Talk:Language change

message: The part on "factors" should be revised: 
* Evolution is not a factor, but it is language change. 
* Innovation and variation are not factors, but parts of language change, e.g. (1) a speech community uses form A, (2) in addition to this form A speakers invent form B (invention = innovation, the addition leads to variation), (3) the variants A and B are (a) kept as simple variants or (b) semantically and/or stylistically differentiated, or (c) one of the forms is given up.
* Economy, at least in current linguistics, doesn't mean that speakers tend to make forms shorter and shorter; rather, to speak economically means to choose the form that is (presumably) the most efficient to achieve the speaker's conversational goals.
-- Sinatra 09:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Causes of language change" looks like it should have a stub tag. Also, isn't the idea of economy being a major factor somewhat controversial? 24.159.255.29 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading text 

message: This page could do with something on morphology and syntax --Pfold 14:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical change? 

message: Okay, and what about "language change" as in "people X are switching from language X to language Y"? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, language death and code switching are probably the most relevant, though "language change" is not really used for those phenomena. --Pfold (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not code switching, but historical switching, say that of many Nativ American tribes from their inherited language to English. (Also cf. Stratum (linguistics).) I've seen "language change" quite frequently used for that phenomenon. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, communities which switch from one language to another usually start with individuals code switching - they start to use a new language for an initially limited range of purposes but the new language gradually takes over additional functions from the old until it is the sole language. Bilingualism is, of course, also relevant. --Pfold (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other definition 

message: Please be aware of Neologism as a cause of linguistic change, and mindful should any of you come across citations in reference to this.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Content 

message: Consider looking at the headings of the sections to ensure proper grammatical structure. Also consider looking at the "type" section in order to create subheadings to better reference the information being provided in connection to specific definitions. Miranda.Baranchak (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Could you clarify what you mean by "ensure proper grammatical structure"? Looking at the current section headings, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Garik (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider Revision  

message: This sort of statement definitely needs references and justification. Many historical linguists, perhaps most -- myself among them -- (would) find "syntactic change is the greatest modifier of a particular language" to be dubious at best.96.42.57.164 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The same text appears word by word in Syntactic change. I suppose that it can be argued that on the one hand a given syntactic change modifies the shape of a particular language once it has reached completion, but on the other hand that change is ultimately the result of other changes, particularly sound changes; as an example, French stopped being a pro-drop language, but that was caused most probably by the heavy phonetical erosion of word-endings. --Jotamar (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I fins this a questionable claim too. Like Jotamar, I can sort of imagine ways in which it could be argued to be true, but one could then make similar arguments for other kinds of change. I think you should be bold and change the articles. Garik (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, I've added a citation needed tag.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold claim: Over time, syntactic change is the greatest modifier of a particular language.  

message: I wish the article said something about the well-known hostility to linguistic change. When people become aware of a linguistic change they are usually against it, including venerating obsolete forms of a language (church Latin, Koranic Arabic). I don't know enough to write it myself. deisenbe (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic change is unpopular 

message: "Modern linguistics typically does not support this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad."
The idea that languages "degrade" doesn't imply anything about a "good" or a "bad", it's just the fact that, linguistically, life on Earth is a bit like a game of telephone, in which people are constantly mishearing things, incorporating them incorrectly from one language to another, and just plain changing the rules to go along- which itself does not have to be a bad thing, because often the changes in these rules are used to save the speaker some thought or make something easier to communicate, if a bit simplified or broken. 
For this reason, I'm taking out what I've quoted above, as it does not fit with the reality of the situation and the studies of comparative/evolutionary linguistics. VinniusCaesar (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay but degrade literally means 'lower in value, reduce in quality or purity'. The idea that languages "degrade" definitely does imply that it's "bad". And it is true that modern linguistics does not support that concept. I don't understand your argument for removing that sentence, since your whole argument seems to raise only reasons for keeping it. AJD (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate portrayal of linguistic degradation theory 

message: Hi : Thoughts on why variation doesn't belong in the lede? Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Variation does belong in the lede section of the article. But the phrasing "the process of variation... across a period of time" as the opening sentence defining language change is awkwardly worded and a little opaque, and the article variation (linguistics) is essentially about variation as a synchronic phenomenon. So I moved the word "variation" and the link to variation (linguistics) out of the opening sentence, to a point in the lede where the relationship between diachronic change and synchronic variation is more relevant to what's being discussed. AJD (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. The synchronic distinction regarding variation is one that eluded me. I was finding "process of alteration" a bit awkward itself, perhaps circular. I'll mull over this but can't think of anything better for now. Thanks for explaining. Wolfdog (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation