Reddit reviews The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention
We found 18 Reddit comments about The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Holt Paperbacks
Try this little experiment: Browse around reddit for a bit. Note how you seem to be talking to yourself - commenting on things, remembering to add milk to your grocery list, etc. If you actually sat down and transcribed every little thought you were having, using complete sentences, I bet a couple of days later you still wouldn't be done. Personally, when I think something like, "Oh, I should run down the the 7-11 later to get some milk," the words "oh" and "run" might pop up in my head, but I simply visualize a 7-11 and maybe some milk, and I just "know" within about a second that the concept of "out of milk" and "needing" and "buying" (and maybe "buying extra things like ramen") and "coming back home" are all implied. I don't need to actively think about those concepts separately, since my brain has already thought them. This is very much like how babies think.
There are some theories going around about the concept of mentalese (which is separate from the concept of language) and universal grammar that discuss this concept that all human beings have a universal way of thinking about things, which get "translated" into language when we think or speak.
You may be interested in reading The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher. It goes into how language may have started out, and how it evolved into the complex communication system we have today. (It's written for people who don't know anything about linguistics, so you won't get bogged down with technical terms.)
If you like learning about how languages develop and change, this book will probably have a big effect on the way you see language shifts. It's an entry-level summary of the basic language evolution principles that allow, for example, modern linguists to reverse engineer ancient languages with scant records.
The book jumped to mind because, if you understood some of these concepts, you'd never argue that people will descend to pointing and grunting. Using intense words to describe relatively mundane phenomena (e.g. "awesome") is something people often bemoan, but as those words become banal people continually seek new ways to make their communication - their very voices - stand out from the crowd in its intensity. That's a bit of a treadmill, but it's not necessarily one that actively lacks virtue.
Using "lazy" language like contractions, malapropisms, nonstandard spellings, metatheses, and so on isn't necessarily "destructive" to a language in a holistic sense, either. If certain terms or formations lose their specificity in a miasma of misuse, the need for that specificity doesn't necessarily go away. As long as people have need to communicate with specificity, they will reach for ways to do so when the moment requires it. Language is the tool we all use to convey meaning, and we're tool-makers at the very core of our collective being.
There are some "errors" I actively object to because they interfere with my speedy comprehension of written material in a jarring way. Some of that, I'm sure, is my own conditioned outrage. (For example, a sentence like "it's suppose to be this way," is jarring to me, but it's tough to make a sound semantic argument why "supposed to" and "intended to" should have identical meaning that precludes the use of "suppose to" without feeling like you're throwing good linguistics after bad.) Some of it I feel has genuine utility in easing comprehension, e.g. they're/there/their, its/it's.
Some corrections, such as less/fewer and further/farther, I feel are pedantic. As you might gather from my username, I have a certain appreciation for the pedantic, and I'm aware that I'm not alone in that capacity. I don't think that's any great sin, in and of itself! I will often correct people on matters of pedantry on the off chance that they, too, appreciate a good bit of pedantry. Overall, I try to control the image and tone of that communication carefully, though, because of something my Aunt, a professor of linguistics at University of Texas, told me a long time ago:
"One person can't hurt a language, but they can hurt feelings. Act accordingly."
This is a professor whose career's work was in recording and preserving endangered languages in the Yucatan.
So yeah - lighten up, there, son. Ain't none of these people gonna hurt English none, so long as folks've got stuff to say and use English to do it. If something trips you up, decide if it's because of a specificity/fluency barrier or just a learned "correctness fetish," and then do the needful.
Well this one's kind of an interesting possible case of language change. See, lol started, of course, meaning "laugh out loud". Eventually, though, it's taken on its own status as a general term to indicate something is funny. It no longer necessarily means the person is actually "laughing out loud". One piece of evidence for this includes that it has its own pronunciations (/lɑl/ as in "lawl" or /lol/ as in "lohl" or approximately "Lowell", where the vowel rhymes with "pole") apart from pronouncing the initialism (that is, "ell oh ell"). Another piece of evidence is that it has its own derivations relating to this more general concept, as in doing it for the lulz. Applying the original literal meaning to this idiom would suggest this be read as *doing it for the laugh out louds or *doing it for the laughs out loud or something else that is just essentially nonsensible.
So, how does this apply to lol out loud? Consider the relatively famous case of the evolution of the word "today" from Latin to French. The Latin word for "today" is hodie (similar to hoy in Spanish). hodie is reduced from hoc ("this") + die ("day"). Derived from this, in Old French people thus said hui for "today", which more or less meant "this day". Eventually, though, this wasn't enough, and people eventually came to say au jour de hui, which literally means "on the day of this day". This was reduced to aujourd'hui. Finally, in modern times, some people now apparently colloquially say a jour d'ajourd'hui, or "on the day of on the day of this day". (source, see also Deutscher's Unfolding of Language for more details). So, hopefully you can see a connection: even though lol may in some cases literally mean "laughing out loud", it is not out of the realm of language change for people to eventually start saying lolling out loud unironically, as the original form gets reduced and/or loses its original literal connotation.
>increase my likelihood of getting hired abroad
Getting hired doing what? Where abroad?
Why do you want a minor in French? There are at least a few million other Haitians who are bilingual in French, so how are you bringing extra value to the marketplace with that minor? Wouldn't a Spanish/German/Russian/Chinese/etc. - Haitian bilingual be a rarer commodity?
This all really depends on where you want to go and what you want to do.
As for books:
My intro to ling. class used the book Language Files.
The Language Instinct is pretty good.
I really liked The Unfolding of Language.
The Power of Babel doesn't get too technical, but is an introduction to language change.
I highly suggest you read the book The Unfolding of Language
It is one of my favorite books, readable to a layman yet delving into some pretty complex stuff in terms of grammatical complexity, phonology etc. It is basically an introduction to linguistics and morphology class nicely encapsulated in one very well-written book.
And it deals specifically with your question.
The author of the book analyzes linguistic creative destruction, that is, what we perceive to be the "erosion" of grammatical structures actually helps to build new ones over time. A good example he gives is the latin verb conjugation giving way to that in the romance languages. Latin loses the structures like amavero, I will love, whereas French takes the infinitive amare --> aimer and adds the verb avoir, have. So we get the complex French conjugation system wherein the future is denoted by "aimerai", "i will love", for example.
Anyway, I highly recommend that book if you ever have a few lazy days to read through it.
No, it's just as normal for languages to create as to eliminate irregular verbs. Otherwise, where would the irregulars that get "corrected" have come from in the first place?
My main language (besides English) is Spanish, which generated TONS of new irregulars as it evolved from Latin, thanks to sound change. These include ["boot"] (http://spanishlinguist.us/2013/05/spanish-boot-verbs-sound-change-and-analogy/) and "yo irregular" verbs in the present tense, "sole" verbs in the preterit, all the irregular futures and conditionals, plus some subjunctives and commands (the short ten, haz, and so on) and the irregular imperfect of the verb ver.
Guy Deutscher's *The Unfolding of Language" is without question the best thing to read on this topic.
Short answer: Have a triliteral for "speak", then answer questions like
Some cautionary advice: give some thought to the shape of the language before triliteral roots developed and what sound changes created the sense in the speakers' minds that three letters chosen from within the word would carry meaning as opposed to a whole root - your language will come out better for it. The Unfolding of Language has a pretty good overview of the process in Semitic - if you're not careful you'll end up creating something not interestingly different from Arabic.
My attempt to intervene in this discussion with examples of unconscious change:
Read this and this. Those two books are probably why I decided to major in linguistics. Both well written, and not at all dry
I actually asked this exact question, using your exact examples. And as per the other people in this thread, languages simplify and increase in complexity simultaneously, although there are particular trends of simplification and complexity, and they deal predominantly with increasing proximity between languages.
The book that will answer all your questions, is this one.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Unfolding-Language-Evolutionary-Invention/dp/0805080120/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370377912&sr=8-1&keywords=the+unfolding+of+language
Recommended these a while back, great, assessable reads.
The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-Instinct-Mind-Creates/dp/0061336467/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343383543&sr=8-1&keywords=the+language+instinct
Patterns in the Mind by Ray Jackendoff
http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Mind-Language-Human-Nature/dp/0465054625/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343383561&sr=1-1&keywords=patterns+in+the+mind
And if you are into etymology, check out
The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way, by Bill Bryson
http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Tongue-English-How-That/dp/0380715430/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343383614&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mother+tongue
The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour Through Mankind's Greatest Invention, by Guy Deutscher
http://www.amazon.com/The-Unfolding-Language-Evolutionary-Invention/dp/0805080120/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343383676&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=guy+deucher+language
Again, all superb books.
I loved The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher.
if you're interested in book recommendations, I've been been reading the unfolding of language, which has some good discussion about the sort of processes that cause inflections to appear and disappear. I've found it to be a very easy and interesting read!
The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher
This is one of the most informative and entertaining books I have ever read. It discusses how language has changed and keeps changing, and how the so-called "degradation" of language is actually what's responsible for its amazing complexity.
By Guy Deutscher. Amazon link for the lazy. Ten bucks for Kindle.
You're also completely misrepresenting grammar and language. Try looking into the field of linguistics. Here's a couple book suggestions for you. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0140260234 And http://www.amazon.com/The-Unfolding-Language-Evolutionary-Invention/dp/0805080120/ref=la_B001JOASIU_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1342795681&sr=1-2
Well, first of all there's the question: What exactly makes the standard register (General American English if you're in America) the correct form? Who gets to decide that? I think we can both agree that it's an arbitrary standard that's just... a thing now. Now, I'm not at all saying standard english (or any standard language) doesn't have a place in the world, don't get me wrong here. It's, imo, very much important to have a standard for things like scientific papers or writing laws where it's important everyone interprets your things the same way. It's also, in our society, a (imo sad) truth that if you don't master the standard, you'll be regarded as stupid in some way. This is where I have a problem. Why? Let me elaborate:
As you grow up, you'll acquire the language of your peers. Children don't have any notion of standard languages, so if a kid grows up in a ghetto, they'll speak like the people surrounding them, even though in the higher classes there's a social stigma against speaking like the poor people. Does this make the child stupid? No, the kid did exactly what every human ever does when they learn their first language, imitate what's around them. And just because (on average) less educated people speak that way doesn't make the language any more complex either. For example, African American Vernacular English arguably has the most complex verb system of all modern Germanic languages (complex in this case meaning "makes the most distinctions explicitly") but is generally associated with the poorer social classes (and mostly black people) of america and thus stigmatized.
You mention that incorrectly pronouncing words is not a positive change. The question is then, how is the current status quo better than what the future holds? Let's make a practical example: Assume I started pronouncing t between two vowels like s. Water becomes waser, letter becomes leser. Are these new forms really objectively worse than the old ones? No, they're not. How could they be when the former were just as arbitrary as the latter? Also, as a note, that sound change I just illustrated happened in German many centuries ago, which is why Germans say Wasser with an s. So if you were to claim that people who were to undergo that change are stupid in some way, then you'd also be calling all Germans stupid.
Now onto the last point. Yes, I do completely embrace the chaos (it's a beautiful thing if you ask me, and very interesting to analyze). However I do realize that in our current societies, standardized languages have a place, and be it just so books have a somewhat uniform appearance. However, I see it so often that people get outright harassed for the way they speak and I find that absolutely unacceptable and on par with racism and classism for things that should just not exist in the world.
Sorry that took a bit to write out everything I wanted to say. If you want to learn some more about how language change actually works, I can wholeheartedly suggest the book The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher (Amazon link). It's an easy read and a very nice introduction into linguistics, with a focus on language change.