The Role of Social Context and Scientific Reasoning in Determining Change in Language Over Time

The ways in which words are used are bound to evolve with their continued use. In this paper, I will be presenting two contrasting bases for evaluating the nature of language development over time. I will be arguing that the reason meanings of words change over time is due largely to the changing social context in which they are used (while specifying what this social context represents and how the changes that occur within in it influence language). I will also introduce a counterpoint to this argument, which will assert that change in language stems from a representation of the model for natural selection. To demonstrate this counterpoint I will present two examples that argue for the changes in language over time from a scientific perspective. The first example’s argument is rooted in the frequency with which a word recurs in language, while the other discusses language expansion, or the addition of new words to languages. Finally, I will be discussing why synthesizing both scientific arguments and social context as factors in our assessment of language over time is beneficial in giving us a better understanding of how language changes.

When I say that social context has allowed for language to change, I mean that over time there has been a shift in the way people use language to communicate with each other. For example, changes in technology require differing writing styles; hence the language used in texting and emails today differs from that which was used in telegrams and written letters in the past. In text messaging now, for example, words used are generally shorter and more informal than they would have been in a letter sent in the 1800s, although the topics discussed in both may be the same. In addition, changes in popular culture have changed the context in which some words are used, and these changes often determine which words are popular and thus are used with more frequency. For example, while the word “groovy” was popular in the seventies, people today prefer to use the word “cool” or “sick” to describe the same kinds of things. In the seventies, these two words that we regard as slang today would have had completely different meanings. This change in meaning demonstrates the changing popularity of words with the passing of time. As people are influenced by new technologies and as popular culture evolves, language is bound to evolve with them to accommodate these changes and allow people to express new experiences differently. The ways in which people will continue to express themselves are going to continue to be determined by changing interpretations of the world around them. This is what I mean when I say that language is influenced by social contexts; it is that language mirrors the time in which we live in and evolves according to our actions and interactions in society.

Jean Aitchison further explores the role that social contexts have on language change, stating that “a closer look at language change has indicated that it is natural, inevitable and continuous, and involves interwoven sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic factors which cannot easily be disentangled from one another” (Aitchison 249). By this, she means that human psychology and sociology have played a role in engineering change in language. She argues against the “Darwinian assumptions” of the survival of the fittest as they relate to language, which implies that shorter and easier forms are the ones that are most likely to survive (Aitchison 251). Instead, she attributes the changes in language (“expansion and decline”) to “political and social situations, not the intrinsic merit or decadence of a language” (Aitchison 251). As society and politics have evolved, words have changed with them to allow for language to stay relevant in our time as a way of communication and ensuring that people will still be able to relate to one another.

Slang is a good demonstration of the change that occurs in language based on social interaction, because words such as the term “clutch” have found new uses that now have more meanings as a result of being used in modern situations. This kind of a change in the application of a word has nothing to do with scientific assessment, but is rather a means of assigning meaning that is shaped by our experiences and surroundings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “clutch” was first used as a verb, then as a noun. Yet my friends and I now use it as an adjective. The fact that “clutch” would have been used differently just a couple of decades ago helps us see that words are constantly taking on new meanings and are being re-interpreted based on our understanding of the word in the context of our time.

In contrast, language change can be assessed using a scientific basis that does not consider the role that social factors play in determining change. In “Use it or Lose it: Why Language Changes Over Time,” Nikhil Swaminathan discusses the evolution of language. His analysis of the frequency of use of Old English verbs finds that those that were used more often were less likely to evolve. Swaminathan introduces the view of Harvard study co-author Erez Lieberman, who states that the “papers lay out a case for a version of natural selection that acts on linguistic evolution and mirrors biological evolution” (Swaminathan 1). According to him, the two studies “’illustrate this profound effect that frequency has in the survival of a word’” (Swaminathan 1). The scientists working on the study introduce quantitative means of analyzing the change of words over time, as opposed to examining other factors that might have caused their development; instead they focus on a strictly scientific way of analyzing the evolution of words.

As we’ve seen with time, new words can be added to language while older ones can take on different meanings or even become obsolete. Morten Christiansen and Simon Kirby discuss the scientific basis for these changes in language and state that “mathematical models and computer simulations can show that the advantages claimed for some features of language really can evolve by known mechanisms of natural selection” (Christiansen and Kirby 33). In addition, they cite the work of Martin Nowak, who along with his colleagues concludes that “as new words are added to the vocabularies of speakers, old words must be used less often, and they are liable to fade, leaving the language no more expressive than before” (Christiansen and Kirby 32). This contrasts what I found when I explored the various meanings of the word “clutch,” because all of the different applications of the word are still in use today, but have expanded to include a new meaning that has been determined by social interaction. Just because a word takes on a new meaning over time doesn’t mean that its original definition has to become obsolete. This way, words gain more dimension and versatility as time passes.

In assessing language change over time, it is possible to take into consideration both social contexts as well as scientific reasoning, because we can never be sure what the main driving force behind the changes that occur really is. Ray Jackendoff describes it best when he says “the basic difficulty with studying the evolution of language is that the evidence is so sparse” (Jackendoff 2). What this statement implies is that there is no definitive answer as to why there is a change over time in the ways in which we communicate. While Jackendoff does say that “about the only definitive evidence we have [about the change in language over time] is the shape of the vocal tract,” he also states that “[l]anguages change gradually over time, sometimes due to changes in culture and fashion, sometimes in response to contact with other languages. But the basic architecture and expressive power of language stays the same” (2, 1). This kind of synthesis is ideal because it acknowledges that there can be more than one factor leading to the development of language. No matter why or how it is changing, language continues to be the single most important tool that we have in communicating with each other.

Accepting that there is more than one means of assessing the development of language is important because more ways of thinking about the changes that occur can lead to a broader understanding of why these changes take place. Instead of merely allowing for one factor to play a part in change, we can accept different ideas for the development of language. Most importantly, as Jean Aitchison puts it, we must accept that “it is in no sense wrong for human language to change” (Aitchison 249). As we experience technological progress and social change, the language that we use to keep up with these changing conditions must continue to develop as well, whether as a result of evolution in ourselves or in our surroundings.

Works Cited

Aitchison, Jean. “Chapter 17: Assessing the Situation.” Language Change: Progress or Decay? London: Fontana, 1987. 249-52. Print.

Christiansen, Morten H., and Simon Kirby. Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. 31-33. Print.

Jackendoff, Ray. “How Did Language Begin?” Web. 28 Oct. 2011.

Swaminathan, Nikhil. “Use It or Lose It: Why Language Changes over Time: Scientific American.” Science News, Articles and Information | Scientific American. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.