Comparative Methodology

[LV Hayes]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Date:         Thu, 2 May 2002 12:31:35 EDT
>From:         Steve Long <X99Lynx at aol.com>
>
>>Please note the distinction I make between 'phase' and 'step'.
>>A phase is a stage in the implementation during which one or
>>more (related) steps are performed, a step is a specific
>>process conducted within a phase.
>
>I think that, whether you are calling it steps or phases, it
>may be valuable to consider that the raw collection of data
>could be directionless unless some guiding hypothetical
>(confirmed or unconfirmed) is there from the start of the
>process.

I agree, but what you have in mind is, I think, better described as a
precept or principle.  What I'm trying to do is identify the procedures
involved in an implementation of comparative methodology.  This methodology
rests of course on a foundation of precepts and principles, which may come
from synchronic (descriptive) or diachronic (historical) linguistics.  One
must have some knowledge of those principles in order to even attempt the
implementation.  But I'm not trying to identify those principles per se; a
project with that aim as its objective would undoubtedly be huge and could
possibly take years to complete.

>Obviously, a comparativist is going to be looking for data
>that shows systematic correspondence in comparing two
>languages (or its absence) and that theoretical structure
>should affect what is gathered.

As I understand things, two types of language data may be needed and the
data involved is not necessarily identical.  You have described above one
type; this data will be used in Phase 3 (Application of the comparative
method).  The other type will be used in Phase 2 (Data analysis) to
determine the phonological and grammatical structures of the languages
compared, if this information is not already available in the literature or
from unpublished sources.

>The mass of data available in the computer age accents just
>how much pre-selection must go on in any scientific endeavor
>and makes data screening methodology an important issue in any
>field.

Good point.  The comparatist will need a data collection strategy and then
a data-screening methodology, but neither one is a procedural step.  They
are guidelines for such steps, the first for Step 1 (Collect language
data), the second for Step 2 (Screen data), both steps falling within Phase
1 (Data collection).

>What has helped me understand these early issues a little
>better is the literature on field linguistics.

Thanks for the references!  The only one of them I have on hand is
Samarin's book.

>There's a lot more out there, particularly in Asia and
>Australian field work that I think MAY suggest to you that
>the steps or processes are arranged somewhat differently or
>rather more complexly than you have them, and that this may
>be more apparent in work with unwritten languages, and more
>opaque where writing is involved.

The phase listing I cited in my initial message was meant to be only a
suggested outline, not a conclusive statement.

LV Hayes
lvhayes at worldnet.att.net