stop in inflected forms, others sch as Rad [t} “bicycle” and Tag [k] ‘day’ show alternation between a voiceless stop in word-fial postion and 2 voiced one in the inflected forms (asin Rades, Tages, with the genitive singular ending ines) frat) fect) flak} aks} ‘The mon-altemating ancestor of the variants [racvrasd] and [taskta:g-] ofthe moephemes meaning “bicycle” and “day” could have been ether (i) frat} fac], (i) red, [ag or fii) an lunatested different form. Since internal reconstruction should follow the same basic principles applied in comparative econ struction, the hypotherical changes leading to the alternations should fall the criteria of economy and naturalnes, and should ‘not lead to contradictory results in other forms. Looking at the sound system of German, we notice that voiced stops never occur in \wort+-final position, so that iis plausible to reconstruct the earlier non-alterating single forms with the voiced stops" [aa] ‘ay’ and * [sc ‘bicycle’ and a subsequent sound change of devoting voiced stops in word-fnal position, while che voiced stops remain in non final positions. We have thus reconstructed both the orginal non altenating forms *[tagfasgas] and the sound change of final devoicing, which hasled othe modern alterations [ak/tagos] OF ‘course, intemal reconstruction is no aways a straightforward as this. There are alternations which are mich more complex and where the original sate has been obscured by multiple sound ‘changes. In such cases, the reconstruction also has to establish the ‘advice’ frat) fracdos) “bicycle” ‘varnish’ [eck] [tagos} “dy ‘elatve chronology of the various changes, i. the order in which they have aken place. However ifaspecifcchange has eft no trace in the language, internal reconstruction may lead to a grossly simplified description ofthe intermediate sags. Furthermore, we ‘eed to note that not all alterations can be traced hack toa single ‘on-alkemating form, Tntcenalreconstrcion is most feutflly applied in cases where we have insufficient material for comparative reconstruction, as in the case of isolates, ie. languages with no know eelatves, or ‘when only very distant, posibly controversial relatives exist. In such cases as well as with languages without any textual tradition, internal reconstruction may be virtually che only way tolearn about the unactested linguistic past. Ocherwise it should ideally be used in combination with other methods such as comparative reconstruction. ‘The present chapter has shovsn how the historical linguist— much ike an archacologist—can piece together information even fon unrecorded stages of languages and processes of change. ‘These methodshave been most secessully applied to phonology and morphology, while syntactic reconstruction is more con- troversial. ‘The reconstruction of che proto-vocabulary in core areas such as kinship, plants, animals and metals has also increased our knowledge ofthe societal structures, the economic ‘organization, and the original homeland ofthe Indo-Europeans. ‘Let us now turn to a more detailed consideration of linguistic change at the different levels of language. 3Thus sound change can lead ‘morphological change, and this in tun may have consequences a aa on dlifferentlevelsof language, We will begin with the changes which are most obvious, namely ths Speakers constantly have The unparalele cl increase in the number of words and word meanings from Old English to the present day makes English particularly wel suited for a discus son of lexieal change ‘There are ewo main strategies for the introduction of new words, nam Languages may ad abou hE REEGHES EBON aN, ie 7 pr26 «ent of modeen English is sad to consis ofloan words from more ‘an So diferent languages primarily Latin and French. “There are obvious historical reasons for this extensive Borrow: ing such as thee COR UESTO ENG|ARAIALND «and chehigh prestig@fLatinastheinremational language of communication ‘GEO the eighteenth cer. Buc ic is ultimately che attitude of speakers towards foreign influence in general and towacds specific languages in particular which determines the acceptance andl@eGree OF BGFFOWIng. Since borrowing is the result of Jaguage cant, wil be discussed in more detail in Chapter "rte folfowing secions, we will focus on the other strategies ‘which speakers gto festa newer changed concepts, nary ‘he coining of new words and semantie change, .c. change in ‘word meaning. Coining new words AAs the smallest meaningful units of a lnguag@/MORSReMee constitute the basic building Blocks of words. New words are ‘normally formed by combining existing words and morphemes into new, complex words. Frclsh reach consists oF a :morplieme, while fzhcer can be analysed into two meaning _units:The suffi -ay, which signifies “agent™In Teacher, and “inst ORT TF VOI, Ws SO-TAMEN BOUHTOFPEATE, hic When discusing historical word-formation, we must dif feremate between the appearance of new words. the outpot ‘of word-formation rules, and these abstract rules themselves. (Word-formation rules are bot languagespesific and subject to clachronic chanye, especially in rezard to their productivity i.e. the frequency and flexibility with which they are used to coin new words. “Two of the most important word-formation processes are ‘compounding and afxation. Compounds are the combination of io independent words, i.¢ fee morphemes, ike guesthouse kc quest + hous), wiiliafaixationa Bound morphemeisadded 10a base, asa prefix (eg wnlike) ora suffix (likeness) Compounding. hss beet Righly productive througHGWnc (try oF Rngish, and innumerable compounds were coined cover the centuries. Many ofthese have survived since Old English ‘ims, ARE Kise others ave HONE OUD ws, such a Old English which was replaced bythe Trench loan fan, though thas survived aaa aR and as ssa) the basis of the semantic lations Denyse thee diferent parts we cd distinguish ilferene subtypes of com pounds, such s guesthouse house fr guest. glfiond rend Who isa gifs Not al of these subtypes have boo equally productive in the history of English and iis act too dificul co ‘magine compounds which ae unaoeptable in English. However, English, and German likewise, han Fewer SOSA compounding than some other languages sucha French, ‘Ava result of sound changes compounds may lose their teansparency and develop into unanalsabl simple words such a= Old English qgodapell 9008 dings RaRpel, Few ‘non- specialists are aware that English fore hy go back to the . Ina similar way,many feums refering to women have undergone pejoration, while she corresponding terms for men have remained hettral oF have improved, ct. master vs. mistress, bachelor ys. SPinsterwhick agin vftors che traditional lower status of ‘women in our socery. Extensive shifts of meaning often cloud the relationship between the original meaning and the modern one(s), as in English dll) (< Old English (g)salig‘Happyeblesied’, 2s sill preserved inits German cognate sli). look atthe incermediate ‘ages, howevenmleesthe development more tinspatent. From ‘ts original meaning attested till the late 15th century silly passed through the fol nM SERRE NRE” (ate x3thc—r8the.) > (@eSeRNgBIy”(c_1300-19th <-) SAW FeRbe” (x3ch roth c), Simplegiaibfane (r6th cc. 1800), feeblesninded) (16th c- coday) MoishleRipepeaUED late 6th c.— today) ‘These dates illustrate that typically an old meaning is not replaced immediately by a new one, but that both coexist for some time, each in specific contexts. A semantic change very similar to thavOFily happened to Freich erin 'stipid person’, which, ike French chretien “Christian', derives from Latin bristianus ‘Christian. (See also Readings, Texts.) 3