Comparative method: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:12, 7 August 2023

Revision as of 20:29, 7 August 2023

Line 441:

<blockquote>It is not so much that the comparative method 'assumes' no variation; rather, it is just that there is nothing built into the comparative method which would allow it to address variation directly.... This assumption of uniformity is a reasonable idealization; it does no more damage to the understanding of the language than, say, modern reference grammars do which concentrate on a language's general structure, typically leaving out consideration of regional or social variation.</blockquote>

Different dialects, as they evolve into separate languages, remain in contact with and influence one another. Even after they are considered distinct, languages near one another continue to influence one another and often share grammatical, phonological, and [[Lexical Innovation|lexical innovationsinnovation]]s. A change in one language of a family may spread to neighboring languages, and multiple waves of change are communicated like waves across language and dialect boundaries, each with its own randomly delimited range.<ref>{{harvnb|Fox|1995|p=129}}</ref> If a language is divided into an inventory of features, each with its own time and range ([[isogloss]]es), they do not all coincide. History and prehistory may not offer a time and place for a distinct coincidence, as may be the case for [[Proto-Italic language|Proto-Italic]], for which the proto-language is only a concept. However, Hock<ref>{{harvnb|Hock|1991|p=454}}.</ref> observes:

<blockquote>The discovery in the late nineteenth century that [[isogloss]]es can cut across well-established linguistic boundaries at first created considerable attention and controversy. And it became fashionable to oppose a wave theory to a tree theory.... Today, however, it is quite evident that the phenomena referred to by these two terms are complementary aspects of linguistic change....</blockquote>