Comparative method: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:59, 27 October 2023

Revision as of 04:24, 4 November 2023

Line 437:

The tree model features nodes that are presumed to be distinct proto-languages existing independently in distinct regions during distinct historical times. The reconstruction of unattested proto-languages lends itself to that illusion since they cannot be verified, and the linguist is free to select whatever definite times and places seems best. Right from the outset of Indo-European studies, however, [[Thomas Young (scientist)|Thomas Young]] said:<ref>{{citation|title=Miscellaneous works of the late Thomas Young|first=Thomas|last=Young|contribution=Languages, From the Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. V, 1824|volume=III, Hieroglyphical Essays and Correspondence, &c.|editor-first=John|editor-last=Leitch|___location=London|publisher=John Murray|year=1855|page=480}}</ref><blockquote>It is not, however, very easy to say what the definition should be that should constitute a separate language, but it seems most natural to call those languages distinct, of which the one cannot be understood by common persons in the habit of speaking the other.... Still, however, it may remain doubtfull whether the Danes and the Swedes could not, in general, understand each other tolerably well... nor is it possible to say if the twenty ways of pronouncing the sounds, belonging to the Chinese characters, ought or ought not to be considered as so many languages or dialects.... But,... the languages so nearly allied must stand next to each other in a systematic order…</blockquote>

The assumption of uniformity in a proto-language, implicit in the comparative method, is problematic. Even small language communities are always have differences in [[dialect]], whether they are based on area, gender, class or other factors. The [[Pirahã language]] of [[Brazil]] is spoken by only several hundred people but has at least two different dialects, one spoken by men and one by women.<ref>{{harvnb|Aikhenvald|1999|p=354}}; {{harvnb|Ladefoged|2003|p=14}}.</ref> Campbell points out:<ref>{{harvnb|Campbell|2004|pp=146–147}}</ref>

<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>