Page 65 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 11(1) (2023)
P. 65
ia universitatisical linguistics comprises comparative linguis- Areal linguistic typology
tics, which traces language change from the pro- Areal linguistic typology groups idioms, i.e. lin-
centr al european con vergence ar ea: theor etical and methodological consider ations 65 to-language to the nascence of a language, and guistic systems and diasystems, within a linguis-
dialectology, studying linguistic fragmenta- tic area of genetically related and unrelated id-
tion of a language to its dialect bases, dialects, ioms according to the degree of their structural
and local varieties. Thus, linguistic genealogy re- similarity, irrespective of their genetic related-
constructs divergent language change and the ness (i.e. it clusters genetically related as well
consequent emergence of linguistic diversity of as genetically unrelated idioms into linguistic
genetically related idioms, and is therefore a part types). The theory and the methodology of ar-
of historical linguistics.9 eal linguistic typology (of European languages)
were quite appropriately elaborated in the study
In the field of linguistic genealogy, the most of Balkan languages.10
important criterion in determining linguistic
relatedness is historical phonetics (cf. Šekli 2018, What is relevant for areal linguistic typol-
40–42). In the 1870s, the Leipzig Neogrammar- ogy is convergent linguistic change (linguistic
ian school of linguistics (German Junggramma- innovation), which results in a greater degree of
tiker) came to the correct conclusion that sound structural similarity. In parallel to divergent lin-
change is by far the most systematic process guistic change in a dialect continuum of related
among the changes that can affect a given lan- idioms over a given period of time, convergent
guage. Sound changes can be accurately captured linguistic change can also occur in different id-
by mathematically precise rules (rather appropri- ioms that are not closely genetically related, or
ately, the Neogrammarians called them Lautge- even unrelated, due to geographical and social
setze, i.e. sound laws) (cf. Osthoff and Brugmann linguistic contact, which can result in linguis-
1878, 13). In comparison to the (historical) pho- tic influence and linguistic borrowing and imi-
netic criterion, the morphological and the syn- tation. These processes can usually happen in a
tactic criteria are less important, while the lexi- given period of time within long-lasting multi-
cal criterion is practically irrelevant. In sum, the lingual political and consequently cultural re-
very basis of the genealogical linguistic classifi- gions, the result of which can be the formation
cation of idioms are therefore the phonetic fea- of a convergence area (cf. Тrubeckoj 1923, 116).
tures (i.e. innovations and archaisms) of the id- Thus, areal linguistic typology uses the term
ioms under consideration which have the value convergence area (German Sprachbund, Italian
of genetic criteria. The morphological features lega linguistica, Russian jazykovoj sojuz) to de-
can be added to phonetic ones, but only if the scribe the result of convergent linguistic change
areas of innovation in the domain of morphol- in a given linguistic area. Accounting for the rise
ogy overlap with those involving sound change. and the formation of a convergence area – i.e.
In determining the genetic criteria, geograph- linguistic influence and linguistic change with-
ical distribution of linguistic innovations and in language contact as well as convergent lin-
their (relative and absolute) chronology are very guistic innovation and common structural lin-
important. guistic features – lies in the domain of historical
linguistics (cf. Hock 2021, 659–724). In the fol-
can be described as ‘ancestor – descendant’. Namely, a lowing paragraphs some theoretical and meth-
proto-language splits into a language family, a language
branch gives origin to a language group, and a dialect base 10 The pioneer in the study of the Balkan languages was Jernej
splits into a dialect group. Kopitar / Bartholomäus Kopitar (1780–1844), who syn-
9 For the origins of (historical-)comparative linguistics and thesized the structural similarity of Albanian, Bulgarian
the development of its theory and methodology in the 19th and Romanian as follows: ‘nur eine Sprachform herrscht,
century cf. Pedersen (1931); for the theory and methodolo- aber mit dreyerley Schprachmaterie’ (Kopitar 1829). The
gy of historical linguistics cf. Hock (2021). scientific foundations of Balkan linguistics were laid down
by Franc Miklošič / Franz Miklosich (1813–1891) (cf. Mik-
losich 1861).
tics, which traces language change from the pro- Areal linguistic typology groups idioms, i.e. lin-
centr al european con vergence ar ea: theor etical and methodological consider ations 65 to-language to the nascence of a language, and guistic systems and diasystems, within a linguis-
dialectology, studying linguistic fragmenta- tic area of genetically related and unrelated id-
tion of a language to its dialect bases, dialects, ioms according to the degree of their structural
and local varieties. Thus, linguistic genealogy re- similarity, irrespective of their genetic related-
constructs divergent language change and the ness (i.e. it clusters genetically related as well
consequent emergence of linguistic diversity of as genetically unrelated idioms into linguistic
genetically related idioms, and is therefore a part types). The theory and the methodology of ar-
of historical linguistics.9 eal linguistic typology (of European languages)
were quite appropriately elaborated in the study
In the field of linguistic genealogy, the most of Balkan languages.10
important criterion in determining linguistic
relatedness is historical phonetics (cf. Šekli 2018, What is relevant for areal linguistic typol-
40–42). In the 1870s, the Leipzig Neogrammar- ogy is convergent linguistic change (linguistic
ian school of linguistics (German Junggramma- innovation), which results in a greater degree of
tiker) came to the correct conclusion that sound structural similarity. In parallel to divergent lin-
change is by far the most systematic process guistic change in a dialect continuum of related
among the changes that can affect a given lan- idioms over a given period of time, convergent
guage. Sound changes can be accurately captured linguistic change can also occur in different id-
by mathematically precise rules (rather appropri- ioms that are not closely genetically related, or
ately, the Neogrammarians called them Lautge- even unrelated, due to geographical and social
setze, i.e. sound laws) (cf. Osthoff and Brugmann linguistic contact, which can result in linguis-
1878, 13). In comparison to the (historical) pho- tic influence and linguistic borrowing and imi-
netic criterion, the morphological and the syn- tation. These processes can usually happen in a
tactic criteria are less important, while the lexi- given period of time within long-lasting multi-
cal criterion is practically irrelevant. In sum, the lingual political and consequently cultural re-
very basis of the genealogical linguistic classifi- gions, the result of which can be the formation
cation of idioms are therefore the phonetic fea- of a convergence area (cf. Тrubeckoj 1923, 116).
tures (i.e. innovations and archaisms) of the id- Thus, areal linguistic typology uses the term
ioms under consideration which have the value convergence area (German Sprachbund, Italian
of genetic criteria. The morphological features lega linguistica, Russian jazykovoj sojuz) to de-
can be added to phonetic ones, but only if the scribe the result of convergent linguistic change
areas of innovation in the domain of morphol- in a given linguistic area. Accounting for the rise
ogy overlap with those involving sound change. and the formation of a convergence area – i.e.
In determining the genetic criteria, geograph- linguistic influence and linguistic change with-
ical distribution of linguistic innovations and in language contact as well as convergent lin-
their (relative and absolute) chronology are very guistic innovation and common structural lin-
important. guistic features – lies in the domain of historical
linguistics (cf. Hock 2021, 659–724). In the fol-
can be described as ‘ancestor – descendant’. Namely, a lowing paragraphs some theoretical and meth-
proto-language splits into a language family, a language
branch gives origin to a language group, and a dialect base 10 The pioneer in the study of the Balkan languages was Jernej
splits into a dialect group. Kopitar / Bartholomäus Kopitar (1780–1844), who syn-
9 For the origins of (historical-)comparative linguistics and thesized the structural similarity of Albanian, Bulgarian
the development of its theory and methodology in the 19th and Romanian as follows: ‘nur eine Sprachform herrscht,
century cf. Pedersen (1931); for the theory and methodolo- aber mit dreyerley Schprachmaterie’ (Kopitar 1829). The
gy of historical linguistics cf. Hock (2021). scientific foundations of Balkan linguistics were laid down
by Franc Miklošič / Franz Miklosich (1813–1891) (cf. Mik-
losich 1861).
