"Think of the different standards as used in Britain and the United States, not to mention Australia, New Zealand, and English-speaking Canada and South Africa"
Also India: when I'm wandering around visiting family, many people speak a standardized English to speak across the countries internal linguistic divides that they insist to me is "British English" when it clearly has both clear vocabulary and grammatical differences.
It's clearly English, but not any English anyone speaks anywhere else.
English speakers in the US and UK, at least, tend not to appreciate just how distinct and linguistically cool Indian English is. In my case, before meeting my in-laws, I think it was because the Indians I heard and interacted with in mass culture tended to have crisp, refined speech that was essentially standard British English with an accent.
Another factor, referencing a point from this article: diglossia in Indian English is alive and well, as it is in many major Indian languages. Pick up an Indian newspaper and you’ll notice only subtle distinctions from the British standard. Transcribe the speech of an average Indian English speaker and it looks entirely different. Use of articles and the “only” emphatic particle are illustrative examples.
I think the biggest split will be the creations of different 'Englishes' in England, America, Australia, India, the Caribbean, etc. I studied abroad in England (far too many years ago to give a number) and was talking in a group that consisted of college girls from England, America, and Australia. It was a lovely conversation and suddenly none of us could understand each other. Ostensibly we were speaking the same language but comprehension was not there. Even with the internet, I don't doubt that the differences will increase over time.
I'd be interested to know whether you mean 'comprehension' in a broad sense - presumably, you realised that you were from different cultures - or that you literally couldn't understand each other's speech. Like sometimes I'm watching a north of England cop show on TV and I feel I need subtitles.
The amount of difference that's needed to throw you off can be surprisingly small, presumably reflecting how finely tuned we are to understand our native speech community. Australian here: on my last visit to UK 30 years ago even in London I noticed occasional difficulties in communication; those moments when you have to say 'could you repeat that' and you know that you look stupid because in fact your interlocutor was talking quite clearly - in their own accent.
Once in Te Anau, New Zealand, stepping off point for a number of famous bushwalks, we asked in the visitors centre whether there was a physiotherapist in town who could advise on my wife's sore knee (we had just finished one of the walks). The lady directed us to so and so whose rooms were in such and such street, 'next to the jum.' 'The what?' 'Next to the jum.' 'I'm sorry ...' We eventually worked out that she meant the school gym.
There is also the use of English as a *lingua franca*. Those speakers of English as a second language may have more influence than usual because they do so much communication in it.
Reminds me of this scheme as applied to Sinitic. Old Chinese is anything from 1250 BC to 200 AD, and then there's a 400-year gap before Middle Chinese begins in 603 and stretches all the way to 1100, and then we get to "Modern Chinese" which is actually Old Mandarin.
As I sat here reading this wonderful article, I glanced up to the bookshelf over my desk and there I saw my 1924 copy of Henry Sweet's "Anglo-Saxon Reader". Hmmm. I also have a newish copy (1967) of "Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer" - the one later revised by Norman Davis.
Although I normally use the term "Old English" to describe my studies and interest in Old English, I often need to refer to it as "Anglo-Saxon", for instance when I am speaking to someone about the language/studies and the term Old English draws a blank. When asked, "Whoa! Old English, cool, what's that?", my answer "Anglo-Saxon" usually is enough to explain and satisfy.
Might also point out that Tolkien was Professor of Anglo-Saxon. He most likely didn't agree with H.S. that it was brutish.
The great story you cite about Zhou Enlai is, sadly, false. There was a misunderstanding that was “too delicious to invite correction”: Zhou was talking about the 1968 student riots in Paris three years earlier.
Just curious, as I studied phylogenetics in grad school and have read a bit about its application to language evolution, has anyone tried to differentiate time periods of a language (early vs late english, or German vs English, etc) using rates of change? Ie like a molecular clock but for language evolution? I feel this would be problematic for a number of reasons, but maybe a higher rate of change is a better metric to pick a ‘it’s a new version of English’ date than external or even internal cues.
this is a great article. i tutor students, many ESOL, & sometimes tell them, "what you are learning is mid-20c english because that's what most of the books you will read are written in, & what people around you are speaking is 21c english." a simplification, but they get it.
i think the advent of autocorrect & its subsequent developments marks a phase-shift because for the first time usage is driven by machines & not people. i won't be surprised if in a hundred years only specialists will be able to read & write.
This article was wonderful and got me thinking about questions I get from non-native speakers about “correct grammar” in English. As you cited in your article, it very much depends on the cultural context what’s appropriate.
I live in New York, so there are specific phrases, requests, and slang that truly only make sense here. Of course, this frustrates people who are trying to “get better at English.”
I always say that in conversation, so much can be forgiven. Perfect grammar is not the point, as words are only an approximation of how we think and feel about the world. Still, we can get a little closer to understanding, even as word usage is changing along the way.
Triadomany (great word!) burdens ancient history and archaeology as well: early, middle and late stone ages, old middle and new kingdoms in ancient Egypt and many more.
So interesting! FWIW there’s a theory that Kissinger and Zhou Enlai misunderstood each other, and that Zhou’s comments referred to the street protests that were shaking France in the late 1960s :)
Historians tend to point to the eccentric abbot Joachim of Fiore as our OG triadomaniac, whose millenarian Ages of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit form the background of the Renaissance’s more secular saecula, Ancient, Medieval, and Modern.
1. The present progressive verb tense in English, which is taking up more semantic territory, will eventually push semantic or grammatical shifts elsewhere, much as the Great Vowel Shift was set in motion by a change in one vowel. The following kinds of sentences are normal now even though they don’t signify ongoing action.
“I’m leaving tomorrow”
“I’m doing a lot of yoga these days”
2. In North America, the Mary-merry-marry and caught-cot mergers will be completed (much to my annoyance, though I will likely be dead).
3. “Gonna” will become a standard contraction, as will “y’all.”
I have relatives from the Deep South, and my impression has always been that y’all wasn’t specifically a plural form of you. I never had a clear notion of what it really signified, but I’m pretty sure that as a kid I was individually cautioned, “Y’all shouldn’t be doin’ that.”
(That was sixty years ago, so I’ll grant that usage might have changed or that I just remember wrong.)
Increasing numbers and share of English speakers who don’t produce these sounds natively and will be responsible for an increasing share of English language media and entertainment
My theory is that as English becomes an even more global language, non-native speakers will increasingly run the show, and one day native speakers will pick up some of their traits
=> "Not everyone accepts that the last five centuries of the English language belong under a single label." - this happens to every language except - slightly - if isolated from external influences & anyway, new words are added from generation to generation
languages are living things / always changing, always adapting & evolving
they ignore labels & arbitrary classifications- labels are just labels or common agreements resulting in part from the visions & knowledge in the time they were created
what does come after modern english? => modern-modern english? - post-modern english? - computerized english? - ai English? // just thinking aloud
in a way, i'm changing english right know with my horrible grammar / punctuation - LOL / sooner or later, modern english will be old english for someone no matter the name or label of the period. - yep, time is a flowing river & dams just work for a while
"Think of the different standards as used in Britain and the United States, not to mention Australia, New Zealand, and English-speaking Canada and South Africa"
Also India: when I'm wandering around visiting family, many people speak a standardized English to speak across the countries internal linguistic divides that they insist to me is "British English" when it clearly has both clear vocabulary and grammatical differences.
It's clearly English, but not any English anyone speaks anywhere else.
English speakers in the US and UK, at least, tend not to appreciate just how distinct and linguistically cool Indian English is. In my case, before meeting my in-laws, I think it was because the Indians I heard and interacted with in mass culture tended to have crisp, refined speech that was essentially standard British English with an accent.
Another factor, referencing a point from this article: diglossia in Indian English is alive and well, as it is in many major Indian languages. Pick up an Indian newspaper and you’ll notice only subtle distinctions from the British standard. Transcribe the speech of an average Indian English speaker and it looks entirely different. Use of articles and the “only” emphatic particle are illustrative examples.
And this is probably the largest group of English speakers in the world. It's the largest standard in that sense
I think the biggest split will be the creations of different 'Englishes' in England, America, Australia, India, the Caribbean, etc. I studied abroad in England (far too many years ago to give a number) and was talking in a group that consisted of college girls from England, America, and Australia. It was a lovely conversation and suddenly none of us could understand each other. Ostensibly we were speaking the same language but comprehension was not there. Even with the internet, I don't doubt that the differences will increase over time.
'comprehension was not there'
I'd be interested to know whether you mean 'comprehension' in a broad sense - presumably, you realised that you were from different cultures - or that you literally couldn't understand each other's speech. Like sometimes I'm watching a north of England cop show on TV and I feel I need subtitles.
The amount of difference that's needed to throw you off can be surprisingly small, presumably reflecting how finely tuned we are to understand our native speech community. Australian here: on my last visit to UK 30 years ago even in London I noticed occasional difficulties in communication; those moments when you have to say 'could you repeat that' and you know that you look stupid because in fact your interlocutor was talking quite clearly - in their own accent.
Once in Te Anau, New Zealand, stepping off point for a number of famous bushwalks, we asked in the visitors centre whether there was a physiotherapist in town who could advise on my wife's sore knee (we had just finished one of the walks). The lady directed us to so and so whose rooms were in such and such street, 'next to the jum.' 'The what?' 'Next to the jum.' 'I'm sorry ...' We eventually worked out that she meant the school gym.
The one I can't understand is Nigerian English. It's their standard language, but just impossible to hear.
There is also the use of English as a *lingua franca*. Those speakers of English as a second language may have more influence than usual because they do so much communication in it.
Reminds me of this scheme as applied to Sinitic. Old Chinese is anything from 1250 BC to 200 AD, and then there's a 400-year gap before Middle Chinese begins in 603 and stretches all the way to 1100, and then we get to "Modern Chinese" which is actually Old Mandarin.
It's a mess!
As I sat here reading this wonderful article, I glanced up to the bookshelf over my desk and there I saw my 1924 copy of Henry Sweet's "Anglo-Saxon Reader". Hmmm. I also have a newish copy (1967) of "Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer" - the one later revised by Norman Davis.
Although I normally use the term "Old English" to describe my studies and interest in Old English, I often need to refer to it as "Anglo-Saxon", for instance when I am speaking to someone about the language/studies and the term Old English draws a blank. When asked, "Whoa! Old English, cool, what's that?", my answer "Anglo-Saxon" usually is enough to explain and satisfy.
Might also point out that Tolkien was Professor of Anglo-Saxon. He most likely didn't agree with H.S. that it was brutish.
The great story you cite about Zhou Enlai is, sadly, false. There was a misunderstanding that was “too delicious to invite correction”: Zhou was talking about the 1968 student riots in Paris three years earlier.
https://www.neatorama.com/2011/06/12/too-soon-to-tell/
(Addendum: Oops, I neglected to follow your footnote!)
Just curious, as I studied phylogenetics in grad school and have read a bit about its application to language evolution, has anyone tried to differentiate time periods of a language (early vs late english, or German vs English, etc) using rates of change? Ie like a molecular clock but for language evolution? I feel this would be problematic for a number of reasons, but maybe a higher rate of change is a better metric to pick a ‘it’s a new version of English’ date than external or even internal cues.
this is a great article. i tutor students, many ESOL, & sometimes tell them, "what you are learning is mid-20c english because that's what most of the books you will read are written in, & what people around you are speaking is 21c english." a simplification, but they get it.
i think the advent of autocorrect & its subsequent developments marks a phase-shift because for the first time usage is driven by machines & not people. i won't be surprised if in a hundred years only specialists will be able to read & write.
This article was wonderful and got me thinking about questions I get from non-native speakers about “correct grammar” in English. As you cited in your article, it very much depends on the cultural context what’s appropriate.
I live in New York, so there are specific phrases, requests, and slang that truly only make sense here. Of course, this frustrates people who are trying to “get better at English.”
I always say that in conversation, so much can be forgiven. Perfect grammar is not the point, as words are only an approximation of how we think and feel about the world. Still, we can get a little closer to understanding, even as word usage is changing along the way.
Triadomany (great word!) burdens ancient history and archaeology as well: early, middle and late stone ages, old middle and new kingdoms in ancient Egypt and many more.
In this snippet: "sæ; ⁊ ne", what is the character after the semicolon?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's an ampersand in Tironian shorthand. Like this: https://i0.wp.com/www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/stan-carey-galway-sign-ioc-taispeain-pay-display-with-ampersand-tironian-et.jpg?ssl=1
So interesting! FWIW there’s a theory that Kissinger and Zhou Enlai misunderstood each other, and that Zhou’s comments referred to the street protests that were shaking France in the late 1960s :)
Historians tend to point to the eccentric abbot Joachim of Fiore as our OG triadomaniac, whose millenarian Ages of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit form the background of the Renaissance’s more secular saecula, Ancient, Medieval, and Modern.
Here are my predictions:
1. The present progressive verb tense in English, which is taking up more semantic territory, will eventually push semantic or grammatical shifts elsewhere, much as the Great Vowel Shift was set in motion by a change in one vowel. The following kinds of sentences are normal now even though they don’t signify ongoing action.
“I’m leaving tomorrow”
“I’m doing a lot of yoga these days”
2. In North America, the Mary-merry-marry and caught-cot mergers will be completed (much to my annoyance, though I will likely be dead).
3. “Gonna” will become a standard contraction, as will “y’all.”
4. The “th” sounds will eventually be lost.
As a transplant to Texas, I find y'all extremely useful. Not having a distinctive plural 'you' is detrimental to clarity.
I have relatives from the Deep South, and my impression has always been that y’all wasn’t specifically a plural form of you. I never had a clear notion of what it really signified, but I’m pretty sure that as a kid I was individually cautioned, “Y’all shouldn’t be doin’ that.”
(That was sixty years ago, so I’ll grant that usage might have changed or that I just remember wrong.)
I would say I use y'all both singly and plurally, but only rarely singly. If there's confusion there's always "all y'all"!
Um, I stand corrected. As Caitli D. said, there's y'all and all y'all. As I said, I'm a transplant. I should have kept my mouth shut, LOL!
Oh gee, I certainly didn’t mean to throw my weight around! Bless my heart. :-)
Don't fret. I have no problem owning my mistakes. And in this case I should have known better.
What's motivating point 4?
Increasing numbers and share of English speakers who don’t produce these sounds natively and will be responsible for an increasing share of English language media and entertainment
I don't really think I've seen any speakers making content who can't pronounce th. Maybe sseth I guess?
My theory is that as English becomes an even more global language, non-native speakers will increasingly run the show, and one day native speakers will pick up some of their traits
Well, what about dah Bears?
It's gonna be interesting to see if "gonna" can displace "will".
great article!
=> "Not everyone accepts that the last five centuries of the English language belong under a single label." - this happens to every language except - slightly - if isolated from external influences & anyway, new words are added from generation to generation
languages are living things / always changing, always adapting & evolving
they ignore labels & arbitrary classifications- labels are just labels or common agreements resulting in part from the visions & knowledge in the time they were created
what does come after modern english? => modern-modern english? - post-modern english? - computerized english? - ai English? // just thinking aloud
in a way, i'm changing english right know with my horrible grammar / punctuation - LOL / sooner or later, modern english will be old english for someone no matter the name or label of the period. - yep, time is a flowing river & dams just work for a while
again, great writing from you!!!
"... consequences on the history of the English language cannot be understated". You mean "... cannot be overstated".
Chronologically we are due to be entering a new phase.
Recently saw a thing online about American undergrads having great trouble with a passage from Dickens, often giving quite bizarre misinterpretations.