Why do societies develop dialects over time? (Romans, influences, European)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been thinking about this lately and would like to read your thoughts and opinions.
Now, it seems to me that the way human beings evolved once they developed languages was that eventually in different regions people would develop a different form of the official language of their country, creating confusing dialects and accents. Actually, this goes on even to this day. Why is this the case? Is this not a negative thing, something that halts the evolution of a society? To seemingly alter the effectiveness of communication? Atleast to a certain degree, I mean some dialects are not much different than the official form of the language and therefor not a real problem, but I still wonder about the need for that.
I've been thinking about this lately and would like to read your thoughts and opinions.
Now, it seems to me that the way human beings evolved once they developed languages was that eventually in different regions people would develop a different form of the official language of their country, creating confusing dialects and accents. Actually, this goes on even to this day. Why is this the case? Is this not a negative thing, something that halts the evolution of a society? To seemingly alter the effectiveness of communication? Atleast to a certain degree, I mean some dialects are not much different than the official form of the language and therefor not a real problem, but I still wonder about the need for that.
The issue is change. Change in language is as ubiquitous as change in all other cultural practices. Culture is never entirely static. Rates of change vary, but change always occurs.
Different regions have different words/phrases to describe things unique to that area. Different regions are influenced by proximity to other languages while other regions are not and be region-specific occurrences.
The key is isolation. When a group is isolated from a sister group, changes within those respective groups are undergone separately. Eventually, dialects develop. Given enough time, the differences are so pronounced that we no longer consider the different dialects to even be part of the same language. When a region is bound by proximity or, in the modern era, mass communication, linguistic isolation is lessened.
I think I understand the question, and it is interesting. How did a uniform language develop in the first place, over a large territory where there was already sufficient isolation (in fact, even more so than today) to fragment into dialects? It seems as if, say, Polish isolated from Russian, Czech, etc, over a large area, where it was recognized (by whom, I wonder?) as a single language, and then turned back in the opposite direction to separate into dialects. Did it ever exist as a dialect-free language, pure and uniform, or did it just acquire an identity as Polish merely because all the proto-dialects were more or less mutually intelligible?
It would seem most logical to me that "Polish" was the term used to describe the language spoken by the educated in the center of power, and that the far-flung regions always spoke a poor approximation of that language, with dialects more so in place a thousand years ago then they are today. The actual evolution of the language tends toward the abolition of dialects, rather than the creation of them, as isolationism declines rather than advances. . Even the palace language drifting toward the more influential dialects, rather than the hinterlands adopting The King's Polish.
My question would be what came first the dialect of the unifying language. Assuming that isolated populations developed their own languages over thousands of years when the contemporary dominate language arrived, it had to be laid on top of existing syntax, and phonetics creating distinct dialects of the dominate language.
Dialect and accent are not the same thing. An American and Englishman can say exactly the same words with different accents. Dialects are sub-languages.
The American dialects of English, French, Spanish and Portuguese would follow a completely different set of evolutionary rules, in that it arises from a language that was transplanted from a different continent, and suddenly began to grow in isolation from day one, from parent speakers of the language. The way American English grew is very different from the way a language evolves when it stays in the same place for centuries., and should not be used as a model for natural linguistic shift..
The way American English grew is very different from the way a language evolves when it stays in the same place for centuries., and should not be used as a model for natural linguistic shift..
This is your playground, but why wouldn't that apply to other "nations" where uniform languages didn't exist until imposed by some unifying national identity?
This is your playground, but why wouldn't that apply to other "nations" where uniform languages didn't exist until imposed by some unifying national identity?
I think the OP intends to reference the natural evolution of dialects, without the imposition of a coercive force that has the intent of changing the language with a political objective. As in "societies develop dialects", not armies impose them.
I think the OP intends to reference the natural evolution of dialects, without the imposition of a coercive force that has the intent of changing the language with a political objective. As in "societies develop dialects", not armies impose them.
I don't think you can separate the evolution of dialects from "the imposition of a coercive force" because invasions and occupations happened all the time. In Europe, you have the gradual development of the "Romance" languages that are a mix of Latin and native language, and certainly the Latin was imposed by coercion by the Roman legions. English is such a difficult language for non-native speakers to learn because its original Briton/Celtic roots were overlaid by some Latin influences from the Romans, by Germanic influences forced on them by the Angles and Saxons, and later still the Vikings and Danes. Finally, they were invaded by the Normans who brought their own dialect of French with them. In Spain you have many words with Arabic origins courtesy of the Moorish invaders.
In areas where invaders were few and largely unsuccessful, original languages tend to survive. In the Pyrennes area, you have the Basque language which was apparently not influenced by either the Roman or the Arabic. The Normans and later the English struggled to conquer Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and in the areas outside the influence of the Norman/English armies, Gaelic survived.
I'm not particularly versed in Eastern European or Asian history but I expect you would find that same kind of thing. Invaders imposed their language and customs on the conquered. If they failed or their rule only lasted a short time, the original language was likely to survive. If you have something long-lasting like the Roman or Spanish empires, then the native language blends into the conquerors' language ... or is supplanted by it. Between the British Empire and American hegemony, much of the world has become English-speaking, some of it just accent but some of it dialect (think of the English spoken by Caribbean natives).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.