chronic.linguist

While browsing the New Books section of the library, I stumbled upon—what else?—a linguistics book. Guy Deutscher’s The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind’s Greatest Invention is a fascinating account of how the evolution of complex structures in language can be explained using just a few very basic principles of language change. The first several chapters explain these principles with wonderful illustrations from a diverse set of languages, ranging from Akan to Akkadian to English. (Ever wonder how Proto-Indo-European dont became tooth in English? The answer lies in the famous sound change known as Grimm’s Law.) Since I’ve saved my Historical Linguistics class for next semester, many of these concepts were new to me, and I think Deutscher does an excellent job of elucidating each of them.

One of the coolest aspects of this book is that while it touches on some of the coolest features studied by linguists, it does not assume prior familiarity with linguistics. So all you non-linguists need to read it as well —it’ll give you an appreciation for how we all make use of such a complex and varied phenomenon.

If you’re interested, I’ve written summaries of the chapters in more detail:

The Introduction explains why human language is unique and worth studying, and frames the question of the source of language, touching on some relevant debates (when language first developed, which cognitive mechanisms provide the capacity for language, etc.).

Chapter 1 introduces the complexities and structures of language. Explained in a very accessible manner, this touches on concepts which should be old hat to linguists—but worth reading, if only for the examples. One of my favorites is his demonstration of the Semitic three-consonant verbal system by conjugating the made-up root s-n-g (‘to snog’) according to the Arabic verb templates for the present tense. Here’s the table he provides (p. 39), to which I’ve added how the verb might be conjugated in the Hebrew future tense:

Also discussed are Latin cases, structural ambiguity in newspaper headlines, Turkish vs. English word order, the somewhat absurd behavior of a number-altering suffix in Jemez, and the minimal clausal constraint on WH-movement. Not to mention the Turkish word şehirlileştiremediklerimizdensiniz. He also references Twain’s commentary “The Awful German Language”, which I think is downright hilarious.

Chapter 2 gives examples as evidence that language is constantly changing, and proposes the motivations for such change (how synchronic variation leads to diachronic change; how changes tend to be for the sake of economy, expressiveness, or analogy).

Chapter 3 quotes Viennese critic Hans Weigel, who said in 1974 that “evergy age claims that its language is more endangered and threatened by decay than ever before.” This sentiment is documented with observations of whiny purists of all ages. (Unfortunately for Weigel’s credibility, he continued: “In our time, however, language really is endangered and threatened by decay as never before…”) This chapter examines the seemingly endless ‘decay’ of language, ultimately exposing why the standard method of historical reconstruction reveals only the loss of sounds, meaning, and regularity. In doing so, the author discusses a great deal about the history of linguistics. (I found arguments and explanations in this chapter to be rather repetitive; they can probably be skimmed.)

Chapter 4 is a fabulous introduction to the very cool topic of linguistic metaphor. (About half of my cognitive linguistics class last semester dealt with metaphor, and the texts we read were far more academic/less accessible to the average reader.) It succinctly explains the ubiquity of metaphor in ordinary language,² mentioning how this is grounded in physical experience and enabled by cognitive structures which provide analogy to our inventory of cognitive capacities. He also talks about how ‘dead’ metaphors can be uncovered simply by looking at the etymologies of words: in this way, words for virtually any abstract concept can be shown to come from terminology that originally referred to something concrete.

For my 105 and 106 homies, I’ll mention that metaphors discussed or alluded to include: MORE IS UP, IDEAS ARE MATERIALS, IDEAS/EMOTIONS ARE FOODS, DECIDING IS CUTTING/SEPARATING, UNDERSTANDING IS GRASPING, UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING, POSSESSION IS PROXIMITY, and POSSESSION IS HOLDING/TAKING.

Chapter 5: Though presented somewhat annoyingly as the transcript of a lecture/discussion in a made-up linguistics conference, this chapter’s thesis is critical: it explains how, though the changes that take place over time at first all appear to be destructive (involving the loss of sounds or meaning), language hasn’t devolved into a series of monosyllabic grunts. This is because the destructive forces eroding away at sounds and meaning over time work alongside speakers’ expressive combining of words, thus creating a cycle of building and decay. Includes examples from English, Latin, and French.

Chapter 6 uses concepts explained thus far to illustrate how, in principle, it’s possible for a complex system to develop over time in a particular language family. The system discussed is the Semitic verbal system, where the meaning is governed by (mostly) three-consonant roots, as in the Arabic ‘snog’ example above. While it may seem strange to have languages which place consonants in slots between vowels to conjugate verbs, Deutscher shows how it’s possible—given principles observed elsewhere—for such a system to evolve from a system where the verb root has vowels as well. A very cool explanation.

Chapter 7: The crux of the book’s thesis, this chapter takes the sort of hypothetical reconstruction done in Chapter 6 one step further: In it, the author argues that the evolution not only of language features (like a particular verbal system), but also of language itself (with complex structures like relative and subordinate clauses), can be explained using a few basic principles of language change. Given some primitive ‘thing’ words, ‘action’ words, deictic words (‘this’ and ‘that’), and a couple pragmatic principles (e.g. that in the most basic description of events, the order of the description mirrors the order of occurrence), he shows how a primitive “paragraph” (girl fruit pick turn mammoth see…) might eventually be transformed into one rife with syntactic complexity (A girl who was picking fruit one day suddenly heard some movement behind her. She turned around and saw a huge mammoth charging…). Other linguists might contest the particulars, but I think the argument that human language can evolve from just a few basic principles and elements makes sense given how natural it is for us to speak languages of incredible complexity.