I wonder, though...

Subject: I wonder, though...
Author: Neshomeh
Posted on: 2011-03-03 22:46:00 UTC

Is the reason no meaning is lost that most people understand what the incorrect rendering is supposed to be, and translate in their heads? In other words, if the reader didn't know that the correct thing to write is "heel," would they be able to understand what the writer meant by the incorrect "hele"? If not, then I can't see the nonstandard version ever becoming standard, because it relies on the standard to make sense.

I do agree that language shift is evolution; just not that what Aster's cousin was talking about is it. Texting cannot become standard because without the standard to act as a reference point, it carries no meaning. Also, it isn't really innovative; it adds nothing in terms of the ability to express ideas, only makes it more expedient in its medium. For another example, take telegraphs. These use shorthand, too, for the same reasons, and yet the language patterns of telegraphs haven't caught on generally, because in the broader scope of the language, nothing is gained by them.

The way I see it, what is standard only evolves when an innovation happens--a new word or turn of phrase for a new concept, mainly. The word "cool" might be a good example. "Coolness" is a different thing from other forms of (usually social) acceptability, so a new word evolved for it. (Whether the word or the concept came first is a whole separate issue.) Initially it was not mainstream, but as the concept of coolness spread and became accepted, so did the word for it.

I'll pause here so as not to wander off topic or stop making sense. ^_^;

~Neshomeh

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Discussion Seed: 'evolution' of language? by Aster Corbett on 2011-03-02 17:08:00 UTC Reply

Here at the PPC, we like the English language. We like the English language a lot. In fact, some of us like other languages a lot, too.

However, recently, I got a very interesting point made to me by a cousin of mine who uses a lot of chat speak in her notes to me. You probably have heard of this remark before-- that languages are constantly changing and there is no way to say that already-established spelling and grammar are 'right.' She called it 'evolution of english.'

This got me thinking. Evolution.

I do not think it means what she thinks it means.

Organisms never really stop evolving. Organisms with traits that render them more effective in their environments end up suriving longer and reproducing more than ones that are less effective.

Key words being effective in their environment. An organism may be this by having an orca pattern under the sea, or being bigger, or faster, or being able to eat something nothing else can eat. But what makes a language effective in its environment?

Well, the people who use the language and the context they use it in is the language's environment. The effectiveness of a language has to do with how well it conveys intended meaning.

Why, just the other day I 'butchered English' while texting my mother.

"Bought small carrotbag."

But... the meaning was retained. I bought a small bag of carrots. If I had written "Bought smallcarrot bag" it probably would mean, I bought a bag of small carrots.

The CONTEXT here was a text message between mom and kid. It conveyed all meaning needed. Thus, this was an effective use of language and if enough people use this syntax it might become 'correct' syntax.

So yeah, my cousin is right in a way. But language doesn't evolve because 'we just like to text this way: it's easy,' it evolves because the parties involved don't see any change in meaning or loss of information. Even when there is. Which can sometimes be Bad.

Half of the PPC's funny in-mission shenanigans come from miscommunication in a fanfiction. I think (aside from wanting to preserve the grammar and spellings because they're what everybody already understands and should not be messed with without reason) what we as the PPC get angry at is people changing language in a way that is NOT effective in its environment.

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts? Discussion?

If it aint broke, don't fix it by Adamantine on 2011-03-05 22:05:00 UTC Reply

While it's true that spelling and grammar can change, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will.

We are well past the conception of the English language, the point where it stopped being a corrupted mishmash of a half-dozen intermixed languages and became a language in it's own right. Nor are we in the Shakespearean era, where a single man could sign his name in twelve different ways and still be recognized as the same person.

The English language today has hundreds of years of standardization, which I think has only been strengthened by the availability of relevant technology. What we have has been formed, tried, tested, and kept because it was effective. The language has been, for the most part, debugged, and major changes - in my opinion - are unlikely.

Roman monuments - the ones carved in stone - had no punctuation. Why? Because when it takes you a half an hour to carve any given punctuation mark, it's not really worth the effort.

Documents from the age of the printing press had both punctuation and lowercase letters because written communication was primarily done by hand. large numbers of identical documents could be produced, but all the originals were done by hand. What you didn't see a lot of were italics, because italics were expensive - you had to pay for an extra set of letters in order to have them in your document. Expense equals rarity, so italics were only added when something was really, really important.

These days, with word processors and laser printers, italics are commonplace; so common, in fact, that they have effectively replaced quotation marks for internal dialogue. Someone - I don't know who - got tired of pointing out that half the quoted dialogue in his book was internal and went Hey, what if I use a different format to indicate internal dialogue? Well, it worked. In fact, it worked so well that it's hard to find a novel that doesn't use italics to indicate internal dialogue.

Ease creates complexity, and complexity requires structure.

So then why isn't chatspeak more complex than the written word, since it's easier? Except that it's not, because chatspeak isn't the use of the written word to convey information, chatspeak is the art of using the written word as verbal conversation. It's an attempt to simulate the spontaneity of the spoken word in written form, and the interfaces used to do so are not really designed for it.

Chatspeak isn't really the next step in the evolution of the English language it's an entirely new facet of the language, built for a medium that the world has no precedent for. I suspect that as interfaces become more intuitive, the complexity of chatspeak will come closer to that of the written word, rather than vice-versa.

Or at least I hope it will.
Ooh, a linguistics discussion! *jumps on* by RezMontrose on 2011-03-03 18:47:00 UTC Reply

I'm going to be even more difficult here and start drawing lines between evolution of words and evolution of structure.

As far as changes in the structure of language- grammar and syntax, or constructions like you mentioned with your text message as an example- yeah, I think you're right. We learn the structure of our language in a certain way, and changing it really does affect the meaning of what we read and/or hear. Sometimes the change can be effective- for example, in a text message it isn't really efficient to type out a full sentence with capitalization and articles and things- but I agree with you that it does depend on the context. "Bought small carrotbag" is appropriate and effective in a text message; it wouldn't be in a written report to your boss.

(Unrelated: "carrotbag" is my new favorite word ever.)

Which brings me to my other point- change and evolution of individual words, in my personal opinion, is awesome. I'm going to hold up Shakespeare as an example here, because Shakespeare is my go-to example for everything. Shakespeare invented squillions of new words and phrases, stuck words together, back-constructed words, stuck on prefixes and suffixes and what-have-you, and he could do that because he was writing at a time when English was a) in a state of rapid change and expansion, due to a new medium (i.e. secular theatre, also the printing press), and b) not yet standardized by things like dictionaries.

I would argue that we're in a similar situation now. The advent of the internet and text-messaging and other such new technology has created a space for language to grow and change. The new language constructions that come out of it aren't standardized yet- yes, there are things like UrbanDictionary and so forth, but they're mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive, and I don't consider them particularly authoritative. I think, until our frame of thought catches up with our technology, the language of the internet changes too fast to standardize, so we're looking at considerable linguistic shift for some time yet. And in a lot of cases, I don't think it's a bad thing at all.
I agree with your cousin by IndeMaat on 2011-03-03 09:12:00 UTC Reply

That fact that language changes is a form of evolution. Evolution means slow change/gradual development. It doesn't just apply to biological systems.

I can probably better tell you about my own experience with my own native tongue. In Dutch there are a few very common grammatical spelling errors (in translation: saying 'them' rather than 'they'; saying 'bigger as' rather than 'bigger than'; saying 'hele' (adjective) instead of 'heel' (adverb) (can't translate this, but suffice to say that in one particular case people use an adjective where they should use an adverb) ; adding spacing between the different parts of a compound noun (this is called English disease); and not adding spaces after 'te' or 'ten' when they are needed, thus using a different word than meant.)

I once took part in a survey by a research institution about such errors. The questions were: do you come across this error? Do you find it acceptable Dutch? If not, do you think it will become acceptable Dutch? When?

In all these cases the reader or listener probably still knows what the other person is meaning to say. Only language purist grind their teeth.

But language doesn't evolve because 'we just like to text this way: it's easy,' it evolves because the parties involved don't see any change in meaning or loss of information.

Actually, this is exactly why language evolves. It starts with something else being easier to say and because no meaning is lost, the difference becomes acceptable and perhaps at some time the new standard. If there was no reason to say things differently, language would not change/evolve.

I wonder, though... by Neshomeh on 2011-03-03 22:46:00 UTC Reply

Is the reason no meaning is lost that most people understand what the incorrect rendering is supposed to be, and translate in their heads? In other words, if the reader didn't know that the correct thing to write is "heel," would they be able to understand what the writer meant by the incorrect "hele"? If not, then I can't see the nonstandard version ever becoming standard, because it relies on the standard to make sense.

I do agree that language shift is evolution; just not that what Aster's cousin was talking about is it. Texting cannot become standard because without the standard to act as a reference point, it carries no meaning. Also, it isn't really innovative; it adds nothing in terms of the ability to express ideas, only makes it more expedient in its medium. For another example, take telegraphs. These use shorthand, too, for the same reasons, and yet the language patterns of telegraphs haven't caught on generally, because in the broader scope of the language, nothing is gained by them.

The way I see it, what is standard only evolves when an innovation happens--a new word or turn of phrase for a new concept, mainly. The word "cool" might be a good example. "Coolness" is a different thing from other forms of (usually social) acceptability, so a new word evolved for it. (Whether the word or the concept came first is a whole separate issue.) Initially it was not mainstream, but as the concept of coolness spread and became accepted, so did the word for it.

I'll pause here so as not to wander off topic or stop making sense. ^_^;

~Neshomeh

More Dutch by IndeMaat on 2011-03-04 09:15:00 UTC Reply

Is the reason no meaning is lost that most people understand what the incorrect rendering is supposed to be, and translate in their heads? In other words, if the reader didn't know that the correct thing to write is "heel," would they be able to understand what the writer meant by the incorrect "hele"? If not, then I can't see the nonstandard version ever becoming standard, because it relies on the standard to make sense.

I'm not sure whether people 'translate' "hele" to "heel" in their heads. I think most people think "hele" is the correct form. I think it stems from "hele" being easier to pronounce than "heel". (The Dutch word "melk" is pronounced with two syllables for this same reason.) From spoken Dutch it started slipping into written Dutch and now it is rather prominent there. I even came across it twice in a course on correct spelling, and not in an example 'this is bad' sentence.

Another example of change in Dutch. Dutch has a polite you "u", like the French have "vous" and the Germans "Sie". Grammatically, "u" should be treated like a third person singular. For most verbs there is no difference between the second and third person singular. For a few verbs there, however, is, and in this verbs you can see "u" changing to a second person singular. For 'to be' this change has been completed, for 'to have' both the third person and second person form exist.

Evolution is hard to see when you are in the middle of the time when the changes are taking place. You can only see the evolution if you can take a step back and look at language from a different vantage point.

I don't think standards only change when innovation happens. I think standards also change because something else is easier to say and still makes sense.

That the language pattern of telegraphs hasn't caught on may not just be because nothing was gained by it, but because not enough people were using it. It really were only the people operating the telegraphs. These days, nearly a whole generation sends text messages and uses chat rooms. That's a lot of people that write "w8" (which means the same in Dutch as in English).
Something that people seem to be ignoring. by DigitalSocrates on 2011-03-04 03:35:00 UTC Reply

The discussion so far has been comparing texting to standard English, which is, to use a common idiom, comparing apples to oranges.

Aster mentions in the OP that evolution is environment dependent, but she neglected to mention that language use in in speaking, in writing, and in texting are all completely separate environments, and are therefore subject to different branching paths of evolution. There's also an ambiguous line between how modern language has changed due to 'evolution' or merely through recent cultural slang.

Language is a function of culture, so many new terms and meanings are adopted overtime. We 'google' things now, even if we're using other search engines, and we think that explosions are 'cool.' Removing adjectives and articles are unlikely to catch on, however.

So to summarize (and to reiterate the point made by others already), chatspeak exists primarily for expediency in time-sensitive and assumed-context situations. Any conventions that are brought back into more standard English are there because of slang and counter-culture, and with time will be erased -

unless the lolcat armagedden happens and in 10 years we're all forced to speak in IMPACT font.

This is what all my Ling professors fight about. by Sedri on 2011-03-03 04:19:00 UTC Reply

Especially the sociolinguistics professors. I spent most of my time at uni listening to the debates. I think the general consensus is that you could argue it both ways, which is the Professional Academic way of saying that neither side has a strong enough argument to completely undercut the other, so they're backing off before they can be humiliated. It's amusing ;)

But as for me personally, I agree with Neshomeh.
Also keep in mind that it's writing. by Songbird-O on 2011-03-02 19:04:00 UTC Reply

Written English and spoken English are two different things. I would just like to state this before we talk about the topic proper. When you write "bought small carrotbag," it might seem clear to your mom, but if you spoke that same exact statement without context, it would sound completely different. Writing and talking are two different things, and I think that text talk has very little effect on spoken English aside from reading those texts out loud and pronouncing the abbrevs.

That being said, I agree that evolution is not the right word for what your cousin described. New words are being created all the time. My word processor recognizes the word "Pokemon," which probably wouldn't have happened fifteen years ago. But that's not evolution. It's just change. I wouldn't even go that far with text talk, because it is essentially just abbreviations. Like you said, Aster, it's all in the context. But languages don't evolve. They change and warp and make new dialects and such. You should watch My Fair Lady sometime. It's one of my favorite movies ever.
It's about standards, really. by Neshomeh on 2011-03-02 18:01:00 UTC Reply

By which I mean standard usage vs. nonstandard usage.

Something that we all can generally accept, I think, is that there IS a time and a place for informal, colloquial, slang language. We use shortcuts when talking to our friends because, as Aster points out, no meaning is lost in that context. Same goes for texting, much as it galls me.

However! There is also a time and a place for standard usage. Such times and places include schoolwork, talking to people who you'd like to impress with your intelligence, and writing that you plan to show to strangers. In essence, any time you can't afford to be misunderstood.

Can what is considered standard change? Sure. But only in ways that improve the language's function. Maybe saying "bought small carrotbag" doesn't lose any meaning in that instance, but that became standard, if all grammar converted to such a simplistic, bare-bones functional style, what would we lose overall? Shall we do away with all pronouns and rely on context to tell who the subject is because it's quicker? We could probably get away with getting rid of articles--plenty of other languages get by without them--but what about "of"?

It might be an interesting experiment to try and get through a day without saying or writing "of." It can probably be done... but if you're feeling really adventurous, get rid of--no, wait--stop using some other prepositions, too. See how far cutting these little words gets you before you can't say anything useful anymore.

I could go on and on (and probably will come back later), but I have to work, so I'll just leave these suggestions for further study:

* George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four
* Noah Webster

~Neshomeh