Language Change

Language Change in English
Heraclitus (6th Century BC, cited in Aitchison, 1981) stated that “Everything rolls on, nothing stays still ” (P. 1). Like everything else, language gradually transforms itself over the centuries. Generation by generation, pronunciation evolves, new words are borrowed or invented, the meaning of old words drifts, and morphology develops or decays. The rate of change varies but whether the changes are faster or slower, the original and new language will not be mutually inelligible after a thousand years. Therefore, many differences can be found between Old English (c.500 - c. 1100) and Modern English (c. 1800 - Present). The famous Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure noted that there is nothing surprising in this change because “Time changes all things: there is no reason why languages should escape this universal law”(Aitchison, 1981, P. 2). Some questions have aroused intense interest among linguists in relation to language change. One of them is “How does language change occur, naturally or unnaturally?” Some linguists state that “very few language changes are ‘natural’ and ‘internal’. The main cause of change is contact with other languages.” but some disagree with this opinion.

Bourcier (1981) states that migration,conquest, trade bring speakers of one language into contact with speakers of another language. After the Norman invasion of 1066, French became the language of the kings and nobility of England for more than 300 years. While French was the language of the court, administration and culture, English was the language of the peasantry and lower classes (the vast majority of the population, an estimated 95%). Although English was considered by the Normans a low-class, vulgar tongue, the two languages developed in parallel, only gradually merging as Normans and Anglo-Saxons began to intermarry. It is this mixture of Old English and Anglo-Norman that is usually referred to as Middle English. According to Culpeper (1997), over 10,000 words were adopted from French during the Middle English period. In many cases, old English words were replaced by French ones (e.g. OE stow - F place, OE wyrd - F fortune, OE wlitig - F beautiful). Sometimes French and Old English components combined to form a new word, such as French gentle and Old English (derived from German) man combined to formed gentleman. Sometimes, both English and French words survived, but with significantly different senses (e.g. OE doom - F judgement, OE hearty - F cordial, OE house - F mansion).

According to Algeo (2010), as French words were borrowed, French spelling conventions were borrowed too. For example, the Old English letters ð (“edh” or “eth”) and þ (“thorn”) were replaced by “th”, and the letter 3 (“yogh”) was generally replaced by “g” (or often with “gh”, as in ghost or night). Under the French influence, “u” was substituted by “ou” (hus > hous > house, mus > mous > mouse) and “cw” was replaced by “qu” ( cwen > queen , cwicu > quick) (Mastin, 2011).

According to Blake (1996), in French “c” represents [s] and this was adopted in Middle English times. “c” was used before “e” and “i” (y) in French loanwords, for example, citee ‘city’ and grace. In Old English writing, “c” never indicated [s], but only [k] and [č]. Thus, with the introduction of the newer French value,“c”remained an ambiguous symbol, though in a different way: it came to represent [k] before a, o, u, and consonants, and [s] before e, i, and y.
Algeo (2010) states that many words were borrowed from French beginning with [v] (for instance, veal, virtue, visit) and later with [z] (for instance, zeal, zodiac). As a result, these sounds frequently appeared in initial position, where they had not occurred in Old English. Therefore, the contact of English with French gave, as a consequence, the enrichment of English.
Thomason (2001) states that contact situations have a number of further consequences for the languages involved. If contact is accompanied by extensive bilingualism then there is a distinct tendency for both languages to simplify morphologically to a more analytic type. This can be seen in Singapore where most people speak more than one language within the same community. The languages are brought into close contact and the members of the community frequently switch between languages. This code switching leads to the mutual influence of those languages. In the same way, Singapore English (Singlish) arises due to the influence of mother tongues (e.g. Chinese and Malay) of Singaporeans on lexical, syntactic and pronunciation aspect of English.
Examples of borrowing words in Singapore English include makan 'to eat; a meal ' (from Malay) and ang mo 'westerner ' (from the Hokkien Chinese, literally 'redhair ').

In Singlish, the verbs usually appear in an uninflected form where the singular present tense and past tense are not morphologically marked. This is due to influences from Chinese and Malay which do not have morphologically marked tense and agreement features (Alsagoff & Ho, 1998). For example,

Singlish
He go to market.
Malay
Dia pergi ke pasar. (He go to market.)

Standard English
He is going to the market.
Singlish
She eat rice.
Chinese
Ta chi fan. (She eat rice.)
Standard English
She eats rice.

According to Deterding (2001, cited in Tan, 2012), his data suggest that many vowels that distinction in Standard English are changed in Singapore, largely as a result of the lack of distinction between short and long vowels. This due to the influence of Malay and Chinese so the pairs pool and pull, come and calm, sit and seat are often pronounced the same. Therefore, the contact between English and other languages (Malay and Chinese) has been the main cause of changes in English used by Singaporeans.

Some linguists state that “very few language changes are ‘natural’ and ‘internal’. The main cause of change is contact with other languages.” but some disagree with this opinion. The fluctuating history of /r/ (rhotic) pronunciation in American English is one of the examples for the natural and internal language change.

Before 1800
1800 - 1950

1950 - Present Day
/r/ less pronunciation
/r/ pronunciation

/r/ less pronunciation Table 1. The fluctuating history of /r/ (rhotic) pronunciation in American English

Aitchison (1981) states that both British and American speech once had an /r/ in words such as “car” and “card”. By the end of the eighteenth century, /r/ pronunciation had disappeared from the speech of London. Then New York, apparently following this fashionable city, lost /r/ pronunciation in the nineteenth century. In the mid nineteenth century, /r/ pronunciation gradually become lost in American speech. For instance, New York poet rhymed “shore” with “pshaw”. /r/ less pronunciation was still the norms in the 1930s. But /r/ less pronunciation began to lose ground from the 1940s. Then /r/ pronunciation was on the increase in the 1950 and 1960. /r/ pronunciation can be found in present day American English.

The natural and internal change of /r/ pronunciation occurred in american English because of social reason (speakers’ attitudes). At the beginning of the nineteen century, most Americans adopted /r/ less pronunciation as a prestigious one. However, in the 1950s (around the time of Second World War), they had a growing awareness of themselves as being Americans. They considered that they required an American standard on which the model themselves. From that time on, /r/ pronunciation gradually spread among the upper middle class, who were in turn taken as a model by socially and linguistically insecure lower middle class. In this way, American English transformed into a rhotic variety due to the speakers’ attitudes.
Present tense verb inflections from Middle English to Today English are the examples of natural and internal language change.

Number
Person
Middle English
Early Modern English
Today English
Singular
1st (I) thanke thank thank 2nd (you) thankest thankest thank 3rd (he/she/it) thanketh (-es) thanketh (-s) thanks Plural
1st (We) thanke (n) (-es) thank thank

2nd (you) thanke (n) (-es) thank thank

3rd (they) thanke (n) (-es) thank thank
Table 2. Present tense verb inflections from Middle English to Today English (Culpeper, 1997)

According to the Table 2, all six present tense verbs had inflections in Middle English but in Early Modern English, two present tense verbs (second person and third person singular) had inflections. Moreover, Present Day English retains only one presen tense verb inflection (third person singular -s). Culpeper (1997) states that in some varieties of Present Day English, even this third person singular -s inflection has been lost e.g. some dialects of East Anglia. Therefore, present tense verb inflection changes from Middle English to Today English show that English has changed naturally and internally due to simplification.

To sum up, some linguists state that “very few language changes are ‘natural’ and ‘internal’. The main cause of change is contact with other languages.” In this essay the first two arguments (English language change under the influence of French after the Norman conquest in 1066 and English language change in Singapore by the influence of contact languages such as Chinese and Malay) support this statement. But the other two arguments (the fluctuating history of /r/ (rhotic) pronunciation in American English and simplification of present tense verb inflections from Middle English to Today English) disagree with this opinion. According to the four arguments mentioned above, language changes have occurred in English not only naturally and internally but also unnaturally. Everything is changing to be alive. In this way, languages are changing to be living languages.Regardless of natural and unnatural changes, language changes prove that people are using them. As long as people use a particular language, no one can stop language changes as they are the signs of a living language.

References
Aitchison, J. (1981). Language change: Process or decay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alsagoff, L. & Ho, C. L. (1998). The Grammar of Singapore English. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Blake. N. F. (1996). A History of the English Language. London: Macmillan.
Bourcier, G. (1981). An introduction to the History of English. Francce: Stanley Thornes Ltd.
Culpeper, J. (1997). History of English. London and New York: Routledge.
Deterding, D. (2001). The measurement of rhythm: A comparison of Singapore and British English. Journal of Phonetics. 29, 217-230.
Mastin, L. (2011). The History of English. http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com.
Tan P. K. W. (2012). English in Singapore. International Journal of Language, Translation and intercultural Communication. 1, 123-138.
Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: University Press.

References: Aitchison, J. (1981). Language change: Process or decay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alsagoff, L. & Ho, C. L. (1998). The Grammar of Singapore English. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Blake. N. F. (1996). A History of the English Language. London: Macmillan. Bourcier, G. (1981). An introduction to the History of English. Francce: Stanley Thornes Ltd. Culpeper, J. (1997). History of English. London and New York: Routledge. Deterding, D. (2001). The measurement of rhythm: A comparison of Singapore and British English. Journal of Phonetics. 29, 217-230. Mastin, L. (2011). The History of English. http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com. Tan P. K. W. (2012). English in Singapore. International Journal of Language, Translation and intercultural Communication. 1, 123-138. Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: University Press.