Is the English language undergoing a major shift?

[Sith_Happens]

(Pretty sure this is the right subforum for this, linguistics is a science of sorts.)

Nowadays it seems like English gets at least a dozen new widely-recognized words every year, and that's not counting the ones that directly refer to new technologies. Has this always been the case, and if not then is it possibly indicative of a drift of some sort? Alternatively, am I completely misinterpreting what a linguistic shift/drift means in the first place and vocabulary has nothing to do with it?

[Kodr]

(Pretty sure this is the right subforum for this, linguistics is a science of sorts.)

Nowadays it seems like English gets at least a dozen new widely-recognized words every year, and that's not counting the ones that directly refer to new technologies. Has this always been the case, and if not then is it possibly indicative of a drift of some sort? Alternatively, am I completely misinterpreting what a linguistic shift/drift means in the first place and vocabulary has nothing to do with it?

Languages are always changing as much as technology and culture does. It must to survive these transitions. There was always been slang, it's the speakers of the language cleverly using the rules of the tongue to create more modern phrases.

Take Hebrew for example. This is an ancient language still being used today, but It was less than 160,000 words to be used. The modern Israelite has been forced to adapt the language to the modern, globalized society. They have even introducing Arabic and Yiddish terminologies into their modern dialect. These languages they borrow from have been influenced by ancient Hebrew, making this a really interesting progression of the language.

[aspi]

(Pretty sure this is the right subforum for this, linguistics is a science of sorts.)

Of sorts? Really? I'm sure that statements like this make linguists feel right at home

As for your question, it's believed that Shakespeare alone created over 1700 new words, many of which are still in use today. So I don't think a few dozen new words per year qualify as extraordinary. Any language is constantly evolving, with new words being created and older words being merged, dropped or assigned new meaning.

I'd say that historically, there were periods of much more pronounced change in the English language, such as from Middle English to Modern English, which included a major shifting of vowels over the course of a century. In contrast, if you give someone who learned how to read 10 years ago an early 20th century text, they will have no problems in reading and understanding its contents.

On the other hand, since these changes are gradual and not always completely agreed upon, I would suspect that it's rather difficult to accurately say whether a major change is happening while it's taking place.

[Bulldog Psion]

Slang also tends to be ephemeral, even if it's widely used.

[BannedInSchool]

Don't forget murderizing older words so they don't mean what they're supposed to mean anymore.

[Amidus Drexel]

Of sorts? Really? I'm sure that statements like this make linguists feel right at home

It's not a natural science, which is what most people tend to think of "science" as. I'm sure the linguists will understand the colloquial use of the word.

Going to have to agree with the rest of the posters here, though - a few words a year with little to no serious change in grammar isn't that significant.

[aspi]

It's not a natural science, which is what most people tend to think of "science" as. I'm sure the linguists will understand the colloquial use of the word.

But it wasn't colloquial, it was just provocative since the added of sorts is simply wrong. In my experience, "most people" with this attiude are a clear (and way too large) subset of natural scientists. I can't recall a single instance where I talked to someone who had that attitude and wasn't in STEM. And honestly, it simply displays our ignorance and arrogance as natural scientists, which is completely unwarranted. I'm not sure how much historical merit there is to this bias, but if you look at some of the work that has been done in what is often referred to as "soft" science in the last century, the statement is utterly ridiculous.

Theoretical computer science wouldn't be where it is today without linguists like Noam Chomsky. Language is incredibly complex and just as difficult to formally describe as most physical systems, but formal languages are the basis of all practical computation. And speaking about physics, if you take a closer look at some of the trendy topics like complex systems and complex networks, you'll find that a lot of this has alread been done in sociology decades ago.

If more of us natural scientists would get off our high horse and acknowledge that it's still perfectly valid science if you apply the scientific method to something other than natural phenomena, interdisciplinary cooperation would work a lot better, and we'd waste less time constantly reinventing the wheel.

[Spiryt]

Take Hebrew for example. This is an ancient language still being used today, but It was less than 160,000 words to be used. The modern Israelite has been forced to adapt the language to the modern, globalized society. They have even introducing Arabic and Yiddish terminologies into their modern dialect. These languages they borrow from have been influenced by ancient Hebrew, making this a really interesting progression of the language.

The thing is that modern Hebrew doesn't really have much to do with Ancient one.

Ancient is pretty much extinct language, modern one is loose, artificial 19th-20th centurty reconstruction, often called greatest successful project of such kind, I believe. It's not direct continuation.

As far as English goes I don't think that dozen words is really that much.

English is very, well, osmotic, for quite a time now, especially since it had spanned over about whole word.

I'm pretty sure you could trace great amount of new words raising yearly in 19th century already.

Worlds for knew technologies,

goods, trivia etc. coming from colonies and trade,

Political, sociological, philosophical or straight out 'new' terms being invented by various people with not much to do. Translated or straight out borrowed, mainly from French and German too.

[Amidus Drexel]

But it wasn't colloquial, it was just provocative since the added of sorts is simply wrong. In my experience, "most people" with this attiude are a clear (and way too large) subset of natural scientists. I can't recall a single instance where I talked to someone who had that attitude and wasn't in STEM. And honestly, it simply displays our ignorance and arrogance as natural scientists, which is completely unwarranted. I'm not sure how much historical merit there is to this bias, but if you look at some of the work that has been done in what is often referred to as "soft" science in the last century, the statement is utterly ridiculous.

Theoretical computer science wouldn't be where it is today without linguists like Noam Chomsky. Language is incredibly complex and just as difficult to formally describe as most physical systems, but formal languages are the basis of all practical computation. And speaking about physics, if you take a closer look at some of the trendy topics like complex systems and complex networks, you'll find that a lot of this has alread been done in sociology decades ago.

Then your and my experiences differ wildly. Pretty much every time I've heard or read someone use the word "science", it's been used to mean "natural science", whereas the social sciences are almost exclusively referred to by name. This includes people in those fields, by the way, who don't consider themselves "scientists". The usage of "science" to mean "natural science" is almost always colloquial (take the terms "scientific community" or "mad scientist", for example), and the "sort of" in the first post read as a colloquial use rather than as a derisive jab at linguistics.

I'll assent that there is something of a tendency for people in the natural science fields to look down on the social sciences (and indeed, quite a lot of other things) - but that's no less true for any other field. I would wager the vast majority of these vocal, pretentious people do not constantly espouse objective truth whilst stating their opinions.

Computer science is largely an exercise in formal logic and mathematics, and is not actually a natural science. There, I got to be pedantic.

If more of us natural scientists would get off our high horse and acknowledge that it's still perfectly valid science if you apply the scientific method to something other than natural phenomena, interdisciplinary cooperation would work a lot better, and we'd waste less time constantly reinventing the wheel.

One could say the same about looking for ways to get offended on internet fora.

[FinnLassie]

Language is a constantly changing and developing phenomenon: I would argue that English, as well as every other language is going through a minor/major (however you want to look at it) shift all the time. It's just a linguistical fact.

[Manga Shoggoth]

As far as English goes I don't think that dozen words is really that much.

English is very, well, osmotic, for quite a time now, especially since it had spanned over about whole word.

In fact this is normal for a living language. What eventually became English started out as a fusion of Norman French, Anglo Saxon (itself a fusion), Latin and Greek, which most of us wouldn't understand. (That fusion is why English sometimes has two words for the same thing when the usage was derived from Norman French and Anglo Saxon).

[Yora]

A major shift that English really would need is in spelling.

It's such a simple and easy to learn language, but the spelling is just awful. American spelling was a step in the right direction, but I really hope we're going to see more of that now that non-native speakers outnumber the native speakers three times and it probably will become a lot more in the next 10-20 years. It's still the language of the "Western World", but I assume that in the not so distant future it will be a truly global language. And when the Indians, Chinese, and South-Americans start adding their locally created English words into the pool of International English, than things are probably going to get quite interesting. Already Indian English and Singapore English have quite unique characteristics, which don't exist in either British or American. Yet.

[hamishspence]

In fact this is normal for a living language.

And I'm told that people were commenting on that a very long time ago - Chauncer for example:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...storyOfEnglish

Translated or straight out borrowed, mainly from French and German too.

“English doesn’t borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.” - James D. Nicoll

[Manga Shoggoth]

“English doesn’t borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.” - James D. Nicoll

I knew if I held out long enough someone else would deploy this quotation!

(Thanks for the TVT link - I'll give it a peruse later when I'm not juggling laptops)

[Spiryt]

In fact this is normal for a living language. What eventually became English started out as a fusion of Norman French, Anglo Saxon (itself a fusion), Latin and Greek, which most of us wouldn't understand. (That fusion is why English sometimes has two words for the same thing when the usage was derived from Norman French and Anglo Saxon).

Of course it's normal for living language - but the point was that in English it's indeed way more visible.

For start, due to the fact that most European languages are not such visible fusions.

Most of those languages have two names for 'the same' thing, alternatives being either native as well as borrowed, though.

[BWR]

What eventually became English started out as a fusion of Norman French, Anglo Saxon (itself a fusion), Latin and Greek

Harumph. Ignoring the Latinized Celtic substratum in the British isles before the Saxon invasions, the variety of Anglo-Saxon dialects, the Latin and Greek brought in by Christianity, the Norse brought in by the Danelaw, and the Norman French being itself a bastard of Norse and degenerate evolved Latin, this is mostly true.

[BannedInSchool]

England, the lint trap of languages.

[Jay R]

"And you know what English is? English is the result of Norman men-at-arms trying to make dates with Saxon barmaids, and no more legitimate than any of the other results."
-- H. Beam Piper, "The Other Human Race"

[Reddish Mage]

Languages are always changing as much as technology and culture does. It must to survive these transitions. There was always been slang, it's the speakers of the language cleverly using the rules of the tongue to create more modern phrases.

Take Hebrew for example. This is an ancient language still being used today, but It was less than 160,000 words to be used. The modern Israelite has been forced to adapt the language to the modern, globalized society. They have even introducing Arabic and Yiddish terminologies into their modern dialect. These languages they borrow from have been influenced by ancient Hebrew, making this a really interesting progression of the language.

Hebrew is a particularly awful example of a evolved language. Its unique in being the only language to rise from the dead after 2500 years (even the last books of the Old Testament are in Aramaic). As Spiryt mentioned.

However, many languages in the world that are not English have official language Academies that set standards (French, Chinese, Japanese...), in part to minimize the amount of English that has been creeping into every other language.

I think the issue with English is that it is initially born of a hodgepodge as the Anglos and Saxons invaded England (which prior to that was already a pretty diverse place), then got hit with lots of official French and Latin due to further invasion, and a good deal of Greek ended up trickling down from the Academy (I think that's true of every language though). The lack of purity to begin with may have made it more vulnerable for adopting Yiddishisms from comedians, Hebrew from theological seminaries, Hindi and Chinese to refer to foreign practices, items, and concepts, or Japanese just cause its kawaii.

[Jeff the Green]

Harumph. Ignoring the Latinized Celtic substratum in the British isles before the Saxon invasions, the variety of Anglo-Saxon dialects, the Latin and Greek brought in by Christianity, the Norse brought in by the Danelaw, and the Norman French being itself a bastard of Norse and degenerate evolved Latin, this is mostly true.

Don't forget the vast array of loan words from Spanish (orange), Arabic (alcohol), Hebrew (mostly names, but still a bunch of other commonly used ones like cider and jubilee), Chinese (tea), various Indian dialects (jungle, bazaar, juggernaut), various Native American dialects (husky, chocolate), German (noodle), Russian (sable), Japanese (tycoon), Malay (agar, bamboo), Romani (drag, as in wearing drag), Norwegian (krill, uffda), Hawaiian (a number of geological terms, including pahoehoe and 'a'a, which is handy to know for Scrabble) and a buttload of others.

The old (well, 25 years old) adage is true: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Then your and my experiences differ wildly. Pretty much every time I've heard or read someone use the word "science", it's been used to mean "natural science", whereas the social sciences are almost exclusively referred to by name. This includes people in those fields, by the way, who don't consider themselves "scientists". The usage of "science" to mean "natural science" is almost always colloquial (take the terms "scientific community" or "mad scientist", for example), and the "sort of" in the first post read as a colloquial use rather than as a derisive jab at linguistics.

I'll assent that there is something of a tendency for people in the natural science fields to look down on the social sciences (and indeed, quite a lot of other things) - but that's no less true for any other field. I would wager the vast majority of these vocal, pretentious people do not constantly espouse objective truth whilst stating their opinions.

Computer science is largely an exercise in formal logic and mathematics, and is not actually a natural science. There, I got to be pedantic.

It's not an uncommon attitude.

[Spiryt]

then got hit with lots of official French and Latin due to further invasion, and a good deal of Greek ended up trickling down from the Academy (I think that's true of every language though). The lack of purity to begin with may have made it more vulnerable for adopting Yiddishisms from comedians, Hebrew from theological seminaries, Hindi and Chinese to refer to foreign practices, items, and concepts, or Japanese just cause its kawaii.

Don't forget the vast array of loan words from Spanish (orange), Arabic (alcohol), Hebrew (mostly names, but still a bunch of other commonly used ones like cider and jubilee), Chinese (tea), various Indian dialects (jungle, bazaar, juggernaut), various Native American dialects (husky, chocolate), German (noodle), Russian (sable), Japanese (tycoon), Malay (agar, bamboo), Romani (drag, as in wearing drag), Norwegian (krill, uffda), Hawaiian (a number of geological terms, including pahoehoe and 'a'a, which is handy to know for Scrabble) and a buttload of others.

Vast majority of those are somehow of 'trivia' or/and absolutely international though.


Like orange, alcohol, tea, hebrew and greek terms, geology, chocolate etc.


The biggest 'impurity' in English i by far French. It's possible to form simple, everyday sentences without Germanic traces, mostly out of Latin/Romance origin words.

[Jeff the Green]

Vast majority of those are somehow of 'trivia' or/and absolutely international though.


Like orange, alcohol, tea, hebrew and greek terms, geology, chocolate etc.

Pahoehoe I'll give you. Orange, alcohol, chocolate, jungle, and bamboo I absolutely won't.

[Eldan]

The biggest 'impurity' in English i by far French. It's possible to form simple, everyday sentences without Germanic traces, mostly out of Latin/Romance origin words.

I sort of doubt that you can make a meangingful sentence without pronouns.

[Eldan]

The biggest 'impurity' in English i by far French. It's possible to form simple, everyday sentences without Germanic traces, mostly out of Latin/Romance origin words.

I sort of doubt that you can make a lot of meangingful sentences without pronouns, the verbs to have and to be or most other basic verbs and nouns.

[Manga Shoggoth]

The biggest 'impurity' in English i by far French.

Or vice verca...

[Jeff the Green]

I sort of doubt that you can make a lot of meangingful sentences without pronouns, the verbs to have and to be or most other basic verbs and nouns.

The only ones I can think of would be *****ed out by the forum filter.

[Eldan]

Hm. And there's several four letter words that are Germanic too, of course.

[Razanir]

A major shift that English really would need is in spelling.

It's such a simple and easy to learn language, but the spelling is just awful. American spelling was a step in the right direction, but I really hope we're going to see more of that now that non-native speakers outnumber the native speakers three times and it probably will become a lot more in the next 10-20 years. It's still the language of the "Western World", but I assume that in the not so distant future it will be a truly global language. And when the Indians, Chinese, and South-Americans start adding their locally created English words into the pool of International English, than things are probably going to get quite interesting. Already Indian English and Singapore English have quite unique characteristics, which don't exist in either British or American. Yet.

IIRC, there are three main reasons.

1) We started standardizing spelling during the Great Vowel Shift. In other words, we tried agreeing on how to spell words, when we couldn't even agree on how to pronounce them.

2) We aren't very fond of Anglicizing spellings.

3) We don't have a governing body with the power to fix spelling.

[archon_huskie]

Consider comparing Modern English to Old English. English became its own language in the 9th century. in its 12 hundred years of existence, it has changed a lot. For starters, the number of letters in the alphabet and the number of vowel (even which letters are vowels) has been in constant flux.

this "&" used to be considered a letter of the alphabet as late as the 19th century. WXY&Z indeed!

There used to be a letter for TH. It looked like a d with a line through it much like a t or an f.

There was a unique letter for silent g. and a unique letter for the various ways of pronouncing an s.

Many people believe that you is the second person singular and the plural form fell out of usage. But it is really the other way around. You is the plural and Ye was the singular. Sort of. they were spelled with that TH letter instead of Y and the usage changed during the shift from Old to Middle English.

And as has been mentioned already, the great vowel shift. I was pronounced like a long E, E was pronounced like a long A. A was pronounced like a short A only. and W was a vowel and was pronounced as a oo. AND we don't know why this happened! The best theory I've heard (that's a scientific theory: best idea to explain the evidence) is that English Nobles stopped speaking exclusively in French or Latin and started speaking English again. BUT we also don't know why the French Nobles who had conquered England in 1066 decided to start speaking English instead of French.

English has changed greatly over the years. My Greek Professor claimed that Modern Greek is closer to Ancient Greek (2000BC) than Modern English is to Shakespearean English (1600AD)!