Comparative method

For other uses, seeComparative (disambiguation).

Linguistic map representing atree modelof theRomance languagesbased on the comparative method. The family tree has been rendered here as anEuler diagramwithout overlapping subareas. Thewave modelallows overlapping regions.

Inlinguistics,thecomparative methodis a technique for studying the development of languages by performing a feature-by-feature comparison of two or more languages withcommon descentfrom a shared ancestor and then extrapolating backwards to infer the properties of that ancestor. The comparative method may be contrasted with the method ofinternal reconstructionin which the internal development of a single language is inferred by the analysis of features within that language.Ordinarily, both methods are used together to reconstruct prehistoric phases of languages; to fill in gaps in the historical record of a language; to discover the development of phonological, morphological and other linguistic systems and to confirm or to refute hypothesised relationships between languages.

The comparative method emerged in the early 19th century with the birth ofIndo-European studies,then took a definite scientific approach with the works of theNeogrammariansin the late 19th–early 20th century.Key contributions were made by the Danish scholarsRasmus Rask(1787–1832) andKarl Verner(1846–1896), and the German scholarJacob Grimm(1785–1863). The first linguist to offer reconstructed forms from aproto-languagewasAugust Schleicher(1821–1868) in hisCompendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen,originally published in 1861.Here is Schleicher's explanation of why he offered reconstructed forms:

In the present work an attempt is made to set forth the inferredIndo-European original languageside by side with its really existent derived languages. Besides the advantages offered by such a plan, in setting immediately before the eyes of the student the final results of the investigation in a more concrete form, and thereby rendering easier his insight into the nature of particularIndo-European languages,there is, I think, another of no less importance gained by it, namely that it shows the baselessness of the assumption that the non-Indian Indo-European languages were derived from Old-Indian (Sanskrit).

Definition

Principles

The aim of the comparative method is to highlight and interpret systematicphonologicalandsemanticcorrespondences between two or moreattested languages.If those correspondences cannot be rationally explained as the result oflinguistic universalsorlanguage contact(borrowings,areal influence,etc.), and if they are sufficiently numerous, regular, and systematic that they cannot be dismissed aschance similarities,then it must be assumed that they descend from a single parent language called the 'proto-language'.

A sequence of regularsound changes(along with their underlying sound laws) can then be postulated to explain the correspondences between the attested forms, which eventually allows for thereconstructionof a proto-language by the methodical comparison of "linguistic facts" within a generalized system of correspondences.

Every linguistic fact is part of a whole in which everything is connected to everything else. One detail must not be linked to another detail, but one linguistic system to another.

— Antoine Meillet,La méthode comparative en linguistique historique,1966 [1925], pp. 12–13.

Relation is considered to be "established beyond a reasonable doubt" if a reconstruction of the common ancestor is feasible.

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.

— Hans Henrich Hock,Principles of Historical Linguistics,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.

Terminology

Descentis defined as transmission across the generations: children learn a language from the parents' generation and, after being influenced by their peers, transmit it to the next generation, and so on. For example, a continuous chain of speakers across the centuries linksVulgar Latinto all of its modern descendants.

Two languages aregeneticallyrelatedif they descended from the sameancestor language.For example,ItalianandFrenchboth come fromLatinand therefore belong to the same family, theRomance languages.Having a large component of vocabulary from a certain origin is not sufficient to establish relatedness; for example, heavyborrowingfromArabicintoPersianhas caused more of thevocabularyof Modern Persian to be from Arabic than from the direct ancestor of Persian,Proto-Indo-Iranian,but Persian remains a member of the Indo-Iranian family and is not considered "related" to Arabic.

However, it is possible for languages to have different degrees of relatedness.English,for example, is related to bothGermanandRussianbut is more closely related to the former than to the latter. Although all three languages share a common ancestor,Proto-Indo-European,English and German also share a more recent common ancestor,Proto-Germanic,but Russian does not. Therefore, English and German are considered to belong to a subgroup of Indo-European that Russian does not belong to, theGermanic languages.

The division of related languages into subgroups is accomplished by findingshared linguistic innovationsthat differentiate them from the parent language. For instance, English and German both exhibit the effects of a collection of sound changes known asGrimm's Law,which Russian was not affected by. The fact that English and German share this innovation is seen as evidence of English and German's more recent common ancestor—since the innovation actually took place within that common ancestor, before English and German diverged into separate languages. On the other hand,shared retentionsfrom the parent language are not sufficient evidence of a sub-group. For example, German and Russian both retain from Proto-Indo-European a contrast between thedative caseand theaccusative case,which English has lost. However, that similarity between German and Russian is not evidence that German is more closely related to Russian than to English but means only that theinnovationin question, the loss of the accusative/dative distinction, happened more recently in English than the divergence of English from German.

Origin and development

Inclassical antiquity,Romans were aware of the similarities between Greek and Latin, but did not study them systematically. They sometimes explained them mythologically, as the result of Rome being a Greek colony speaking a debased dialect.

Even though grammarians of Antiquity had access to other languages around them (Oscan,Umbrian,Etruscan,Gaulish,Egyptian,Parthian...), they showed little interest in comparing, studying, or just documenting them. Comparison between languages really began after classical antiquity.

Early works

See also:Uralic languages § Uralic studies

In the 9th or 10th century AD,Yehuda Ibn Qurayshcompared the phonology and morphology of Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic but attributed the resemblance to the Biblical story of Babel, with Abraham, Isaac and Joseph retaining Adam's language, with other languages at various removes becoming more altered from the original Hebrew.

Title page of Sajnovic's 1770 work.

In publications of 1647 and 1654,Marcus Zuerius van Boxhornfirst described a rigorous methodology for historical linguistic comparisonsand proposed the existence of anIndo-Europeanproto-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 byAndreas Jäger(1686) andWilliam Wotton(1713), who made early forays to reconstruct the primitive common language. In 1710 and 1723,Lambert ten Katefirst formulated the regularity ofsound laws,introducing among others the termroot vowel.

Another early systematic attempt to prove the relationship between two languages on the basis of similarity ofgrammarandlexiconwas made by the HungarianJános Sajnovicsin 1770, when he attempted to demonstrate the relationship betweenSamiandHungarian.That work was later extended to allFinno-Ugric languagesin 1799 by his countrymanSamuel Gyarmathi.However, the origin of modernhistorical linguisticsis often traced back toSir William Jones,an Englishphilologistliving inIndia,who in 1786 made his famousobservation:

TheSanscrit language,whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than theGreek,more copious than theLatin,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 theGothickand theCeltick,though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and theold Persianmight be added to the same family.

Comparative linguistics

The comparative method developed out of attempts to reconstruct the proto-language mentioned by Jones, which he did not name but subsequent linguists have labelledProto-Indo-European(PIE). The first professional comparison between theIndo-European languagesthat were then known was made by the German linguistFranz Boppin 1816. He did not attempt a reconstruction but demonstrated that Greek, Latin and Sanskrit shared a common structure and a common lexicon.In 1808,Friedrich Schlegelfirst stated the importance of using the eldest possible form of a language when trying to prove its relationships;in 1818,Rasmus Christian Raskdeveloped the principle of regular sound-changes to explain his observations of similarities between individual words in the Germanic languages and their cognates in Greek andLatin.Jacob Grimm,better known for hisFairy Tales,used the comparative method inDeutsche Grammatik(published 1819–1837 in four volumes), which attempted to show the development of theGermanic languagesfrom a common origin, which was the first systematic study ofdiachroniclanguage change.

Both Rask and Grimm were unable to explain apparent exceptions to the sound laws that they had discovered. AlthoughHermann Grassmannexplained one of the anomalies with the publication ofGrassmann's lawin 1862,Karl Vernermade a methodological breakthrough in 1875, when he identified a pattern now known asVerner's law,the first sound-law based on comparative evidence showing that aphonologicalchange in onephonemecould depend on other factors within the same word (such as neighbouring phonemes and the position of theaccent), which are now calledconditioning environments.

Neo-grammarian approach

Similar discoveries made by theJunggrammatiker(usually translated as "Neogrammarians") at theUniversity of Leipzigin the late 19th century led them to conclude that all sound changes were ultimately regular, resulting in the famous statement byKarl BrugmannandHermann Osthoffin 1878 that "sound laws have no exceptions".That idea is fundamental to the modern comparative method since it necessarily assumes regular correspondences between sounds in related languages and thus regular sound changes from the proto-language. TheNeogrammarian hypothesisled to the application of the comparative method to reconstructProto-Indo-EuropeansinceIndo-Europeanwas then by far the most well-studied language family. Linguists working with other families soon followed suit, and the comparative method quickly became the established method for uncovering linguistic relationships.

Application

There is no fixed set of steps to be followed in the application of the comparative method, but some steps are suggested byLyle CampbellandTerry Crowley,who are both authors of introductory texts in historical linguistics. This abbreviated summary is based on their concepts of how to proceed.

Step 1, assemble potential cognate lists

This step involves making lists of words that are likely cognates among the languages being compared. If there is a regularly-recurring match between the phonetic structure of basic words with similar meanings, a genetic kinship can probably then be established.For example, linguists looking at thePolynesian familymight come up with a list similar to the following (their actual list would be much longer):

Gloss	one	two	three	four	five	man	sea	taboo	octopus	canoe	enter
Tongan	taha	ua	tolu	fā	nima	taŋata	tahi	tapu	feke	vaka	hū
Samoan	tasi	lua	tolu	fā	lima	taŋata	tai	tapu	feʔe	vaʔa	ulu
Māori	tahi	rua	toru	ɸā	rima	taŋata	tai	tapu	ɸeke	waka	uru
Rapanui	-tahi	-rua	-toru	-ha	-rima	taŋata	tai	tapu	heke	vaka	uru
Rarotongan	taʔi	rua	toru	ʔā	rima	taŋata	tai	tapu	ʔeke	vaka	uru
Hawaiian	kahi	lua	kolu	hā	lima	kanaka	kai	kapu	heʔe	waʔa	ulu

Borrowingsorfalse cognatescan skew or obscure the correct data.For example, Englishtaboo([tæbu]) is like the six Polynesian forms because of borrowing from Tongan into English, not because of a genetic similarity.That problem can usually be overcome by using basic vocabulary, such as kinship terms, numbers, body parts and pronouns.Nonetheless, even basic vocabulary can be sometimes borrowed.Finnish,for example, borrowed the word for "mother",äiti,from Proto-Germanic *aiþį̄ (compare toGothicaiþei).Englishborrowed the pronouns "they", "them", and "their(s)" fromNorse.Thaiand various otherEast Asian languagesborrowed their numbers fromChinese.An extreme case is represented byPirahã,aMuran languageof South America, which has been controversiallyclaimed to have borrowed all of itspronounsfromNheengatu.

Step 2, establish correspondence sets

The next step involves determining the regular sound-correspondences exhibited by the lists of potential cognates. For example, in the Polynesian data above, it is apparent that words that containtin most of the languages listed have cognates in Hawaiian withkin the same position. That is visible in multiple cognate sets: the words glossed as 'one', 'three', 'man' and 'taboo' all show the relationship. The situation is called a "regular correspondence" betweenkin Hawaiian andtin the other Polynesian languages. Similarly, a regular correspondence can be seen between Hawaiian and Rapanuih,Tongan and Samoanf,Maoriɸ,and Rarotonganʔ.

Mere phonetic similarity, as betweenEnglishdayandLatindies(both with the same meaning), has no probative value.English initiald-does notregularlymatchLatind-since a large set of English and Latin non-borrowed cognates cannot be assembled such that Englishdrepeatedly and consistently corresponds to Latindat the beginning of a word, and whatever sporadic matches can be observed are due either to chance (as in the above example) or toborrowing(for example, Latindiabolusand Englishdevil,both ultimately of Greek origin). However, English and Latin exhibit a regular correspondence oft-:d-(in which "A: B" means "A corresponds to B" ), as in the following examples:

English	ten	two	tow	tongue	tooth
Latin	decem	duo	dūco	dingua	dent-

If there are many regular correspondence sets of this kind (the more, the better), a common origin becomes a virtual certainty, particularly if some of the correspondences are non-trivial or unusual.

Step 3, discover which sets are in complementary distribution

During the late 18th to late 19th century, two major developments improved the method's effectiveness.

First, it was found that many sound changes are conditioned by a specificcontext.For example, in bothGreekandSanskrit,anaspiratedstopevolved into an unaspirated one, but only if a second aspirate occurred later in the same word;this isGrassmann's law,first described forSanskritbySanskrit grammarianPāṇiniand promulgated byHermann Grassmannin 1863.

Second, it was found that sometimes sound changes occurred in contexts that were later lost. For instance, in Sanskritvelars(k-like sounds) were replaced bypalatals(ch-like sounds) whenever the following vowel was*ior*e.Subsequent to this change, all instances of*ewere replaced bya.The situation could be reconstructed only because the original distribution ofeandacould be recovered from the evidence of otherIndo-European languages.For instance, theLatinsuffixque,"and", preserves the original*evowel that caused the consonant shift in Sanskrit:

1.	*ke	Pre-Sanskrit "and"
2.	*ce	Velars replaced by palatals before*iand*e
3.	ca	The attested Sanskrit form:*ehas becomea

Verner's Law,discovered byKarl Vernerc.1875, provides a similar case: thevoicingof consonants inGermanic languagesunderwent a change that was determined by the position of the old Indo-Europeanaccent.Following the change, the accent shifted to initial position.Verner solved the puzzle by comparing the Germanic voicing pattern with Greek and Sanskrit accent patterns.

This stage of the comparative method, therefore, involves examining the correspondence sets discovered in step 2 and seeing which of them apply only in certain contexts. If two (or more) sets apply incomplementary distribution,they can be assumed to reflect a single originalphoneme:"some sound changes, particularly conditioned sound changes, can result in a proto-sound being associated with more than one correspondence set".

For example, the following potential cognate list can be established forRomance languages,which descend fromLatin:

	Italian	Spanish	Portuguese	French	Gloss
1.	corpo	cuerpo	corpo	corps	body
2.	crudo	crudo	cru	cru	raw
3.	catena	cadena	cadeia	chaîne	chain
4.	cacciare	cazar	caçar	chasser	to hunt

They evidence two correspondence sets,k: kandk:ʃ:

	Italian	Spanish	Portuguese	French
1.	k	k	k	k
2.	k	k	k	ʃ

Since Frenchʃoccurs only beforeawhere the other languages also havea,and Frenchkoccurs elsewhere, the difference is caused by different environments (being beforeaconditions the change), and the sets are complementary. They can, therefore, be assumed to reflect a single proto-phoneme (in this case*k,spelled ⟨c⟩ inLatin).The original Latin words arecorpus,crudus,catenaandcaptiare,all with an initialk.If more evidence along those lines were given, one might conclude that an alteration of the originalktook place because of a different environment.

A more complex case involves consonant clusters inProto-Algonquian.The AlgonquianistLeonard Bloomfieldused the reflexes of the clusters in four of the daughter languages to reconstruct the following correspondence sets:

	Ojibwe	Meskwaki	Plains Cree	Menomini
1.	kk	hk	hk	hk
2.	kk	hk	sk	hk
3.	sk	hk	sk	t͡ʃk
4.	ʃk	ʃk	sk	sk
5.	sk	ʃk	hk	hk

Although all five correspondence sets overlap with one another in various places, they are not in complementary distribution and so Bloomfield recognised that a different cluster must be reconstructed for each set. His reconstructions were, respectively,*hk,*xk,*čk(=[t͡ʃk]),*šk(=[ʃk]), andçk(in which'x'and'ç'are arbitrary symbols, rather than attempts to guess the phonetic value of the proto-phonemes).

Step 4, reconstruct proto-phonemes

Typology assists in deciding what reconstruction best fits the data. For example, the voicing of voiceless stops between vowels is common, but the devoicing of voiced stops in that environment is rare. If a correspondence-t-:-d-between vowels is found in two languages, the proto-phonemeis more likely to be*-t-,with a development to the voiced form in the second language. The opposite reconstruction would represent a rare type.

However, unusual sound changes occur. TheProto-Indo-Europeanword fortwo,for example, is reconstructed as*dwō,which is reflected inClassical Armenianaserku.Several other cognates demonstrate a regular change*dw-→erk-in Armenian.Similarly, in Bearlake, a dialect of theAthabaskan languageofSlavey,there has been a sound change of Proto-Athabaskan*ts→ Bearlakekʷ.It is very unlikely that*dw-changed directly intoerk-and*tsintokʷ,but they probably instead went through several intermediate steps before they arrived at the later forms. It is not phonetic similarity that matters for the comparative method but rather regular sound correspondences.

By theprinciple of economy,the reconstruction of a proto-phoneme should require as few sound changes as possible to arrive at the modern reflexes in the daughter languages. For example,Algonquian languagesexhibit the following correspondence set:

Ojibwe	Míkmaq	Cree	Munsee	Blackfoot	Arapaho
m	m	m	m	m	b

The simplest reconstruction for this set would be either*mor*b.Both*m→band*b→mare likely. Becausemoccurs in five of the languages andbin only one of them, if*bis reconstructed, it is necessary to assume five separate changes of*b→m,but if*mis reconstructed, it is necessary to assume only one change of*m→band so*mwould be most economical.

That argument assumes the languages other than Arapaho to be at least partly independent of one another. If they all formed a common subgroup, the development*b→mwould have to be assumed to have occurred only once.

Step 5, examine the reconstructed system typologically

In the final step, the linguist checks to see how the proto-phonemesfit the knowntypological constraints.For example, a hypothetical system,

p	t	k
b
	n	ŋ
	l

has only onevoiced stop,*b,and although it has analveolarand avelar nasal,*nand*ŋ,there is no correspondinglabial nasal.However, languages generally maintain symmetry in their phonemic inventories.In this case, a linguist might attempt to investigate the possibilities that either what was earlier reconstructed as*bis in fact*mor that the*nand*ŋare in fact*dand*g.

Even a symmetrical system can be typologically suspicious. For example, here is the traditionalProto-Indo-Europeanstop inventory:

	Labials	Dentals	Velars	Labiovelars	Palatovelars
Voiceless	p	t	k	kʷ	kʲ
Voiced	(b)	d	g	ɡʷ	ɡʲ
Voicedaspirated	bʱ	dʱ	ɡʱ	ɡʷʱ	ɡʲʱ

An earlier voiceless aspirated row was removed on grounds of insufficient evidence. Since the mid-20th century, a number of linguists have argued that this phonology is implausibleand that it is extremely unlikely for a language to have a voiced aspirated (breathy voice) series without a corresponding voiceless aspirated series.

Thomas GamkrelidzeandVyacheslav Ivanovprovided a potential solution and argued that the series that are traditionally reconstructed as plain voiced should be reconstructed asglottalized:eitherimplosive(ɓ,ɗ,ɠ)orejective(pʼ,tʼ,kʼ).The plain voiceless and voiced aspirated series would thus be replaced by just voiceless and voiced, with aspiration being a non-distinctive quality of both.That example of the application of linguistic typology to linguistic reconstruction has become known as theglottalic theory.It has a large number of proponents but is not generally accepted.

The reconstruction of proto-sounds logically precedes the reconstruction of grammaticalmorphemes(word-forming affixes and inflectional endings), patterns ofdeclensionandconjugationand so on. The full reconstruction of an unrecorded protolanguage is an open-ended task.

Complications

The history of historical linguistics

The limitations of the comparative method were recognized by the very linguists who developed it,but it is still seen as a valuable tool. In the case of Indo-European, the method seemed at least a partial validation of the centuries-old search for anUrsprache,the original language. The others were presumed to be ordered in afamily tree,which was thetree modelof theneogrammarians.

The archaeologists followed suit and attempted to find archaeological evidence of a culture or cultures that could be presumed to have spoken aproto-language,such asVere Gordon Childe'sThe Aryans: a study of Indo-European origins,1926. Childe was a philologist turned archaeologist. Those views culminated in theSiedlungsarchaologie,or "settlement-archaeology", ofGustaf Kossinna,becoming known as "Kossinna's Law". Kossinna asserted that cultures represent ethnic groups, including their languages, but his law was rejected after World War II. The fall of Kossinna's Law removed the temporal and spatial framework previously applied to many proto-languages. Fox concludes:

The Comparative Methodas suchis 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.

Proto-languages can be verified in many historical instances, such as Latin.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) andMycenaean civilization(mainly Greek). None of those models can be or have been completely rejected, but none is sufficient alone.

The Neogrammarian principle

The foundation of the comparative method, and of comparative linguistics in general, is theNeogrammarians' fundamental assumption that "sound laws have no exceptions". When it was initially proposed, critics of the Neogrammarians proposed an alternate position that summarised by the maxim "each word has its own history".Several types of change actually alter words in irregular ways. Unless identified, they may hide or distort laws and cause false perceptions of relationship.

Borrowing

All languagesborrow wordsfrom other languages in various contexts. Loanwords imitate the form of the donor language, as in Finnickuningas,from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz('king'), with possible adaptations to the local phonology, as in Japanesesakkā,from Englishsoccer.At first sight, borrowed words may mislead the investigator into seeing a genetic relationship, although they can more easily be identified with information on the historical stages of both the donor and receiver languages. Inherently, words that were borrowed from a common source (such as Englishcoffeeand Basquekafe,ultimately from Arabicqahwah) do share a genetic relationship, although limited to the history of this word.

Areal diffusion

Borrowing on a larger scale occurs inareal diffusion,when features are adopted by contiguous languages over a geographical area. The borrowing may bephonological,morphologicalorlexical.A false proto-language over the area may be reconstructed for them or may be taken to be a third language serving as a source of diffused features.

Several areal features and other influences may converge to form aSprachbund,a wider region sharing features that appear to be related but are diffusional. For instance, theMainland Southeast Asia linguistic area,before it was recognised, suggested several false classifications of such languages asChinese,ThaiandVietnamese.

Random mutations

Sporadic changes, such as irregular inflections, compounding and abbreviation, do not follow any laws. For example, theSpanishwordspalabra('word'),peligro('danger') andmilagro('miracle') would have beenparabla,periglo,miragloby regular sound changes from the Latinparabŏla,perīcŭlumandmīrācŭlum,but therandlchanged places by sporadicmetathesis.

Analogy

Analogyis the sporadic change of a feature to be like another feature in the same or a different language. It may affect a single word or be generalized to an entire class of features, such as a verb paradigm. An example is theRussianword fornine.The word, by regular sound changes fromProto-Slavic,should have been/nʲevʲatʲ/,but it is in fact/dʲevʲatʲ/.It is believed that the initialnʲ-changed todʲ-under influence of the word for "ten" in Russian,/dʲesʲatʲ/.

Gradual application

Those who study contemporary language changes, such asWilliam Labov,acknowledge that even a systematic sound change is applied at first inconsistently, with the percentage of its occurrence in a person's speech dependent on various social factors.The sound change seems to gradually spread in a process known aslexical diffusion.While it does not invalidate the Neogrammarians' axiom that "sound laws have no exceptions", the gradual application of the very sound laws shows that they do not always apply to all lexical items at the same time. Hock notes,"While it probably is true in the long run every word has its own history, it is not justified to conclude as some linguists have, that therefore the Neogrammarian position on the nature of linguistic change is falsified".

Non-inherited features

The comparative method cannot recover aspects of a language that were not inherited in its daughter idioms. For instance, theLatin declensionpattern was lost inRomance languages,resulting in an impossibility to fully reconstruct such a feature via systematic comparison.

The tree model

The comparative method is used to construct a tree model (GermanStammbaum) of language evolution,in which daughter languages are seen as branching from theproto-language,gradually growing more distant from it through accumulatedphonological,morpho-syntactic,andlexicalchanges.

An example of the Tree Model, used to represent theUto-Aztecanlanguage family spoken throughout the southern and western United States and Mexico.Families are inbold,individual languages initalics.Not all branches and languages are shown.

The presumption of a well-defined node

TheWave Modelhas been proposed as an alternative to thetree modelfor representing language change.In thisVenn diagram,each circle represents a "wave" orisogloss,the maximum geographical extension of a linguistic change as it propagated through the speaker population. These circles, which represent successive historical events of propagation, typically intersect. Each language in the family differs as to which isoglosses it belongs to: which innovations it reflects. The tree model presumes that all the circles should be nested and never crosscut, but studies indialectologyand historical linguistics show that assumption to be usually wrong and suggest that the wave-based approach may be more realistic than the tree model. A genealogical family in which isoglosses intersect is called adialect continuumor alinkage.

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 Youngsaid:

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…

The assumption of uniformity in a proto-language, implicit in the comparative method, is problematic. Even small language communities always have differences indialect,whether they are based on area, gender, class or other factors. ThePirahã languageofBrazilis spoken by only several hundred people but has at least two different dialects, one spoken by men and one by women.Campbell points out:

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.

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, andlexical innovations.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.If a language is divided into an inventory of features, each with its own time and range (isoglosses), they do not all coincide. History and prehistory may not offer a time and place for a distinct coincidence, as may be the case forProto-Italic,for which the proto-language is only a concept. However, Hockobserves:

The discovery in the late nineteenth century thatisoglossescan 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....

Subjectivity of the reconstruction

The reconstruction of unknown proto-languages is inherently subjective. In theProto-Algonquianexample above, the choice of*mas the parentphonemeis onlylikely,notcertain.It is conceivable that a Proto-Algonquian language with*bin those positions split into two branches, one that preserved*band one that changed it to*minstead, and while the first branch developed only intoArapaho,the second spread out more widely and developed into all the otherAlgonquiantribes. It is also possible that the nearest common ancestor of theAlgonquian languagesused some other sound instead, such as*p,which eventually mutated to*bin one branch and to*min 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 Germantinfater> Modern GermanVater), 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 asOccam's razor.Since reconstruction involves many such choices, some linguistsprefer to view the reconstructed features as abstract representations of sound correspondences, rather than as objects with a historical time and place.

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 theloanwordsof another language. For example,Finnic languagessuch asFinnishhave borrowed many words from an early stage ofGermanic,and the shape of the loans matches the forms that have been reconstructed forProto-Germanic.Finnishkuningas'king' andkaunis'beautiful' match the Germanic reconstructions *kuningazand *skauniz(> GermanKönig'king',schön'beautiful').

Additional models

Thewave modelwas developed in the 1870s as an alternative to the tree model to represent the historical patterns of language diversification. Both the tree-based and the wave-based representations are compatible with the comparative method.

By contrast, some approaches are incompatible with the comparative method, including contentiousglottochronologyand even more controversialmass lexical comparisonconsidered by most historical linguists to be flawed and unreliable.

See also

• Comparative linguistics
• Historical linguistics
• Lexicostatistics
• Proto-language
• Swadesh list

References

• Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.;Dixon, R. M. W. (1999), "Other small families and isolates", in Dixon, R. M. W.; Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.),The Amazonian Languages,Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–384,ISBN978-0-521-57021-3.
• Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.;Dixon, R. M. W. (2001), "Introduction", in Dixon, R. M. W.; Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.),Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics,Oxford Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22.
• Beekes, Robert S. P.(1995).Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Bloomfield, Leonard(December 1925). "On the Sound-System of Central Algonquian".Language.1(4): 130–56.doi:10.2307/409540.JSTOR409540.
• Campbell, George L. (2000).Compendium of the World's Languages(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
• Campbell, Lyle(1997).American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America.New York: Oxford University Press.
• Campbell, Lyle(2004).Historical Linguistics: An Introduction(2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.ISBN978-0-262-53267-9.
• Churchward, C. Maxwell (1959).Tongan Dictionary.Tonga: Government Printing Office.
• Crowley, Terry(1992).An Introduction to Historical Linguistics(2nd ed.). Auckland: Oxford University Press.
• Fox, Anthony (1995).Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method.New York: Oxford University Press.
• François, Alexandre(2014),"Trees, Waves and Linkages: Models of Language Diversification",in Bowern, Claire; Evans, Bethwyn (eds.),The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics,London: Routledge, pp. 161–189,ISBN978-0-41552-789-7,archived(PDF)from the original on 4 September 2014
• Goddard, Ives (1974). "An Outline of the Historical Phonology of Arapaho and Atsina".International Journal of American Linguistics.40(2): 102–16.doi:10.1086/465292.S2CID144253507.
• Hock, Hans Henrich(1991).Principles of Historical Linguistics(2nd revised and updated ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Janda, Richard D.; Joseph, Brian D. (1989)."In Further Defence of a Non-Phonological Account for Sanskrit Root-Initial Aspiration Alternations"(PDF).Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics.Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Department of Linguistics: 246–260.Archived(PDF)from the original on 6 September 2006.
• Kalyan, Siva; François, Alexandre (2018),"Freeing the Comparative Method from the tree model: A framework for Historical Glottometry"(PDF),in Kikusawa, Ritsuko; Reid, Laurie (eds.),Let's Talk about Trees: Genetic Relationships of Languages and Their Phylogenic Representation,Senri Ethnological Studies, 98, Ōsaka: National Museum of Ethnology, pp. 59–89,archived(PDF)from the original on 29 September 2022.
• Kylstra, A. D.; Sirkka-Liisa, Hahmo; Hofstra, Tette; Nikkilä, Osmo (1996).Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen(in German). Vol. Band II: K-O. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi B.V.
• Labov, William (2007)."Transmission and diffusion"(PDF).Language.83(2): 344–387.CiteSeerX10.1.1.705.7860.doi:10.1353/lan.2007.0082.S2CID6255506.Archived(PDF)from the original on 21 September 2017.
• Ladefoged, Peter(2003).Phonetic Data Analysis: An Introduction to Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques.Oxford: Blackwell.
• Lehmann, Winfred P.(1993).Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics.London: Routledge.ISBN9780415082013.
• Lyovin, Anatole V. (1997).An Introduction to the Languages of the World.New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.ISBN978-0-19-508116-9.
• Meillet, Antoine(1966) [1925].La Méthode Comparative en Linguistique.Honoré Champion.
• Mithun, Marianne(1999).The Languages of Native North America.Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pukui, Mary Kawena; Elbert, Samuel H. (1986).Hawaiian Dictionary.Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.ISBN978-0-8248-0703-0.
• Sag, Ivan. A.(Autumn 1974). "The Grassmann's Law Ordering Pseudoparadox".Linguistic Inquiry.5(4): 591–607.JSTOR4177844.
• Schleicher, August(1874–1877) [1871].A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin Languages, translated from the third German edition.Translated by Bendall, Herbert. London: Trübner and Co.
• Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. (1960).Studies in the Indo-European System of Numerals.Heidelberg: C. Winter.
• Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. (1996).Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics(4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Thomason, Sarah G.; Everett, Daniel L. (2005)."Pronoun Borrowing".Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.27:301 ff.doi:10.3765/bls.v27i1.1107.
• Trask, R. L.(1996).Historical Linguistics.New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2009)."Hybridity versus Revivability: Multiple Causation, Forms and Patterns"(PDF).Journal of Language Contact – Varia.2(2): 40–67.CiteSeerX10.1.1.693.7117.doi:10.1163/000000009792497788.Archived(PDF)from the original on 9 May 2008.

External links

• Hubbard, Kathleen."Everything you ever wanted to know about Proto-Indo-European (and the comparative method), but were afraid to ask!".University of Texas Department of Classics. Archived fromthe originalon 5 October 2009.Retrieved22 December2009.
• Gordon, Matthew."Week 3:Comparative method and linguistic reconstruction"(PDF).Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 17 December 2008.Retrieved22 December2009.