Comparative method: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:54, 5 August 2024

Latest revision as of 02:47, 17 July 2025

(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 20:

Relation is considered to be "established beyond a reasonable doubt" if a reconstruction of the common ancestor is feasible.{{Sfn|Hock|1991|p=567}}

{{Quote|text=The ultimate proof of genetic relationship, and to many linguists' minds the only real proof, lies in a successful reconstruction of the ancestral forms from which the semantically corresponding cognates can be derived.|author=[[Hans Henrich Hock]]|title=''Principles of Historical Linguistics''|source=1991, p. 567.}}In some cases, this reconstruction can only be partial, generally because the compared languages are too scarcely attested, the temporal distance between them and their proto-language is too deep, or their internal evolution render many of the sound laws obscure to researchers. In such case, a relation is considered plausible, but uncertain.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Igartua |first=Iván |date=2015 |title=From cumulative to separative exponence in inflection: Reversing the morphological cycle |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24672169 |journal=Language |volume=91 |issue=3 |pages=676–722 |doi=10.1353/lan.2015.0032 |jstor=24672169 |s2cid=122591029 |issn=0097-8507|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===Terminology===

Line 42:

[[File:Sajnovics - Demonstratio.jpg|thumb|Title page of Sajnovic's 1770 work.|alt=|258x258px]]

In publications of 1647 and 1654, [[Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn]] first described a rigorous methodology for historical linguistic comparisons<ref name="Driem">George van Driem [httphttps://www.eastlingisw.orgunibe.ch/e41142/e41180/e523709/papere546670/Driem2005d_ger.pdf The genesis of polyphyletic linguistics] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726012439/http://www.eastling.org/paper/Driem.pdf|date=26 July 2011}}</ref> and proposed the existence of an [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] proto-language, which he called "Scythian", unrelated to Hebrew but ancestral to Germanic, Greek, Romance, Persian, Sanskrit, Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages. The Scythian theory was further developed by [[Andreas Jäger]] (1686) and [[William Wotton]] (1713), who made early forays to reconstruct the primitive common language. In 1710 and 1723, [[Lambert ten Kate]] first formulated the regularity of [[sound law]]s, introducing among others the term [[root vowel]].<ref name="Driem" />

Another early systematic attempt to prove the relationship between two languages on the basis of similarity of [[grammar]] and [[lexicon]] was made by the Hungarian [[János Sajnovics]] in 1770, when he attempted to demonstrate the relationship between [[Sami languages|Sami]] and [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]]. That work was later extended to all [[Finno-Ugric languages]] in 1799 by his countryman [[Samuel Gyarmathi]].<ref name="ssix">{{harvnb|Szemerényi|1996|p=6}}.</ref> However, the origin of modern [[historical linguistics]] is often traced back to [[William Jones (philologist)|Sir William Jones]], an English [[Philology|philologist]] living in [[India]], who in 1786 made his famous {{nowrap|observation:<ref>{{cite web|last=Jones|first=Sir William|title=The Third Anniversary Discourse delivered 2 February 1786 By the President [on the Hindus]|editor-first=Guido|editor-last=Abbattista|publisher=Eliohs Electronic Library of Historiography|url=http://www.eliohs.unifi.it/testi/700/jones/Jones_Discourse_3.html|access-date=18 December 2009}}</ref>}}<blockquote>The [[Sanskrit|Sanscrit language]], whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the [[Ancient Greek language|Greek]], more copious than the [[Latin]], and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the [[Germanic languages|Gothick]] and the [[Celtic languages|Celtick]], though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the [[Persian language|old Persian]] might be added to the same family.</blockquote>

Line 356:

|}

has only one [[Voiced bilabial stop|voiced stop]], ''*b'', and although it has an [[alveolar nasal|alveolar]] and a [[velar nasal]], ''*n'' and ''*ŋ'', there is no corresponding [[Bilabial nasal|labial nasal]]. However, languages generally maintain symmetry in their phonemic inventories.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tabain |first1=Marija |last2=Garellek |first2=Marc |last3=Hellwig |first3=Birgit |last4=Gregory |first4=Adele |last5=Beare |first5=Richard |date=2022-03-01 |title=Voicing in Qaqet: Prenasalization and language contact |journal=Journal of Phonetics |language=en |volume=91 |pagesarticle-number=101138 |doi=10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101138 |s2cid=247211541 |issn=0095-4470|doi-access=free }}</ref> In this case, a linguist might attempt to investigate the possibilities that either what was earlier reconstructed as ''*b'' is in fact ''*m'' or that the ''*n'' and ''*ŋ'' are in fact ''*d'' and ''*g''.

Even a symmetrical system can be typologically suspicious. For example, here is the traditional [[Proto-Indo-European]] stop inventory:<ref>{{harvnb|Beekes|1995|p=124}}.</ref>

Line 404:

<blockquote>The Comparative Method ''as such'' is not, in fact, historical; it provides evidence of linguistic relationships to which we may give a historical interpretation.... [Our increased knowledge about the historical processes involved] has probably made historical linguists less prone to equate the idealizations required by the method with historical reality.... Provided we keep [the interpretation of the results and the method itself] apart, the Comparative Method can continue to be used in the reconstruction of earlier stages of languages.</blockquote>

Proto-languages can be verified in many historical instances, such as Latin.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kortlandt |first=Frederik |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/697534924 |title=Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic |date=2010 |publisher=Rodopi |isbn=978-90-420-3136-4 |___location=Amsterdam |oclc=697534924}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Koerner |first=E. F. K. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/742367480 |title=Linguistic historiography : projects & prospects |date=1999 |publisher=J. Benjamins |isbn=978-90-272-8377-1 |___location=Amsterdam |oclc=742367480}}</ref> Although no longer a law, settlement-archaeology is known to be essentially valid for some cultures that straddle history and prehistory, such as the Celtic Iron Age (mainly Celtic) and [[Mycenaean civilization]] (mainly Greek). None of those models can be or have been completely rejected, but none is sufficient alone.

===The Neogrammarian principle===

Line 448:

The reconstruction of unknown proto-languages is inherently subjective. In the [[Proto-Algonquian]] example above, the choice of ''*m'' as the parent [[phoneme]] is only ''likely'', not ''certain''. It is conceivable that a Proto-Algonquian language with ''*b'' in those positions split into two branches, one that preserved ''*b'' and one that changed it to ''*m'' instead, and while the first branch developed only into [[Arapaho language|Arapaho]], the second spread out more widely and developed into all the other [[Algonquian peoples|Algonquian]] tribes. It is also possible that the nearest common ancestor of the [[Algonquian languages]] used some other sound instead, such as ''*p'', which eventually mutated to ''*b'' in one branch and to ''*m'' in the other.

Examples of strikingly complicated and even circular developments are indeed known to have occurred (such as Proto-Indo-European ''*t'' > Pre-Proto-Germanic ''*þ'' > [[Proto-Germanic]] ''*ð'' > Proto-West-Germanic ''*d'' > [[Old High German]] ''{{lang|goh|t''}} in ''{{lang|goh|fater''}} > Modern German ''{{lang|de|Vater''}}), but in the absence of any evidence or other reason to postulate a more complicated development, the preference of a simpler explanation is justified by the principle of parsimony, also known as [[Occam's razor]]. Since reconstruction involves many such choices, some linguists{{who|date=January 2020}} prefer to view the reconstructed features as abstract representations of sound correspondences, rather than as objects with a historical time and place.{{citation needed|date=January 2020}}

The existence of proto-languages and the validity of the comparative method is verifiable if the reconstruction can be matched to a known language, which may be known only as a shadow in the [[loanword]]s of another language. For example, [[Finnic languages]] such as [[Finnish language|Finnish]] have borrowed many words from an early stage of [[Germanic languages|Germanic]], and the shape of the loans matches the forms that have been reconstructed for [[Proto-Germanic]]. Finnish ''{{lang|fi|kuningas''}} 'king' and ''{{lang|fi|kaunis''}} 'beautiful' match the Germanic reconstructions *''kuningaz'' and *''skauniz'' (> German ''{{lang|de|König''}} 'king', ''{{lang|de|schön''}} 'beautiful').<ref>{{harvnb|Kylstra|1996|p=62}} for KAUNIS, p. 122 for KUNINGAS.</ref>

====Additional models====

Line 511:

[[Category:Historical linguistics]]

[[Category:Comparative linguistics]]

[[Category:Methods in linguistics]]