Comparative Method in Linguistics

The Comparative Method (CM)

• Establishes genetic relationships among languages
• Identifies language families
• CM is central to Comparative Linguistics
• It was developed in the 19th century (late 18th c.)
• It incorporates the Neogrammarian Hypothesis, also known as the Regularity Hypothesis, where sound laws apply without exception

Workflow of the Comparative Method

• Evidence of a genetic relationship leads to the collection of putative cognates
• Collect putative cognate sets for the family, considering both morphological paradigms and lexical items
• Find regular sound correspondences: Use the sound correspondences from the cognate sets, setting aside any irregular sets
• Reconstruct the protolanguage of the family:
  • Reconstruct the protophonology using conventional wisdom regarding sound changes
  • Reconstruct protomorphemes for morphological paradigms and lexical items, based on reconstructed protophonology.
• Establish shared innovations (phonological, lexical, semantic, morphological, and morphosyntactic) within groups of languages relative to the reconstructed protolanguage.
• Classify the family internally, forming a 'family tree' by tabulating the innovations
• Construct an etymological dictionary to trace borrowings and semantic changes for the family's lexicon

Diagnostic Evidence for Genetic Relatedness

• Sometimes, genetic relationships are evident, like in Slavic languages
• Overwhelming lexical similarities also indicates relatedness

Example of Identifying Cognates

• Languages compared include Ancient Greek, Dutch, Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Old Norse, and Russian, looking at words like "two", "three", "tooth", "foot", "heart", and "skin"
• Establish regular, recurrent sound correspondences such as:
  • Greek, Latin, OCS, Russian [d] ~ Dutch, Norse [t]
  • Greek, Latin, OCS, Russian [t] ~ Dutch [d] ~ Norse [θ]
• Reconstruct proto-forms while considering change directionality:
  • PIE [*d] > Germanic [t]
  • PIE [*t] > Germanic [d/θ]
  • PIE [*k] > Germanic [h], PIE [*k] > Slavic [s]
• Construct a family tree based on shared innovations

Internal Reconstruction Method

• Analyzes variations within a single language to infer historical changes
• Relies on examining morphological patterns, like irregular verb forms or noun declensions, to identify earlier states of a language.
• It is applied in situations like:
  • Language isolates (languages without known relatives)
  • Reconstructed proto-languages
  • Individual languages at an earlier stage, to which CM can be applied later.
• Method of reconstructing an earlier state in a language’s history using language-internal evidence only
• Compares variant forms within a single language, assuming they descend from a single, regular form. It can take the form of allomorphs of the same morpheme.
• When applying internal reconstruction to related languages before the comparative method, one must check that the analysis does not remove the shared innovations that characterize subgroups
• Not all synchronic alternation is amenable to internal reconstruction

Workflow of Internal Reconstruction

• Identify alternations: forms which vary phonologically across paradigms, derivations, styles, etc.
• Postulate a single original, non-alternating form.
• Postulate sound changes to derive alternating forms: consider relative chronology.
• Check consistency: Ensure changes don't incorrectly alter other forms and that the postulated reconstructions align with established changes.

Process of Internal Reconstruction

• Apply knowledge of language change to 'reverse' linguistic history by looking for synchronic variation pointing to earlier linguistic change
• Evidence consists of variation between forms assumed to originally have had invariant structures

Confirming Results of Internal Reconstruction

• Generates hypotheses about earlier linguistic states
• Can be supported or refuted by the comparative method using external evidence from other languages

Limitations of Internal Reconstruction

• Not all synchronic alternations show a clean evolutionary path
• Comparative evidence may disconfirm internal reconstructions

Philological Method

• It involves comparing texts which are in the same language but are from different time periods
• By comparing elements of a language which fulfil the same function in progressively later texts, they can trace the gradual transformation
• It is a screening of old texts which represent former stages of language in order to examine which elements are subject to change
• Focuses on texts rather than abstract systems or lexicon
• Advantages include:
  • Credibility
  • Precise dating and chronology
• Limitations include exploring only stages of language development attested by written testimonies
• Modern corpus linguistics can be regarded as an application of the philological method to synchronic studies