Languages & Linguistics
Comparison
Comparison in linguistics refers to the process of identifying similarities and differences between languages or linguistic elements. It involves analyzing various linguistic features such as phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics to understand how languages are similar or different. Comparisons can help linguists uncover patterns, relationships, and typological characteristics across different languages.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
9 Key excerpts on "Comparison"
eBook - PDF- Edgar C. Polomé, Werner Winter, Edgar C. Polomé, Werner Winter(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Comparative linguistics Winfred P. Lehmann 1. Comparison in linguistic study Comparison is the fundamental procedure in linguistics. In language, values, to use Saussure's term, are determined by relationships. Com-parison discloses those relationships and the values they establish. Pro-cedures are the same if items like categories are selected as basic elements; categories too are identified, labeled and used on the basis of observed relationships. From the earliest known concern with language, linguists have accordingly examined and classified values by seeking out and comparing relationships. Comparative philology, the term used in the 19th century, accurately reflected the fundamental procedures in the science now known as linguistics. Comparison as the central procedure is not limited to the historical approach. Such an assumption simply reflects the dominant concern of the dominant linguists of the 19th century. Well-known theoretical state-ments illustrate the use of Comparison in all linguistic concerns. Hjelmslev, for example, used Saussure's example arbre to demonstrate the differing values in the lexical sets: French arbre, bois,foret, German Baum, Holz, Wald, Danish tree, skov. Earlier, Panini began his grammar by comparing the three vrddhi vowels ä ai au with a e ο against i u r. Somewhat later, Plato has Socrates employ the same procedure in providing explanations, as for the word σώμα 'body', with which he compared σήμα 'tomb' and σήμα 'sign'. To return to another recent linguist, we note that Bloomfield's first assumption in his set of postulates reads (1926: 154): Within certain communities successive utterances are alike or partly alike. Comparison determines the likenesses; it is the heart of his approach, as it is of anyone's involved with the analysis of language. As these statements with their examples illustrate, all of the investi-gators cited employ Comparison regardless of the domain of their concern with language.
- Henry M. Hoenigswald(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
THE COMPARATIVE METHOD HENRY M. HOENIGSWALD The term 'comparative' has been applied to linguistics in a number of ways. If it were being coined nowadays it would presumably describe an approach under which languages are classified, according to some taxonomic framework, by similarities and differences. It is well known that there is no general agreement on any such frame-work; as different criteria are selected different classifications are obtained. Still, a presumption is forming that certain principles may be more natural than others. One could, for instance, ask by what means different languages live up to the requirement for the possession of such overt properties as may be thought to have been established as universal. Or one might wish to classify the systems of rules which lead from one, possibly universal, concealed structure to the multiplicity of surface structures that is in fact encountered. These and other possible instances of 'Comparison' are not only worthwhile but central both to linguistics as a whole and to what has come to be called, through the accidents and vicissitudes of the history of scholarship, 'com-parative' linguistics in the special, technical sense of the word. To avoid confusion it is best to distinguish typological Comparison of languages from applications of the 'comparative method'' in the more technical sense just alluded to. We shall here be concerned with this 'comparative' method. Although this distinction has not always been sharp, the idea of using the compari-son, that is, the matching of items in two or more languages with a view to reconstruc-ting their common ancestry, has been present ever since Friedrich von Schlegel, in analogy to comparative anatomy, first spoke of comparative grammar in 1808.
eBook - PDFReviewing Linguistic Thought
Converging Trends for the 21st Century
- Sophia Marmaridou, Kiki Nikiforidou, Eleni Antonopoulou, Sophia Marmaridou, Kiki Nikiforidou, Eleni Antonopoulou(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
In this paper, we shall briefly discuss the main theoretical and methodo-logical issues, such as further developments of the concept of tertium com-parationis, central to contrastive studies, proposing certain innovations in that respect and giving some examples of modern Contrastive Analysis at work. Following this line of argument, we shall conclude that modern lin- 256 Svetlana Kurtes guistic approaches, as well as modern technology, have opened new hori-zons for Contrastive Linguistics and the new direction into which it strives. More precisely, Cognitive Linguistics, Pragmatics, Corpus Linguistics, etc. have all offered precious new theoretical frameworks and methodology that have been incorporated into recent contrastive studies, thus laying the foundation of Contrastive Analysis for the 21 st century. 1. Contrastive Analysis - a historical overview Contrastive Analysis is traditionally defined as a method which helps the analyst to ascertain in which aspects the two languages are alike and in which they differ (cf. Filipovic, 1975: 13). It includes two main processes, description and Comparison (cf. James 1980: 63; also Chesterman 1998: 52), set up in four basic steps: a) assembling the data, b) formulating the description, c) supplementing the data as required, and d) formulating the contrasts (James 1980: 63; Chesterman 1998: 52). Although the term con-trastive analysis is widely accepted and used, the problem of terminological diversity was very prominent in the relevant linguistic literature throughout the 20 th century.
- Aleksandr D. Švejcer(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
In order to rule out the possibility of such errors, Comparisons must be carried out within the limits of each level of the linguistic structure (phonological, grammatical, and lexical-semantic) and phenomena belonging to different stylistic subsystems of the language must not be considered identical. In our case it is especially important that the phenomena being compared from both variants be restricted to the standard language. Fulfilling this undoubtedly important requirement still does not in itself guarantee the systemic nature of the Comparisons. One can, after all, even within the limits of the same level, compare single elements of different systems without regard for the place which they occupy in their own systems. The same phonic types in different systems may be related to different pho-nemes. Hence the requirement made of a comparative study — that the ele-ments being compared should be first of all evaluated and characterized with-in the context of their own systems, i. e., in terms of the intrasystemic rela-tionships. We mentioned above the task set by the American scholar U. Weinreich of Studying the STRUCTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF PARTIAL DIVERGENCES in a comparative analysis of several microsystems. This task is directly relevant to the subjects of our study. In turning to the phonic system of the American variant, it would not be enough to limit ourselves to establishing the fact that in certain varieties of AE the preconsonantal [r] may be either present or absent. It is important to ascertain which elements of the phonological systems of the R-LESS VARIETIES fulfill distinctive functions analogous to those ful- 24 filled in other systems by preconsonantal [r]. Similar problems also arise on the grammatical level. Here again the presence or absence of a certain form may essentially affect the functions of other forms and cause the elements of the grammatical system to be regrouped accordingly.
eBook - ePubCognate Vocabulary in Language Acquisition and Use
Attitudes, Awareness, Activation
- Agnieszka Otwinowska(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Multilingual Matters(Publisher)
Convergence and divergence processes within languages triggered by multiple language contact and use lead to the existence of numerous structural and lexical similarities between European languages. The existence of such common patterns and words is often referred to as crosslinguistic similarity, which can be generally defined as the degree of congruence between the languages involved (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2007). Traditionally, the notion of crosslinguistic similarity is inherently connected with language typology, which results in a classification of structural types among languages (Comrie, 1981).The typological distance, connected with objective language similarity, is determined by linguistic genealogy, i.e. relatedness of languages within the same family. At the syntactic level, typological distance is determined by the degree of formal structural parallels in the grammatical patterns, while at the lexical level by the number of shared word forms inherited from a common ancestor, including both free and bound morphemes (Hall et al. , 2009: 157). It is assumed that typologically close languages, and also those unrelated typologically (e.g. English and Polish), share a considerable number of words which are very similar or even identical. This chapter deals with such crosslinguistically similar lexis, in particular with cognates, internationalisms, and false friends. It also discusses how formal lexical crosslinguistic similarity can be measured. Finally, it presents a database of English-Polish cognates that is used in further research in Part 4 of the book.Degrees of Crosslinguistic Lexical Similarity What is understood by cognate wordsIn historical and contact linguistics, cognates will be understood as words that have a common etymological origin. The very word ‘cognate’ derives from the Latin cognatus
eBook - PDF- Hans Henrich Hock(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
18. Comparative method: Establishing linguistic relationship 'The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in 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 the Gothick and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family, if this were the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia.' This quotation from Sir William Jones's 'Third Anniversary Discourse, on the Hindus' of 1786 has a double significance for the history of linguistics. On one hand, it provided one of the most important stimuli for research in comparative Indo-European linguistics, a field which soon became the most thoroughly investigated area of historical and comparative linguistics and which to the present day has remained the most important source for our understanding of linguistic change. At the same time, however, Jones's statement is important also for the fact that perhaps for the first time, it offered a very succinct and quite explicit summary of what have turned out to be the basic assumptions and motivations of comparative linguistics: accounting for similarities which cannot be attributed to chance, by the assumption that they are the result of descendancy from a common ancestor, i.
eBook - PDFLanguage History, Language Change, and Language Relationship
An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics
- Hans Henrich Hock, Brian D. Joseph(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
(But see § 5 below on similarities in specific aspects of structure.) Comparative linguists therefore usually concentrate on vocabulary and on correspondences that emerge from an examination of vocabulary. Moreover, since basic vocabulary is less likely to be borrowed, the evidence of such vocabulary receives the highest priority. 4 Systematic, recurrent correspondences We can strengthen our argument for genetic relationship between given languages by showing that their similarities are not helter-skelter or sporadic, but that they are systematic and recur in large sets of words. In fact, given that sound change is overwhelmingly regular, we must expect a great degree of systematicity and recurrence in the phonetic similarities between putatively related languages. Consider again the case of English and German. If we add the data in (4) to those in (2) and (3), we note some important phonetic differences between English words with t and their German counterparts. However, within these differences, we can establish a great systematicity; see the summary in (5). Moreover, even though there may be differences, the German counterparts of English t are pho-netically similar, in that like t , they are dental. And if we expand our horizon to include words with English p and k , we find a very similar situation, allowing for some minor differences; see (6). Given these facts, the conclusion becomes almost inescapable that these words, and many others like them, go back to a common ancestor and have become different through the operation of regular sound change. The ability to find such regular and systematic correspondences between languages is the cornerstone of establishing genetic relationship. In fact, systematic correspondences are to be expected, given the overwhelming regular-ity of sound change.
eBook - PDFApproaches to Language
Anthropological Issues
- William C. McCormack, Stephen A. Wurm, William C. McCormack, Stephen A. Wurm(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
We begin by matching texts, items, and sets of matched sets within the language being analyzed. We examine how a text is reproduced (i.e. rerendered or reexpressed) in the same language system. We examine 152 ASHOK R. KELKAR how a text is used in relation to what it symbolizes and the situations into which it fits. (2) COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS Why do we fail when we do ? How does one make sense of this irrational babel of languages (i.e. sets of matched systems, inventories, corpora) ? The answer can be sought either by finding out how languages come to be what they are, or by finding out whether there is some old bag of tricks that each language draws upon. In either case we begin by comparing languages — texts, items, and rules. ( 2 a ) HISTORIC LINGUISTICS How does a language reproduce itself from one population to another population of users ? What are the patterns of stability, innovation, and diffusion (collectively called primary or linear phylogeny); and of main-tenance over a line of descent, divergent descent into a family, and con-vergent influence over a zone (collectively called secondary or dendroidal phylogeny) that follow from linear phylogeny; and of contact, acceptance, rejection, maintenance, and displacement of language systems within a language network (collectively called tertiary or reticular phylogeny) that link up linear and dendroidal phylogeny to the population of language users ? We begin by seeking out diatopic and diachronic correspondences between texts and then between items, and between systems of rules and, also, by carrying out reconstructions on the basis of such correspondences.
eBook - PDFContrastive Analysis in Language
Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison
- D. Willems, B. Defrancq, T. Colleman, D. Noël, D. Willems, B. Defrancq, T. Colleman, D. Noël(Authors)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
We review the strengths and shortcomings of generativist and computational approaches to language Comparison, showing what is captured, and what missed, in these very differently targeted approaches. Both, how- ever, have their place in filling in the picture of cross-linguistic variation in the communication of meaning. Using some critical examples from the cross-linguistic study of instructional texts, we argue that a single- mode approach – specifically, one that looks only at language and not at graphical and typographical resources – cannot hope to capture the way meanings are communicated in different languages that may weigh and use these resources differently. Further, consideration of these resources alongside language is crucial to the definition of the whole genre of study in each culture: without the full multimodal picture, we cannot see for a large range of document types what the genre is, and how it maps onto equivalent or nearly equivalent examples in other languages and cultures. We propose, therefore, that a model of genre and multi- modality, as represented in the results of the GeM project (e.g. Delin et al. in press), will prove a valuable framework for capturing these missing factors in the contrastive study of written communication. 10.2 Syntax and discourse approaches to cross-linguistic Comparison An obvious place to start in the Comparison between languages is at the level of syntax. However, a purely syntactic notion of the targets of com- parison has been known to be problematic for some time. In his intro- duction to language typology, for example, Comrie (1981) shows several cases where syntactic constructions alone are either insufficient or mis- leading. Given a strictly syntactic basis, constructions may be ruled out of consideration even when they are the most likely functional and semantic equivalents.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
