The Comparative Method & Linguistic Reconstruction.

The Comparative Method & Linguistic Reconstruction.

In linguistics, the comparative method is a technique for studying the development of languages by performing a feature-by-feature comparison of two or more languages

In this presentation the primary emphasis will be to show you how to apply the method. In other words, how to reconstruct a linguistic item.

The comparative method is also important

for language classification, for research on distant genetic relationships between languages and for other areas.

Languages which belong to the same language family are genetically related to one another.

This means that they are derived from a single original language

PROTO- LANGUAGE

With time, different dialects from the proto- language develop through linguistic changes in different regions where they are spoken.

What is more languages and dialects are constantly changing , so with further changes

dialects become distinct languages ( with regards to the varieties of proto- language.

The aim of the comparative method is to recover the ancestor language (the proto- language).

It is done by doing a comparison of the descendant languages.

Another aim is to determine what changes have taken place in the various languages that developed from the proto- language.

The work begins with phonology, with an attempt to reconstruct the sound system.

This leads to reconstruction of the vocabulary and the grammar of the proto- language.

We can also speak about linguistic relationships in terms of kinship:

- sister languages

- daughter languages

- parent language

- language families

If the reconstruction succeeds, the assumption that languages are related is justified.

By comparing what these sister languages inherited from their ancestor, we attempt to reconstruct the linguistic traits which Proto- Romance languages possessed.

What we reconstruct should be similar to the Proto- Romance which was spoken before it split up its into daughter languages. We must remember that our success is dependent upon the original traits preserved in the descendant languages that we compare.

Latin is lavishly documented, and so we

can check to see whether what we

reconstructed has some resemblance

to written sources.

Yet, this procedure is not possible for most

language families since we have no written

records for many proto- families.

For example, for Proto- Germanic, the ancestor of English, there are no written documentation. The language is known only from comparative reconstructuion.

Applying comparative method to related languages, allows us to figure out what that common ancestor was like and to reconstruct the language. By comparing English to its relatives we attempt to discover what Proto- Germanic was like.

English = much- changed Proto- Germanic.

Seven steps in the application of the comparative method.

Step 1: Assemble cognates

Step 2: Establish sound correspondences

Step 3: Reconstruct the proto- sound.

Step 4: Determine the status of similar correspondence sets.

Step 5: Check the plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of the overall phonological inventory of the

proto- language.

Step 6: Check the plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of linguistic universals and typological expectations.

Step 7: Reconstruct individual morphemes.

1. Assemble cognates

Cognate- a word (or morpheme) which is related

to a word (morpheme) in sister languages by reason of these forms having been inherited by these sister languages from a common word (morpheme) of the proto- language from which the sister languages have descended.

Cognate set- the set of words (morphemes) which are related to one another across the sister languages because they are inherited and have descended from a single word (morpheme) of the

proto- language.

First of all, we look for potential cognates among related languages and list them.

We should begin with cognates from the basic vocabulary like body parts, low numbers, common geographical terms etc., because such lexical items are rarely borrowed.

Then we must eliminate other sets of similar words

which are not due to inheritance from a common ancestor. (words similar among languages because of borrowing, chance similarity etc.).

2. Establish sound correspondences.

Sound correspondence (i.e. correspondence set)-

This is a set of cognate sounds; the sounds found in related words of cognate- sets which correspond from one related language to other because they have descended from a common ancestral sound. A sound correspondence is assumed to recur in various cognate sets.

We must focus on the phonemic representation of the sound not the conventional spelling. It is very important to avoid potential sound correspondences which are due merely to chance. Some languages have words similar only by accident.

Kaqchikel (Mayan)- "mes"- mess, disorder, garbage.

English - "mess"- disorder, untidiness.

If we want to decide whether a sound correspondence is real (does it reflect sounds inherited from the proto- language) we must check of the correspondence recurs in other cognate sets.

If we attempt to do it between English and Kaqchikel, we will find out that there are no other instances of it .

Nonetheless, borrowings might also cause a confusion and they should not be treated as indicators of relatedness between two or more studied languages.

3. Reconstruct the proto- sound.

We should repeat second step till we have found all of the correspondences and then focus on reinventing the proto-sound from which all of the daughter languages originate.

Reconstruction of the proto-sound is done by postulating what the original sound in proto-language was basing on phonetic properties of the sounds from the descendant languages.

The sound changes among daughter languages of the same ancestor are characterized by the same direction in the sound change over time. Some scholars define that phenomenon as ‘naturalness’, as that changes are taking place naturally. “For example many languages have changed s>h, but change in the other direction, h>s, is almost unknown. In cases such as these, we speak of ‘directionality’. If we find in two sister languages the sound correspondence /s/ in language1; /h/ in language2,we reconstruct *s and postulate that in language2 *s>h the alternative with *h and the change *h>s in language1 is highly unlikely, since it goes against the known direction of change” (Das, 2011)

4. Determine the status of similar (partially overlapping) correspondence sets.

Some patterns in sound changes may concern more than one overlapping correspondence set. This must be dealt with to achieve reconstruction.

Sound correspondence 6: Italian k: Spanish k: Portuguese k: French k

Since all the languages have the sound /k/, we would reconstruct *k. Yet, the sound correspondence 6 is similar to sound correspondence 1.

The two sets overlap partially since they

share some of the same sounds. The only

difference is in French, which has /k/ in

sound set 6 and /ʃ/ in sound set 1.

In cases like this we must we must determine whether they reflect two separate proto- sounds or one

that split into more than one. If the sound change is regular there are two possibilities. The first one is explaining the difference. It can be done by showing that while the other languages maintained k, in French k had become ʃ in specified environments. This is important to show when the sound k became ʃ, and when it remained k in French. If we are unable to do it we must assume the other possibility.

The second option is that there were two proto- sounds which resulted in two sound sets, and in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese they merged to k.

Sometimes, however, we must reconstruct separate proto- sounds in cases of similar, partially overlapping

correspondence sets.

Cognate sets 10 to 13 show sound correspondence:

Italian b ; Spanish b; Portuguese b; French b .

To make it more simple we will call it sound- set 7.

Cognate sets 14 to 16 show sound correspondence:

Italian v; Spanish b; Portuguese v; French v .

To make it more simple we will call it sound- set 8.

The best reconstruction for sound- set 7 would be *b, because all the languages have b as their reflex.

Reflex- term used for the descendant in a daughter language for a sound of the proto- language that is said to be a reflex of that original sound.

To make it simple , it is a speech element derived from a corresponding form in an earlier state of the language : "sorrow" is a reflex of Middle English "sorwe".

Sound- set 8 partially overlaps with sound- set 7 since Spanish has b for its reflex as well. In this case we must be able to explain that those languages with v changed and original b to v, or we must reconstruct two separate sounds in the proto- language (probably b and v). In this case Spanish would then be assumed to have merged its original v with b.

Looking for factors that could be the basis of a conditioned change in Italian, Portuguese and French, which could explain how single b could become v in certain circumstances but remain b in others, we find none. Both b and v can be found at the beginnings of words before all sorts of vowels.

Since it is impossible to find any conditioning factor, we must reconstruct b for the cognates in sound- set 7 and v for those in sound- set 8.

In this way we need two different proto- sounds to explain things.

5.Check the plausibility of the reconstructed from the perspective of the overall phonological inventory of the proto-language.

Now we are dealing with broader view of sound patterns, and we check whether

our previous assumptions were correct or not. As languages tend to have symmetrical sound systems, even though we are examining only two sister languages, we can assume that one sound is more likely to appear basing on its frequency of appearance in other languages.

If two related languages have correspondence set ( language one d; language two r), we can

reconstruct r and assume that r changed to d in language one since this pattern is known to take place in languages.

On the other hand, since change from d to r is also found in languages we may assume it was the other way around

6. Check the plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of linguistic universals and typological expectations

After we finish applying step 5 we should check the probability of our findings on the grounds of presence of particular sets of sounds in other languages. For example existence of language not having vowels is impossible. Same rule applies to languages with only nasalized vowels - there are none.

Therefore we cannot propose reconstructed language lacking one of these.

7. Reconstruct individual morphemes

When we reconstruct the whole word sound by sound comparing the consecutive phonemes from all of the discussed daughter languages we can try to extend our research on entire lexis and grammar of proto-language also applying the comparative method. One should never forget to keep in mind that the outcome of our research is highly hypothetical and can undergo changes because of the further study of that field.