[bianca]

Why discuss changes in grammar and lexikon as though language change is strictly about this?

We can shed light on these two aspects of language but adding a new dimension to it: speech versus thinking. Effective communication is also an attribute of thinking and speech. We think faster than we speak, we can easily understand speech at double speed, and we can surely scan a page faster than we read it aloud- that is why we expect language to become more simplified, because we are in a hurry to get our 'thoughts' across. I remember reading somewhere that 'language kills the thought', in other words our system of articulation (speech) is to blame for the slowliness in conveying our thoughts. If so, do you agree that our speech will have to become more "compressed", i.e. we will assume our hearer to understand us and infer the meaning from the context, instead of repeating ourselves or using more words than actually needed? What I mean is that the pressure for simplicity is counterveiled by a pressure for transparency and expressivity.

Some such changes on the road to expressivity could include:

-using (shorter) words for more frequent meanings - etymological changes?? (see how the word "salt" has developed its meaning since the Roman era.)

-skipping information which can easily be inferred from the context (saying much within a short period of time). We use synonyms interchangeably, but synonyms are not words with the same meaning, but closely related semantic variants. One can be more or less explicit/expressive depending on their choice of words in a certain context. We sometimes use many words because we cannot pinpoint the word we are looking for. Misunderstanding often occurs due to un unfit relationship between a word and its referent, between signifier and signified. Shakespeare is famous also due to the enormously rich vocabulary of his entire work - he knew how to strike a cord with his audience by relying on the power of words. He sure had a way with words.

In other words, I am thinking about future changes in lexical semantics, such as polysemy, metaphor and metonymy in the context of multiculturalism (how will authentic English metaphors, idioms or puns survive, when a Chinese sees the world with through his own language? "Birds of a feather flock together" may have a totally different meaning for him, and he will have his own "English equivalent" for the same proverb/idiom and so on. The world of signs is infused by/ or infuses culture.)

The question remains how to define simplicity.
My belief is that, although the E lexicon is 'on the increase', this does not necessarily mean that more words will be needed for effective communication. Some 'old' words and phrases will probably no longer meet a certain need for expression and thus become the 'lexicon' of yesterday, while a new 'vocabulary' will fill that need. Language does not become more expressive in arithmetic progression with an increasing repertoir of words and phrases. It moves to signals denoting simpler, more general meanings, while grammar and vocabulary are tools to make this happen.



This is my theory, and of course it is arguable.

bianca