[PW] Re: Hypothetical cultural divergence

[Autumn Trenton]

>On the other hand, until "modern" communications and anthropologists
>muddied the waters, the language spoken in Appalachia was very much
>closer to Elizabethan English that it was to contemporary American, so
>there's an example of a language "freezing" in an isolated community.

This is a common myth but unsupported by the evidence.

>From Language Myths (http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/%7Emcginn/LanguageMyths.html)
Myth 9: In The Appalachians They Speak Like Shakespeare (Michael Montgomery)

"Thesis:  In many parts of Appalachia the local dialect is very close to 
Elizabethan English as spoken around the year 1600.  This myth was 
formulated by outsiders, and is very is robust for two reasons:  it is 
romantic (hence attractive); and it is and politically useful (helps 
outsiders appreciate the mountain folk).

"Antithesis:  But the so-called attractiveness of the myth does not make it 
true.  The thesis is of doubtful validity because:

"a. It is vague—so much so that linguists are not interested in exploring it
"b. It often cites wrong examples:  clumb and fotch and tee-toncey (`tiny’) 
are not actually Elizabethan.
"c. It is historically wrong—Appalachians didn’t come from England at all; 
most were from Scotland and Northern Ireland, and also from all over Europe.
"d. It is misleading—Appalachian children cannot read and understand 
Shakespeare any better than children from other dialect areas.

"Synthesis:  Appalachian English does contain quite a few archaisms which 
are also found in Chaucer and Shakespeare:  holp, afeard, learn (meaning 
`teach’)."

Remember, however, that all forms of Modern English retain features of 
Elizabethan English.  This is why English speakers today can understand 
400-year-old plays and the King James Version of the Bible.  (See 
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002699.html ).

Also in Language Log, at 
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002352.html , are links 
to recordings of reconstructed pronunciation of Shakespeare's plays.  I have 
never heard an Appalachian speak like that.  (I was born and raised in North 
Carolina and my mother's entire family hails from West Virginia, so I've 
heard a bit.)

As for the original question: Significant language change in 300 years is 
definitely within the realm of possibility.  However, for the languages to 
actually be 100% mutually unintelligible (usually the hallmark of a distinct 
language; the definition of dialect vs. language isn't always clear, 
though), it's unlikely, as Dan pointed out quite well.  Take that 
Elizabethan example: admittedly with some effort, most Modern English 
speakers can make sense of Shakespeare or the KJV.  That's how much our 
language has changed in nearly 400 years on its own.

A question about the Pacific Islanders Peter mentioned: Where did you read 
about that?  It seems like it would be difficult for a community of any size 
to radically change its vocabulary every time an individual died.

Autumn Trenton

> >Hello,
> >
> >I've had a friend ask me a hypothetical, possibly unanswerable question, 
>and I
> >thought this excellent listserv would be the best shot of giving me 
>direction
> >toward finding some sort of answer. The question, in my friend's words, 
>is:
> >
> >If you have a fairly homogeneous group of people that speak a common 
>language
> >that are then sundered by a cataclysm, following which the different 
>groups
> >remain fairly insular with little to no communication with each other or
> >outside cultures, how long would it take the languages to diverge? After, 
>say,
> >300 years, would they be separate languages or dialects? What types of
> >differences would one expect? I want fairly pronounced differences of 
>custom
> >and ritual, but this would no doubt be accompanied by divergence in 
>language as
> >well.
> >
> >I believe this is for a book he is writing.
> >
> >I realize that there are probably not any "real life" anthropological 
>examples
> >that could provide evidence of this scenario, but it is possible to find
> >scholarly speculation about the time needed for cultural and linguistic
> >divergence? I am aware of glottochronology theories, but they are not 
>very
> >accepted amongst linguists.
> >
> >Any suggestions will be most appreciated.
> >Thanks,
> >Megan Fitzgibbons
> >MLIS Candidate
> >megan.fitzgibbons at dal.ca
> >_______________________________________________
> >Project Wombat
> >list at project-wombat.org
> >http://www.project-wombat.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Project Wombat
>list at project-wombat.org
>http://www.project-wombat.org

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial!   
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail