nm1254: er [2.0] take those [2.1] right take those [7.6] right i've also got 
the [0.5] a signing list so if you could sign your [0.5] your name er and [0.4] 
status that means whether you're married or not [0.6] no [0.3] no it can't [0.
2] it must mean something to do with what kind of student you are yeah right [1.
3] should take [0.3] give you this [1.8] right [2.5] okay so this is the first 
[0.2] of [0.9] a few lect-, few lectures er [0.4] eight lectures [0.4] on [0.5] 
historical linguistics or language change [0.8] er [1.4] and er [0.4] i'm going 
to be [0.2] away in the seventh week [0.5] of term so there'll be no lecture in 
week seven [0.2] but [0.8] and then i've a feeling there's a Wednesday that's 
going to be [0.6] deleted as well [1.1] er i'm not quite sure which Wednesday 
that is [0.5] bu-, 
sf1255: next week 
nm1254: next week is being deleted is it 
sf1256: no last week [0.5] 
sf1257: there's a well there's another one 
nm1254: okay 
sf1258: there's another bank holiday 
nm1254: there's a bank holiday and no hang on we've 
sf1259: there's 
nm1254: we've already had one last week was deleted wasn't it 
sf1260: 
nm1254: that's right [0.4] so so right okay there's only one one to be missing 
in the [0.8] in the next few weeks [0.6] okay [0.2] er [0.7] so you should all 
by now have a handout [1.1] er [1.4] and well it's 
er [0.6] historical linguistics is well it's deals with [0.6] language change 
that's the main thing it's not the history of linguistics [0.4] although for 
various reasons it gets sort of intertwined [0.5] with the with the history of 
linguistics [0.5] er the reason [0.5] being that [1.3] er the [0.3] in modern 
linguistics that i suppose you could think of as being a nineteenth century [0.
2] er phenomenon [0.2] it dealt with language change ex-, almost exclusively [0.
7] and quite a lot of the modern theories [0.2] of language change [0.5] have 
their origins in the nineteenth century [0.6] and those of you who did [0.2] er 
[0.2] our our first year course the F-U-E [0.2] er will have heard about the 
regularity hypothesis [0.8] er and that's something i'm going to be talking 
about very much more and many of you probably from [0.4] er Europe have 
probably covered this in your [0.5] linguistics courses as well [1.0] er [0.2] 
okay now for textbooks er [0.4] there are there are quite a number [0.2] there 
are there are two [0.8] shall we say mainstream textbooks that i i'd recommend 
one is by Winfred Lehmann [1.4] an American [0.4] er person [0.2] er 
Routledge Historical Linguistics [0.8] and the other is [0.7] by Trask also an 
American [0.7] er [0.2] Historical Linguistics [0.2] and this one is Arnold [0.
7] so this this is a [0.3] in some ways older although it's been updated and 
this is from ninety-six i think this one here [0.7] er [0.2] if you see you can 
you can see on your handout references to quite a number of of works [0.4] er 
[0.2] some of them are [1.2] er older some are younger [2.0] so er April 
McMahon nineteen-ninety-four Understanding Language Change [0.9] okay this is 
[0.7] er good on theory [0.2] i would say [0.2] of of language change and it's 
[0.8] er [0.3] extremely good read [0.4] er it's perhaps not [0.2] a [0.4] 
beginners' level [0.2] book which [0.3] in some ways these other two [0.2] are 
in that they they start from scratch [1.0] then there's one by Raimo Anttila [0.
5] er [0.8] a [0.4] textbook called Introduction to Historical and Comparative 
Linguistics although it's it's old n-, it's quite old er [0.5] it's still 
valuable [0.8] then there's one by Hock [0.6] er Principles of Historical 
Lingustics there is there is a nineteen-ninety- [0.6] five edition or 
thereabouts [0.6] er which is 
much more detailed [0.3] and has loads of information in it [0.5] and is not a 
particularly easy read [0.6] er [0.3] but but it's it's good for reference if 
you want to find out particular areas of it [0.8] er Jeffers and Lehiste [0.3] 
er [0.2] this is a a a smaller thing Principles and Methods for Historical 
Linguistics [0.6] er [0.6] Roger Lass Phonology [0.2] there is stuff in there 
on the history of English [0.4] particularly [0.9] er April McMahon 
unaccountably occurs again on the top of the next page [0.7] er [0.3] but then 
[0.2] Peter Mühlhäusler on pidgins and creoles which is something i won't 
really be covering [0.2] but it is relevant to you [0.7] er Barbara Strang The 
History of English some of you will have come across that previously [0.6] er a 
good sort of social and historical [0.4] accounts of the language [0.6] and 
then finally [0.3] Trudgill [0.4] Dialects in Contact [0.6] he brings us up to 
date in the sense that he is interested in [0.4] sociolinguistics and also [0.
3] contact phenomena [0.8] particularly [0.7] contact within varieties of the 
same language rather than [0.3] actual language contact which is not something 
i'll i'll really be talking about all that much [1.0] okay [1.3] er [0.5] so [0.
8] er [0.4] you have [3.7] change that can occur [0.3] on various linguistic 
levels the phonetic the phonological [0.5] morphology lexicon syntax semantics 
all these are areas of language that can change that are subject to [0.3] 
modification [0.6] through [0.5] cultural [0.3] pressures perhaps if you can 
think of in fairly obvious [0.4] terms [0.9] er [0.2] lexical change [0.7] er 
languages [0.3] borrow very heavily from each other [0.8] er [0.4] and [0.2] 
the [0.3] donor language the language that [0.7] gives the words is often the 
culturally or [0.4] economically [0.3] dominant one and today that is probably 
English i suppose worldwide [1.0] er although English [0.3] as many of you will 
know has been the recipient of [0.4] huge numbers of words [0.3] from [0.3] 
French and Latin [0.7] and lesser extent from from Scandinavian so [0.4] so 
while English has absorbed [0.2] absorbed vocabulary it has now [0.2] the 
position has now reversed in the last hundred years or so [0.4] that it that 
it's er supplies the words [1.4] and there's a lot of neologism all right [0.2] 
coinage of new words [0.2] takes place as 
well [0.8] er [0.4] in in the [0.3] in the sciences in a-, anything technical 
[0.2] at all [1.2] and a lot of since since American technology seems to be in 
the in the lead [0.7] er a lot of the words are coined in America and then 
trans-, [0.2] transmitted [0.2] to the rest of us [2.2] er but that is the most 
tangible [0.4] that's the sort of thing that people write to the [0.6] 
newspaper editors about [0.7] er [1.0] but there's [0.4] phonetic change as 
well [0.8] okay there are there are [0.3] there are small [0.3] or [0.2] 
greater [0.2] changes in pronunciation [0.8] er that [0.3] take [0.4] place 
over a period of time [0.8] the motivations for these are not obviously 
cultural [0.8] so if i start saying [0.3] if i start changing my vowel [0.8] in 
[0.5] [Tru:] to [Tr}] [0.7] to [TrY] or something like that which many English 
people do [0.5] then that is not [0.2] er [0.8] because of the er [0.4] decline 
in the [0.2] industries in the north of England [0.7] or anything like that [0.
2] er [0.5] the c-, you can't really find an obvious motivation for the [0.2] 
the fronting of a vowel shall we say [0.9] nor can you find any sort of obvious 
[0.4] external motivation for the [0.2] the loss of some 
confonant consonant so for example [0.8] a word like through [0.3] once had a 
[X@] sound at the end of it about six or seven-hundred years ago that dropped 
out [0.6] now you can't say that was er [1.1] because of the [0.4] decline of 
the feudal system or something like that [0.7] okay [0.4] but if you look at 
all the French words that came in [0.8] that's five or six-hundred years ago [0.
4] then there are obvious cultural [0.2] influences going on there [1.3] right 
[1.0] er [1.5] one thing that historical linguistics shows us the study of 
language change shows us is [0.5] that [0.4] these linguistic levels i've 
mentioned phonetics phonology morphology lexicon syntax semantics [0.4] are in 
some way interdependent [0.9] all right [0.7] there's been a tendency [0.8] to 
treat each of these levels as separate [0.6] and that's reflected in the 
courses that you're taking you you take a course in phonetics another one in 
phonology [0.5] sometimes the lecturers don't even bother to point out the 
similarities although i hope they do [0.8] er [0.4] certainly then you get you 
go and listen to someone else 
talking about syntax and it's a like another world from phonology [1.1] er [0.
3] likewise you get a lecture on morphology [0.6] which is doesn't appear to be 
related to syntax which in s-, many ways it obviously is [1.1] er [0.8] and so 
on now one of the things that you find in language change is that [0.5] er 
these levels are [0.3] they clearly influence each other and particular items 
can pass from one level to another level [0.8] and i'll i'll show you some 
examples and particularly [0.2] particularly in regard to phonetics phonology 
and perhaps morphology as well [1.6] right [0.2] okay [0.2] so in terms of your 
handout er [0.8] we are on page two [0.7] right that's the first sheet page two 
er two-thirds of the way down where it says studying language change 
interdependence of linguistic levels that's where we are located [0.7] er right 
now [0.6] okay i'm going to give you a new you an example from [0.6] Ancient 
Greek [1.0] of this [0.3] fluidity of linguistic levels if you like [3.8] now 
then [0.7] first of all bit of a struggle over here [2.8] right [0.2] okay [0.
3] now [1.3] er [0.3] there was 
in at some point in Ancient Greek [0.5] a sound change [0.7] whereby [0.4] and 
i'm going to use sort of [0.6] phonological notation if you like [0.7] S goes 
to nothing [1.8] er in environment [0.3] between vowels [1.0] right if you're f-
, you're [0.5] familiar with that kind of notation [0.2] all right S goes to 
nothing [0.8] between vowels [0.7] er [1.1] how do we know that [0.3] well we 
use something called the comparative method [2.8] which i'll be mentioning a 
bit later on [2.2] er and we look at languages that [0.2] we know to be [0.5] 
historically related in some way [1.1] er [1.5] historically related in that 
they have a common origin and i want come back to those common origins a bit 
later but just take it on trust that this is what we believe [0.9] right there 
is a [1.8] er [1.0] Greek word [1.5] Ancient Greek word [1.1] geneos [1.7] okay 
and this meant this is the genitive [0.2] case [0.9] possessive case of a word 
meaning kind [1.1] a kind of something [0.9] right [0.3] a noun [0.9] er [0.2] 
now there is a a Sanskrit [0.6] equivalent [0.8] okay that's Greek [1.3] 
Sanskrit [1.1] er [0.3] the [0.3] liturgical language of India from about three-
thousand years ago [1.0] er [1.0] word meaning exactly the same 
thing [0.3] is like this [3.9] er [0.2] janasas i don't know how you pronounce 
it [dZ{n{s{s] or something like that [1.0] er [0.3] there is a Latin [0.6] word 
[2.6] er [0.3] two-thousand years ago [2.0] have exactly the same [0.4] meaning 
and function [2.0] generis [1.7] generis okay [1.0] now what you see is that [0.
6] there is some kind of consonant here [0.7] and here [0.2] there's a [r] and 
there's a [s] [0.6] but in Greek there is nothing [0.7] okay [0.7] nothing at 
all [1.1] so and this we think is because of this er sound change that er took 
took took place at some [0.3] early stage of Greek [0.9] right [1.1] 
now what you find however [2.9] okay th-, these are the initial facts of the [0.
9] er [0.7] th-, then comes the however [0.9] there is in Ancient Greek [0.9] 
er [0.2] a verb [1.6] luo [1.3] lu-, i don't know how to pronounce it but [0.2] 
er luo [0.4] and it means [0.2] loosen [0.5] to loosen something [1.0] er there 
is another verb [2.5] timao [0.9] something like that [0.9] to [0.5] esteem or 
to hold s-, to hold something in in awe or honour or something like that [0.5] 
timao [0.9] these had [0.7] er [0.4] aorist moods [1.3] i'm not entirely sure 
what this means but anyway aorist it's a kind of tense [1.4] which took the 
following forms [1.3] for [0.3] luo it was [1.1] elusa [1.2] and for the other 
the other w-, [0.2] verb it was [0.9] etimef-, e-, er etimesa [0.2] like this 
[2.1] right [0.7] now what you notice there is that there is an S [1.2] between 
[0.2] vowels [1.3] but that shouldn't happen [0.4] right if this [0.7] sound 
change is is correct [1.3] so what we have to say is we have to 
try and explain this [0.7] one thing you can say is to say well [0.4] sound 
change isn't regular [1.3] er [0.2] that's something i'll be coming back to the 
idea of regularity of sound change but the idea of regularity is [0.5] that [0.
2] given a phonological environment like consonant [0.3] between two vowels [0.
7] a change will always happen in a given language [0.3] okay that's what's 
meant by regularity [1.4] right [0.6] now [0.2] it didn't happen here [2.2] it 
didn't happen here so this is a [0.3] sign of irregularity [0.6] but this is 
not a random matter [0.5] it is because we believe [0.7] er [0.2] the S became 
a an aorist tense marker [1.2] it then shifted to become part of the morphology 
[0.6] of the language [1.3] right [0.9] you follow that [1.0] so this is an 
example of what i mean by the interdependence of levels [1.5] okay so that's 
the point i want to make [1.2] er [0.8] i'm now going to move on to the 
relationship [0.3] between [0.5] er [0.5] phonology and phonetics [0.9] and 
this then is [1.2] er another example coming up now [0.3] and er [1.5] okay one 
thing i-, i'll be talking about from time to time is velar [0.3] fronting [1.0] 
okay velar fronting [1.1] this 
is the process whereby velar consonants like [k] and [g] [1.3] are [0.9] 
fronted in the mouth [0.4] so that you get a palatal sound perhaps like [1.0] 
[k'] [0.2] and [g'] [1.1] slightly palatalized or even [0.8] palatoalveolar 
like [tS] [0.2] something of that sort [0.8] you you find it may be appearing 
as a [s] [0.9] anyway [0.6] now [1.3] in English there are two words one word 
is core [0.5] another word is key [1.2] and [0.3] the [k] sound in those two 
words [0.5] core and key [0.5] if you just mouth them to yourself quietly you 
can feel that they're very different [0.3] okay [0.2] [k] [0.5] isn't like [k_-
] [0.3] and [0.2] [k_+] [1.2] [k_-] [0.3] [k_+] you can hear the difference 
and you can feel the difference [0.6] er [0.4] this is because of a 
coarticulation effect with the following front vowel [0.2] high front vowel [i] 
[0.3] okay [0.4] which you can think of as a [1.3] you could think of it as a 
palatal vowel i mean it's not a correct [0.3] description [0.4] but it's very 
close to the palatal consonant [0.3] [j] [0.7] right and it's not very far from 
[j] to [J\] [0.6] which is an a a palatal [0.2] stop [1.2] so er [0.5] okay 
this is something that is in our mouths all the time [0.2] when we speak 
English and when we speak other languages [0.7] er it's an entirely natural 
tendency [0.4] but [1.2] in some languages [0.5] this [0.6] gets accentuated 
somehow it's as if speakers [0.5] start noticing it [0.6] overtly [1.3] 
consciously [0.8] and [0.3] they [1.2] start believing well it is incorrect not 
to do this [0.9] and those speakers over there in that other community this is 
where sociolinguistics comes in [0.8] those people over there they don't really 
front their 
[k] sounds all that much [0.2] in the environment of a high front vowel they 
say to themselves [0.4] well [0.2] they don't say that to themselves [0.2] but 
they [0.8] they say well those people over there they i mean [1.7] we say [0.3] 
[k'i] [1.2] but they just say [ki] [1.0] er so we're [0.2] better than them so 
let's just start exa-, exaggerating this [k'i] [0.3] thing [0.7] this sort of 
fronting of the [k] [0.9] and the lot in the other in the other village so they 
say d-, you know those lot er er people over there they they say [tsi] [0.5] 
for [ki] [0.4] how ridiculous [1.1] er [0.7] crazy way of pronouncing it [0.4] 
we-, we're going to stick with [ki] [1.0] right [0.2] in our village over here 
[0.7] however that village over there is a big village and the one where you're 
in one well you only say [ki] is a little 
village so then you start [0.7] assimilating this 'cause it's regarded as a 
really good way [0.4] a really wonderful great way of saying key to say [k'i] 
[0.5] okay [1.4] er [0.6] nothing has changed at this point it's just that 
there's an allophone [0.3] of [0.2] [k] [0.7] that is [0.2] [k'] [0.8] before a 
high front vowel [0.4] allophones yes [2.4] yeah [0.2] right and then if you [0.
4] nods of recognition which i don't always get when i say allophone i get [0.
9] anyway [0.2] good [0.4] er [1.0] you have just taken an exam in phonetics 
and phonology i think though some of you are second years [0.9] er [1.0] now [1.
1] the question is is this phonetics or phonology [1.0] well [1.1] once there 
is very obviously an allophone [0.4] that is fronted [0.5] more than would be 
[0.3] predicted by coarticulation then you're dealing with phonology [1.0] in 
some way [1.0] er [1.3] now [0.2] er [1.5] let just er [0.7] think how this 
okay [0.5] okay so let's let's say you got one community that's started saying 
[tSi] [0.5] okay it is it gone the 
whole hog actually and is producing a f-, proper [tS] sound [tSi] [0.6] it's 
still an allophone [0.8] it's not possible to say [ki] in this dialect we're 
talking about [0.5] you have to say [tSi] [0.8] it's a bit like the Japanese [0.
6] who [0.2] er [1.5] have [1.6] this sound here [0.8] this phoneme [0.2] [s] 
[0.7] which is [s] in all environments except before [0.2] a high front vowel 
[0.5] where the [s] becomes [0.6] [S] [0.8] all right [0.8] so that you see [0.
2] i mean i've just been reading [1.4] about er a Japanese dialectologist who 
spells his name like that [1.1] right that's pronounced [SIb{t{] [1.2] right 
not [sIb{t{] but [SIb{t{] [1.7] er [0.8] because of this high front vowel [1.3] 
now it's not 
possible for Japanese to say [sIb{t{] [1.5] so when the Japanese are saying sit 
they have to be careful in English [0.2] all right [3.2] [laughter] so that's 
an a a strictly allophonic [0.2] effect [1.6] er [0.5] now [0.3] let's say [0.
7] we have these speakers who say [tSi] [0.4] for key [0.7] and er [0.3] and 
then suddenly c-, [0.2] s-, somebody comes along with [0.8] a new word er [1.5] 
let's say [0.2] just invent a new completely new word right [0.5] this is it 
here [1.9] and this this means a kind of pot of some kind okay it's entirely [0.
3] it i invented it just now a kind of pot [0.7] er [kim] [1.1] and it's a 
cultural loan from some other language [0.7] so [0.2] in the [tSi] village [0.
6] people don't say [tSim] [0.2] they say [kim] because that's the correct way 
of pronouncing it [2.0] so you no-, you notice what's happened suddenly [2.3] 
[tS] 
and [k] have become [0.2] phonemes [1.3] because they can appear in the same 
phonological environment [0.3] in other words [1.0] er they can inf-, occur [0.
2] before a high front vowel [1.1] in this hypothetical [0.3] entirely hypoth-, 
hypothetical case [1.3] now then er [0.2] er do you follow what i'm i'm saying 
it's been phonologized [0.9] this is how the ph-, the the phoneme [0.4] [tS] in 
English actually came about not with this word here [0.2] but [0.6] in various 
other ways [1.0] er [1.0] okay i can show you [0.2] er [0.8] there was in Old 
English [0.4] [7.7] er [0.2] a word that was spelled like this [2.9] that's 
that's how it was written and this is how it was pronounced er [3.4] and i'll 
say it [1.1] okay [0.3] cirice [0.9] cirice and it meant church [1.0] which is 
the [0.7] direct antecedent of our word church [1.2] this was already in the 
Old English period we're dealing with [0.9] fifteen-hundred years ago not quite 
[0.5] twelve thirteen-hundred years ago [0.2] it was it was already 
pronounced like that [0.8] now then there was a particular [0.3] er [0.3] Norse 
invasion [1.2] into the the north you know east of England and parts of 
Scotland [1.0] and these Scandinavians came from Denmark and Norway [0.9] and 
they introduced [0.4] a word which they pronounced well this is the [1.3] this 
is one pronounciation of it [1.5] kirkia [0.6] okay [0.3] kirkia [0.3] they [0.
2] they they said [1.0] this word [0.2] ends up as the Scots word [0.5] kirk [3.
7] all right which is the name of the Scottish church the kirk [0.4] right [1.
3] and you'll notice [0.2] that [0.2] it's not church it's kirk [0.5] so they 
retained the ol-, the old Norse the old Scandinavian [1.1] velar sounds here [2.
1] okay [0.2] kirk and that remained [0.4] forever [1.0] er [0.4] there is a [0.
2] an English word keel [2.4] er [0.7] the bottom bit of a boat [1.9] er [0.2] 
that is a Norse word as well [0.7] the hard [k] [1.2] now those of you who are 
Scandinavian who m-, in here might say but [0.5] Norwegians they don't have a 
hard [k] in these words they have a [0.2] a soft [k] [1.2] 
they say [0.6] well they say [tSVrLtS{] [0.4] something for this and they say 
[0.3] [tS3rl] for this [0.9] but that's because [0.3] in the years after the 
Viking invasions [0.6] Norwegian [0.5] underwent a sound change whereby [1.5] 
the same palatalization occurred but entirely separately and much later [0.9] 
in in middle Norwegian in some you know in the [0.7] thirteenth century or 
fourteenth century or something like that hundreds of years after the Viking [0.
4] er the Vikings [0.5] so that's why Norwegians say [1.1] well depending what 
dialect you speak whether it's something like [tS3rl] for this and [0.8] 
[tSVrLtS{] for this [0.8] all right [0.5] but at the time when the Viking 
invasions took place they had [0.2] a [k] [0.2] in these words [0.7] right [0.
6] okay [0.2] so [0.7] when this kind of thing happened then [tS] and [k] [0.2] 
became separate phonemes in in English [1.0] okay right [5.3] er [0.2] there 
are other examples of this er [1.2] it's a because it's such a natural change 
er there was a Latin word [amiko] which meant friend and the plural [amiki] [1.
1] er which meant friends and that ends up in mo-, modern Italian as [amiko] 
that's the same [0.3] but [amitSi] [1.5] right [1.6] 
so a similar kind of thing happened in in well in v-, a very long time ago in 
early Latin [1.0] er [0.8] right [0.8] okay how does this transition happen [0.
5] then okay so we've got this this thing moving from [0.4] one [0.6] area [0.
3] to another area [0.2] another level if you like [0.5] well er [3.2] why do 
languages change at all why i mean why did this patalization occur when it did 
why didn't it occur before [1.3] why didn't it occur later [0.9] well [0.4] 
these are [0.2] unanswerable questions they're not answerable [0.2] in relation 
to [0.7] linguistic structure [1.2] all right [1.0] because [1.0] of social 
factors [0.3] something out [0.3] external [0.2] to the language historical 
linguists are very [0.3] exercised by what [1.0] constitutes internal 
motivations for language change [0.5] structural motivations if you like [0.3] 
whether there's a a tension in the system somewhere [1.2] on the one hand and 
external [0.2] reasons on the 
other hand [0.5] namely to do with [1.0] well [0.6] sociolinguistic factors [0.
9] right there is a [0.7] there's [1.0] there's language contact maybe speakers 
of different languages come together there's [0.4] dialect contact speakers of 
of different dialects coming together [0.9] er [0.9] there is a sense in which 
all of a sudden some particular sound becomes stigmatized [1.0] becomes [0.2] 
bad [0.8] or it becomes favoured for some reason [0.8] and then [0.2] the t-, 
the change happens [0.7] sometimes changes are [0.4] entirely natural like the 
thing i'm talking about here [0.8] er sometimes you can't really [0.2] say 
whether they're they're natural like a vowel [0.3] becoming l-, [0.7] [E] going 
to [E_o] [0.2] i mean there's nothing natural about that [0.8] and [E] goes to 
[E_r] just as often [0.6] j-, you get a lowering and and raising of vowels and 
sometimes [1.1] if you take [0.6] the English [{] [0.2] vowel [0.3] English A 
vowel [0.8] er [0.2] and trace that over 
the last hundred years in the south of England you'll see that it goes like a 
yo-yo [0.8] from a [0.6] something like [0.3] [m{n] [0.4] to [man] [0.2] to 
[mAn] to [mEn] and back to [m{n] [0.7] it goes up and down [1.1] for no 
apparent reason other than well [0.2] i mean social reasons every every time 
somebody says something different [0.8] some er some [0.2] something is er [0.
2] some sociolinguistic er [1.0] er [0.2] value is attached to it of some sort 
[1.1] right but in general terms [0.6] er [0.6] if you think about [1.1] sus-, 
the speech production system and speech perception system [1.1] er [1.9] there 
[0.3] is a t-, a a tension [0.6] between [0.5] minimizing what is [0.2] 
difficult to pronounce [1.2] and [1.2] minimizing the [0.2] the effort on the 
part of the listener sort of to distinguish what [0.4] what's being said [1.3] 
so you've got ease of articulation [0.8] and ease of perception [0.4] on the 
other hand [1.0] so the speaker does n-, not have the same interests [0.3] as 
the 
listener [1.7] and there is an intrinsic [0.3] tension [0.2] between those two 
[0.4] and as you know [0.2] er [0.2] we [0.3] often mishear [0.3] each other [0.
2] and we have to get people to say things again [0.5] some and when somebody 
repeats something [0.7] what they tend to do is to pronounce it more [0.2] 
clearly more explicitly [1.0] so in informal speech it's fine [0.2] to [0.4] 
garble [1.3] er because it's pretty predictable wha-, what we're going to say 
next anyway [0.5] in a in an i-, typical ingroup situation [1.0] er when you're 
reading the news [0.5] it's not a good idea to garble too much because [0.4] 
the listener [0.7] is being provided with new information [0.2] [1.0] and 
there's no opportunity for the listener to ask [0.2] the newsreader to repeat 
himself or herself [1.3] okay [0.7] so [1.1] anyway [0.4] er [0.8] in terms of 
the speaker the easiest thing in the world would be just to abandon [0.8] er [0.
2] all these different consonantal divisions we have in English and some of you 
have [0.2] been struggling with [0.4] things like [T] and so on [0.7] [1.1] er 
[0.4] so that [0.7] so just abandon all that 
and maybe abandon consonants altogether [1.0] as they impede the the breath and 
just stick with [0.2] well abandon all the vowels [0.6] too just have one vowel 
[0.2] but that [0.2] isn't really very good [0.2] because [0.2] language [0.7] 
it's it's not efficient it is not an efficient way [0.2] to organize language 
just to have one vowel [0.5] and no consonants [0.8] er [0.4] it might be fine 
for the speaker but it doesn't help the listener now the listener [0.8] needs 
er [0.3] i mean i i think [1.2] speakers can perceive [0.3] a few hundred [0.2] 
different [0.2] distinctions listeners can i think something like that whatever 
it is [0.8] so therefore it's no coincidence that the [0.5] number of phonemes 
in languages [0.6] ranges between [0.7] i don't know fifteen to seventy [0.3] 
or something [0.2] like that [0.8] whatever it is i'm not quite sure [0.8] er 
[0.3] w-, with most probably being forty or fifty or som-, or something like 
that phonemes i suppose [0.9] er [2.3] the-, there aren't any languages with 
five-hundred phonemes for example [0.4] i mean in principle there could be 
'cause we can produce five-hundred 
different sounds [1.0] so there is something cognitive there as well to do with 
the auditory system that's adapted to hearing [1.0] speech sounds [0.6] and the 
brain both the audit-, both the the er auditory system and the brain [0.7] are 
adapted [0.2] to [0.2] perceiving speech sounds [0.7] so [1.1] there is a 
constant tension [0.2] between these two [0.4] and [0.2] it never settles down 
[0.2] basically [0.4] you always get some-, something happening in in languages 
[0.8] er [1.1] er [0.4] because of this tension which is then exacerbated by 
the fact that there's also social [0.4] changes as well [0.3] which means that 
[0.4] to do with people moving around and ha-, and [0.2] acquiring different 
statuses and so on [3.6] er [2.0] there's no sign of [0.4] languages as i 
indicated [0.4] language sort of [0.2] slowing down [0.3] over the [0.2] many 
[0.3] tens of thousand language change slowing down over tens of thousands of 
years [0.3] er [0.7] what you can say though [0.2] is that with [0.4] 
globalization [0.8] in the one se-, in the sense of [0.4] English [1.2] being a 
major language a major [0.3] donor language and we're talking about just the 
last fifty years [1.1] out of all the [0.2] hundreds of 
thousands of years in which languages have been spoken [0.7] er [0.4] and with 
the [0.5] demise of isolated communities [1.4] where [1.0] er [0.6] very shall 
we say [0.5] small languages are spoken [0.3] small [0.5] m-, [0.3] only 
meaning a small number of speakers doesn't mean it's small in its system but 
only [0.3] only in the sense of small numbers of speakers [0.6] there are fewer 
and fewer languages with [0.5] small numbers of speakers [1.2] and what's 
happens is not that those people die off [0.2] but they [0.6] shift to somebody 
else's language [0.5] so that [0.2] that somebody else's language then acquires 
more speakers [0.4] so that that that is the tendency [0.3] but that's what 
different now from what from two-hundred years ago [0.9] all right [0.7] er [0.
9] the the loss of isolated linguistic communities [1.5] er and that does have 
certain consequences for [0.2] for change but anyway i'm not i won't be going 
on on to those [1.1] er [2.4] okay what are our sources [0.6] for [1.0] 
language change [2.4] where do we get the information from for language change 
[1.7] now [2.2] the [0.2] o-, obvious thing is [0.2] written down [0.2] 
versions [0.6] of language [1.7] 
the unfortunate thing about that is that [1.6] writing [0.4] is a f-, 
relatively recent activity [1.0] in the history of [0.2] human language [0.4] 
it's perhaps five-thousand [0.2] years old or so [1.0] and [0.4] what we have i 
mean the er Egyptian [0.3] from about three-thousand years ago Chinese [0.5] no 
five-thousand years ago Chinese maybe three-thousand years ago Greek three-
thousand years [0.7] Sanskrit four-thousand years [1.0] er and that's about it 
[0.4] right [1.9] writing systems [1.6] er i mean vast majority of languages [0.
5] only received writing systems if they have [0.2] received them yet within 
the last [0.7] i don't know [0.2] five-hundred years or so [1.1] er [0.9] so 
the time depth is very shallow for English [0.8] which is the [0.8] the object 
of so much investigation [0.9] er [1.7] not because of any quality of to do [0.
2] to English but [0.4] because of its [0.5] er political [0.2] influence [0.8] 
er [1.3] that we only have [0.8] well [0.4] thirteen-hundred years of written 
history [1.3] right [1.1] er with other languages we have slightly more or 
slightly less [1.2] and then with yet other languages we have no written 
history whatsoever [1.2] anyway [0.2] er [1.3] and 
even the written sources are variable in their [0.4] usefulness to us [0.7] if 
you have a writing system [0.3] that is simply shall we say picture writing [1.
1] er [1.4] pictography i think is a word for it [0.5] there is a direct iconic 
relation with the real world [0.5] so if i were to draw [0.2] a map [0.8] of an 
ar-, treasure island with an arrow on it okay that would be [0.4] intended to 
be [0.8] a direct [0.4] scaling down [0.2] of the thing i was illustrating [0.
5] okay [0.3] it doesn't [0.6] have any bearing [0.3] to language at all [1.4] 
er [0.3] secondly i can strip down [0.8] this thing and and [0.3] make 
something much simpler [0.9] so i can draw something like this [3.6] all right 
[2.8] oh God isn't that awful [0.4] anyway [0.8] [laughter] [0.6] [laugh] that 
is not a [0.3] rosette or something it's supposed to be a [0.8] something you 
might find on a loo [0.5] er [0.5] er [0.7] anyway er [0.2] [sniff] [1.1] okay 
this does not i s-, i mean apart from the fact it's a very poor representation 
of the thing i'm trying i was aiming at [0.4] er [0.2] we just understand that 
this sort of stick man kind of thing represents a man and then there's a stick 
woman [0.5] who who has her both legs 
together it seems and a skirt [0.6] er [1.0] and that represents i mean doesn't 
represent a man it represents a ma-, a men's toilet [0.3] for heaven's sake 
it's not a man [0.9] you you don't expect to find [0.5] men in there [0.6] well 
you might do [0.2] [laughter] but [0.4] [laughter] [0.6] but er [0.3] i-, 
that's not the the intention of it [0.3] so er [0.2] that's stripping something 
down to the bare essentials if you like and then there is some added meaning to 
it as well [0.9] er [1.4] then you can [0.2] have some kind of [0.3] graphic 
sign [0.9] er [0.4] indicating a linguistic unit f-, [0.4] particularly a word 
[1.1] so that you have [0.4] some kind of [0.4] symbol which may or may not be 
iconic [1.3] er [0.6] s-, is si-, signifying a a word [1.0] this means you get 
one word and one sign [0.3] now this is not a very efficient way if you 
consider that we have [0.8] i don't know what have we got in our heads thiry-
thousand words or something like that [0.7] we don't have that number of 
symbols [0.6] the Chinese have something along those lines except that there is 
[0.7] er [0.2] quite a careful organization [0.6] within the s-, within the 
Chinese [0.3] er [0.6] symbols [0.9] er [1.8] 
now [0.4] syllabic [0.2] and alphabetic writing this is really they [0.2] er [0.
3] the best source if you like for the [0.8] the phonological form [0.3] of 
words [0.4] syllabic and alphabetic writing [0.5] because they represent sounds 
[0.4] and phonological systems in some in some way or other [0.9] er alphabetic 
writing systems are essentially phonemic [0.6] even the English one [0.6] 
essentially phonemic [1.1] er [1.8] and [0.3] er [1.4] these are [0.5] really 
the most useful [0.6] so alphabetic writing systems were [0.4] it's not known 
how whether they were just [0.2] invented once [0.3] thought they might have 
been invented twice once [0.6] er [0.2] in [0.6] the [0.7] sort of Egyptian er 
Near Eastern sort of area [0.6] from that large area represented by that we 
don't know exactly when [0.3] er [1.4] and then once in Korea or something in 
the [0.6] tenth century [0.2] or something like that [0.4] but apart apart from 
that [0.3] er [0.7] not [1.5] er [1.4] right [1.1] so it i-, it is rather 
limited [0.9] now writing systems [0.7] have a disadvantage as well [0.3] and 
English [0.7] shows that very clearly and that is the that it's very 
conservative [1.5] er particularly English 
writing system [0.5] because it's relatively old [0.2] and because it hasn't [0.
2] it never really got standardized [1.0] by an academy [0.9] er you have well 
if i were to say [0.4] the word right [0.3] to you [0.7] right [1.0] there are 
[0.2] four ways of spelling this representing four different words er two of 
them have a W in front [0.8] and two of them have a G-H in the middle [1.3] so 
you get [0.2] W-R- [0.2] I-T-E [0.5] R-I-T-E R-I-G-H-T and W-R-I-G-H-T [1.1] 
all right meaning four different words [0.7] er [0.2] they represent [0.3] four 
different pronunciations in earlier stages of the language [1.5] okay [0.2] so 
that's a problem [0.4] er [0.4] if you want to deduce the pronu-, er you know 
the contemporary pronunciation if anybody saw those words written down they 
would suppose they were pronounced differently [0.9] er [2.1] and then another 
thing that is not represented [0.6] often in writing is [0.3] er morphophonemic 
alternations now German [0.9] has [0.4] an alternation [0.9] involving [1.3] a 
word like [0.3] this word here [0.2] er [3.0] two words [1.8] both pronounced 
[0.5] [Ra:t] [0.2] approximately [0.8] all 
right both pronounced [Ra:t] [4.9] like that [0.2] right well [1.2] that's a 
phonetic transcription [0.3] right [0.8] er [1.0] they can both be pluralized 
[0.3] but then you will notice that in one case a [0.4] a D appears in this one 
[0.4] [RE:d@] [0.8] [RE:d@] something like that and this is what [1.0] what's 
the plural of can't remember [0.3] 
sm1262: [RE:t@] [0.5] 
nm1254: [RE:t@] [0.4] yeah [0.6] there's a [t] [0.4] right [0.5] and that is er 
[0.6] preserved in the writing system so that [0.2] it doesn't this does not 
show that [0.5] at the end of [0.2] German words [0.4] there is a 
neutralization of the voicing contrast [1.3] the writing system doesn't [0.3] 
indicate that [2.9] okay [0.2] right er [2.9] okay what about [0.5] speed of 
change then [0.5] er [1.2] looking at old texts [1.6] er [0.9] you might 
suppose that [0.6] change is [1.7] discrete [0.6] other words [0.2] you go from 
stage A to stage B [1.0] in [0.2] er with a [0.2] an a a abrupt [0.3] 
switch [1.5] er [1.3] and that there is no variation [0.4] in any given speech 
community [0.8] or very little variation in any given speech community [1.7] er 
[0.3] so for example we find [0.4] there's an Old English [0.5] vowel [4.5] er 
[0.3] i'll just write down the word i'm thinking of this one here [1.1] okay 
that says stan [2.5] and that means stone [0.7] all right [0.7] stan this is 
the way it was written [0.4] er with or without that accent on the top [0.9] er 
[1.0] by the time you get to the Middle English period we find [0.2] it written 
like that [0.9] or with an E on the end [0.8] depending [1.2] and that 
represents an [o] kind of vowel [ston] [1.8] [ston] right so it goes from 
[stAn] to [ston] you get [0.3] basically there is raising of this [1.2] back 
vowel [0.3] from [A] to 
[o] [1.1] er [0.3] we're not told when that happened or how that happened but 
if we then look at the Modern English versions of this O vowel [0.3] in in the 
same word [0.4] we have everything well [0.3] i'll just write down a few 
variants [st8@n] [1.1] [stI@n] [0.4] er [1.0] [sto:n] [1.2] [stO:n] [1.1] 
[sto8n] [1.6] er [0.7] [st@8n] [2.1] [st@In] [0.8] and so on [0.2] all right [1.
3] these are the variants in Modern English [0.2] and more besides [0.8] er [0.
8] so it's almost as if suddenly there's been a [0.4] flowering of variation 
but that's can't be the case 'cause there must always have been variation [1.0] 
right [0.7] this is because we can actually go out and listen to people now [0.
9] and the last [0.3] for the last fifty years as well we've had [0.4] reliable 
tape recordings of people so we can actually trace [0.2] changes [1.2] er [1.1] 
so [1.1] er [0.6] this then is the sort of idealization when i say that 
something goes from X to Y [0.4] in some early stage of a language [0.5] you 
have to think you know well it [0.4] well to put it well it wasn't as simple as 
that [1.8] right er [1.8] okay now [1.0] what i want to do now [0.3] okay this 
this handout you have in front of you [0.3] er [2.9] it's really for this week 
and next week [0.7] and what i want to do is to move straight on to the second 
page of the handout in the last few minutes we have [1.9] and to start talking 
about the er [0.6] types of [0.4] of of of changes [0.3] that might exist [0.8] 
so [0.2] er [4.1] right [0.5] so on page three [0.5] okay relatedness of 
languages i think i'll try and cover [0.7] this point one [0.2] on page three 
[0.9] it should be possible to do that in the time available [1.1] right [0.2] 
now you see there [0.4] er a table [0.4] of and th-, it's on the overhead as 
well [6.1] shut up [8.1] right okay so you see there er a [1.2] a table of 
items in English and German [1.0] which [0.7] have similar meanings and also 
similar phonetic forms [1.0] er [1.2] and what you will notice [0.3] if you 
look at this 
concentrating on the consonants [0.9] is that in English every [0.3] English 
word in er in under A [1.1] there is a [t] [1.8] and in [0.7] some of the 
German words there is a [ts] [1.0] some other German words there's a [s] [0.9] 
and yet others there's a [t] [2.1] all right [0.4] i mean the first [0.4] thing 
to realize [0.3] i suppose this thing that strikes you is that actually there's 
there's a general similarity about er the English and the German forms there so 
that leads you to suppose that maybe [0.4] these two languages were derived 
from a common source [1.5] er [0.2] however there are details like this the 
relationship between [t] in English and these three other sounds in German [0.
5] that are a bit mystifying [0.2] at the moment [1.0] er likewise if you look 
under [0.3] B the bit below [0.4] er [0.4] you'll see [0.7] that [0.5] er in 
German [0.5] the other way round this time there's one vowel [0.4] the [aI] [0.
2] vowel of 
German [0.9] to get laib stein eiche mein eis zeit [1.2] in German [0.2] would 
then corresponds apparently to two [0.5] sounds of English so you get loaf 
stone oak [0.6] mine ice tide [2.2] so the kind of questions we have to ask 
ourselves and i'll be doing this in a couple of weeks' time is [0.8] how did 
this come about you know is is this actually [0.5] complete mystery or is there 
something [0.9] something er that we can that we can [0.3] discover about this 
[0.7] right [1.9] let's look at the [1.1] next table under C here [1.0] er [0.
4] this time two more languages Icelandic and er well ne-, another adding 
another language [1.0] which [0.2] you know bears broad similarities to English 
in much of its vocabulary and phonetic form [0.7] er [1.2] and this time 
English and Icelandic seem to be paired quite closely [0.9] and differentiated 
from German [1.0] so what i've done is to take some basic vocabulary which seem 
to be 
which are shared between Icelandic [0.4] and English [0.3] but not German [0.6] 
and [0.2] and as as you can see [0.5] you know the same words occur on both si-,
er in both those columns but not in the German column [0.5] this might lead 
you to suppose that in fact [1.2] er [0.9] okay [0.2] German and and English 
are related as from you saw from A and B [0.2] in some case but there may be [1.
2] er English and Icelandic are in fact more closely related [0.4] than English 
is to German [0.2] because of the shared vocabulary here that's not shared with 
[0.3] with German [1.0] now [0.2] to [0.3] the the answer [0.4] is [0.3] in 
fact [0.8] er [0.6] not really [1.0] not historically [1.2] now Icelandic is 
the [0.5] closest we have to the language of the Vikings [0.9] descended into 
the modern age [0.8] er [1.2] and it is also known that there were [0.6] er 
Viking [0.2] invasions [0.6] and that a lot of [0.5] Viking [0.7] Scandinavian 
vocabulary came into English at the same time [0.5] all those [0.2] English 
words in the English column under C are in fact Norse loan words [1.0] a result 
of language contact [0.3] okay [0.5] not [0.3] a result of [0.2] shared origin 
of those two languages [1.6] all right [0.4] so [0.3] contact is 
something that [0.9] and i'll be showing you some examples of this [1.0] er a 
bit later on [0.2] contact is something that [0.5] muddies the waters [1.0] if 
you can you you can er assume [0.4] if if the assumption is [0.5] that there is 
a sort of fa-, the so-called family tree theory which [0.2] again is something 
i'll be mentioning [0.7] [0.2] that languages [0.5] split off from each other 
and then split off into ever [0.6] more diversified units [0.4] so it so that 
[0.3] in our case you have [0.6] Indo-European which then splits into an 
Eastern and a Western branch and so on and there's a Germanic branch [0.5] 
Germanic branch splits into English German Dutch Flemish [0.6] er Frisian 
Scandinavian and and so on [0.8] er [0.3] what actually is happening all this 
time is [0.2] well [0.2] 'cause change is gradual [1.0] these languages are 
still in contact with each other even though they might have split off at some 
point they can actually come back together again [0.2] if you like [0.7] so 
this is one [0.8] s-, er so [0.4] er [0.4] i-, if you you just simply looked at 
English and Icelandic you might [0.4] be you 
could be forgiven for thinking that [0.6] they were [0.9] er related more 
closely than they are [0.5] er [0.2] but that's because of [0.3] contact after 
the time that they split off [0.3] German and English are in fact more [0.5] 
it's er they have a a more recent common origin [0.6] than say [0.5] German and 
Icelandic have [0.6] which is then a step further back [0.9] er [1.5] and just 
to show that right for the right at the the bottom of the chart i've got an 
Icelandic word gera [1.2] to do [1.4] and then [0.3] English and German words 
do make [0.2] tun machen which Scandinavian simply doesn't have doesn't have 
those words [0.9] well [0.3] Norwegian does have maker [0.5] maker skomaker er 
[0.3] but that is [0.4] a German loanword from much later on so that there's no 
contact then mucks up things even for Norwegian as well [0.4] but Icelandic 
doesn't have that word i don't think or maybe it does but it would be a 
loanword if it does [0.4] [laugh] [0.6] okay [0.4] okay so that's i'll leave 
you leave it there [0.2] and i'll stop so er [0.9] next week it'll be more of 
the same so if you can please bring that handout along next week [4.6] 
sf1261: 
nm1254: [0.2] oh yeah sure yeah [0.4] er [0.9] spare handouts anybody [1.4] yeah