language change according to Johnson
While reading Samuel Johnson’s introduction to his dictionary, the following two sentences caught my eye:
The language most likely to continue long without alteration would be that of a nation raised a little, and but a little, above barbarity, secluded from strangers, and totally employed in procuring the conveniences of life; either without books, or, like some of the Mahometan countries, with very few: men thus busied and unlearned, having only such words as common use requires, would perhaps long continue to express the same notions by the same signs. But no such constancy can be expected in a people polished by arts, and classed by subordination, where one part of the community is sustained and accommodated by the labor of the other.
According to Johnson, there seem to be two important elements in the prevention of language chance: 1) seclusion from speakers of other languages; and 2) constant occupation with taking care of the basic needs rather than having time to sit around and become educated. I wouldn’t argue with the former — as we’ve frequently discussed, a whole lot of English language change did have to do with the influx of words from foreign invaders or trade contacts — but I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the latter claim. I don’t necessarily think that language change finds its roots in education or in having leisure time. If that education were to include reading works from people of other cultures who spoke other languages, then obviously language change could come from there, but I don’t believe that simply having someone else take care of one’s basic needs would entail language change, nor do I think that the constant preoccupation with providing for oneself would preclude it.
Any thoughts?
K_eng wrote:
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, one of Johnson’s argument is supposedly, the more opportunities for education available to the general public, the more opportunities there is for the language to change? If this is the case then I too disagree with this argument. I feel as if that statement is almost counterintuitive since education should promote a more standardized understanding of language. This should be especially true among the lower class since their misspellings and grammatical errors would be one cause of variation in the language.
However, I can see your point about how greater cultural education would broaden one’s vocabulary and thus influence the native language.
Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 8:44 pm ¶
cynteca wrote:
Johnson’s last argument as a cause of language change is one I’ve never heard before. The only way I could see education as being of source of change is that new things and ideas are discovered through learning. These new things need names and so things need to be added to the lexicon, but I don’t see how education could change phonological, morphological, and syntactical properties of language. Then again, you get any group of people together in a region or possibly an institution and you get a shared way of speaking which is different than how the majority of a population speaks. I doubt Johnson was thinking this when he wrote that argument, but language change can happen just about anywhere, even in academia.
Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 9:33 pm ¶
Judith wrote:
I can actually see where Johnson is coming from with his education argument. I think a lot of past language change in English emanated from the intelligentsia or authors who truly study the language and either with to “purify” or experiment with it. Had Shakespeare or Chaucer had been less preoccupied with writing and more concerned with their “basic needs” as Johnson seems to be arguing, we might have a lot less variation in the English vocabulary. However, I don’t see lack of education as a barrier to language change. We can just as easily produce new words and pronunciations with very little education. Education, however, might serve to legitimize certain usage changes if the most highly educated people are promoting them.
Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 10:31 pm ¶
jes wrote:
I disagree with Johnson’s argument as well about the need for education to create linguistic change. He claims that the nation just above barbarity would have no need for the creation of new words because of the basic level that its inhabitants live their lives. I think that Johnson is assuming because the nation is uneducated therefore it has a smaller brain capacity. I feel this is a very condescending point of view to the less developed areas of the world. While the lives of the people may be very simple, it does not preclude them from talking to each other and using their imagination (probably one of the greatest sources of new words, or at least the need to create new words). I also feel that he probably has not spent much time with children, who make up their own languages everyday and distort our language to their needs, and live with very basic needs and little to no formal education.
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 12:06 am ¶
Offenbarung Futhorc McGee wrote:
I think Johnson is talking more about a dichotomy between “barbarous” vs. “civilized” nations rather than education vs. ignorance. To that extent, as Jes mentions, he represents the sort of condescension towards so-called primitive cultures that we find repugnant today. On the other hand, I think I see where he’s coming from at least in terms of word creation (its more difficult to imagine how syntax and grammar changes come about, but we’d expect Johnson to look at language as words – he’s a lexicographer). Cultures with more leisure time create more art and literature, which facilitates expression, experimentation, analogy, and word creation. And its certainly true that many words come from new technologies or from reading the works of other cultures. Today new words are probably more likely to come from new technologies than anywhere else. But of course all cultures and languages change, and today there aren’t a lot of examples of isolated languages.
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 12:57 am ¶
meghan wrote:
I actually find quite a bit of truth in Johnson’s argument. I see it the way the person above me suggested: that it is not a question of education versus ignorance, but rather, idleness versus struggle for survival. If a society is struggling for survival, it is most likely not changing. As we have seen through history, change in society brings about necessary changes in language. New words generally arise from new technologies, new areas of study, new environments, etc., and so if none of these things are altered, changing parameters do not necessitate additions to language. On the same token, excessive education definitely leads to experimentation in language, but it simultaneously preserves standard spellings, pronunciations, and lexicons. It’s difficult to ascertain which argument is in fact “correct,” but Johnson’s argument surely makes a great deal of sense to me.
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 8:01 pm ¶