Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:59:28.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The comparative method as applied to the syntactic component of language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

W. P. Lehmann
W. P. Lehmann*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In reconstructing prior stages of languages the comparative method (CM) has been primarily applied to phonology. Two standard statements on the CM in recent times illustrate this restricted application. In his article of 1950 on the comparative method, Hoenigswald defines “reconstruction by the comparative method (as) essentially a problem in phonemics, in which the place of allophones is taken by sets of sound correspondences that are partially alike (share one component) and in complementary distribution” (Joos 1957: 298). And in his comprehensive statement (1960:132), Hoenigswald states that “the comparative method is based on the principle that sets of recurring phoneme correspondences between two related languages continue blocks of positional allophones from the mother language.” Handbooks dealing with reconstructed languages reflect the limitation to the phonological component of language. For statements made about syntax are hesitant (Meillet 1967: 29). And one notable attempt to reconstruct a syntactic sequence in Proto-Indo-European, Schleicher’s fable of the horses and the sheep, has been generally condemned, even though it was given some recognition by Hirt (Meillet 1967: 29, Hirt 1939: 113-115). In contrast with the earlier hesitation about applying the CM to the syntactic component of language I would like to suggest that recent developments in linguistics have made it possible to apply the CM to at least some syntactic patterns in much the way historical linguists have been dealing with phonological patterns.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 17 , Issue 2-3 , 1972 , pp. 167 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Calbert, Joseph P., “Modality and Case Grammar.” In Fillmore, Charles J. (ed.), Working Papers in Linguistics No. 10. Columbus: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, 1971, 85–132.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., “Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements.” In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1963, Second edition, 73–113.Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann, Arntz, H., Die Hauptprobleme der Indogermanischen Sprach-wissensehaft. Halle: Niemeyer, 1939.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry, “The Principal Step in Comparative Grammar.” In Joos, Martin (ed.), Readings in Linguistics. Washington: American Council of Learned Societies, 1957, 298–302.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry, Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin (ed.), Readings in Linguistics. Washington: American Council of Learned Societies, 1957.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin (ed.), The English Verb. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P., “Contemporary Linguistics and Indo-European Studies.” To be published in the Publications of the Modern Language Association, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P., “On a Structural Principle of Language and its Implications.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Meillet, R., The Comparative Method in Historical Linguistics. Translated from the French by Ford, Gordon B. Jr. Paris: Champion, 1967.Google Scholar
Small, George William, The Comparison of Inequality. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University, 1924.Google Scholar