Chapter Five THE COMPARATIVE METHOD Commentary on Crowley

5.1 Sound Correspondences and Reconstruction

Terminology ‘*’ correspondence correspondence set cognate (and how to recognize) first pass: eyeball using Inspection Method second pass: apply the Comparative Method

1 st step in the Comparative Method: separate cognates from non-cognates. What to do with non-cognates? Put them aside for the moment. They will provide useful evidence for the study of language contact.

2 nd Step: establish correspondences and correspondence sets 28. dogasaw = aso = aso = asəw Belawi M-D DalatKan. Correspondences a a aa a=a=a=a/#__ s s ss s=s=s=s/V__V aw o oəw aw=o=o=əw/__#

2 nd Step: numerate correspondences and group them into correspondence sets. For example, the word for‘dog’ provides model correspondences. Then all identical correspondences form a correspondence set. a=a= a =a / #__ (16) s=s= s =s / V__V (11) aw=o= o =əw / __# (15)

3 rd step: Explain the correspondence sets historically For each correspondence set, reconstruct a historical allophone that underlies the set. Follow standard scientific practice for forming and testing hypotheses. For historical linguistics, scientific procedures may be expressed in terms of six principles of reconstruction.

The first four principles Proposed rules (sound changes) linking a protolanguage and a daughter language should be: Phonetically plausible Parsimonious Realistic Uniformitarian

What would be some phonetically plausible etyma (sources) for this set? aw=o= o =əw / __# (15) And what would count as implausible phonetically?

What would be the most parsimonious etyma (sources) for these sets? a =a = a= a /# __ (11) a =a = a= a /C __C (17) a =a = a= a / __# (3) And what would count as less parsimonious?

Uniformtarianism The protolanguage is further constrained by typological features of the daughter languages. For example, if the daughter languages tend to have three- vowel systems, the uniformitarian principle constrains the protolanguage from having a large number of vowels. Uniformitarianism thus offers further guidelines as to the scope and limits of reconstruction.

Realism Whereas the previous three principles refer to the relationship between the protolanguage and the daughter languages, this principle refers to the protolanguage in relation to universal expectations for a language. Expectations include having a realistic number of phonemes reasonably balanced, in conformity with observed sound systems in the world’s languages. For example, languages with three vowels have /a/, /i/ and /u/; there are no languages with only high vowels, or only low vowels, etc.

Linguists love to argue! The four principles just mentioned (and two more to come) are used to argue for or against a proposed reconstruction. For example, when presented with two competing reconstructions, linguists may argue that A is preferred over B as being simpler, or more realistic, uniformitarian, or phonetically plausible. The interesting disputes take the form of A being more realistic whereas B is simpler. When the chips are down, usually it is simplicity (parsimony) that wins the day. Usually.

In the last analysis The laurel goes to the reconstruction that accounts for the most data in the simplest way. But if the simplicity argument implies giving up realism, uniformitarianism, and/or phonetic plausibility, then expect challenges. This situation generates both empirical research on the language(s), and theoretical reseach on the nature of the scientific principles as they apply to linguistics. This is good for the field, as it keeps linguists working.

Simplicity is king because it wins the most arguments.

A language is a system of values. --Saussure Value systems are governed by a principle of relativity. No one value is absolute; all function and, indeed, exist, in relation to one another. Thus /p/ is a phoneme in relation to /b/, /t/, etc.. The system funtions to maintain distinctions between words. That value systems have no absolutes may be illustrated by voicing. A voiced stop need not be voiced to be distinguished from a voiceless stop. This is shown by whispered speech. If voicing were an absolute instead of a relative value, whispered speech would be unintelligible.

Albert Einstein A scientific theory should be a simple as possible, but not simpler.

BACK TO CROWLEY

Fifth and sixth principles of the Comparative Method Hang on to your hat!

The Comparative Method constitutes a method of comparing correspondence sets. If correspondence sets are in contrast, they can and should be reconstructed so as to yield a separate proto- phonemes. If correspondence sets are in complementary distribution and they are phonetically similar, they can and should be reconstructed so as to yield a single proto- phoneme.

DOES THIS SOUND VAGUELY FAMILIAR?

5.2 Reconstruction on the Basis of a Conditioned Sound Change Crowley says the following on pp : Correspondences should be phonetically similar. Correspondence sets should be in contrast or in complementary distribution.

Interesting consonant pairings in the Melanau data k=, k=k, = s=h, s=s, h=h h=Ø r= ɤ, r=r s=c, s=s ŋ=Ø, ŋ=ŋ n=ŋ, n=n

Interesting vowel pairings a=i, a=a, i=i V=ə (schwa can correspond to any vowel) aw=o, aw=əw, o=əw, o=o, aw=aw, əw=əw ay=e, ay=əy, e=əy, e=e, ay=ay, əy=əy uy=oy VV ̯ =V

Review: The correspondence sets should be arranged to show either contrast or complementary distribution. Contrasting sets look like this: k=k== /__# === / __# An apparent contrast: a=a=i=a /CVC__(C) a=a=a=a /CVC__(C)

Why is this “contrast” only apparent? An apparent contrast: a=a=i=a /CVC__(C) a=a=a=a /CVC__(C)

Crowley says on p. 103 “What you must do is look for evidence of complimentary distribution before you do your final reconstruction.”

Actually, this is a tough problem that we may not solve today. An apparent contrast: a=a=i=a /CVC__(C) a=a=a=a /CVC__(C)

Some more correspondence sets in complementary distribution should have been generated by the homework assignment distributed today. DISCUSSION IS OPEN!

5.3 The Reality of Protolanguages Crowley concludes the chapter with a discussion about realism as applied to protolanguages (pp ). In practice, realism is the weakest of all the principles. A protolanguage is reconstructed using inductive principles based on data that is often incomplete—the more so the greater the number of languages and time of separation. We can’t be sure how proto-phonemes A and B were actually pronounced—we only know they were different. Neither can we be sure they even existed at the same time. August Schleichter wrote a poem in “Proto-Indo European”. Most feel this was taking realism a bit too far.

WHAT TO DO WITH IRREGULAR CORRESPONDENCES?

Irregular data can be useful. borrowing: language contact issues analogy: grammatical change vs. phonological change archaic residue: ancient linguistic structures partly recoverable through Internal Reconstruction (Chapter Six) variable data: dialect change in progress sound symbolism: semantic change unexplained residue: meaningful employment for future linguists

CROWLEY, CHAPTER FIVE THE COMPARATIVE METHOD LING 485/585 WINTER 2009 THE END