The republic of uzbekistan ministry of higher and secondary specialized education

THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY

SPECIALIZED EDUCATION

FERGANA STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

GROUP 17-69

Independent work

DONE: To’xtaboyev Hayitali

FERGANA-2020

Theme: The history of development of Linguistic Typology. Stages of Development of Linguistic typology.

Plan:

1) The history of the comparative typology

2) Stages of the development linguistic comparison

3) Typological classification and its parts

4) The inter subject relationship of comparative typology

The history of the comparative typology

Comparative studies in linguistics differ in the methods used and purposes pursued. One of the trends appeared in the XIX century and is traditionally called comparative linguistics. It dealt with comparison historically. Its objective was to establish genetical affinity of languages. It was also meant to reconstruct the protolanguage which was supposed to be a common linguistic parent for kindred languages. Comparative linguistics classified languages according to their origin and affinity. A great many language families and groups were established by this trend.

But languages can also be compared without regard for their history and affinity. This approach is called comparative typological studies. It also originated in XIX century. Comparative typology is a branch of linguistics comparing languages in order to establish their similarities and differences. Its object is not singular and individual cases of similarity and difference but those which are common for large groups of language elements. Comparative typology classifies languages according to their structure. Although languages may differ in their material (i.e. have no words of the same root, or common morphemes) their structure (i.e. relations between the elements, functions of the elements) may be similar.

e.g. The Russian and Bulgarian languages are kindred languages. Their material is similar. They have many words of the same root. However, structurally they are different. The Russian language has a system of six cases and the Bulgarian language has no category of case.

The English, Turkic and Chinese languages are very different materially. Their origin is different. However, in all these languages, an adjective can precede a noun and there is no grammatical agreement between these parts of speech. Therefore, they belong to the same structural type.

Another aim of comparative typology is to establish the most general characteristics common for several or all languages. Such characteristics are called language universal.

Language universals can be absolute or relative. Absolute universals are true for every human language.

e.g. Every language has vowels and consonants; every language has pronouns; every language has proper names, polysemantic words; every language has syllables formed after the model CV; all the languages have occlusive consonants; if a language has two nasal consonants they are [n] and [m].

Relative universals are true only for a certain group of languages.

e.g. There's a group of languages all of which have systems of declension and conjugation. Consequently, they have agreement and government. These phenomena are universal for most Slavish languages.

Some universals show implications on which the structure of a language level is based. Such universals were first introduced by Joseph Greenberg. They say: "If a language has element A in its structure it is likely (or sure) to have element B'.

e.g. "If a language has only suffixes (but not prefixes) it also has postpositions; if a language has only prefixes (but not suffixes) it also has prepositions".

Some universals refer to a synchronic state of a language; others describe the language diachronically. They characterize general laws of language development.

e.g. In some Indo-European languages sound changes are a result of assimilation. Hushing sounds and affricates were formed as a result of palatalization before front vowels. This process is universal for the Russian, English, Swedish, Italian and some other Indo-European languages.

Eng: k - ch (cild - child) - IX - X centuries

Ital: k - ch (Caesar [kesar] - Chesaro) - classical Latin - Modern Italian

The first attempts to classify languages according to their structure were made in the XIX century. Friedrich Schlegel classified languages into two types: inflexional (having word endings) and non-inflexional (having affixes). His brother August Schlegel suggested distinguishing one more group: languages without any grammatical structure (showing grammar relations by word order). Wilhelm Humboldt added one more group and gave all the types the names by which they are still known:

1. Inflexional languages. Grammar relations are shown in these languages by means of polysemantic morphemes.

e.g. Рус. временной The inflexion -ой belongs to an adjective of masculine gender, singular, in nominative case.

Roots can very rarely be used as a separate word (c.f. *врем).

Indo-European and Semitic languages belong to inflexional languages.

2. Agglutinating languages. Grammar relations are shown by a series of monosemanticmorphemes, "glued" to each other.

e.g. Turkish: Okul (школа) - okullar (школы) - okullarimiz (наши школы) - okkularimizda (в наших школах).

Roots can be used as independent words (c.f. okul)

Turkic languages can serve as an example of agglutinating languages.

3. Isolating languages. They have no word changing morphemes. Grammar relations are shown by word order.

The Chinese language belongs to this group.

4. Polysynthetic languages. Words in the languages of this group are united so that a phrase or a sentence may consist of a single word.

Such structure is found in the Chukchi language, some Indian languages.

Scholars used to think that the types of languages corresponded to stages of language development. So they thought that once every language was isolating by its structure and through the other stages is to become inflexional sooner or later. Some looked upon this process as "perfecting" of the language, others thought it to be "degrading". Modern linguistics is against the idea of "better" or "worse" languages.

Another drawback of this first classification is that it takes into account only the morphological structure of the word. Later classifications were made on a broader basis.

Typological characteristics of languages:

The proportion of vowels in the total number of phonemes and palatalization of consonants. In vocalic languages consonants may be vowelized, consonants can form syllables, double consonants are pronounced as single sounds. In consonant languages consonants may be palatalized, consonants can't form syllables, double consonants are pronounced as two sounds. The Russian language is considered a consonant one.

Differentiation or lack of differentiation of the word, phrase and sentence. Inflexible, agglutinating and isolating languages differentiate between the word and the sentence. Polysynthetic languages don't differentiate between them.

Existence or non-existence of grammar markers. Inflexible and agglutinating languages have grammar markers and differentiate between parts of speech. Isolating languages don't have grammar markers and parts of speech.

Polysemy or monosomy of grammar affixes. In inflexiable languages, affixes express several grammar meanings at the same time. Agglutinating languages have separate affixes for each meaning.

Type of grammatical structure. In synthetic languages word forms are expressed by affixes, in analytical languages word forms are made up by separate auxiliary words.

f) Type of phrase structure. Some languages don't have a fixed word order in a phrase, in

others the word order is strict.

e.g. In Russian an attribute may go before or after a noun, in English it goes before a noun, in French it goes after a noun.

g) Type of subject-predicate structure. According to the classification by Ivan Ivanovich

Mestchaninov there are languages of nominative, ergative and passive structure.

In nominative languages the doer of the action is expressed by the grammatical subject of the sentence. The subject is in the nominative case. Such languages have the category of voice. Most Indo-European languages have nominative structure.

In the languages of the ergative type there is no grammatical subject or object. The doer of the action is not in nominative case but in a special ergative case. Ergative sentences remind of the Russian impersonal construction (e.g. Корову убило молнией) where we can clearly distinguish between the doer and the object of the action, but neither of the nouns is in the nominative case. Ergative structure is characteristic for some Caucasian languages and the Basque language.

In the languages of the passive type the subject, the object and the verb are integrated into a single word complex. The Chukchi language and Indian languages are considered to be passive.

h) Word order in a sentence. In most inflexional languages word order is not fixed. In isolating and agglutinating languages word order is fixed. There are also some inflexional languages which have analytical features. Nouns in such languages have lost their endings and grammar relations are also shown by strict word order. English and Swedish are examples of such languages.

If word order is fixed there may different rules for placing parts of the sentence. There are languages in which the subject is followed by the predicate and the object (S - P - O). Inflexional and isolating languages belong to this type. In other languages the subject is followed by the object, and the verb occupies the final position (S - О - P). The example of this type is agglutinating languages.

i) Elaboration of complex sentences system. There are languages with an elaborate system of complex sentences (such as inflexible and isolating) and languages with an underdeveloped complex sentences system (such as agglutinating).

Every language can be classified on the basis of all these criteria. These characteristics are not independent, many of them are interrelated and form a stable system.

e.g. If a language doesn't have inflexions word order in it must be fixed because grammar relations are shown either by inflexions or by word order.

At the same time no language can be an example of a "pure" language type. There exist features of different types in every language.

e.g. English is an Indo-European language and is traditionally classified as inflexible. At the same time, it has some features of the agglutinating type: plural ending -s is mono semantic, it expresses nothing but number; there is no grammatical agreement between the noun and the adjective. English has a fixed word order (Subject - Predicate - Object). The same word order is found in the Chinese language, which belongs to the isolating group.

So it's more correct to speak not of a "language type" but of different types within a language. Still, classifications of languages do exist. They are based on the dominant features of the language, and the less relevant characteristics are not taken into account.

Periods of the development linguistic comparison

Dr. Buranov J. identifies 4 periods in the history of typological studies: 1) Spontaneous or evolutionary. It begins with the emergence of the first linguistic works. That period was over not long before the Renaissance. In Ancient Greece the language was studied in the frames of philosophy. The major issue which was in the focus of discussion was correlation of substances to their names. Still already in the works of Protagoras and Aristotle there are statements related to distinguishing words, word combinations, linguistic categories like gender, case, number, definition of the sentence, classification of words into names and actions /parts of speech. These works served the basis for distinguishing linguistics into an independent science. E.g. many scholars, while compiling grammars of separate languages used the models of the languages with already described grammatical structures. (The principle of analogy). For example, while compiling the first English grammars the models of Latin were widely used. The first grammars for the European languages were based on the Latin Grammars. The second period is characterized as a period of establishing the first scientific comparison of languages and this period is related to the General and Rational Grammar: Port-Royal Grammar by Arnauld A., Lancelot C.,14 (XVII c.) in IndoEuropean languages. Port-Royal Grammar can be considered one of the most precious contributions into development of Linguistic typology. It was developed by 2 French monks in the small abbey Port-Royal in the suburbs of Paris (published in 1660). It is the synthesis of linguistic and philosophic ideas of that time. The languages (French, Latin. Greek and ancient Jewish/ Ides) with different genealogic origin and typological structure were compared basing on the criteria and principles elaborated by Arnauld A. and Lancelot C. Comparative study of Turkic language has its own history. Divan-Lugat At-Turk by Mahmud Kashgariy is considered the most solid work on linguistic comparison of Turkic languages. Mahmud Kashgariy analyzed phonetic, grammatical and lexical units of a group of Turkic languages and defined the level of their genetic relation to each other. Further development of comparative study can be traced in appearance of glossaries and dictionaries, e.g. Turkic-Mongol-Persian dictionary-compiled in Egypt (1245), Latin-Persian Kypchak dictionary (Kumanikus Code, XII c), and other works. One of the most prominent work is the poem of Alisher Navoi "Muhokamatul ai-Lugatain" (Debate of two languages) written in 1499. Navoi compares lexical, grammatical and word building specificities of 2 genetically non-related languages: old Uzbek and Persian. Navoi reveals a number of language specificities of Uzbek which did not have direct correspondences in Persian, e.g. suffixes of reflexivity, reciprocity, causation, modality, comparativeness, etc. The third period is related to development of comparative historical linguistics, genealogical and typological classification of languages, (mid- XIX c.) Linguistic typology has been developing step by step using descriptive and comparative grammars. Thus Linguistic typology can be considered one of the most ancient but simultaneously the least developed branch of linguistics. The Comparative Historical linguistics can be considered the next step of scientific comparison. The representatives of that field elaborated a complicated system of scientific tools for precise comparison and restoring the origins of languages on phonetic, and morphological levels. At that time the classic genealogical and typological classification of the majority of known languages of the world were developed by various authors.(brothers Shleghel, Sapir, etc.). The Indo-European languages were studied by prominent scholars of the XlXth c. F. Bopp, J. Grimm, Carl Bruggman, F. Ditz, Rasmus Rask, A. Vostokov, F. Mis-telli, F.Fink, E. Sapir, Bodwen de Courtene, E.Polivanov, I. Meschaninov. Since XVII c. the comparative study of Turkic languages was in the focus of the works of F. Tabbert-Stralenberg, O. Beotlikk, V. Radlov, M. Ryasyanen, G. Ramstedt, N. Dmitriev and others. The 4th period is related to establishing of Linguistic typology as a separate science with the bulk of General linguistics. It coincides with the XX century. In the former Soviet Union the most developed and popular field of comparative study was comparison of Russian and national languages. The major material for comparison served numerous translations of Russian classics into national languages. Lexicography has also got considerable development. At that time the first national grammars were compiled basing on the grammar of the Russian language, e.g. the first Uzbek Grammar by Evgeniy Polivanov" used the system of Russian grammar for description: system of parts of speech, cases, numbers, etc.

Typological classification and its parts

We classify topological phases of non-Hermitian systems in the Altland-Zirnbauer classes with an additional reflection symmetry in all dimensions. By mapping the non-Hermitian system into an enlarged Hermitian Hamiltonian with an enforced chiral symmetry, our topological classification is thus equivalent to classifying Hermitian systems with both chiral and reflection symmetries, which effectively change the classifying space and shift the periodical table of topological phases. According to our classification tables, we provide concrete examples for all topologically nontrivial non-Hermitian classes in one dimension and also give explicitly the topological invariant for each nontrivial example. Our results show that there exist two kinds of topological invariants composed of either winding numbers or Z2 numbers. By studying the corresponding lattice models under the open boundary condition, we unveil the existence of bulk-edge correspondence for the one-dimensional topological non-Hermitian systems characterized by winding numbers, however we did not observe the bulk-edge correspondence for the typological number in our studied

Parts of comparative typology.

A silence would be a lonely world. To listen, to answer, to share our thought and ideas through speech and hearing this is one of the most exciting ports of being human.

It is no doubt true that students grow toward maturity and independence of thought as they progress through the grades; but this growth is not as a rule a sharp and sudden one, nor does the psychology of the students undergo any great change during the various levels of the fundamental principles that underlie the work of the University remain the same from year to year. The need in every level is to bring about academic growth by providing near and broader experiences.

While working at school found out how difficult for the students of the secondary school, definite the national groups, to learn English, because there are no prepositions in Uzbek, but in English we have. If we talk about gender we have, of course some similarities. And when, I tried them to explain some examples in comparison they learned those words better than I thought.

Thus, the goal of the research is to investigate grammar of the English language in comparison with the Uzbek, to investigate phonetics, in comparison English with Uzbek.

The enabling objectives are as follows:

To review literature of comparative languages (English and Uzbek) in order to make theoretically we-motivated discussions on the choice of comparison.

To analyze the parts of speech of the English language and the Uzbek language.

The novelty is that this work contains the comparative analyses of the English grammar, phonetics and construction of the sentence. The student made her own investigation finding many examples of comparison not only in English, and in Uzbek.

Materials and literature which she used were «The comparative typology of English and Turkic languages», the lectures on «Comparative typology» and «Theory of phonetics» by A. Abduazizov.

The qualification work consists of several parts where she opened and analyzed the theme.

1. Main part

1.1 Comparative typology of English and Uzbek

The word typology consists of two Greek morphemes: a) typos means type and b) logos means science or word. Typology is a branch of science which is typical to all sciences without any exception. In this respect their typological method is not limited with the sphere of one science. It has a universal rise. So typology may be divided into:

Non-linguistic and Linguistic typology

Non-linguistic typology is the subject matter of the sciences except linguistics.

Linguistic typology is a new branch of general linguistic which studies the systems of languages comparatively, also finds common laws of languages and establishes differences and similarities between them.

Typological classification of languages.

In linguistics we may come across many terms as to the terminological nature of linguistic typology.

They are: 1. Comparative methods, 2. Comparative – historical method, 3. Comparative (or contrastive) linguistics, 4. Comparative typology, 5. Comparative grammar, 6. Connotation grammar, 7. Descriptive – comparative linguistics and on the terms used in Russian and Uzbek are not exact either. They are: сравнительная грамматика, сопоставительная грамматика, сравнительно-историческое языкознание, контрастивная лингвистика, сравнительная типология in Russian and қиёсий типология, қиёсий тарихий тилшунослик, қиёсий грамматика, қиёсий тилшунослик and so on in Uzbek.

Classification of linguistic typology.

According to the notion of comparison of linguistics phenomenon and the aim directed on we may classify linguistic typology into the following parts a) genetic of genealogical typology, b) structural typology, c) areal typology and d) comparative typology.

Genealogical typology is a branch of linguistic typology which studies the similarities and the relationship between the related languages. It is applicated to the systems of genetically related languages. Genealogical typology developed from the comparative – historical linguistics dominated during the 19th century in Europe. It’s origin was stimulated by the discovery of Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India. The discovery of Sanskrit disclosed the possibility of a comparative study of languages. The concept of relative languages was confirmed by the existence in India of a sister of the familiar languages of Europe e.g. Sanskrit «mata» means «mother», in the accuse case «matarum»

The inter subject relationship of comparative typology.

The interdisciplinary character of comparative typology with different linguistic subjects

Linguistic typology is connected with such sciences as psychology, physiology, logic, anthropology, literature, history, mathematics, etc. However, our task is to consider the connection of linguistic typology with linguistic disciplines.

Linguistic typology is associated with such sections of linguistics as the history of the language, phonetics, lexicology, lexicography, grammar, style, theory of translation and methods of teaching foreign languages.

History of language. If the history of a language equips students with knowledge of the diverse processes taking place in the structure of the language, then the typology of changes that occurred in languages ​​allows us to understand the similarity of English and Uzbek languages ​​as members of different language families.

Phonetics. If phonetics studies the acoustic and physiological characteristics of sound phenomena in a language, then a comparative typology draws its own conclusions based on a comparison of the acoustic-physiological phenomena of two genetically related or unrelated languages.

Lexicology. Lexicology deals with the study of the lexical system of a language, and the typology draws its conclusions on the basis of the common features that constitute the typological features of the language at the lexical level.

Lexicography. Comparative typology has a direct connection with lexicography, as they both deal with the comparison and identification of equivalent units.

Comparative typology and lexicography explore systems of two or more languages ​​simultaneously.

Comparable languages ​​can be both genetically related and genetically unrelated.

Comparative typology and lexicography are based on both intra-system and intersystem comparisons.

Intra-systemic typology is a typological study and comparison of units at different levels; in lexicography - in the compilation of monolingual explanatory or educational dictionaries.

Intersystem typology is a comparison of systems of different languages; in lexicography it is a comparison of units of systems of different languages. These include bilingual and multilingual dictionaries.

Comparative typology and lexicography are not limited to units of the levels with which they operate. For example, when comparing grammatical categories, units of a non-grammatical level cannot be excluded, and when compiling a bilingual dictionary, one cannot limit oneself to the level of a word.

References:

1) "Comparative linguistics". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Britannica.com. 2011. Retrieved 23 April 2019.

2) Ringe, D. A. (1995). "'Nostratic' and the factor of chance". Diachronica. 12 (1): 55–74. doi:10.1075/dia.12.1.04rin.

3) See for example Language Classification by Numbers by April McMahon and Robert McMahon

4) Campbell, Lyle (2004). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press

5) Greenberg, J. H. (2001). "The methods and purposes of linguistic genetic classification". Language and Linguistics 2: 111–135.