Talk:Language change

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Miranda.Baranchak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crrob.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Heading text
The part on "factors" should be revised: -- Sinatra 09:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Evolution is not a factor, but it is language change.
 * Innovation and variation are not factors, but parts of language change, e.g. (1) a speech community uses form A, (2) in addition to this form A speakers invent form B (invention = innovation, the addition leads to variation), (3) the variants A and B are (a) kept as simple variants or (b) semantically and/or stylistically differentiated, or (c) one of the forms is given up.
 * Economy, at least in current linguistics, doesn't mean that speakers tend to make forms shorter and shorter; rather, to speak economically means to choose the form that is (presumably) the most efficient to achieve the speaker's conversational goals.

I have started overhauling the article. It really needs it. Please join me. I have laid out a general outline to work from. I had rewritten the article this morning, but my browser crashed and took the article with it. I'm presently writing it again, but I welcome anyone to get a headstart and beat me to it. Also, I think the article could use a discussion of the systematicity and regularity of language change and conditioned and unconditioned systematic changes, etc. Anyone game? Game on! Jobber 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Causes of language change" looks like it should have a stub tag. Also, isn't the idea of economy being a major factor somewhat controversial? 24.159.255.29 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical change?
This page could do with something on morphology and syntax --Pfold 14:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The other definition
Okay, and what about "language change" as in "people X are switching from language X to language Y"? -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, language death and code switching are probably the most relevant, though "language change" is not really used for those phenomena. --Pfold (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

no undestang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.85.164 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not code switching, but historical switching, say that of many Nativ American tribes from their inherited language to English. (Also cf. Stratum (linguistics).) I've seen "language change" quite frequently used for that phenomenon. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, communities which switch from one language to another usually start with individuals code switching - they start to use a new language for an initially limited range of purposes but the new language gradually takes over additional functions from the old until it is the sole language. Bilingualism is, of course, also relevant. --Pfold (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Future Content
Please be aware of Neologism as a cause of linguistic change, and mindful should any of you come across citations in reference to this.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am considering adding a section about detection of linguistic change, including several papers introducing ways of quantifying linguistic changes of words meanings --Linzhuoli (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Consider Revision
Consider looking at the headings of the sections to ensure proper grammatical structure. Also consider looking at the "type" section in order to create subheadings to better reference the information being provided in connection to specific definitions. Miranda.Baranchak (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Could you clarify what you mean by "ensure proper grammatical structure"? Looking at the current section headings, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Garik (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bold claim: Over time, syntactic change is the greatest modifier of a particular language.
This sort of statement definitely needs references and justification. Many historical linguists, perhaps most -- myself among them -- (would) find "syntactic change is the greatest modifier of a particular language" to be dubious at best.96.42.57.164 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The same text appears word by word in Syntactic change. I suppose that it can be argued that on the one hand a given syntactic change modifies the shape of a particular language once it has reached completion, but on the other hand that change is ultimately the result of other changes, particularly sound changes; as an example, French stopped being a pro-drop language, but that was caused most probably by the heavy phonetical erosion of word-endings. --Jotamar (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I fins this a questionable claim too. Like Jotamar, I can sort of imagine ways in which it could be argued to be true, but one could then make similar arguments for other kinds of change. I think you should be bold and change the articles. Garik (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too, I've added a citation needed tag.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Shift from common words towards rare words
I can't understand what is intended by this recent addition:
 * In the English language, there occurred a shift from common words (e.g. house) towards the use of rarer words (e.g. building), but on a marginal level. Within over 300 years, the relative frequency of words in samples of English and American newspapers decreased only about three units within a possible theoretical range of 208 units that is 1-2%.

How are "common words" and "rarer words" defined? This seems like potentially a tautology: any words that became more common had been (relatively) rarer. What are these "three units... of 208 units"? Furthermore, although this paragraph presents the change as "In English" or "in American newspapers", from the abstract the cited source appears to be an analysis of best-selling books. Cnilep (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would also like a more detailed explanation, it does seem tautological.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are right, language change is indeed not the topic of the article used as the reference. It should merely serve as the secondary source as recommended here. The original source is:
 * Hayes, D.P., Wolfer, L.T., & Wolfe, M.F. (1996). Schoolbook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-verbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 489–508. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002489.
 * It is based on the idea that rare words increase text difficulty. The respective paragraph in the original source is as follows:
 * We use LEX as our measure of a text’s difficulty. LEX is based on a theoretical statistical distribution — the log-normal (Ahren & Hayes, 1990; Dewey, 1923; Gordon, 1985; Hall, 1989; Hayes, 1988; Hayes & Ahren, 1988; Just & Carpenter, 1987). Like its close relation, the normal distribution, it is found throughout the sciences. Mathematicians and statisticians first discovered that word choice in large natural texts closely fits the log-normal (Carroll, 1971; Dewey, 1923; Herdan, 1956, 1966; Yule, 1944) (...) The standard error for the LEX statistic is 0.5 LEX in a theoretical range of 208 units. This estimate is based on a sampling distribution of 22 independent samples (each consisting of 24 subsamples of 100 words each, from the same large text) (...) The most interesting property of LEX is its stability across the centuries: Samples from English and American newspapers have grown more difficult at the rate of about 1 LEX/century since 1665.
 * If you have any suggestions for a better understandable description, I will be happy to hear them.

MorlocksAndEloi (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC) So, am I right in thinking that both the cited secondary source and the original work are analyses of word choice in particular texts, and not of language change as such? If so, is this relevant to language change? It doesn't strike me as relevant to this article. Cnilep (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Linguistic change is unpopular
I wish the article said something about the well-known hostility to linguistic change. When people become aware of a linguistic change they are usually against it, including venerating obsolete forms of a language (church Latin, Koranic Arabic). I don't know enough to write it myself. deisenbe (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate portrayal of linguistic degradation theory
"Modern linguistics typically does not support this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad."

The idea that languages "degrade" doesn't imply anything about a "good" or a "bad", it's just the fact that, linguistically, life on Earth is a bit like a game of telephone, in which people are constantly mishearing things, incorporating them incorrectly from one language to another, and just plain changing the rules to go along- which itself does not have to be a bad thing, because often the changes in these rules are used to save the speaker some thought or make something easier to communicate, if a bit simplified or broken. For this reason, I'm taking out what I've quoted above, as it does not fit with the reality of the situation and the studies of comparative/evolutionary linguistics. VinniusCaesar (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay but degrade literally means 'lower in value, reduce in quality or purity'. The idea that languages "degrade" definitely does imply that it's "bad". And it is true that modern linguistics does not support that concept. I don't understand your argument for removing that sentence, since your whole argument seems to raise only reasons for keeping it. AJD (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Variation
Hi : Thoughts on why variation doesn't belong in the lede? Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Variation does belong in the lede section of the article. But the phrasing "the process of variation... across a period of time" as the opening sentence defining language change is awkwardly worded and a little opaque, and the article variation (linguistics) is essentially about variation as a synchronic phenomenon. So I moved the word "variation" and the link to variation (linguistics) out of the opening sentence, to a point in the lede where the relationship between diachronic change and synchronic variation is more relevant to what's being discussed. AJD (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The synchronic distinction regarding variation is one that eluded me. I was finding "process of alteration" a bit awkward itself, perhaps circular. I'll mull over this but can't think of anything better for now. Thanks for explaining. Wolfdog (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)