In linguistics, a conservative form, variety, or feature of a language is one that has changed relatively little across the language's history, or which is relatively resistant to change. It is the opposite of innovative, innovating, or advanced forms, varieties, or features, which have undergone relatively larger or more recent changes. Furthermore, an archaic form is not only chronologically old (and often conservative) but also rarely used anymore in the modern language, and an obsolete form has fallen out of use altogether. An archaic language stage is chronologically old, compared to a more recent language stage, while the terms conservative and innovative typically compare contemporary forms, varieties or features.
A conservative linguistic form, such as a word or sound feature, is one that remains closer to an older form from which it evolved, relative to cognate forms from the same source.: 87 For example, the Spanish word caro /'kaɾo/ and the French word cher /ʃɛʁ/, both adjectives meaning dear or beloved, similarly evolved from the Latin word cārum /'ka:rum/ [ˈkaːɾũː] (Proto-Romance /ˈka.ru/). The Spanish word, which is more similar to the common ancestor, is more conservative than its French cognate, which is more innovative.: 87
A language or language variety is said to be conservative if it has fewer new developments or changes than related varieties do. For example, Icelandic is, in some aspects, more similar to Old Norse than other languages that evolved from Old Norse, including Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish, while Sardinian (especially the Nuorese dialects) and Italian are regarded as being the most conservative Romance languages. A 2008 study regarding the stability of modern Icelandic appears to confirm its status as "stable". Therefore, Icelandic: 71 and Sardinian are considered relatively conservative languages. Likewise, some dialects of a language may be more conservative than others. Standard varieties, for example, tend to be more conservative than nonstandard varieties, since education and codification in writing tend to retard change.
Writing is generally said to be more conservative than speech since written forms generally change more slowly than spoken language does. That helps explain inconsistencies in writing systems such as that of English; since the spoken language has changed relatively more than has the written language, the match between spelling and pronunciation is inconsistent.
A language may be conservative in one respect while simultaneously innovative in another. Bulgarian and Macedonian, closely related Slavic languages, are innovative in the grammar of their nouns, having dropped nearly all vestiges of the complex Slavic case system; at the same time, they are highly conservative in their verbal system, which has been greatly simplified in most other Slavic languages. English, which is one of the more innovative Germanic languages in most respects (vocabulary, inflection, vowel phonology, syntax), is nevertheless conservative in its consonant phonology, retaining sounds such as (most notably) /θ/ and /ð/ (th), which remain only in the Germanic languages of English, Icelandic and Scots, with /ð/ also remaining in the endangered Elfdalian language. Sardinian, the most conservative Romance language both lexically and phonetically, has a verbal morphology that is somewhat simpler than that of other Romance languages such as Spanish or Italian.
In the 6th century AD, Classical Arabic was a conservative Semitic language compared with Classical Syriac, which was spoken at the same time; Classical Arabic strongly resembles reconstructed Proto-Semitic, and Syriac has changed much more. Compared to closely related modern Northeastern Neo-Aramaic, which is not necessarily directly descended from it, Classical Syriac is still a highly archaic language form because it is also chronologically old. Georgian has changed remarkably little since the Old Georgian period (the 4th/5th century AD).[citation needed] A roughly analogous concept in biology is living fossil.
In the context of whole language families, Lithuanian and Finnish are the most conservative within modern Indo-European languages and Uralic languages respectively.
See also
References
- Trask, R. L. (2000). Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-7331-6. JSTOR 10.3366/j.ctvxcrt50.
- "Romance languages". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 6 January 2020. Retrieved 19 February 2017.
...if the Romance languages are compared with Latin, it is seen that by most measures Sardinian and Italian are least differentiated...
- Contini, Michel; Tuttle, Edward (1982). "Sardinian". In John Green (ed.). Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology 3. Mouton. pp. 171–188.
- Pei, Mario (1949). Story of Language. Lippincott. ISBN 03-9700-400-1.
- Jones, Michael (2003). "Sardinian". In Harris, Martin; Vincent, Nigel (eds.). The Romance languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 314–350.
- Alkire, Ti; Rosen, Carol (2010). Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
- Friðriksson, Finnur (19 November 2008). "Language change vs. stability in conservative language communities. A case study of Icelandic" (doctoral thesis). Archived from the original on 26 September 2017. Retrieved 26 September 2017.
- Chambers, J.K. (2009). "Education and the enforcement of standard English". In Y. Kawaguchi, M. Minegishi and J. Durand (ed.). Corpus Analysis and Variation in Linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman and Nina Hyams (2010). An Introduction to Language. Cengage Learning.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Hewson, John; Bubeník, Vít (2006). From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages. John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN 90-272-4795-1.
- Russ, Charles (1986). "Breaking the spelling barrier: The reconstruction of pronunciation from orthography in historical linguistics". In Gerhard Augst (ed.). New Trends in Graphemics and Orthography. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 164–178. ISBN 978-3-11-086732-9.
- Versteegh, Cornelis Henricus Maria "Kees" (1997). The Arabic Language. Columbia University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-231-11152-2.
- "Lithuanian | Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales". www.inalco.fr. Retrieved 20 May 2024.
- Sinor, D. (October 1959). "Björn Collinder: Survey of the Uralic languages, compiled by Björn Collinder in collaboration with other scholars, xxii, 539 pp. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1957. Sw. kr. 68". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 22 (3): 590. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00065745. ISSN 1474-0699.
In linguistics a conservative form variety or feature of a language is one that has changed relatively little across the language s history or which is relatively resistant to change It is the opposite of innovative innovating or advanced forms varieties or features which have undergone relatively larger or more recent changes Furthermore an archaic form is not only chronologically old and often conservative but also rarely used anymore in the modern language and an obsolete form has fallen out of use altogether An archaic language stage is chronologically old compared to a more recent language stage while the terms conservative and innovative typically compare contemporary forms varieties or features A conservative linguistic form such as a word or sound feature is one that remains closer to an older form from which it evolved relative to cognate forms from the same source 87 For example the Spanish word caro kaɾo and the French word cher ʃɛʁ both adjectives meaning dear or beloved similarly evolved from the Latin word carum ka rum ˈkaːɾũː Proto Romance ˈka ru The Spanish word which is more similar to the common ancestor is more conservative than its French cognate which is more innovative 87 A language or language variety is said to be conservative if it has fewer new developments or changes than related varieties do For example Icelandic is in some aspects more similar to Old Norse than other languages that evolved from Old Norse including Danish Norwegian or Swedish while Sardinian especially the Nuorese dialects and Italian are regarded as being the most conservative Romance languages A 2008 study regarding the stability of modern Icelandic appears to confirm its status as stable Therefore Icelandic 71 and Sardinian are considered relatively conservative languages Likewise some dialects of a language may be more conservative than others Standard varieties for example tend to be more conservative than nonstandard varieties since education and codification in writing tend to retard change Writing is generally said to be more conservative than speech since written forms generally change more slowly than spoken language does That helps explain inconsistencies in writing systems such as that of English since the spoken language has changed relatively more than has the written language the match between spelling and pronunciation is inconsistent A language may be conservative in one respect while simultaneously innovative in another Bulgarian and Macedonian closely related Slavic languages are innovative in the grammar of their nouns having dropped nearly all vestiges of the complex Slavic case system at the same time they are highly conservative in their verbal system which has been greatly simplified in most other Slavic languages English which is one of the more innovative Germanic languages in most respects vocabulary inflection vowel phonology syntax is nevertheless conservative in its consonant phonology retaining sounds such as most notably 8 and d th which remain only in the Germanic languages of English Icelandic and Scots with d also remaining in the endangered Elfdalian language Sardinian the most conservative Romance language both lexically and phonetically has a verbal morphology that is somewhat simpler than that of other Romance languages such as Spanish or Italian In the 6th century AD Classical Arabic was a conservative Semitic language compared with Classical Syriac which was spoken at the same time Classical Arabic strongly resembles reconstructed Proto Semitic and Syriac has changed much more Compared to closely related modern Northeastern Neo Aramaic which is not necessarily directly descended from it Classical Syriac is still a highly archaic language form because it is also chronologically old Georgian has changed remarkably little since the Old Georgian period the 4th 5th century AD citation needed A roughly analogous concept in biology is living fossil In the context of whole language families Lithuanian and Finnish are the most conservative within modern Indo European languages and Uralic languages respectively See alsoGreat Vowel Shift Historical linguistics Philology Prestige sociolinguistics ReferencesTrask R L 2000 Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics Edinburgh University Press ISBN 978 1 4744 7331 6 JSTOR 10 3366 j ctvxcrt50 Romance languages Encyclopaedia Britannica Archived from the original on 6 January 2020 Retrieved 19 February 2017 if the Romance languages are compared with Latin it is seen that by most measures Sardinian and Italian are least differentiated Contini Michel Tuttle Edward 1982 Sardinian In John Green ed Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology 3 Mouton pp 171 188 Pei Mario 1949 Story of Language Lippincott ISBN 03 9700 400 1 Jones Michael 2003 Sardinian In Harris Martin Vincent Nigel eds The Romance languages Oxford University Press pp 314 350 Alkire Ti Rosen Carol 2010 Romance Languages A Historical Introduction Cambridge University Press Fridriksson Finnur 19 November 2008 Language change vs stability in conservative language communities A case study of Icelandic doctoral thesis Archived from the original on 26 September 2017 Retrieved 26 September 2017 Chambers J K 2009 Education and the enforcement of standard English In Y Kawaguchi M Minegishi and J Durand ed Corpus Analysis and Variation in Linguistics Philadelphia John Benjamins Fromkin Victoria Robert Rodman and Nina Hyams 2010 An Introduction to Language Cengage Learning a href wiki Template Cite book title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint multiple names authors list link Hewson John Bubenik Vit 2006 From Case to Adposition The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo European Languages John Benjamins Publishing ISBN 90 272 4795 1 Russ Charles 1986 Breaking the spelling barrier The reconstruction of pronunciation from orthography in historical linguistics In Gerhard Augst ed New Trends in Graphemics and Orthography Walter de Gruyter pp 164 178 ISBN 978 3 11 086732 9 Versteegh Cornelis Henricus Maria Kees 1997 The Arabic Language Columbia University Press p 13 ISBN 978 0 231 11152 2 Lithuanian Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales www inalco fr Retrieved 20 May 2024 Sinor D October 1959 Bjorn Collinder Survey of the Uralic languages compiled by Bjorn Collinder in collaboration with other scholars xxii 539 pp Stockholm Almqvist amp Wiksell 1957 Sw kr 68 Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 22 3 590 doi 10 1017 S0041977X00065745 ISSN 1474 0699
