Myth 15

Language Myths

Overview of Negation in Language

The exploration of negation in language can be traced through various scholarly contributions that have shaped our understanding. Otto Jespersen published Negation in English and Other Languages in 1917, providing insights into how negation functions across different linguistic systems, marking a significant advancement in the study of syntax and semantics. Edward S. Klima's 1964 article "Negation in English" from The Structure of Language analyzed the mechanics of negation in English, detailing its syntactic structure and its integration within the sentence formation process. Östen Dahl's contribution in his chapter on negation in Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research offered a comparative analysis, highlighting how different languages handle negation, thus broadening the perspective on grammatical categories. Gunnel Tottie's 1991 research focused on variations in negation within spoken and written English, emphasizing the evolving nature of language and the differences between formal and colloquial contexts. Daniel W. Noland's 1991 diachronic survey scrutinized the phenomenon of negative concord in American Speech, examining how historical changes in English have shaped contemporary understandings of negation. Jenny Cheshire's 1998 article from The Sociolinguistics Reader analyzed English negation from an interactional perspective, exploring how social dynamics influence linguistic practices. Finally, Laurence Klein studied the impact of politeness on standard English grammar in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, reflecting wider societal transformations.

Myth 15: TV Makes People Sound the Same

Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Language Change

Current changes in language are the focal point for sociolinguists observing ongoing linguistic evolution within various speech communities. For instance, the past tense form "dived" is increasingly being replaced by "dove," indicating a shift in usage patterns. Various studies employing different research methods compare language use across demographics, including age groups, genders, neighborhoods, and social classes, to clarify which groups are leading these linguistic shifts and the directions these changes are taking. However, understanding the underlying motivations for these changes proves complex, with factors such as motor economy, adolescent rebellion against social norms, and societal fads contributing to language evolution. The unpredictable trajectory of language change raises further questions regarding the fundamental reasons behind such shifts.

The Role of Mass Media

A prevailing belief asserts that mass media, particularly television, is a primary driver of language change and largely influences regional speech. However, sociolinguistic evidence points towards a more nuanced understanding. While mass media may affect vocabulary, sound and grammatical structures generally remain untouched; studies show significant shifts in linguistic norms do not result from media exposure. Contrary to popular misconceptions, fictional depictions in literature often portray characters using standardized English learned from media, a portrayal deemed unrealistic by linguists familiar with local vernaculars. For example, in The Mountain and the Valley, speech changes are intricately tied to media influence, suggesting an indirect influence rather than direct causation—local dialects evolve in response to diverse stimuli, including media exposure. Moreover, although mass media popularizes certain catch-phrases and slang that capture immediate cultural sentiments, they fail to induce substantial sound or grammatical changes due to their ephemeral nature in the linguistic landscape.

Evidence Against Media Influence

Dialect divergence remains evident, as regional dialects maintain distinctive features despite increased media exposure. This is illustrated in inner-city Philadelphia, where local variants thrive. Language acquisition studies have shown that children of deaf parents do not effectively acquire language through media exposure, emphasizing the need for interactive and immersive communication. Additionally, changes such as the rise of "uptalk" are prevalent across English-speaking regions; however, this phenomenon's absence in formal broadcast language indicates that such changes do not originate from media influence. Even in Canada, the replacement of traditional forms like "dived" with "dove" illustrates a linguistic shift occurring through interpersonal interactions, rather than mass media, given the rarity of these terms in media broadcasts.

Conclusion

In summary, while mass media may facilitate a greater acceptance of diverse dialects and contribute tangentially to linguistic evolution, it does not initiate fundamental changes in language. High mobility, interpersonal communication, and cultural exchange are critical factors driving language change, challenging the myth of media as a primary influencer.