Skip to main content Skip to navigation


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">





<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:47:58" n="6788">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="is">Icelandic</language>

<language id="de">German</language>

<language id="it">Italian</language>

<language id="no">Norwegian</language>

<language id="sco">Scots</language>

<language id="oe">Old English</language>

<language id="ja">Japanese</language>

<language id="la">Latin</language>

<language id="sa">Sanskrit</language>

<language id="grc">Greek, Ancient</language>



<person id="nm1254" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm1254, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf1255" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1255, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1256" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1256, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1257" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1257, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1258" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1258, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1259" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1259, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1260" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1260, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1261" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1261, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm1262" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm1262, participant, student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="11"><p>number of speakers: 11</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Linguistics</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ss</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG2</item>

<item n="module">Historical linguistics</item>




<u who="nm1254"> # <pause dur="2.0"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> take those <pause dur="2.1"/> right take those <pause dur="7.6"/> right i've also got the <pause dur="0.5"/><event desc="passes out list" iterated="n"/> a signing list so if you could sign your <pause dur="0.5"/> your name # and <pause dur="0.4"/> status that means whether you're married or not <pause dur="0.6"/> no <pause dur="0.3"/> no it can't <pause dur="0.2"/> it must mean something to do with what kind of student you are yeah right <pause dur="1.3"/> should take <pause dur="0.3"/> <unclear>give you this</unclear> <pause dur="1.8"/> right <pause dur="2.5"/> okay so this is the first <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.9"/> a few <trunc>lect</trunc> few lectures # <pause dur="0.4"/> eight lectures <pause dur="0.4"/> on <pause dur="0.5"/> historical linguistics or language change <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> and # <pause dur="0.4"/> i'm going to be <pause dur="0.2"/> away in the seventh week <pause dur="0.5"/> of term so there'll be no lecture in week seven <pause dur="0.2"/> but <pause dur="0.8"/> and then i've a feeling there's a Wednesday that's going to be <pause dur="0.6"/> deleted as well <pause dur="1.1"/> # i'm not quite sure which Wednesday that is <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>bu</trunc> </u><u who="sf1255" trans="overlap"> next week <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nm1254" trans="overlap"> next week is being deleted is it </u><u who="sf1256" trans="overlap"> no last week </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sf1257" trans="pause"> there's a well there's another one <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nm1254" trans="overlap"> okay </u><u who="sf1258" trans="overlap"> there's another bank holiday </u><u who="nm1254" trans="latching"> there's a bank holiday and no hang on we've </u><u who="sf1259" trans="overlap"> there's </u><u who="nm1254" trans="overlap"> we've already had one last week was deleted wasn't it </u><u who="sf1260" trans="latching"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm1254" trans="overlap"> that's right <pause dur="0.4"/> so so right okay there's only one one to be missing in the <pause dur="0.8"/> in the next few weeks <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> so you should all by now have a handout <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> and well it's

# <pause dur="0.6"/> historical linguistics is well it's deals with <pause dur="0.6"/> language change that's the main thing it's not the history of linguistics <pause dur="0.4"/> although for various reasons it gets sort of intertwined <pause dur="0.5"/> with the with the history of linguistics <pause dur="0.5"/> # the reason <pause dur="0.5"/> being that <pause dur="1.3"/> # the <pause dur="0.3"/> in modern linguistics that i suppose you could think of as being a nineteenth century <pause dur="0.2"/> # phenomenon <pause dur="0.2"/> it dealt with language change <trunc>ex</trunc> almost exclusively <pause dur="0.7"/> and quite a lot of the modern theories <pause dur="0.2"/> of language change <pause dur="0.5"/> have their origins in the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.6"/> and those of you who did <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> our our first year course the F-U-E <pause dur="0.2"/> # will have heard about the regularity hypothesis <pause dur="0.8"/> # and that's something i'm going to be talking about very much more and many of you probably from <pause dur="0.4"/> # Europe have probably covered this in your <pause dur="0.5"/> linguistics courses as well <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> okay now for textbooks # <pause dur="0.4"/> there are there are quite a number <pause dur="0.2"/> there are there are two <pause dur="0.8"/> shall we say mainstream textbooks that i i'd recommend one is by Winfred Lehmann <pause dur="1.4"/> an American <pause dur="0.4"/> # person <pause dur="0.2"/> #

Routledge Historical Linguistics <pause dur="0.8"/> and the other is <pause dur="0.7"/> by Trask also an American <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Historical Linguistics <pause dur="0.2"/> and this one is Arnold <pause dur="0.7"/> so this this is a <pause dur="0.3"/> in some ways older although it's been updated and this is from ninety-six i think this one here <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> if you see you can you can see on your handout references to quite a number of of works <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> some of them are <pause dur="1.2"/> # older some are younger <pause dur="2.0"/> so # April McMahon nineteen-ninety-four Understanding Language Change <pause dur="0.9"/> okay this is <pause dur="0.7"/> # good on theory <pause dur="0.2"/> i would say <pause dur="0.2"/> of of language change and it's <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> extremely good read <pause dur="0.4"/> # it's perhaps not <pause dur="0.2"/> a <pause dur="0.4"/> beginners' level <pause dur="0.2"/> book which <pause dur="0.3"/> in some ways these other two <pause dur="0.2"/> are in that they they start from scratch <pause dur="1.0"/> then there's one by Raimo Anttila <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> a <pause dur="0.4"/> textbook called Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics although it's it's old <trunc>n</trunc> it's quite old # <pause dur="0.5"/> it's still valuable <pause dur="0.8"/> then there's one by Hock <pause dur="0.6"/> # Principles of Historical Lingustics there is there is a nineteen-ninety-<pause dur="0.6"/>five edition or thereabouts <pause dur="0.6"/> # which is

much more detailed <pause dur="0.3"/> and has loads of information in it <pause dur="0.5"/> and is not a particularly easy read <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but but it's it's good for reference if you want to find out particular areas of it <pause dur="0.8"/> # Jeffers and Lehiste <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> this is a a a smaller thing Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> Roger Lass Phonology <pause dur="0.2"/> there is stuff in there on the history of English <pause dur="0.4"/> particularly <pause dur="0.9"/> # April McMahon unaccountably occurs again on the top of the next page <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but then <pause dur="0.2"/> Peter Mühlhäusler on pidgins and creoles which is something i won't really be covering <pause dur="0.2"/> but it is relevant to you <pause dur="0.7"/> # Barbara Strang The History of English some of you will have come across that previously <pause dur="0.6"/> # a good sort of social and historical <pause dur="0.4"/> accounts of the language <pause dur="0.6"/> and then finally <pause dur="0.3"/> Trudgill <pause dur="0.4"/> Dialects in Contact <pause dur="0.6"/> he brings us up to date in the sense that he is interested in <pause dur="0.4"/> sociolinguistics and also <pause dur="0.3"/> contact phenomena <pause dur="0.8"/> particularly <pause dur="0.7"/> contact within varieties of the same language rather than <pause dur="0.3"/> actual language contact which is not something

i'll i'll really be talking about all that much <pause dur="1.0"/> okay <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> you have <pause dur="3.7"/> change that can occur <pause dur="0.3"/> on various linguistic levels the phonetic the phonological <pause dur="0.5"/> morphology lexicon syntax semantics all these are areas of language that can change that are subject to <pause dur="0.3"/> modification <pause dur="0.6"/> through <pause dur="0.5"/> cultural <pause dur="0.3"/> pressures perhaps if you can think of in fairly obvious <pause dur="0.4"/> terms <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> lexical change <pause dur="0.7"/> # languages <pause dur="0.3"/> borrow very heavily from each other <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> donor language the language that <pause dur="0.7"/> gives the words is often the culturally or <pause dur="0.4"/> economically <pause dur="0.3"/> dominant one and today that is probably English i suppose worldwide <pause dur="1.0"/> # although English <pause dur="0.3"/> as many of you will know has been the recipient of <pause dur="0.4"/> huge numbers of words <pause dur="0.3"/> from <pause dur="0.3"/> French and Latin <pause dur="0.7"/> and lesser extent from from Scandinavian so <pause dur="0.4"/> so while English has absorbed <pause dur="0.2"/> absorbed vocabulary it has now <pause dur="0.2"/> the position has now reversed in the last hundred years or so <pause dur="0.4"/> that it that it's # supplies the words <pause dur="1.4"/> and there's a lot of neologism all right <pause dur="0.2"/> coinage of new words <pause dur="0.2"/> takes place as

well <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> in in the <pause dur="0.3"/> in the sciences in <trunc>a</trunc> anything technical <pause dur="0.2"/> at all <pause dur="1.2"/> and a lot of since since American technology seems to be in the in the lead <pause dur="0.7"/> # a lot of the words are coined in America and then <trunc>trans</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> transmitted <pause dur="0.2"/> to the rest of us <pause dur="2.2"/> # but that is the most tangible <pause dur="0.4"/> that's the sort of thing that people write to the <pause dur="0.6"/> newspaper editors about <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> but there's <pause dur="0.4"/> phonetic change as well <pause dur="0.8"/> okay there are there are <pause dur="0.3"/> there are small <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="0.2"/> greater <pause dur="0.2"/> changes in pronunciation <pause dur="0.8"/> # that <pause dur="0.3"/> take <pause dur="0.4"/> place over a period of time <pause dur="0.8"/> the motivations for these are not obviously cultural <pause dur="0.8"/> so if i start saying <pause dur="0.3"/> if i start changing my vowel <pause dur="0.8"/> in <pause dur="0.5"/> <distinct type="sampa">[Tru:]</distinct> to <distinct type="sampa">[Tr}]</distinct> <pause dur="0.7"/> to <distinct type="sampa">[TrY]</distinct> or something like that which many English people do <pause dur="0.5"/> then that is not <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> because of the # <pause dur="0.4"/> decline in the <pause dur="0.2"/> industries in the north of England <pause dur="0.7"/> or anything like that <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> the <trunc>c</trunc> you can't really find an obvious motivation for the <pause dur="0.2"/> the fronting of a vowel shall we say <pause dur="0.9"/> nor can you find any sort of obvious <pause dur="0.4"/> external motivation for the <pause dur="0.2"/> the loss of some

confonant consonant so for example <pause dur="0.8"/> a word like through <pause dur="0.3"/> once had a <distinct type="sampa">[X@]</distinct> sound at the end of it about six or seven-hundred years ago that dropped out <pause dur="0.6"/> now you can't say that was # <pause dur="1.1"/> because of the <pause dur="0.4"/> decline of the feudal system or something like that <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> but if you look at all the French words that came in <pause dur="0.8"/> <unclear>that's</unclear> five or six-hundred years ago <pause dur="0.4"/> then there are obvious cultural <pause dur="0.2"/> influences going on there <pause dur="1.3"/> right <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> one thing that historical linguistics shows us the study of language change shows us is <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> these linguistic levels i've mentioned phonetics phonology morphology lexicon syntax semantics <pause dur="0.4"/> are in some way interdependent <pause dur="0.9"/> all right <pause dur="0.7"/> there's been a tendency <pause dur="0.8"/> to treat each of these levels as separate <pause dur="0.6"/> and that's reflected in the courses that you're taking you you take a course in phonetics another one in phonology <pause dur="0.5"/> sometimes the lecturers don't even bother to point out the similarities although i hope they do <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> certainly then you get you go and listen to someone else

talking about syntax and <unclear>it's a</unclear> like another world from phonology <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> likewise you get a lecture on morphology <pause dur="0.6"/> which is doesn't appear to be related to syntax which in <trunc>s</trunc> many ways it obviously is <pause dur="1.1"/> # <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> and so on now one of the things that you find in language change is that <pause dur="0.5"/> # these levels are <pause dur="0.3"/> they clearly influence each other and particular items can pass from one level to another level <pause dur="0.8"/> and i'll i'll show you some examples and particularly <pause dur="0.2"/> particularly in regard to phonetics phonology and perhaps morphology as well <pause dur="1.6"/> right <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> so in terms of your handout # <pause dur="0.8"/> we are on page two <pause dur="0.7"/> right that's the first sheet page two # two-thirds of the way down where it says studying language change interdependence of linguistic levels that's where we are located <pause dur="0.7"/> # right now <pause dur="0.6"/> okay i'm going to give you a <unclear>new</unclear> you an example from <pause dur="0.6"/> Ancient Greek <pause dur="1.0"/> of this <pause dur="0.3"/> fluidity of linguistic levels if you like <pause dur="3.8"/> now then <pause dur="0.7"/> first of all bit of a struggle over here <pause dur="2.8"/> right <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> now <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> there was

in at some point in Ancient Greek <pause dur="0.5"/> a sound change <pause dur="0.7"/> whereby <pause dur="0.4"/> and i'm going to use sort of <pause dur="0.6"/> phonological notation if you like <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="7"/> S goes to nothing <pause dur="1.8"/> # in environment <pause dur="0.3"/> between vowels <pause dur="1.0"/> right if you're <trunc>f</trunc> you're <pause dur="0.5"/> familiar with that kind of notation <pause dur="0.2"/> all right S goes to nothing <pause dur="0.8"/> between vowels <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> how do we know that <pause dur="0.3"/> well we use something called the comparative method <pause dur="2.8"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> which i'll be mentioning a bit later on <pause dur="2.2"/> # and we look at languages that <pause dur="0.2"/> we know to be <pause dur="0.5"/> historically related in some way <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="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 <pause dur="0.9"/> right there is a <pause dur="1.8"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> Greek word <pause dur="1.5"/> Ancient Greek word <pause dur="1.1"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> <distinct lang="grc">geneos</distinct> <pause dur="1.7"/> okay and this meant this is the genitive <pause dur="0.2"/> case <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> possessive case of a word meaning kind <pause dur="1.1"/> a kind of something <pause dur="0.9"/> right <pause dur="0.3"/> a noun <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> now there is a a Sanskrit <pause dur="0.6"/> equivalent <pause dur="0.8"/> okay that's <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> Greek <pause dur="1.3"/> Sanskrit <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> liturgical language of India from about three-thousand years ago <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> word meaning exactly the same <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="5"/>

thing <pause dur="0.3"/> is like this <pause dur="3.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="sa">janasas</distinct> i don't know how you pronounce it <distinct lang="sa" type="sampa">[dZ{n{s{s]</distinct> or something like that <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> there is a Latin <pause dur="0.6"/> word <pause dur="2.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> two-thousand years ago <pause dur="2.0"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> have exactly the same <pause dur="0.4"/> meaning and function <pause dur="2.0"/> <distinct lang="la">generis</distinct> <pause dur="1.7"/> <distinct lang="la">generis</distinct> okay <pause dur="1.0"/> now what you see is that <pause dur="0.6"/> there is some kind of consonant here <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> and here <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> there's a <distinct type="sampa">[r]</distinct> and there's a <distinct type="sampa">[s]</distinct> <pause dur="0.6"/> but in Greek there is nothing <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.7"/> nothing at all <pause dur="1.1"/> so and this we think is because of this # sound change that # took took took place at some <pause dur="0.3"/> early stage of Greek <pause dur="0.9"/> right <pause dur="1.1"/>

now what you find however <pause dur="2.9"/> okay <trunc>th</trunc> these are the initial facts of the <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>th</trunc> then comes the however <pause dur="0.9"/> there is in Ancient Greek <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a verb <pause dur="1.6"/> <distinct lang="grc">luo</distinct> <pause dur="1.3"/> <trunc>lu</trunc> i don't know how to pronounce it but <pause dur="0.2"/> # <distinct lang="grc">luo</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> and it means <pause dur="0.2"/> loosen <pause dur="0.5"/> to loosen something <pause dur="1.0"/> # there is another verb <pause dur="2.5"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> <distinct lang="grc"> timao</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> something like that <pause dur="0.9"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> esteem or to hold <trunc>s</trunc> to hold something in in awe or honour or something like that <pause dur="0.5"/> <distinct lang="grc">timao</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> these had <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> aorist moods <pause dur="1.3"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> i'm not entirely sure what this means but anyway aorist it's a kind of tense <pause dur="1.4"/> which took the following forms <pause dur="1.3"/> for <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="grc">luo</distinct><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> it was <pause dur="1.1"/> <distinct lang="grc">elusa</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/> and for the other the other <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> verb it was <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> <trunc>etimef</trunc> <trunc>e</trunc> # <distinct lang="grc">etimesa</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> like this <pause dur="2.1"/> right <pause dur="0.7"/> now what you notice there is that there is an S <pause dur="1.2"/> between <pause dur="0.2"/> vowels <pause dur="1.3"/> but that shouldn't happen <pause dur="0.4"/> right if this <pause dur="0.7"/> sound change is is correct <pause dur="1.3"/> so what we have to say is we have to

try and explain this <pause dur="0.7"/> one thing you can say is to say well <pause dur="0.4"/> sound change isn't regular <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> that's something i'll be coming back to the idea of regularity of sound change but the idea of regularity is <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> given a phonological environment like consonant <pause dur="0.3"/> between two vowels <pause dur="0.7"/> a change will always happen in a given language <pause dur="0.3"/> okay that's what's meant by regularity <pause dur="1.4"/> right <pause dur="0.6"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> it didn't happen here <pause dur="2.2"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> it didn't happen here so this is a <pause dur="0.3"/> sign of irregularity <pause dur="0.6"/> but this is not a random matter <pause dur="0.5"/> it is because we believe <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the S became a an aorist tense marker <pause dur="1.2"/> it then shifted to become part of the morphology <pause dur="0.6"/> of the language <pause dur="1.3"/> right <pause dur="0.9"/> you follow that <pause dur="1.0"/> so this is an example of what i mean by the interdependence of levels <pause dur="1.5"/> okay so that's the point i want to make <pause dur="1.2"/> # <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> i'm now going to move on to the relationship <pause dur="0.3"/> between <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> phonology and phonetics <pause dur="0.9"/> and this then is <pause dur="1.2"/> # another example coming up now <pause dur="0.3"/> and # <pause dur="1.5"/> okay one thing <trunc>i</trunc> i'll be talking about from time to time is velar <pause dur="0.3"/> fronting <pause dur="1.0"/> okay velar fronting <pause dur="1.1"/> this

is the process whereby velar consonants like <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> and <distinct type="sampa">[g]</distinct> <pause dur="1.3"/> are <pause dur="0.9"/> fronted in the mouth <pause dur="0.4"/> so that you get a palatal sound perhaps like <pause dur="1.0"/> <distinct type="sampa">[k']</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> and <distinct type="sampa">[g']</distinct> <pause dur="1.1"/> slightly palatalized or even <pause dur="0.8"/> palatoalveolar like <distinct type="sampa">[tS]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> something of that sort <pause dur="0.8"/> you you find it may be appearing as a <distinct type="sampa">[s]</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> anyway <pause dur="0.6"/> now <pause dur="1.3"/> in English there are two words one word is core <pause dur="0.5"/> another word is key <pause dur="1.2"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> the <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> sound in those two words <pause dur="0.5"/> core and key <pause dur="0.5"/> if you just mouth them to yourself quietly you can feel that they're very different <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> isn't like <distinct type="sampa">[k_-]</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct type="sampa">[k_+]</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/> <distinct type="sampa">[k_-]</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct type="sampa">[k_+]</distinct> you can hear the difference

and you can feel the difference <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> this is because of a coarticulation effect with the following front vowel <pause dur="0.2"/> high front vowel <distinct type="sampa">[i]</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> which you can think of as a <pause dur="1.3"/> you could think of it as a palatal vowel i mean it's not a correct <pause dur="0.3"/> description <pause dur="0.4"/> but it's very close to the palatal consonant <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct type="sampa">[j]</distinct> <pause dur="0.7"/> right and it's not very far from <distinct type="sampa">[j]</distinct> to <distinct type="sampa">[J\]</distinct> <pause dur="0.6"/> which is an a a palatal <pause dur="0.2"/> stop <pause dur="1.2"/> so # <pause dur="0.5"/> okay this is something that is in our mouths all the time <pause dur="0.2"/> when we speak English and when we speak other languages <pause dur="0.7"/> # it's an entirely natural tendency <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="1.2"/> in some languages <pause dur="0.5"/> this <pause dur="0.6"/> gets accentuated somehow it's as if speakers <pause dur="0.5"/> start noticing it <pause dur="0.6"/> overtly <pause dur="1.3"/> consciously <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> they <pause dur="1.2"/> start believing well it is incorrect not to do this <pause dur="0.9"/> and those speakers over there in that other community this is where sociolinguistics comes in <pause dur="0.8"/> those people over there they don't really front their

<distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> sounds all that much <pause dur="0.2"/> in the environment of a high front vowel they say to themselves <pause dur="0.4"/> well <pause dur="0.2"/> they don't say that to themselves <pause dur="0.2"/> but they <pause dur="0.8"/> they say well those people over there they i mean <pause dur="1.7"/> we say <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct type="sampa">[k'i]</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/> but they just say <distinct type="sampa">[ki]</distinct> <pause dur="1.0"/> # so we're <pause dur="0.2"/> better than them so let's just start <trunc>exa</trunc> exaggerating this <distinct type="sampa">[k'i]</distinct><pause dur="0.3"/> thing <pause dur="0.7"/> this sort of fronting of the <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> and the lot in the other in the other village so they say <trunc>d</trunc> you know those lot # # people over there they they say <distinct type="sampa">[tsi]</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> for <distinct type="sampa">[ki]</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> how ridiculous <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> crazy way of pronouncing it <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>we</trunc> we're going to stick with <distinct type="sampa">[ki]</distinct> <pause dur="1.0"/> right <pause dur="0.2"/> in our village over here <pause dur="0.7"/> however that village over there is a big village and the one where you're in one well you only say <distinct type="sampa">[ki]</distinct> is a little

village so then you start <pause dur="0.7"/> assimilating this 'cause it's regarded as a really good way <pause dur="0.4"/> a really wonderful great way of saying key to say <distinct type="sampa">[k'i]</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="1.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> nothing has changed at this point <unclear>it's</unclear> just that there's an allophone <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> <pause dur="0.7"/> that is <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct type="sampa">[k']</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> before a high front vowel <pause dur="0.4"/> allophones yes <pause dur="2.4"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> right and then if you <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/><pause dur="0.4"/> nods of recognition which i don't always get when i say allophone i get <pause dur="0.9"/> anyway <pause dur="0.2"/> good <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> you have just taken an exam in phonetics and phonology i think though some of you are second years <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="1.1"/> the question is is this phonetics or phonology <pause dur="1.0"/> well <pause dur="1.1"/> once there is very obviously an allophone <pause dur="0.4"/> that is fronted <pause dur="0.5"/> more than would be <pause dur="0.3"/> predicted by coarticulation then you're dealing with phonology <pause dur="1.0"/> in some way <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> let just # <pause dur="0.7"/> think how this okay <pause dur="0.5"/> okay so let's let's say you got one community that's started saying <distinct type="sampa">[tSi]</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> okay it is it gone the

whole hog actually and is producing a <trunc>f</trunc> proper <distinct type="sampa">[tS]</distinct> sound <distinct type="sampa">[tSi]</distinct> <pause dur="0.6"/> it's still an allophone <pause dur="0.8"/> it's not possible to say <distinct type="sampa">[ki]</distinct> in this dialect we're talking about <pause dur="0.5"/> you have to say <distinct type="sampa">[tSi]</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> it's a bit like the Japanese <pause dur="0.6"/> who <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> have <pause dur="1.6"/> this sound here <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> this phoneme <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct type="sampa">[s]</distinct> <pause dur="0.7"/> which is <distinct type="sampa">[s]</distinct> in all environments except before <pause dur="0.2"/> a high front vowel <pause dur="0.5"/> where the <distinct type="sampa">[s]</distinct> becomes <pause dur="0.6"/> <distinct type="sampa">[S]</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> all right <pause dur="0.8"/> so that you see <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean i've just been reading <pause dur="1.4"/> about # a Japanese dialectologist <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> who spells his name like that <pause dur="1.1"/> right that's pronounced <distinct lang="ja" type="sampa">[SIb{t{]</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/> right not <distinct lang="ja" type="sampa">[sIb{t{]</distinct> but <distinct lang="ja" type="sampa">[SIb{t{]</distinct> <pause dur="1.7"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> because of this high front vowel <pause dur="1.3"/> now it's not

possible for Japanese to say <distinct lang="ja" type="sampa">[sIb{t{]</distinct> <pause dur="1.5"/> so when the Japanese are saying sit they have to be careful in English <pause dur="0.2"/> all right <pause dur="3.2"/><vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> so that's an a a strictly allophonic <pause dur="0.2"/> effect <pause dur="1.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> let's say <pause dur="0.7"/> we have these speakers who say <distinct type="sampa">[tSi]</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> for key <pause dur="0.7"/> and # <pause dur="0.3"/> and then suddenly <trunc>c</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>s</trunc> somebody comes along with <pause dur="0.8"/> a new word # <pause dur="1.5"/> let's say <pause dur="0.2"/> just invent a new completely new word right <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> this is it here <pause dur="1.9"/> and this this means a kind of pot of some kind okay it's entirely <pause dur="0.3"/> it i invented it just now a kind of pot <pause dur="0.7"/> # <distinct type="sampa">[kim]</distinct> <pause dur="1.1"/> and it's a cultural loan from some other language <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> in the <distinct type="sampa">[tSi]</distinct> village <pause dur="0.6"/> people don't say <distinct type="sampa">[tSim]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> they say <distinct type="sampa">[kim]</distinct> because that's the correct way of pronouncing it <pause dur="2.0"/> so you <trunc>no</trunc> you notice what's happened suddenly <pause dur="2.3"/> <distinct type="sampa">[tS]</distinct>

and <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> have become <pause dur="0.2"/> phonemes <pause dur="1.3"/> because they can appear in the same phonological environment <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words <pause dur="1.0"/> # they can <trunc>inf</trunc> occur <pause dur="0.2"/> before a high front vowel <pause dur="1.1"/> in this hypothetical <pause dur="0.3"/> entirely <trunc>hypoth</trunc> hypothetical case <pause dur="1.3"/> now then # <pause dur="0.2"/> # do you follow what i'm i'm saying it's been phonologized <pause dur="0.9"/> this is how the <trunc>ph</trunc> the the phoneme <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct type="sampa">[tS]</distinct> in English actually came about not with this word here <pause dur="0.2"/> but <pause dur="0.6"/> in various other ways <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> okay i can show you <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> there was in Old English <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="7.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a word that was spelled like this <pause dur="2.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> that's that's how it was written and this is how it was pronounced # <pause dur="3.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> and i'll say it <pause dur="1.1"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="oe">cirice</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> <distinct lang="oe">cirice</distinct> and it meant church <pause dur="1.0"/> which is the <pause dur="0.7"/> direct antecedent of our word church <pause dur="1.2"/> this was already in the Old English period we're dealing with <pause dur="0.9"/> fifteen-hundred years ago not quite <pause dur="0.5"/> twelve thirteen-hundred years ago <pause dur="0.2"/> it was it was already

pronounced like that <pause dur="0.8"/> now then there was a particular <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> Norse invasion <pause dur="1.2"/> into the the north you know east of England and parts of Scotland <pause dur="1.0"/> and these Scandinavians came from Denmark and Norway <pause dur="0.9"/> and they introduced <pause dur="0.4"/> a word which they pronounced well this <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> is the <pause dur="1.3"/> this is one pronounciation of it <pause dur="1.5"/> kirkia <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> kirkia <pause dur="0.3"/> they <pause dur="0.2"/> they they said <pause dur="1.0"/> this word <pause dur="0.2"/> ends up as the Scots word <pause dur="0.5"/> <distinct lang="sco">kirk</distinct> <pause dur="3.7"/> <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> all right which is the name of the Scottish church the <distinct lang="sco">kirk</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> right <pause dur="1.3"/> and you'll notice <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> it's not church it's <distinct lang="sco">kirk</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> so they retained the <trunc>ol</trunc> the old Norse the old Scandinavian <pause dur="1.1"/> velar sounds here <pause dur="2.1"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="sco">kirk</distinct> and that remained <pause dur="0.4"/> forever <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> there is a <pause dur="0.2"/> an English word keel <pause dur="2.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> the bottom bit of a boat <pause dur="1.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> that is a Norse word as well <pause dur="0.7"/> the hard <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/> now those of you who are Scandinavian who <trunc>m</trunc> in here might say but <pause dur="0.5"/> Norwegians they don't have a hard <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> in these words they have a <pause dur="0.2"/> a soft <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/>

they say <pause dur="0.6"/> well they say <distinct lang="no" type="sampa">[tSVrLtS{]</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> something for this and they say <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="no" type="sampa">[tS3rl]</distinct> for this <pause dur="0.9"/> but that's because <pause dur="0.3"/> in the years after the Viking invasions <pause dur="0.6"/> Norwegian <pause dur="0.5"/> underwent a sound change whereby <pause dur="1.5"/> the same palatalization occurred but entirely separately and much later <pause dur="0.9"/> in in middle Norwegian in some you know in the <pause dur="0.7"/> thirteenth century or fourteenth century or something like that hundreds of years after the Viking <pause dur="0.4"/> # the Vikings <pause dur="0.5"/> so that's why Norwegians say <pause dur="1.1"/> well depending what dialect you speak whether it's something like <distinct lang="no" type="sampa">[tS3rl]</distinct> for this and <pause dur="0.8"/> <distinct lang="no" type="sampa">[tSVrLtS{]</distinct> for this <pause dur="0.8"/> all right <pause dur="0.5"/> but at the time when the Viking invasions took place they had <pause dur="0.2"/> a <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> in these words <pause dur="0.7"/> right <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.7"/> when this kind of thing happened then <distinct type="sampa">[tS]</distinct> and <distinct type="sampa">[k]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/>

became separate phonemes in in English <pause dur="1.0"/> okay right <pause dur="5.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> there are other examples of this # <pause dur="1.2"/> it's a because it's such a natural change # there was a Latin word <distinct lang="la" type="sampa">[amiko]</distinct> which meant friend and the plural <distinct lang="la" type="sampa">[amiki]</distinct> <pause dur="1.1"/> # which meant friends and that ends up in <trunc>mo</trunc> modern Italian as <distinct lang="it" type="sampa">[amiko]</distinct> that's the same <pause dur="0.3"/> but <distinct lang="it" type="sampa">[amitSi]</distinct> <pause dur="1.5"/> right <pause dur="1.6"/>

so a similar kind of thing happened in in well in <trunc>v</trunc> a very long time ago in early Latin <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> right <pause dur="0.8"/> okay how does this transition happen <pause dur="0.5"/> then okay so we've got this this thing moving from <pause dur="0.4"/> one <pause dur="0.6"/> area <pause dur="0.3"/> to another area <pause dur="0.2"/> another level if you like <pause dur="0.5"/> well # <pause dur="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 <pause dur="1.3"/> why didn't it occur later <pause dur="0.9"/> well <pause dur="0.4"/> these are <pause dur="0.2"/> unanswerable questions they're not answerable <pause dur="0.2"/> in relation to <pause dur="0.7"/> linguistic structure <pause dur="1.2"/> all right <pause dur="1.0"/> because <pause dur="1.0"/> of social factors <pause dur="0.3"/> something out <pause dur="0.3"/> external <pause dur="0.2"/> to the language historical linguists are very <pause dur="0.3"/> exercised by what <pause dur="1.0"/> constitutes internal motivations for language change <pause dur="0.5"/> structural motivations if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> whether there's a a tension in the system somewhere <pause dur="1.2"/> on the one hand and external <pause dur="0.2"/> reasons on the

other hand <pause dur="0.5"/> namely to do with <pause dur="1.0"/> well <pause dur="0.6"/> sociolinguistic factors <pause dur="0.9"/> right there is a <pause dur="0.7"/> there's <pause dur="1.0"/> there's language contact maybe speakers of different languages come together there's <pause dur="0.4"/> dialect contact speakers of of different dialects coming together <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> there is a sense in which all of a sudden some particular sound becomes stigmatized <pause dur="1.0"/> becomes <pause dur="0.2"/> bad <pause dur="0.8"/> or it becomes favoured for some reason <pause dur="0.8"/> and then <pause dur="0.2"/> the <trunc>t</trunc> the change happens <pause dur="0.7"/> sometimes changes are <pause dur="0.4"/> entirely natural like the thing i'm talking about here <pause dur="0.8"/> # sometimes you can't really <pause dur="0.2"/> say whether they're they're natural like a vowel <pause dur="0.3"/> becoming <trunc>l</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> <distinct type="sampa">[E]</distinct> going to <distinct type="sampa">[E_o]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean there's nothing natural about that <pause dur="0.8"/> and <distinct type="sampa">[E]</distinct> goes to <distinct type="sampa">[E_r]</distinct> just as often <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>j</trunc> you get a lowering and and raising of vowels and sometimes <pause dur="1.1"/> if you take <pause dur="0.6"/> the English <distinct type="sampa">[{]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> vowel <pause dur="0.3"/> English A vowel <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="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 <pause dur="0.8"/> from a <pause dur="0.6"/> something like <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct type="sampa">[m{n]</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> to <distinct type="sampa">[man]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> to <distinct type="sampa">[mAn]</distinct> to <distinct type="sampa">[mEn]</distinct> and back to <distinct type="sampa">[m{n]</distinct> <pause dur="0.7"/> it goes up and down <pause dur="1.1"/> for no apparent reason other than well <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean social reasons every every time somebody says something different <pause dur="0.8"/> some # some <pause dur="0.2"/> something is # <pause dur="0.2"/> some sociolinguistic # <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> value is attached to it of some sort <pause dur="1.1"/> right but in general terms <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> if you think about <pause dur="1.1"/> <trunc>sus</trunc> the speech production system and speech perception system <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/> there <pause dur="0.3"/> is a <trunc>t</trunc> a a tension <pause dur="0.6"/> between <pause dur="0.5"/> minimizing what is <pause dur="0.2"/> difficult to pronounce <pause dur="1.2"/> and <pause dur="1.2"/> minimizing the <pause dur="0.2"/> the effort on the part of the listener sort of to distinguish what <pause dur="0.4"/> what's being said <pause dur="1.3"/> so you've got ease of articulation <pause dur="0.8"/> and ease of perception <pause dur="0.4"/> on the other hand <pause dur="1.0"/> so the speaker does <trunc>n</trunc> not have the same interests <pause dur="0.3"/> as the

listener <pause dur="1.7"/> and there is an intrinsic <pause dur="0.3"/> tension <pause dur="0.2"/> between those two <pause dur="0.4"/> and as you know <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> we <pause dur="0.3"/> often mishear <pause dur="0.3"/> each other <pause dur="0.2"/> and we have to get people to say things again <pause dur="0.5"/> some and when somebody repeats something <pause dur="0.7"/> what they tend to do is to pronounce it more <pause dur="0.2"/> clearly more explicitly <pause dur="1.0"/> so in informal speech it's fine <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> garble <pause dur="1.3"/> # because it's pretty predictable <trunc>wha</trunc> what we're going to say next anyway <pause dur="0.5"/> in a in an <trunc>i</trunc> typical ingroup situation <pause dur="1.0"/> # when you're reading the news <pause dur="0.5"/> it's not a good idea to garble too much because <pause dur="0.4"/> the listener <pause dur="0.7"/> is being provided with new information <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.0"/> and there's no opportunity for the listener to ask <pause dur="0.2"/> the newsreader to repeat himself or herself <pause dur="1.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="1.1"/> anyway <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> in terms of the speaker the easiest thing in the world would be just to abandon <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> all these different consonantal divisions we have in English and some of you have <pause dur="0.2"/> been struggling with <pause dur="0.4"/> things like <distinct type="sampa">[T]</distinct> and so on <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> so that <pause dur="0.7"/> so just abandon all that

and maybe abandon consonants altogether <pause dur="1.0"/> as they impede the the breath and just stick with <pause dur="0.2"/> well abandon all the vowels <pause dur="0.6"/> too just have one vowel <pause dur="0.2"/> but that <pause dur="0.2"/> isn't really very good <pause dur="0.2"/> because <pause dur="0.2"/> language <pause dur="0.7"/> it's it's not efficient it is not an efficient way <pause dur="0.2"/> to organize language just to have one vowel <pause dur="0.5"/> and no consonants <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> it might be fine for the speaker but it doesn't help the listener now the listener <pause dur="0.8"/> needs # <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean i i think <pause dur="1.2"/> speakers can perceive <pause dur="0.3"/> a few hundred <pause dur="0.2"/> different <pause dur="0.2"/> distinctions listeners can i think something like that whatever it is <pause dur="0.8"/> so therefore it's no coincidence that the <pause dur="0.5"/> number of phonemes in languages <pause dur="0.6"/> ranges between <pause dur="0.7"/> i don't know fifteen to seventy <pause dur="0.3"/> or something <pause dur="0.2"/> like that <pause dur="0.8"/> whatever it is i'm not quite sure <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>w</trunc> with most probably being forty or fifty or <trunc>som</trunc> or something like that phonemes i suppose <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="2.3"/> <trunc>the</trunc> there aren't any languages with five-hundred phonemes for example <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean in principle there could be 'cause we can produce five-hundred

different sounds <pause dur="1.0"/> so there is something cognitive there as well to do with the auditory system that's adapted to hearing <pause dur="1.0"/> speech sounds <pause dur="0.6"/> and the brain both the <trunc>audit</trunc> both the the # auditory system and the brain <pause dur="0.7"/> are adapted <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> perceiving speech sounds <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="1.1"/> there is a constant tension <pause dur="0.2"/> between these two <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> it never settles down <pause dur="0.2"/> basically <pause dur="0.4"/> you always get <trunc>some</trunc> something happening in in languages <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> because of this tension which is then exacerbated by the fact that there's also social <pause dur="0.4"/> changes as well <pause dur="0.3"/> which means that <pause dur="0.4"/> to do with people moving around and <trunc>ha</trunc> and <pause dur="0.2"/> acquiring different statuses and so on <pause dur="3.6"/> # <pause dur="2.0"/> there's no sign of <pause dur="0.4"/> languages as i indicated <pause dur="0.4"/> language sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> slowing down <pause dur="0.3"/> over the <pause dur="0.2"/> many <pause dur="0.3"/> tens of thousand language change slowing down over tens of thousands of years <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> what you can say though <pause dur="0.2"/> is that with <pause dur="0.4"/> globalization <pause dur="0.8"/> in the one <trunc>se</trunc> in the sense of <pause dur="0.4"/> English <pause dur="1.2"/> being a major language a major <pause dur="0.3"/> donor language and we're talking about just the last fifty years <pause dur="1.1"/> out of all the <pause dur="0.2"/> hundreds of

thousands of years in which languages have been spoken <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and with the <pause dur="0.5"/> demise of isolated communities <pause dur="1.4"/> where <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> very shall we say <pause dur="0.5"/> small languages are spoken <pause dur="0.3"/> small <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> only meaning a small number of speakers doesn't mean it's small in its system but only <pause dur="0.3"/> only in the sense of small numbers of speakers <pause dur="0.6"/> there are fewer and fewer languages with <pause dur="0.5"/> small numbers of speakers <pause dur="1.2"/> and what's happens is not that those people die off <pause dur="0.2"/> but they <pause dur="0.6"/> shift to somebody else's language <pause dur="0.5"/> so that <pause dur="0.2"/> that somebody else's language then acquires more speakers <pause dur="0.4"/> so that that that is the tendency <pause dur="0.3"/> but that's what different now from what from two-hundred years ago <pause dur="0.9"/> all right <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> the the loss of isolated linguistic communities <pause dur="1.5"/> # and that does have certain consequences for <pause dur="0.2"/> for change but anyway i'm not i won't be going on on to those <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="2.4"/> okay what are our sources <pause dur="0.6"/> for <pause dur="1.0"/> language change <pause dur="2.4"/> where do we get the information from for language change <pause dur="1.7"/> now <pause dur="2.2"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>o</trunc> obvious thing is <pause dur="0.2"/> written down <pause dur="0.2"/> versions <pause dur="0.6"/> of language <pause dur="1.7"/>

the unfortunate thing about that is that <pause dur="1.6"/> writing <pause dur="0.4"/> is a <trunc>f</trunc> relatively recent activity <pause dur="1.0"/> in the history of <pause dur="0.2"/> human language <pause dur="0.4"/> it's perhaps five-thousand <pause dur="0.2"/> years old or so <pause dur="1.0"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> what we have i mean the # Egyptian <pause dur="0.3"/> from about three-thousand years ago Chinese <pause dur="0.5"/> no five-thousand years ago Chinese maybe three-thousand years ago Greek three-thousand years <pause dur="0.7"/> Sanskrit four-thousand years <pause dur="1.0"/> # and that's about it <pause dur="0.4"/> right <pause dur="1.9"/> writing systems <pause dur="1.6"/> # i mean vast majority of languages <pause dur="0.5"/> only received writing systems if they have <pause dur="0.2"/> received them yet within the last <pause dur="0.7"/> i don't know <pause dur="0.2"/> five-hundred years or so <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> so the time depth is very shallow for English <pause dur="0.8"/> which is the <pause dur="0.8"/> the object of so much investigation <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.7"/> not because of any quality of to do <pause dur="0.2"/> to English but <pause dur="0.4"/> because of its <pause dur="0.5"/> # political <pause dur="0.2"/> influence <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> that we only have <pause dur="0.8"/> well <pause dur="0.4"/> thirteen-hundred years of written history <pause dur="1.3"/> right <pause dur="1.1"/> # with other languages we have slightly more or slightly less <pause dur="1.2"/> and then with yet other languages we have no written history whatsoever <pause dur="1.2"/> anyway <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> and

even the written sources are variable in their <pause dur="0.4"/> usefulness to us <pause dur="0.7"/> if you have a writing system <pause dur="0.3"/> that is simply shall we say picture writing <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> pictography i think is a word for it <pause dur="0.5"/> there is a direct iconic relation with the real world <pause dur="0.5"/> so if i were to draw <pause dur="0.2"/> a map <pause dur="0.8"/> of an <trunc>ar</trunc> treasure island with an arrow on it okay that would be <pause dur="0.4"/> intended to be <pause dur="0.8"/> a direct <pause dur="0.4"/> scaling down <pause dur="0.2"/> of the thing i was illustrating <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> it doesn't <pause dur="0.6"/> have any bearing <pause dur="0.3"/> to language at all <pause dur="1.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> secondly i can strip down <pause dur="0.8"/> this thing and and <pause dur="0.3"/> make something much simpler <pause dur="0.9"/> so i can draw something like this <pause dur="3.6"/> <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> all right <pause dur="2.8"/> oh God isn't that awful <pause dur="0.4"/> anyway <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.6"/> <vocal desc="laugh" n="sf1261" iterated="n"/> that is not a <pause dur="0.3"/> rosette or something it's supposed to be a <pause dur="0.8"/> something you might find on a loo <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> anyway # <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.1"/> okay this does not i <trunc>s</trunc> i mean apart from the fact it's a very poor representation of the thing i'm trying i was aiming at <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> we just understand that this sort of stick man kind of thing represents a man and then there's a stick woman <pause dur="0.5"/> who who has her both legs

together it seems and a skirt <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> and that represents i mean doesn't represent a man it represents a <trunc>ma</trunc> a men's toilet <pause dur="0.3"/> for heaven's sake it's not a man <pause dur="0.9"/> you you don't expect to find <pause dur="0.5"/> men in there <pause dur="0.6"/> well you might do <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="2"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.6"/> but # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>i</trunc> that's not the the intention of it <pause dur="0.3"/> so # <pause dur="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 <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> then you can <pause dur="0.2"/> have some kind of <pause dur="0.3"/> graphic sign <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> indicating a linguistic unit <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> particularly a word <pause dur="1.1"/> so that you have <pause dur="0.4"/> some kind of <pause dur="0.4"/> symbol which may or may not be iconic <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>s</trunc> is <trunc>si</trunc> signifying a a word <pause dur="1.0"/> this means you get one word and one sign <pause dur="0.3"/> now this is not a very efficient way if you consider that we have <pause dur="0.8"/> i don't know what have we got in our heads thiry-thousand words or something like that <pause dur="0.7"/> we don't have that number of symbols <pause dur="0.6"/> the Chinese have something along those lines except that there is <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> quite a careful organization <pause dur="0.6"/> within the <trunc>s</trunc> within the Chinese <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> symbols <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.8"/>

now <pause dur="0.4"/> syllabic <pause dur="0.2"/> and alphabetic writing this is really they <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the best source if you like for the <pause dur="0.8"/> the phonological form <pause dur="0.3"/> of words <pause dur="0.4"/> syllabic and alphabetic writing <pause dur="0.5"/> because they represent sounds <pause dur="0.4"/> and phonological systems in some in some way or other <pause dur="0.9"/> # alphabetic writing systems are essentially phonemic <pause dur="0.6"/> even the English one <pause dur="0.6"/> essentially phonemic <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="1.8"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> these are <pause dur="0.5"/> really the most useful <pause dur="0.6"/> so alphabetic writing systems were <pause dur="0.4"/> it's not known how whether they were just <pause dur="0.2"/> invented once <pause dur="0.3"/> thought they might have been invented twice once <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.7"/> sort of Egyptian # Near Eastern sort of area <pause dur="0.6"/> from that large area represented by that we don't know exactly when <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> and then once in Korea or something in the <pause dur="0.6"/> tenth century <pause dur="0.2"/> or something like that <pause dur="0.4"/> but apart apart from that <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> not <pause dur="1.5"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> right <pause dur="1.1"/> so it <trunc>i</trunc> it is rather limited <pause dur="0.9"/> now writing systems <pause dur="0.7"/> have a disadvantage as well <pause dur="0.3"/> and English <pause dur="0.7"/> shows that very clearly and that is the that it's very conservative <pause dur="1.5"/> # particularly English

writing system <pause dur="0.5"/> because it's relatively old <pause dur="0.2"/> and because it hasn't <pause dur="0.2"/> it never really got standardized <pause dur="1.0"/> by an academy <pause dur="0.9"/> # you have well if i were to say <pause dur="0.4"/> the word right <pause dur="0.3"/> to you <pause dur="0.7"/> right <pause dur="1.0"/> there are <pause dur="0.2"/> four ways of spelling this representing four different words # two of them have a W in front <pause dur="0.8"/> and two of them have a G-H in the middle <pause dur="1.3"/> so you get <pause dur="0.2"/> W-R-<pause dur="0.2"/>I-T-E <pause dur="0.5"/> R-I-T-E R-I-G-H-T and W-R-I-G-H-T <pause dur="1.1"/> all right meaning four different words <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> they represent <pause dur="0.3"/> four different pronunciations in earlier stages of the language <pause dur="1.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> so that's a problem <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> if you want to deduce the <trunc>pronu</trunc> # you know the contemporary pronunciation if anybody saw those words written down they would suppose they were pronounced differently <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="2.1"/> and then another thing that is not represented <pause dur="0.6"/> often in writing is <pause dur="0.3"/> # morphophonemic alternations now German <pause dur="0.9"/> has <pause dur="0.4"/> an alternation <pause dur="0.9"/> involving <pause dur="1.3"/> a word like <pause dur="0.3"/> this word here <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="3.0"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> two words <pause dur="1.8"/> both pronounced <pause dur="0.5"/> <distinct lang="de" type="sampa">[Ra:t]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> approximately <pause dur="0.8"/> all

right both pronounced <distinct lang="de" type="sampa">[Ra:t]</distinct> <pause dur="4.9"/> <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> like that <pause dur="0.2"/> right well <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/><pause dur="1.2"/> that's a phonetic transcription <pause dur="0.3"/> right <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> they can both be pluralized <pause dur="0.3"/> but then you will notice that in one case a <pause dur="0.4"/> a D appears in this one <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="de" type="sampa">[RE:d@]</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> <distinct lang="de" type="sampa">[RE:d@]</distinct> something like that and this is what <pause dur="1.0"/> what's the plural of can't remember </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sm1262" trans="pause"> <distinct lang="de" type="sampa">[RE:t@]</distinct></u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nm1254" trans="pause"> <distinct lang="de" type="sampa"> [RE:t@]</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> yeah <pause dur="0.6"/> there's a <distinct type="sampa">[t]</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> right <pause dur="0.5"/> and that is # <pause dur="0.6"/> preserved in the writing system so that <pause dur="0.2"/> it doesn't this does not show that <pause dur="0.5"/> at the end of <pause dur="0.2"/> German words <pause dur="0.4"/> there is a neutralization of the voicing contrast <pause dur="1.3"/> the writing system doesn't <pause dur="0.3"/> indicate that <pause dur="2.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> right # <pause dur="2.9"/> okay what about <pause dur="0.5"/> speed of change then <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> looking at old texts <pause dur="1.6"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> you might suppose that <pause dur="0.6"/> change is <pause dur="1.7"/> discrete <pause dur="0.6"/> other words <pause dur="0.2"/> you go from stage A to stage B <pause dur="1.0"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> # with a <pause dur="0.2"/> an a a abrupt <pause dur="0.3"/>

switch <pause dur="1.5"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> and that there is no variation <pause dur="0.4"/> in any given speech community <pause dur="0.8"/> or very little variation in any given speech community <pause dur="1.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> so for example we find <pause dur="0.4"/> there's an Old English <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="12"/> vowel <pause dur="4.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> i'll just write down the word i'm thinking of this one here <pause dur="1.1"/> okay that says <distinct lang="oe">stan</distinct> <pause dur="2.5"/> and that means stone <pause dur="0.7"/> all right <pause dur="0.7"/> <distinct lang="oe">stan</distinct> this is the way it was written <pause dur="0.4"/> # with or without that accent on the top <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> by the time you get to the Middle English period we find <pause dur="0.2"/> it written like that <pause dur="0.9"/> or with an E on the end <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> depending <pause dur="1.2"/> and that represents an <distinct type="sampa">[o]</distinct> kind of vowel <distinct lang="oe" type="sampa">[ston]</distinct> <pause dur="1.8"/> <distinct lang="oe" type="sampa">[ston]</distinct> right so it goes from <distinct lang="oe" type="sampa">[stAn]</distinct> to <distinct lang="oe" type="sampa">[ston]</distinct> you get <pause dur="0.3"/> basically there is raising of this <pause dur="1.2"/> back vowel <pause dur="0.3"/> from <distinct type="sampa">[A]</distinct> to

<distinct type="sampa">[o]</distinct> <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="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 <pause dur="0.3"/> in in the same word <pause dur="0.4"/> we have everything well <pause dur="0.3"/> i'll just write <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="17"/> down a few variants <distinct type="sampa">[st8@n]</distinct> <pause dur="1.1"/> <distinct type="sampa">[stI@n]</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> <distinct type="sampa">[sto:n]</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/> <distinct type="sampa">[stO:n]</distinct> <pause dur="1.1"/> <distinct type="sampa">[sto8n]</distinct> <pause dur="1.6"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> <distinct type="sampa">[st@8n]</distinct> <pause dur="2.1"/> <distinct type="sampa">[st@In]</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> and so on <pause dur="0.2"/> all right <pause dur="1.3"/> these are the variants in Modern English <pause dur="0.2"/> and more besides <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> so it's almost as if suddenly there's been a <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/><pause dur="0.4"/> flowering of variation but that's can't be the case 'cause there must always have been variation <pause dur="1.0"/> right <pause dur="0.7"/> this is because we can actually go out and listen to people now <pause dur="0.9"/> and the last <pause dur="0.3"/> for the last fifty years as well we've had <pause dur="0.4"/> reliable tape recordings of people so we can actually trace <pause dur="0.2"/> changes <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/>

so <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> this then is the sort of idealization when i say that something goes from X to Y <pause dur="0.4"/> in some early stage of a language <pause dur="0.5"/> you have to think you know well it <pause dur="0.4"/> well to put it well it wasn't as simple as that <pause dur="1.8"/> right # <pause dur="1.8"/> okay now <pause dur="1.0"/> what i want to do now <pause dur="0.3"/> okay this this handout you have in front of you <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="2.9"/> it's really for this week and next week <pause dur="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 <pause dur="1.9"/> and to start talking about the # <pause dur="0.6"/> types of <pause dur="0.4"/> of of of changes <pause dur="0.3"/> that might exist <pause dur="0.8"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="4.1"/><event desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> right <pause dur="0.5"/> so on page three <pause dur="0.5"/> okay relatedness of languages i think i'll try and cover <pause dur="0.7"/> this point one <pause dur="0.2"/> on page three <pause dur="0.9"/> it should be possible to do that in the time available <pause dur="1.1"/> right <pause dur="0.2"/> now you see there <pause dur="0.4"/> # a table <pause dur="0.4"/> of and <trunc>th</trunc> it's on the overhead as well <pause dur="6.1"/><kinesic desc="turns on overhead projector showing transparency" iterated="n"/><event desc="presses overhead projector switches" iterated="y" dur="1"/> shut up <pause dur="8.1"/> right okay so you see there # a <pause dur="1.2"/> a table of items in English and German <pause dur="1.0"/> which <pause dur="0.7"/> have similar meanings and also similar phonetic forms <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> and what you will notice <pause dur="0.3"/> if you look at this

concentrating on the consonants <pause dur="0.9"/> is that in English every <pause dur="0.3"/> English word in # in under A <pause dur="1.1"/> there is a <distinct type="sampa">[t]</distinct> <pause dur="1.8"/> and in <pause dur="0.7"/> some of the German words there is a <distinct type="sampa">[ts]</distinct> <pause dur="1.0"/> some other German words there's a <distinct type="sampa">[s]</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> and yet others there's a <distinct type="sampa">[t]</distinct> <pause dur="2.1"/> all right <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean the first <pause dur="0.4"/> thing to realize <pause dur="0.3"/> i suppose this thing that strikes you is that actually there's there's a general similarity about # the English and the German forms there so that leads you to suppose that maybe <pause dur="0.4"/> these two languages were derived from a common source <pause dur="1.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> however there are details like this the relationship between <distinct type="sampa">[t]</distinct> in English and these three other sounds in German <pause dur="0.5"/> that are a bit mystifying <pause dur="0.2"/> at the moment <pause dur="1.0"/> # likewise if you look under <pause dur="0.3"/> B the bit below <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> you'll see <pause dur="0.7"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> # in German <pause dur="0.5"/> the other way round this time there's one vowel <pause dur="0.4"/> the <distinct type="sampa">[aI]</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> vowel of

German <pause dur="0.9"/> to get <distinct lang="de">laib</distinct> <distinct lang="de">stein</distinct> <distinct lang="de">eiche</distinct> <distinct lang="de">mein</distinct> <distinct lang="de">eis</distinct> <distinct lang="de">zeit</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/> in German <pause dur="0.2"/> would then corresponds apparently to two <pause dur="0.5"/> sounds of English so you get loaf stone oak <pause dur="0.6"/> mine ice tide <pause dur="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 <pause dur="0.8"/> how did this come about you know is is this actually <pause dur="0.5"/> complete mystery or is there something <pause dur="0.9"/> something # that we can that we can <pause dur="0.3"/> discover about this <pause dur="0.7"/> right <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.9"/> let's look at the <pause dur="1.1"/> next table under C here <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> this time two more languages Icelandic and # well <trunc>ne</trunc> another adding another language <pause dur="1.0"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> you know bears broad similarities to English in much of its vocabulary and phonetic form <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> and this time English and Icelandic seem to be paired quite closely <pause dur="0.9"/> and differentiated from German <pause dur="1.0"/> so what i've done is to take some basic vocabulary which seem to be

which are shared between Icelandic <pause dur="0.4"/> and English <pause dur="0.3"/> but not German <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> and as as you can see <pause dur="0.5"/> you know the same words occur on both <trunc>si</trunc> # in both those columns but not in the German column <pause dur="0.5"/> this might lead you to suppose that in fact <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> German and and English are related as from you saw from A and B <pause dur="0.2"/> in some case but there may be <pause dur="1.2"/> # English and Icelandic are in fact more closely related <pause dur="0.4"/> than English is to German <pause dur="0.2"/> because of the shared vocabulary here that's not shared with <pause dur="0.3"/> with German <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.3"/> the the answer <pause dur="0.4"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> in fact <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> not really <pause dur="1.0"/> not historically <pause dur="1.2"/> now Icelandic is the <pause dur="0.5"/> closest we have to the language of the Vikings <pause dur="0.9"/> descended into the modern age <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> and it is also known that there were <pause dur="0.6"/> # Viking <pause dur="0.2"/> invasions <pause dur="0.6"/> and that a lot of <pause dur="0.5"/> Viking <pause dur="0.7"/> Scandinavian vocabulary came into English at the same time <pause dur="0.5"/> all those <pause dur="0.2"/> English words in the English column under C are in fact Norse loan words <pause dur="1.0"/> a result of language contact <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> not <pause dur="0.3"/> a result of <pause dur="0.2"/> shared origin of those two languages <pause dur="1.6"/> all right <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> contact is

something that <pause dur="0.9"/> and i'll be showing you some examples of this <pause dur="1.0"/> # a bit later on <pause dur="0.2"/> contact is something that <pause dur="0.5"/> muddies the waters <pause dur="1.0"/> if you can you you can # assume <pause dur="0.4"/> if if the assumption is <pause dur="0.5"/> that there is a sort of <trunc>fa</trunc> the so-called family tree theory which <pause dur="0.2"/> again is something i'll be mentioning <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> that languages <pause dur="0.5"/> split off from each other and then split off into ever <pause dur="0.6"/> more diversified units <pause dur="0.4"/> so it so that <pause dur="0.3"/> in our case you have <pause dur="0.6"/> Indo-European which then splits into an Eastern and a Western branch and so on and there's a Germanic branch <pause dur="0.5"/> Germanic branch splits into English German Dutch Flemish <pause dur="0.6"/> # Frisian Scandinavian and and so on <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> what actually is happening all this time is <pause dur="0.2"/> well <pause dur="0.2"/> 'cause change is gradual <pause dur="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 <pause dur="0.2"/> if you like <pause dur="0.7"/> so this is one <pause dur="0.8"/> <trunc>s</trunc> # so <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>i</trunc> if you you just simply looked at English and Icelandic you might <pause dur="0.4"/> be you

could be forgiven for thinking that <pause dur="0.6"/> they were <pause dur="0.9"/> # related more closely than they are <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> but that's because of <pause dur="0.3"/> contact after the time that they split off <pause dur="0.3"/> German and English are in fact more <pause dur="0.5"/> it's # they have a a more recent common origin <pause dur="0.6"/> than say <pause dur="0.5"/> German and Icelandic have <pause dur="0.6"/> which is then a step further back <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> and just to show that right for the right at the the bottom of the chart i've got an Icelandic word <distinct lang="is">gera</distinct> <pause dur="1.2"/> to do <pause dur="1.4"/> and then <pause dur="0.3"/> English and German words do make <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="de">tun</distinct> <distinct lang="de">machen</distinct> which Scandinavian simply doesn't have doesn't have those words <pause dur="0.9"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> Norwegian does have <distinct lang="no">maker</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> <distinct lang="no">maker</distinct> <distinct lang="no">skomaker</distinct> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but that is <pause dur="0.4"/> a German loanword <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>from much later <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>on so that there's no contact then mucks up things even for Norwegian as well <pause dur="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 <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> okay so that's i'll leave you leave it there <pause dur="0.2"/> and i'll stop so # <pause dur="0.9"/> next week it'll be more of the same so if you can please bring that handout along next week </u><pause dur="4.6"/> <u who="sf1261" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/> </u><u who="nm1254" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> oh yeah sure yeah <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> spare handouts anybody <pause dur="1.4"/> yeah