Introdungcing English language part 43 pdf

238 EXTENSION: LINGUISTIC READINGS removal of the /d/ from the first word is likely to be accompanied by a lengthening of the diphthong, so that it sounds to all intents and purposes like the open syllable may. Secondly, there is cliticization: an effect which results from the way in which natural English speech tends towards a regular stressed–unstressed pattern. The preference of English speakers for the basic SW (strong–weak) foot means that they often attach two words for no reason other than a rhythmic one. This can happen in defiance of syntactic structure (Example 1: ‘go to bed’). It can even lead to prefixes getting dislodged and being produced as if they were suffixes (Example 2: ‘got excited’). Example 1: SW S W → SW gek teBbed [pause] → BgekteBbed Example 2: SW S W → SW gkt xk BseBxt xd → Bgetxk Bsextxd How to handle these effects? They do not really lend themselves, like other segmen- tation problems, to short 5-minute dictation slots. The best advice is simply to be aware that they exist – and, when you encounter them in a listening text, to play and replay the relevant section to see if learners can puzzle out for themselves the correct distri- bution of phonemes and/or syllables. Indeed, that is the message for all the perceptual difficulties described here. The important thing is to be aware of them, and to be prepared to practise them inten- sively if there are signs that they are preventing learners from identifying familiar words because of the special conditions of connected speech. The value of a signal-based approach of the kind described is that it draws our attention to problems of both per- ception and comprehension that would otherwise pass unnoticed. Issues to consider q Compare Field’s psycholinguistic perspective with the perspective from morphology and lexicology across strand 2 of this book. In particular, how does a psycho- linguistic definition of what a ‘word’ is differ from a lexicological definition? q Can you think of other examples that further confirm Field’s arguments? Faced with having to explain examples such as these in a second-language classroom, how would you – as the teacher – develop a lesson to enable your students to improve their English? q Do you agree with the implicit argument here that second-language teaching is largely informed by writing rather than speech? q You could record a reading by a native speaker of any short passage (almost any paragraph from this book will do). Transcribe it closely in phonetic notation (see strand 1) and identify any examples of reduction, assimilation, elision, resyllabification and cliticization of words that you find. Do you think any of your examples would present difficulties in a second-language classroom? John Field LEXICAL CHANGE 239 LEXICAL CHANGE The vast majority of work in historical linguistics has concerned itself with changes in words and their meanings over time. In the following extract, Jeremy Smith exam- ines several cases of lexical change in order to reveal the distinct types of historical development involved. In the passage prior to the excerpt, he outlines his notion of variational space: the meanings of a word including the network of its denotation, connotative and metaphorical meanings. A word’s variational space is wider and looser than its semantic field, encompassing all of the possible potential directions that word’s meanings might take over time. Jeremy Smith (reprinted from An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change (1996), London: Routledge, pp.120–6) Various labels have been given to the processes [of lexical change], such as ‘narrowing’ and ‘widening’ (e.g. Old English mete ‘food’ > Present-Day English meat; Old English bridd ‘young bird’ < Present-Day English bird), or ‘pejoration’ and ‘amelioration’ (e.g. Old English scitol ‘purgative’ beside Present-Day English shit, or Old English prættig ‘sly’ beside Present-Day English pretty). It is possible to develop some broader terms for the process of change; R. A. Waldron thus distinguishes between shift (‘modification of an existing linguistic category’) and transfer (‘change to a different category’) (see Waldron 1979: 140). It is, however, perhaps not desirable to make a hard-and-fast division between these categories since words can undergo both pro- cesses at once. It is better to see them as poles on a cline, marked by the following stages (which need not, incidentally, be in the order listed): 1 The conceptual meaning of a word moves from one part of its variational space to another. 2 One (or more) conceptual or associative meanings of a word within its variational space is (or are) dropped. 3 A word develops a new conceptual or associative meaning and thus extends its variational space. In the rest of this section, exemplification of these processes is offered, drawing ex- amples from the history of the English lexicon. The sources of evidence in all cases are the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is the largest repository of historical material yet assembled for the English lexicon, and, for current modern usage, the Chambers Dictionary (1993) and the BBC English Dictionary (1992). The reasons for choosing the two latter authorities will be made clear as discussion proceeds. It will be observed in the discussion that the categories 1–3 above overlap. To illustrate category 1, the history of the meaning of the noun villain will be examined. The word derives from Old French ville ‘(rural) settlement’, and originally the term villain simply meant someone who lived in such a place, a peasant. One spelling of the word, villein, has been retained by historians of the medieval period with this original, technical sense. But the word nowadays spelt villain has undergone a quite radical change of meaning. The definition in the OED of villain is as follows: D8 Jeremy Smith 240 EXTENSION: LINGUISTIC READINGS Originally a low-born base-minded rustic; a man of ignoble ideas or instincts; in later use an unprincipled or depraved scoundrel; a man naturally disposed to base or criminal actions, or deeply involved in the commission of disgraceful crimes. A bird ( esp . a hawk) of a common or inferior character. Obs A person or animal of a trouble- some character in some respect. The Chambers Dictionary (1993), a desk-dictionary which reflects a wide range of Present- Day English usage, gives the following definition: a violent, malevolent or unscrupulous evil-doer; the wicked enemy of the hero or hero- ine in a story or play; playfully, a wretch; a criminal ( slang ); ( orig ) a villein. The word has plainly lost its older connotations to do with humble birth, and this is confirmed by the BBC English Dictionary (1992), which is designed for foreign learn- ers of, and listeners to, the language and is thus careful to give current English usage of the kind such folk are likely to encounter on (for example) the BBC World Service: A person who deliberately harms other people or breaks the law is sometimes referred to as a villain The villain in a particular situation is the person, group, or country that is held responsible for things going wrong. A villain in a play, film, or novel, is an important character who behaves badly and is responsible for many of the bad things that happen. From this evidence the pattern involved in the history of this word is clear. The original conceptual meaning of villain might be expressed in formalist terms as something like [+human], [+base-born]; medieval views of society meant that connotations of ‘evil-doing’ were added to this core meaning. These connotations subsequently became part of the conceptual meaning of the word, and, after that, the original focal or conceptual meaning was dropped, to be later assigned to the related form villein. The originally associative meanings of villain have thus become the focal or conceptual meaning of the word. The history of the meaning of villain could also, of course, be taken to illustrate category 2 above, in which one or more conceptual or associative meanings of a word within its variational space is dropped; the term villain does not in late-twentieth century usage, as evidenced by the BBC English Dictionary, seem to carry with it the connotations of ‘baseness of birth’ which it had when it was first introduced to the language. However, the history of the verb thrill demonstrates the dropping of meaning more obviously, and will be investigated next. During the history of the English language there seem to have been at least two verbs with the form thrill, with distinct etymologies; the link between these two is therefore more a matter of homophony than polysemy [. . .]. One survives only in some varieties, for instance Scots, as thirl; related to Old Norse 2ræll ‘servant’ with subsequent metathesis (i.e. internal exchange of phonetic segments), it has the present-day meaning of ‘bind by ties of affection or duty’ (see Concise Scots Dictionary 1985: 714). Important in its own dialectal area, this usage can be left aside for the purposes of the present discussion, other than to note that thirl has now completely replaced older thrill with the same meaning; the form thrill is in Scots retained for the same range of meanings as those found in Present-Day English. Jeremy Smith LEXICAL CHANGE 241 The other, more common usage is in Present-Day English another metathesised form, this time derived from Old English 2yrlian ‘perforate, pierce, excavate’. Chambers Dictionary (1993) gives the following: [transitive] to affect with a strong glow or tingle of sense or emotion, now esp a feeling of excitement or extreme pleasure; to pierce ( archaic ) – [intransitive] to pass tinglingly; to quiver; to feel a sharp, shivering sensation; (of something sharp) to pierce or penetrate (with through ) ( archaic ). OED definitions are split between thirl (the older form) and thrill; I have conflated and modified some of the definitions for the reader’s convenience. First and last dates of general occurrence, as recorded in OED, are also given. 1 To pierce, to run through or into (a body) as a sharp-pointed instrument does; to pierce (anything) with such an instrument; to bore a hole in or through; to perforate [thirl 1.; also thrill 1.] 1000–1661. 2 To pass right through, penetrate, traverse (anything), [thirl 2.] 1175–1560. 3 To make a hole in (the earth); to excavate [thirl 3.] 1000–1577. 4 Coal mining. To cut through (a wall of coal, etc.) [thirl 4.] 1686–1883. 5 To pierce, penetrate (as a sharp instrument) [thirl 5.] 1374 –1600 (both recorded sixteenth-century uses are from Scottish authors). 6 To pass through or penetrate (into or to a place or thing) [thirl 6.; also thrill 2.] 1300–1565. 7 To cause (a lance, dart, or the like) to pass; to dart, hurl (a piercing weapon) [thrill 3.] 1609–1646. 8 To pierce, penetrate (as a sound, or an emotion) [thrill 4.] 1300–1642. 9 To affect or move with a sudden wave of emotion (transitive); to produce a thrill, as an emotion, or anything causing emotion (intransitive) [thrill 5.] 1590–1874. 10 To send forth or utter tremulously [thrill 6.b.] 1647–1868. 11 To move/cause to move tremulously or with vibration [thrill 6.a., c] 1777–1878. Of these definitions, only one survives in common usage as recorded in BBC English Dictionary (1992). In this authority the verb is defined in terms of the noun, thus: If something gives you a thrill , it gives you a sudden feeling of excitement or plea- sure. . . . If something thrills you, it gives you a thrill. The process with regard to this word’s change of meaning becomes clear once these various meanings are examined in chronological order. With the exception of the spe- cialist meaning (4), the older meanings (1–7) die out by the middle of the seventeenth century. But during the Middle English period a new meaning appears, meaning 8, which – through metaphor – introduces ‘sound’ and ‘emotion’ into the word’s varia- tional space. These metaphorical meanings become central (and thus conceptual) to the meaning of the word from the middle of the seventeenth century onwards and the older meanings disappear. Not only has the conceptual meaning of the word changed, but the older conceptual meanings have disappeared altogether from the word’s variational space. The extension of variational space to take on a new conceptual or associative meaning, category 3 above, like categories 1 and 2, is demonstrated by the history of thrill. However, it may be of interest to examine a more recent example of category Jeremy Smith 242 EXTENSION: LINGUISTIC READINGS 3, the extension in meaning undergone by the adjective gay. In the case of this word, conceptual meaning has changed in living memory. Chambers Dictionary (1993) gives the full range of current meanings: lively; bright, colourful; playful, merry; pleasure-loving, dissipated (as in gay dog a rake) ( archaic ); of loose life, whorish ( obs ); showy; spotted, speckled ( dialect ); in modern use, homosexual (orig prison slang ); relating to or frequented by homosexuals (as gay bar ) However, current usage as reflected in the BBC English Dictionary (1992) seems to be to regard the word as almost exclusively to do with homosexual orientation, whereas the wider range of meanings given in Chambers Dictionary is now regarded as obsolete: A person who is gay is homosexual. . . . Gay organizations and magazines are for homo- sexual people. . . . Gay also means lively and bright; an old-fashioned use. OED records gay meaning ‘homosexual’ as a slang expression from 1935, but until the 1960s the quotations cited by OED tend to put the word in inverted commas, fol- lowed by an explanation; it is clear that the word had not entered common parlance. The association with homosexuality was obviously a secondary meaning for much of the mid-twentieth century since a related verb, gayed up, became current in the 1960s as a term of interior decoration without (as far as I am aware) any implication as to the sexual orientation of the designer or occupier of the building in question. However, the evidence of the BBC English Dictionary is that the conceptual meaning of this word is now essentially [+human], [+homosexual], and it seems likely that the older sense – still part of the word’s variational space but now becoming obsolete – will eventually drop away entirely. Internal and external sources of variation So far, the discussion has been concerned generally with description rather than expla- nation. Given [my] historiographical concerns [. . .], however, it is now necessary to turn to the means by which the processes described are triggered and, once triggered, regulated. [. . .] [. . . T]here are three interacting mechanisms of linguistic change: variation, contact and systemic regulation. The sources of variation in the lexicon fall into two categories: (1) those which derive from the internal resources of a given variety, and (2) those derived from contact between languages, or between varieties of the same language. A form which demonstrates the way in which a language’s internal resources contribute to the pool of available variation is the adverb soon, defined in the BBC English Dictionary as follows: If something is going to happen soon , it will happen after a short time. If something happened soon after a particular time or event, it happened a short time after it. In Old English, the ancestor of this word, sína, meant ‘immediately’, but in Present- Day English, as witnessed by the BBC English Dictionary, it now clearly means ‘later Jeremy Smith LEXICAL CHANGE 243 on’. Only in the fossil expression as soon as does it retain its older sense in Present- Day English. The process illustrated by the history of soon is interesting, because it demonstrates one of the reasons for the appearance of variant meanings within the variational space of a word: they are the natural result of universal human tendencies to expressive over- statement (exaggeration) and understatement. Metaphor, in this context, can be seen as a sub-category of the former. As M.L. Samuels has put it (1972: 53), In lexis, overstatement (exaggeration) could be regarded as corresponding to strong- stress phonological variation, and similarly understatement and euphemism would correspond to weak-stress phonological variation. The difference lies in the selection of discrete forms possessing ‘stronger’ or ‘weaker’ semantic (not phonetic) properties. These stronger and weaker usages form part of the variational space of a word, and are thus available for later selection. A minor, but possibly still important, internal source of variation is to do with phonoaesthetic associations. Here a good example is the word gruelling ‘punishing’, ‘exhausting’. Related to the noun gruel, a species of thin porridge, the history of this word demonstrates nicely the way in which phonoaesthetic considerations have con- ditioned a semantic development. Externally conditioned variation within a lexicon is rather more complex than that described in the last three paragraphs. In one sense, the impact of one language on another, or of one variety on another, is simple: items in one language are copied into another, and interact with those which are already there. This is not the end of the matter, however, and it is worth making clear the range of types of borrowing which can be distinguished. A precondition for borrowing is that a role must be seen for the alien form in the receiving language. Sometimes this role is to do with the appearance in the receiving culture of a new concept or object with which the resources of the native language are unequipped to deal, for example chocolate, ultimately from Nahuatl/Aztec chocolatl (although probably immediately a borrowing from Spanish), or bungalow, from Gujerati bangalo or Hindustani banglè ‘belonging to Bengal’. However, that languages can cope with such phenomena from their own internal resources through the processes of word-formation is proved by, for example, German Fernseher ‘television’ (lit. ‘far-seer’). More important are occasions when a borrowed word and a synonymous or near- synonymous native word – which may or may not be related in etymology – become differentiated in meaning within the borrowing language. Two examples of such pro- cesses are: 1 The difference in meaning between Present-Day English shirt, skirt. In Old English, scyrte appears as a gloss for Latin praetexta, an outer garment (cf. Lewis and Short 1879: 1435). The Norse cognate of scyrte is skyrta, and originally the two words were synonyms. However, when the Norse word was borrowed it developed a meaning distinct from the English usage, and shirt, skirt have been differentiated in meaning ever since. 2 The difference in meaning between Present-Day English ox, beef. A similar process of differentiation can be seen with these words. The Old English word, Jeremy Smith . Present-Day English meat; Old English bridd ‘young bird’ < Present-Day English bird), or ‘pejoration’ and ‘amelioration’ (e.g. Old English scitol ‘purgative’ beside Present-Day English shit, or Old English. second -language classroom, how would you – as the teacher – develop a lesson to enable your students to improve their English? q Do you agree with the implicit argument here that second -language. history of the English lexicon. The sources of evidence in all cases are the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is the largest repository of historical material yet assembled for the English lexicon,