How languages evolve and change is fascinating to think about. Lately, research shows that language evolution may actually be similar to species evolution. Sound too far-fetched? Two main opposing arguments state the following:
Group 1: Evolutionary change is gradual
Group 2: There are sudden jumps in evolution, separated by long periods of stasis.
As with all things scientific, both have their own merits and reality may involve a combination of the two theories. Mark Pagel at Reading University in England suggested a few years back that approximately 1/5 of evolution change occurs in sporadic patterns when new species form. This, Dr. Pagel and colleagues assert, holds true for languages as well. In a published edition of Science, it states that languages evolve in a way that is interestingly similar to the way species evolve.
Historical proof can support this claim with the language used in this post: English. English went to dramatic changes within a span of a few hundred years. For instance, if anyone has ever read works from the Middle English era (Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales being the most classic example), the average English speaker finds the text incomprehensible, finds it as practically foreign in fact. This is 14th century. Of course, certain language aficionados and English majors may still understand it without the help of an interpreter, but pick a random bloke off the street and ask him to read Chaucer in its original form and I assure you, he will have a hard time reading it!
Fast forward two centuries to Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare, on the other hand, is much, much easier to read for even the average John or Jane Doe on the street. All right, maybe s/he can't understand everything, but it's much closer to Modern English, what I'm typing right now, than what Chaucer wrote two hundred years before Shakespeare. Why so?
Dr. Pagel also looks at other languages, further distanced from English, examining the three major branches of the linguistic family tree: African Bantu, Indo-European and Austronesian. Whilst one can clearly understand how the branches connect to each other, pinpointing when the splits actually occurred proved to be difficult, if not impossible. In fact, the impossibility of finding exact moments of language cleavage supports Dr. Pagel's theory, that language evolution goes through jerky jumps that occur when a new language evolves - just like theory on how animal species evolve.
His theory turns out true since languages, based on current evidence, do not slowly, gradually "drift apart" and split, but rather, the splits occur abruptly and violently. These abrupt language splits account for 1/3 of difference in African Bantu languages, 1/5 of differences between Indo-European languages and approximately 1/10 of Austronesian languages. These figures compare with 1/5 of differences resulting from abrupt evolutionary splits for biological species.
Evolution, for languages and species alike, is thusly an active process. Necessity to adapt to new environments and to avoid crossbreeding account for major reasons triggering evolutionary splits. For language, on the other hand, it seems more likely that cultural needs to distinguish a certain group plays a larger role, rather than a biological one. Compiler of the first American dictionary, Noah Webster stated, "as an independent nation, our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government." Basically, groups, tribes, villages, nations, etc., wanted to create a proper identity, so that if you don't speak the way the group does, the group can label you as an outsider.
Group 1: Evolutionary change is gradual
Group 2: There are sudden jumps in evolution, separated by long periods of stasis.
As with all things scientific, both have their own merits and reality may involve a combination of the two theories. Mark Pagel at Reading University in England suggested a few years back that approximately 1/5 of evolution change occurs in sporadic patterns when new species form. This, Dr. Pagel and colleagues assert, holds true for languages as well. In a published edition of Science, it states that languages evolve in a way that is interestingly similar to the way species evolve.
Historical proof can support this claim with the language used in this post: English. English went to dramatic changes within a span of a few hundred years. For instance, if anyone has ever read works from the Middle English era (Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales being the most classic example), the average English speaker finds the text incomprehensible, finds it as practically foreign in fact. This is 14th century. Of course, certain language aficionados and English majors may still understand it without the help of an interpreter, but pick a random bloke off the street and ask him to read Chaucer in its original form and I assure you, he will have a hard time reading it!
Fast forward two centuries to Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare, on the other hand, is much, much easier to read for even the average John or Jane Doe on the street. All right, maybe s/he can't understand everything, but it's much closer to Modern English, what I'm typing right now, than what Chaucer wrote two hundred years before Shakespeare. Why so?
Dr. Pagel also looks at other languages, further distanced from English, examining the three major branches of the linguistic family tree: African Bantu, Indo-European and Austronesian. Whilst one can clearly understand how the branches connect to each other, pinpointing when the splits actually occurred proved to be difficult, if not impossible. In fact, the impossibility of finding exact moments of language cleavage supports Dr. Pagel's theory, that language evolution goes through jerky jumps that occur when a new language evolves - just like theory on how animal species evolve.
His theory turns out true since languages, based on current evidence, do not slowly, gradually "drift apart" and split, but rather, the splits occur abruptly and violently. These abrupt language splits account for 1/3 of difference in African Bantu languages, 1/5 of differences between Indo-European languages and approximately 1/10 of Austronesian languages. These figures compare with 1/5 of differences resulting from abrupt evolutionary splits for biological species.
Evolution, for languages and species alike, is thusly an active process. Necessity to adapt to new environments and to avoid crossbreeding account for major reasons triggering evolutionary splits. For language, on the other hand, it seems more likely that cultural needs to distinguish a certain group plays a larger role, rather than a biological one. Compiler of the first American dictionary, Noah Webster stated, "as an independent nation, our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government." Basically, groups, tribes, villages, nations, etc., wanted to create a proper identity, so that if you don't speak the way the group does, the group can label you as an outsider.
Today's Random Picture:
Speaking of evolution, perhaps he's a mutant? The "real life" version of Magneto from the X-Men, perhaps? =P
Ivan Stoiljkovic poses for pictures with cutlery stuck to his chest in front of his home near Koprivnica, some 100 kilometres (62 miles) north of the capital Zagreb, May 12, 2011. Ivan, 6, has an extraordinary talent: the ability to attract metallic objects -- from spoons to heavy frying pans -- to his body. He is said to be able to carry up to 25 kg of metal stuck to his torso. Ivan's family also claims that his hands can emit heat and his mysterious ability has also given him healing powers. Medical checkups so far have reaped inconclusive results. Picture taken May 12. REUTERS/Nikola Solic (CROATIA - Tags: SOCIETY ODDLY)
