All languages change over time, and there can be many different reasons for this. The English language is no different – but why has it changed over the decades?
Some of the main influences on the evolution of languages include:
- The movement of people across countries and continents, for example migration and, in previous centuries, colonisation. For example, English speakers today would probably be comfortable using the Spanish word “loco” to describe someone who is “crazy”.
- Speakers of one language coming into contact with those who speak a different one. No two individuals speak identically: people from different geographical places clearly speak differently and even within the same community there are variations according to a speaker’s age, gender, ethnicity and social and educational background. For example, the word “courting” has become “dating”.
- New vocabulary required for inventions such as transport, domestic appliances and industrial equipment, or for sporting, entertainment, cultural and leisure reasons. For example, the original late 19th-century term “wireless” has become today’s “radio”.
Due to these influences, a language always embraces new words, expressions and pronunciations as people come across new words and phrases in their day-to-day lives and integrate them into their own speech.
What changes has the English language seen?
As the English language has changed, it’s been easy to pick out words that pass into common usage. Here at Pearson English, we have explored some of these recent changes to the English language. The rise in popularity of internet slang has seen phrases such as “LOL” (Laugh Out Loud), “YOLO” (You Only Live Once) and “bae” (an abbreviated form of babe or baby) become firmly embedded in the English language over the past ten years.
Every decade sees new slang terms like these appearing in the English language. And while some words or abbreviations do come from internet or text conversations, others may appear as entirely new words, a new meaning for an existing word, or a word that becomes more generalised than its former meaning, brought about by any one of the reasons above. Decades ago, “blimey” was a new expression of surprise, but more recently “woah” is the word in everyday usage.
Sentence structure is of course another change to English language. Decades ago, it would have been normal to ask “Have you a moment?” Now, you might say “D’you have a sec?” Similarly, “How do you do?” has become “How’s it going?” Not only have the sentences been abbreviated, but new words have been introduced to everyday questions.
Connected to this is the replacement of certain words with other, more-modern versions. It’s pretty noticeable that words like “shall” and “ought” are on the way out, but “will”, “should” and “can” are doing just fine.
Other changes can be more subtle. A number of verbs can take a complement with another verb in either the “-ing” form or the “to” form, for example “they liked painting/to paint”, “we tried leaving/to leave”, “he didn’t bother calling/to call”. Both of these constructions are still used and have been for a long time but there has been a steady shift over time from the “to” to the “-ing” complement.
What do the changes mean?
There are many other changes to the English language – what have you noticed? Have these changes affected your teaching or learning methods? Tell us in the comment section below…
Most contemporary linguistic commentators accept that change in language, like change in society, is inevitable. Some think that is regrettable, but others recognise it as a reinvigoration of a language, bringing alternatives that allow subtle differences of expression.
In our Fact or Fiction report, linguist, writer and lecturer David Crystal considers whether “text speak” is undermining the English language. His response to the naysayers who claim it is damaging the English language is to point out that abbreviations have been around for a long time. While some, such as the ones we discussed above, are new, others, such as the use of “u” for “you” and the number 8 as a syllable in “later”, have been around for a century or more. Further to this, research shows that there is in fact a correlation between the ability to use abbreviations and the ability to spell. After all, in order to abbreviate, you have to know which letters to abbreviate.
As with everything, change isn’t necessarily a bad thing and, as the needs of English language users continue to change, so will the language!
Some Notes on Language...
University of North Florida
What is language?As North Americans living in the early 21st century, we have been educated about language from the time we entered school. But much of what we learn about language in schools belongs more to a folk model than to an analytic model of language. Here are several pervasive aspects of our folk model of language.
An analytic model of languageA language is a representational system composed of a set of oral (or, in the case of the hearing impaired, signed) symbols shared by the members of a social group, and a computational system (or grammar) for combining the symbols into phrases and sentences. People use language for internal representation (thinking) and for external representation (communicating). For linguists, the "grammar" of a language is what the native speakers of the language know about their language. Some of the things speakers of a language need to "know" in order to speak a language are:However, the knowledge native speakers have is mostly unconscious knowledge; they "know" how to say it, but they (usually) can’t tell you how or why they say it that way.
Language as both biology & cultureIt seems clear that language is a part of the human biological endowment. Perhaps the most compelling evidence for this can be found in the area of children's acquisition of language.
All normal human children, everywhere, acquire the language of their social setting at about the same pace and in the same way. They do so without formal training, and they do so in social and cultural contexts which differ in terms of what kinds of linguistic interactions are supposed to be appropriate between parents/caregivers and infants. These differences do not seem to affect the rate or quality of children's acquisition of language; in a sense, children acquire language in much the same way as they acquire the skill of walking. However, children who are isolated, for some reason, from all forms of linguistic interaction do not acquire language, and if they reach puberty without exposure to language they may never be able to acquire more than a very rudimentary linguistic ability.
By the time they are around 3-4 years of age, children have mastered some of the most complex and subtle rules of their language, rules which no teacher of language could ever teach them. Of course, they still have lots of vocabulary to learn, as well as some of the pragmatic rules of language use in different social situations, and they have to learn to read and write.
While the underlying shape of language is biological, any given language itself is a cultural artifact. The best way to illustrate this is to take the words for the domesticated animal which English speakers refer to as a dog. All languages have a word for this animal; no language has a word for "half-a-dog." This seems to result from a property of the human brain that guides our perception and representation of natural objects in the world, like dogs, which come to us in whole "packages" (other candidates might be rocks, trees, birds, and so on). At the same time, though, the words we find in different languages
are as different as dog (English); perro (Spanish); anu (Aymara); kelb (Arabic); sobaka (Russian). None of these words has a privileged connection to the animal itself. Each is an arbitrary but conventional answer to the problem of naming these familiar domesticated animals.
The nature of languageLanguage (not just any language, but all languages) share a number of characteristics or design features that help fill out the concept of just what language is. Here are a few of the most important…
Infinite use of finite media. Although languages are complex, they are not infinitely complex. The number of rules that anyone needs to "know" to create sentences in their language is relatively small, and the number of different kinds of sentences is quite small. Still, the number of sentences that can be produced by any speaker of a language is potentially infinite.
Multiple patterning. Language is patterned at a number of levels of organization: sounds are patterned into phonemes, phonemes into words, words into phrases, phrases into sentences, sentences into larger units of discourse. This is what makes the infinite use mentioned above possible.
Predication. All languages make it possible for their speakers to name something and then make some kind of assertion about whatever was named. In other words, all languages allow for sentences that contain a subject and a predicate. We’ll explore this further in the unit on syntax.
Learnability. A central fact about all known languages is that they are all learnable by human beings. All normal human children acquire the language of their social group, and many (perhaps most!) go on to acquire more than one.
Traditional transmission. While all humans appear to have a built-in, genetically provided capacity for language acquisition, the actual acquisition of language must take place in a social context. The social context determines whether the language acquired is English, Russian, or Inuit, etc.
Displacement. Unlike most animal vocalization systems, which require that a stimulus be physically present for the vocalization to take place, human language allows us to talk about things that are absent in either space or time, or both. Without this feature, humans would not be able to talk about dinosaurs, or Cleopatra. We can add that this feature also allows us to talk about things that never existed, such as Klingons. Without it, we could have neither history or fiction.
Openness. Also unlike other animals, which typically have a fixed set of vocalizations, humans can increase the number of expressions at their disposal by inventing words. This feature allows us to add new words to our vocabulary such as hard drive, internet, and gigabyte.
Language & dialectIn our folk model of language, dialects are usually considered to be incomplete, perhaps ungrammatical, certainly less desirable forms of a standard language. The standard language, in contrast, is seen as more developed, more of a true language. The standard language is the form insisted upon for writing, for use in formal situations, certainly for reading and writing in schools. People who do not know the standard language are sometimes viewed in the same way as deficient, incomplete, lacking in education.
The analytic model of language includes the notion of linguistic relativism, which suggests that there is no point in trying to rank languages on any kind of scale. All human languages that we have any direct information about appear to contain all the characteristics necessary for language. In this view, there is no qualitative difference between a language and a dialect; the reasons why a particular variety of speech gets labeled as a dialect instead of as a language must be sought elsewhere. In particular, the reasons are to be found in the political, social, and economic value placed on the speakers of the language variety in question. The people who wield political, economic, and social control speak the "language"; those who do not speak the "dialect."
The realization that languages and dialects are not qualitatively different, and that attitudes toward them really reflect social prejudices, has led some linguists to say that a language is "a dialect with an army and a navy." For linguists, then, what counts as a "language," as opposed to a "dialect," is socially and culturally negotiated; not determined by some objective linguistic truth. Sometimes the negotiation is spectacularly unsuccessful, as when the Oakland (California) school board attempted to declare African American Vernacular English (Ebonics) a "language." There was a great public outcry against this, but almost nobody understood the real reason: African Americans in the US do not have "an army and a navy"; therefore, they are not entitled to have a "language."
I tend to avoid the difficulty of the word dialect by using variety instead. It seems easier and less judgmental to speak of varieties of English such as British, Australian, North American, or West Indian. We can even talk about varieties of creole English, such as Jamaican, Trinadadian, Barbadian, Belizean, and so on. Or, we can go in the other direction, and discuss varieties of Romance such as Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian; varieties of Indo-European such as Germanic and Balto-Slavic; or even varieties of human language such as Indo-European, Austronesian, and so on. It all depends on what level of abstraction we are interested in.
Although from an analytic viewpoint they "know" a language as well as anyone, speakers of non-standard varieties of language are often assumed by the folk model to be language-deficient. In the Caribbean, this manifests itself especially when creole-speaking children get to school and come up against the standard language in an intense way for the first time. Teachers, who through no fault of their own very often have only minimal training, are aware only of the folk model for language. They assume that deviation from standard language forms is evidence for a lack of language, and that children "have no grammar." The analytic model of language tells us that all normal human children "have grammar" but that grammar is their own knowledge of their native language, not the rules written down in school books.
Last update: May 15, 2005
Copyright © Ronald Kephart, 2005