Comments on: language change according to Johnson

By: meghan

meghan — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:01:09 +0000

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.

By: Offenbarung Futhorc McGee

Offenbarung Futhorc McGee — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:57:40 +0000

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.

By: jes

jes — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:06:11 +0000

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.

By: Judith

Judith — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:31:50 +0000

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.

By: cynteca

cynteca — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:33:38 +0000

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.

By: K_eng

K_eng — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:44:43 +0000

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.