Re: Accelerated language evolution : a proposed experiment

> This would have big implications for 'phonology': the
> underlying production mechanism would be keyboard input instead of speech,
> which would make the natural 'phonological systems' and 'sound changes'
> drastically different than the familiar speech-based ones

There is actually considerable overlap between scribal errors and
speech errors: metathesis, epenthesis, deletion, etc. are known
phenomenon in the transmission of texts.  Indeed, there is much
cognitive evidence suggesting that the model a particular scribe holds
in memory as he moves from his exemplar to his copy is phonological as
well as visual.  The particular branch of literary studies that deals
with these issues is known as textual criticism.  It has direct
parallels in the comparative methods of historical linguistics and
evolutionary biology.

Best,

Kari Kraus


On 10/22/05, Alex Fink <a4pq1injbok_0@...> wrote:
> I've had a similar idea before; this would certainly be interesting.
> Indeed, I wonder whether it's feasible to do such an experiment online over
> instant messaging.  This would have big implications for 'phonology': the
> underlying production mechanism would be keyboard input instead of speech,
> which would make the natural 'phonological systems' and 'sound changes'
> drastically different than the familiar speech-based ones (there would
> probably be significant interference from familiar orthographies, though).
> But as far as morphology and syntax and lexicon, the experiment should be
> relatively medium-independent.
>
> I conjecture that, if all the participants are fluent speakers of the same
> natlang (e.g. English, as you seem to assume), the language of the
> experiment would probably quickly absorb features of that natlang,
> especially given the imposed higher rate of change.  Of course, this would
> allow an interesting variant on the experiment looking at how much
> interference takes place and how quickly; but it strikes me that it would be
> difficult to get a good simulation of language change independent of any
> natlang if all the volunteers had a common language initially.
>
> Alex
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:55:55 +0100, Peter Bleackley
> <Peter.Bleackley@...> wrote:
>
> >I know that some people on the list are professional linguists, so I
> >thought that they might be interested in the proposed methodology for
> >studying the evolution of languages in real time. The idea is that language
> >evolves due to the errors that speakers make during language acquisition.
> >People normally spend quite a long time on language acquisition, in
> >constant contact with fluent speakers, and so are able to correct most of
> >these errors. If people have to learn a language in a limited time, with
> >limited access to fluent speakers, the rate of change will be
> >correspondingly higher.
> >
> >At the start of the experiment, a group of volunteers (Generation 0) is
> >given information about a conlang, consisting of a core vocabulary (common
> >to all volunteers), an extended vocabulary (50% of the remaining lexicon,
> >selected at random, different for each volunteer), a basic grammar, and a
> >set of example sentences based on the core vocabulary. Each volunteer is
> >told that he is a field linguist, visiting the native speakers of the
> >language, which at the end of two years he must document. The native
> >speakers are monolingual.
> >The volunteers meet in a room around 3 time a week for two hours at a time
> >and try to communicate in the language. There are various props in the room
> >that they can use to try to illustrate what they are saying.
> >
> >At the end of the first year, Generation 1 joins the experiment. They are
> >also told that they are field linguists, and that their task is to learn
> >the language from its native speakers and produce a report at the end of
> >two years. They, however, are given no initial information about the
> >language - they only have Generation 0 to learn it from, and both
> >generations are under strict instructions to use no English and maintain
> >the fiction that the native speakers are monolingual. At the end of each
> >year N, a new Generation N of volunteers joins the experiment.
> >
> > From the end of year 2 onwards, Generation N-2 leaves the experiment and
> >writes their field reports. This has the effect of removing the most fluent
> >speakers from the pool, and thus ensuring that a number of the errors that
> >the younger speakers have made become permanently incorporated into the
> >language. The field reports are studied to see how the language has changed
> >- what sound changes are occurring, what new grammatical features are
> >emerging, what changes the lexicon is undergoing.
> >
> >Pete
> >=========================================================================
>

Reply