Aspects of Language Change

Abstract

There appears to be universal agreement among linguists that a living language – in the sense of ‘a language still in vernacular use’ (OED, s.v. living) – must change (see, for instance, Labov 1994: 9; Trask 2010: 1). However, as Kretzschmar (2009: 13) notes, linguistics has yet to reach the type of widespread agreement on basic ideas that characterizes many of the natural sciences; in this case, we do not have complete consensus on (i) what a language is and (ii) what it means that it changes. I will therefore devote this chapter to discussing these concepts. The account of language and language change given in this chapter will demonstrate that several factors help to create a false impression that LModE is characterized by relative linguistic stability. At least in the area of grammar, the type of change facilitated by the weak links that characterized many LModE networks does not necessarily lead to the kind of independent innovation that is necessary for categorical change (in the sense of ‘emergence of new features’). Instead, weak links mainly favour change through the propagation of existing features (typically accompanied by propagation-dependent innovation). Although a large number of LModE idiolects underwent change, many of those changes are invisible on the communal-language level, because they mainly involve the propagation of features that already existed in some idiolects by 1700. By combining (i) an idiolectal perspective on usage, (ii) a separation of the concept of language change into independent innovation, propagation, and propagation-dependent innovation, and (iii) a recognition that independent innovation, propagation, and propagation-dependent innovation differ in their sensitivity to social factors, I will resolve the stability paradox outlined in Chapter 2.