Language Evolution: Aspects, Historicity, and Phonetic Changes
Aspects of Language
Aspects in Language: When you study the history of a language, you can refer to the following aspects: First, language as a universal human activity, the act of speaking, performed by individuals. Language is competence, an activity involving knowledge and the performance of that knowledge. Second, language as a mental activity, the very act of apprehending things, a cognitive activity. That is, language is thought, logos. Third, language as a technique in the activity of speaking. Language is a particular language. Fourth, language as a mode, as a set of traditions in the technique of speaking; language is a historical language. Fifth, language as a set of common linguistic acts, a system of isoglosses either in space or time, or in individual performances. In any case, language manifests as a series of innumerable linguistic acts, varied and different from each other.
The first aspect of language: language is competence, language is nothing but speaking. The second aspect: language is mental activity, cognitive activity. The third aspect: language as a technique which involves traditional and individual aspects. The fourth aspect: refers to the different traditions in the activity of speaking. These traditions are called languages, particular or historical languages. And the fifth refers to the different traditions in the activity of speaking in a community of speakers. A historical language is a set of common linguistic acts, that is, a system of isoglosses, something belonging to a community of speakers, constituted historically as an ideal unit which can be identified as unique by its own speakers and by the speakers of other languages.
Historicity and Synchrony
Historicity: It is the peculiar mode of being of human beings. To be human means going out of one’s self as an individual, that is, going beyond one’s individuality. Historicity involves something in common, that is, historicity means solidarity. Historicity is based on a double relationship of solidarity: horizontal solidarity or solidarity of the speaker with the listener, and vertical solidarity or solidarity with the tradition, solidarity of speakers with those who speak the same language.
Synchrony: (External Variation) It is the first aspect of solidarity of language. This solidarity with the listener manifests in the language they have in common, the state of the language. In this sense, synchrony is nothing but the description of a state of the language which is the language actually spoken in a linguistic community. The state of the language involves a particular configuration of the activity of speaking. In synchrony, all linguistic forms are analogous, not homogeneous.
Configuration of the Activity of Speaking
In a state of the language, there is architecture, and in every part of that architecture, there is a structure. In the architecture of the language, you can find variety; in the structure of the language, you can find solidarity. The architecture of the language is the external equilibrium of linguistic knowledge, that is, the external equilibrium of the activity of speaking. The architecture of the language is the manifestation of variation in the activity of speaking. This variation constitutes sets of differences determined by the different places where the language is spoken; diatopic differences, the levels of speech, that is, differences in the speech of social groups determined by the topics proper of those social groups, diastratic differences; and the styles of speech, that is, diaphasic differences.
Functional Language and Structure
The Functional Language: When a language is homogeneous, we say that it is a syntopic, synestratic, and symphasic language. This type of language is called a functional language. It constitutes a part of the architecture of the language. In a speaker’s knowledge, there are several functional languages, that is, he or she uses different functional languages in their daily speech. A functional language is, for example, Australian English, the language spoken in Australia defined by syntopic differences; another one is Cockney, the language of the working class in London. In all cases, in all functional languages, linguistic forms are not merely analogous, but homogeneous. A functional language is defined by its homogeneity; a state of the language is defined by its analogy. Functional languages are many, and every speaker knows and uses several of them.
The Structure of the Language: (Internal Homogeneity). A functional language, thus, is a technique of speaking. In a technique of speaking, you can distinguish four levels: 1) speech or the actual performance of the activity of speaking in innumerable linguistic acts. 2) the norm of the language, the set of usual or normal performances, encompassing everything that is traditional and not necessarily functional, that is, distinctive. It constitutes common use in the community of speakers. It is the language already performed and constituted in a tradition in the technique of the activity of speaking. The norm of the language is achieved through abstraction from speech. If you neglect everything in speech being individual and contextual, you will have what is usual, that is, common use in a speaking community, and, at the same time, oppositional, that is, traditional; 3) the system of the language, or system of functional and distinctive oppositions, encompassing everything that within the tradition of the language is objectively functional, that is, distinctive. The system of the language is the system of oppositions or system of possibilities in the language. The system of the language is obtained through abstraction from the norm of the language. If you select everything that within the tradition is objectively functional, you will get the rules and procedures, that is, the system of the language. 4) The type of the language, the set of tendencies in the oppositional and lexical sets of the language. This distinction of these four levels in the structure of the language lets us separate and analyze the different facts of language, since it affects all levels of language analysis.
Speaking as an End-Directed Activity
The concept of énérgeia by Aristotle must be considered in a productive way: speaking is a free and end-directed activity, an activity which has its own aim in itself, an activity which is the performance of its own thus being ideally previous to its own potency. Speaking is a free activity, and the aim, target, or purpose of a free activity is necessarily an infinite one, an aim, target, or purpose never to be performed, never to be achieved, but will always lack performance. Speaking is a creative activity. The potency is previous to the activity (performance). As far as it is a historical activity, speaking is speaking a particular language, which is the historical potency of speaking, its historical dúnamis (knowledge). In historical speaking, the language already performed is necessarily a term for freedom, a necessary condition for freedom. As a consequence, it is necessary to integrate freedom and historicity. All linguistic acts, insofar as they are, at the same time, historical and free, have a double end: one depending on their historical necessity, on their historically necessary condition, which is the particular language, and another one looking at its aim, a meaningful aim always new and going beyond the language that has previously been performed. Language must change, since it is never completely performed; its aim has never been achieved.
Evolution of Old English
Old English ‘a’ in Different Dialects
Evolution of Old English a in the Different Dialects in the Norman Period: Old English ‘a’ remained ‘a’ North of the Humber, later on giving /e:/ or /e/. Example: Old English ‘ham’ gave Middle Scots ‘haim’. But it gave the so-called Middle English long half-open rounded ‘o’, similar to the one in ‘law’, South of the Humber. Later on, in the 16th century, the Early Modern English period, with the great vowel shift, this ‘o’ diphthongized and was pronounced /ou/. This sound change occurred in the 12th century. This fact is proof of the different evolution of sounds in the different dialects of Middle English. The evolution of Old English ‘a’ has to do with the words ‘raid’ and ‘road’. Both words come from the same Old English word, ‘rad’. Since Old English ‘a’ remained ‘a’ in the Northern variety, later on changed to ‘ei’ thus giving ‘raid’, South of the Humber ‘a’ changed to the long half-open rounded ‘o’, later on changing to /ou/ thus giving ‘road’. The meaning today of each word is different: a raid is an incursion for plunder, and a road is a way to walk or drive.
Old English Fronted Long Vowel ‘ý’
Evolution of the Old English Fronted Long Vowel ý: In the Northern and East Midlands dialects, Old English ‘ý’ changed to ‘í’; in the South East to ‘e’, and in West Saxon ‘ý’ was preserved in the pronunciation but was spelt ‘u’. This vowel change constitutes the base to analyze the origin of certain regional words introduced in the standard form of modern English. The evolution of front rounded ‘ý’ and ‘y’ to modern English and the analysis of the words affected by these changes lets us say that modern English is descended from a dialect where both short ‘y’ and long ‘ý’ normally changed to Middle English ‘i’ or ‘I’, respectively, the latter having changed to modern English as /ai/ in the Great vowel shift, that is, from the East Midland dialect.
I-Umlaut and Germanic Languages
Separation of Old English: I-Umlaut
The separation of Old English out of Germanic languages: i-umlaut. I-umlaut, i-mutation is a series of changes to vowels which took place in one syllable when there was an /i/ or /j/ sound in the following syllable. In some words, the /i/ or /j/ sound disappeared or changed to /e/ later on, but the change operated remained. The changes produced by i-umlaut occurred in Germanic but manifest in Old English. The changes are different with every vowel. I-umlaut represents a series of changes that let us speak of the separation of Old English from other cognate Germanic languages. The significance of it, as a consequence, is the definition and formation of English as an independent language. I-umlaut took place in a period previous to the period we call Old English, that is, it occurred in a period attributed to an imaginary and unrecorded language called Germanic. I-umlaut basically consists of a movement to a closer and more frontal vowel. It caused the vowels to be moved to a point of articulation nearest to that of the following /i/ or /j/ sound.
I-umlaut affected Old English long vowels in the following way: a) long /a/ fronted to long /æ/. b) long /u/ fronted to long /y/. c) long /o/ fronted to long /e/. In the same sense, it affected short vowels in the following way: 1). short /a/ fronted to short /e/. 2). short /æ/ fronted to short /e/. 3). short /o/ fronted to short /e/. 4). short /u/ fronted to short /y/.
I-umlaut is usual in the stem-vowels of Old English weak verbs, thus appearing in the forms of the conjugation of those weak verbs. Old English weak verbs class 2 were either denominal (formed out of nouns or adjectives) or causative (formed out of strong verbs). Weak verbs class 2, ended in -an (coming from Germanic *-jan) and their various other inflections also contained /i/ or /j/ thus suffering i-umlaut. The original noun or adjective they were formed out of did not have the /i/ sound, thus not undergoing i-umlaut. In this way, words with the same root have different evolution and form.
Examples of Mutated Words
Examples of mutated words manifest in Modern English, with long vowels.
- GOOSE- GEESE are the singular and plural forms of the same noun. Geese, the plural form, suffered i-umlaut, but goose did not, since the plural form has the /i/ sound. Because of i-umlaut, long /o/ fronted to long /e/.
- TOOTH and TEETH come from Germanic *to and plural *to ig giving Old English ‘to’ and ‘te’. Long /o/ fronted to long /e/. The singular form did not undergo i-umlaut, but the plural did.
Examples of mutated words with short vowels.
- FULL and FILL represent a typical example of short /u/ changing to /y/ because of i-umlaut. The Old English words ‘full’ (full) and ‘fyllan’ (fill) had the same origin. Germanic *fulljan was a denominal verb. Because of the presence of /j/ in Germanic *fulljan, short /u/ fronted to short /y/ and later on disappeared. But ‘full’ didn’t have any /j/ sound. So the modern English word ‘fill’ manifests the i-umlaut process undergone in past times, but ‘full’ does not.
- Another example is the coexistence of ‘gold’ and ‘gild’. Unmutated short /u/ in Germanic *gul changed to Old English short /o/, but the presence of the /i/ sound in the denominal Germanic verb *guldjan gave Old English ‘gyldan’ (to gild), thus manifesting the change of /u/ to /y/ because of i-umlaut.
Separation of Old English: Diphthong Evolution
The separation of Old English out of Germanic: evolution of diphthong ‘ai’.
Germanic diphthong /ai/ became /a/ in Old English, thus distinguishing Old English from other cognate languages.
The separation of Old English out of Germanic: evolution of diphthong ‘au’.
Germanic /au/ became /ea/ in Old English, thus distinguishing Old English from other cognate Germanic languages.