Diskuse:Lingvistika

message: Několik poznámek k současnému perexu hesla. Věta "Obsahuje mnoho podoborů" je podle mě nadbytečná. To triviálně platí o každé disciplíně. Třetí věta více méně opakuje obsah té první, jen jinými slovy. Taky mi přijde trošku nezvyklé, aby se hned ve třetí větě pozornost přesunula k disciplínám, které s článkem skoro nesouvisí. Tím nechci říct, že poukázání na vztah lingvistiky a jiných disciplín zabývajících se obdobným objektem studia (obdobným protože "jazyk" je pro lingvistu něco docela jiného, než např. pro anatomii člověka) je nedůležité, ale pokud to tam dávat vůbec (viz např. Fyzika), tak to udělat více organicky a ne stylem vyjmenovávání (viz např. Chemie). Radooz 19. 4. 2010, 07:05 (UTC)
replies: text: Určitě nejsem proti, inspiroval bych se i na jiných wiki, pokud tam ty články za něco stojí. Pracoval jsem včera s tehdejší podobou článku a nechtěl jsem to úplně překopat, i takhle mi ty moje zásahy přišly dost troufalé. Máš (IMHO) volnou ruku :-) PS: Hlavně je dobře, že se toho někdo ujal... --Jiří Janíček 19. 4. 2010, 09:35 (UTC)

message: Zdravím. Podle mě je dělení poněkud nesprávné:
#pojmy diachronní lingvistika a historická lingvistika jsou de facto synonymní, v obou případech jde u touž disciplínu zabývající se prostě fenoménem jazykové změny se vším, co k tomu patří a co je k tomu zapotřebí. Rozhodně podle mne nelze h. l./d. l. definovat tak, že pouze zkoumá jazyky, které se užívaly v minulosti a teprve popř[ípadě] se zaměřuje na výzkum vývoje jazyka v čase; je to spíše naopak: zkoumání konkrétních jazyků (a to rozhodně nejen minulých, to bychom se vskutku nedostali daleko!) je jedním z prostředků poznání jazykové změny, o niž tu jde především. Buďto bych tedy termín h. l. přepracoval, nebo jej nahradil srovnávací lingvistikou, která je zřejmě její nejznámější subdisciplínou.
#Rovněž doporučuji, máme-li být konzistentní, změnit synchronní / diachronní / panchronní lingvistika na s. / d. / p. přístup (ostatně v podnadpise to tak je). Jedná se skutečně spíše o přístup či náhled nežli o nějakou disciplínu či podobor. Takto budeme schopni striktně oddělit disciplínu zvanou diachronní lingvistika (čili historická) or "pouhého" diachronního přístupu ke zkoumání jazyka. Je třeba si uvědomit, že d. l. čerpá jak z poznatků s. p., tak d. p.
Souhlasíte-li s mými námitkami/návrhy, směle se do nich pusťte, případně je časem provedu sám.:-) --Petusek (diskuse) 4. 11. 2015, 00:14 (CET)
replies: text: Díky moc za příspěvek do diskuze, mám radost, že si hesla někdo kriticky všímá.

text: Ad 1: Tady se asi budeme muset poradit s nějakým nezávislým (a pokud možno do určité míry autoritativním) zdrojem. My když jsme probírali historickou mluvnici, tak o jazykové změně nebyla téměř řeč: probírali jsme např. gramatický systém češtiny ve 14. století. Z toho jsem si odnesl, že historická mluvnice (resp. historická lingvistika - možná je ten háček právě v tom?) je disciplína zkoumající historické verze jazyků (ať už živých či vymřelých). Jak říkám, rád se nechám přesvědčit o opaku, nicméně nejlépe na základě nějakého nezávislého zdroje.

text: Ad 2: V tom naprosto souhlasím, nazývat "přístup" "lingvistikou" byla z mé strany chyba. To můžeš klidně editovat, chceš-li.

text: Radooz (diskuse) 4. 11. 2015, 10:34 (CET)
replies: text: :Souhlasím, například Erhart (1984: 18), případně stránky Ústavu srovnávací jazykovědy FF UK. Inspirativní jsou také články na anglické Wikipedii, zejména články Comparative linguistics a Historical linguistics. Vzhledem k tomu, že terminologie, tak jak jsem se s ní setkával na ÚSJ FF UK i na ÚOL FF UK, v podstatě velmi dobře odpovídá té anglické, asi nebude vadit, dodáme-li také anglofonní zdroje, kterých mám k dispozici skutečně přehršel.

text: :A ještě poznámka: Namísto srovnávací jazykověda se občas používalo historicko-srovnávací, aby se podtrhl diachronní aspekt komparace a nepletlo se to se srovnáváním synchronním.--Petusek (diskuse) 4. 11. 2015, 13:08 (CET)
replies: text: ::Nejsem si teď přesně jistý, v čem souhlasíme, nicméně mě těší, že disponuješ spolehlivými zdroji, což je přesně to, co je potřeba.
replies: text: :::Šlo hlavně o souhlas s využitím oněch zdrojů, nikoliv nutně v tom, že nazývat "přístup" "lingvistikou" byla nějaká hrozná chyba, zvláště když se podobné inkonzistence dopouštějí sami lingvisté (a to včetně Jandy & Josepha v citátu, který uvádíš; o tom ale níže).

text: ::Já jsem tu věc právě probíral s Rolandem Meyerem, který se mezi historické lingvisty počítá, a ten spíš potvrzoval moji verzi, tedy že historická lingvistika je primárně lingvistika historických jazyků, ačkoliv se samozřejmě vůbec nevylučuje (a pravděpodobně často pojí) s diachronní metodou.
replies: text: :::1. Nejprve, s omluvou, hnidopišská oprava: fráze diachronní metoda evokuje pocit, že existuje nějaký jeden specifický postup. Neexistuje. Není žádná jedna konkrétní diachronní metoda, jde skutečně jen o přístup nebo pohled či perspektivu (občas se v této souvislosti užívá termín vertikální (osa)). Lze snad naopak mluvit o diachronních metodách, kam náleží například metoda vnitřní rekonstrukce nebo metoda vnější rekonstrukce.

text: :::2. K názoru RM, jak ho tu interpretuješ (tj. že spíše potvrzuje, jakkoliv vágní mi tato formulace připadá, co jsi napsal), mám značné výhrady. Neupírám RM právo zvát se historickým lingvistou, nicméně tvrzení, že jde v h.l. primárně o lingvistiku historických jazyků je, s prominutím, naprostý nesmysl a odporuje všemu, co jsem četl, slyšel například na přednáškách ÚSJ FF UK a sám praktikoval. I z citátu, který uvádíš, přece jasně vyplývá, že h. l. zahrnuje synchronní popis starého jazyka (includes research on "old-time synchrony"). Nevím, jestli jsi četl citovaný text důkladně, ale zdá se mi, že autoři se v něm dopouštějí (vzhledem k charakteru textu ospravedlnitelné) inkonzistence právě tím, že srovnávají diachronní lingvistiku (=přístup) s historickou lingvistikou (=disciplína), mimo jiné právě proto, aby podtrhli, co říkají o několik řádků výše, tedy že synchronní bádání historického jazyka není samo o sobě h. l. Je to jen jeden z možných vstupů pro tuto disciplínu. Jak by se potom měla nazývat disciplína, která vychází pouze z popisů moderních jazyků bez historických dokladů, a přesto si drze dovoluje zkoumat jejich vzájemnou příbuznost a rekonstruovat (nedoložený) prajazyk, který z definice ani nelze nazývat historickým? Jakkoliv to de Saussure myslel dobře, možná měl raději zvolit namísto synchronního termín achronní nebo atemporální, kdežto diachronní mohlo být jednoduše chronní či temporální.

text: ::Nicméně za mě pořád platí to, že bychom se měli držet českých konvencí (např. toho Erharta), a třeba poukázat na tu potenciální dvojznačnost termínu "historická lingvistika" (oproti termínu "diachronní přístup", kde je to, řekl bych, relativně jednoznačné).
replies: text: :::Sice si myslím, že termín historická lingvistika dvojznačný vůbec není (jde ve zkratce o název disciplíny, která se zabývá řadou věcí a pro niž je typický diachronní přístup), ale jsou-li pochybnosti, explicitní konstatování, že studium starého jazyka ještě nemusí znamenat h. l., jistě nebude na škodu.

text: :: Apropos, je nepochybné, že potřebujeme termín pro lingvistu, který se třeba zabývá starou řečtinou čistě z hlediska synchronního. Já bych ho teda asi nazval lingvistiou historickým.
replies: text: :::1. Už s tvrzením, že takový termín opravdu potřebujeme, lze dost dobře polemizovat: copak lze jakkoliv sjednotit badatele, který se zabývá, řekněme, staročeštinou, s badatelem, který se zabývá například staromayštinou? Můžeme je nazvat lingvisty, prvého třeba staročeštinář, druhého staromayštinář, ale že by automaticky museli být historickými lingvisty? To jistě ne.

text: :::2. Teprve pokud oba zkoumají, kterak předmět jejich bádání vedl k pozdějším vývojovým stádiím (či jak se vyvinul z ještě dřívějších, tj. praslovanského resp. pramayského), případně jak lze z moderních stádií rekonstruovat chybějící informace, pak jsou oba historickými lingvisty. Eventuálně by jimi byli, pakliže by se snažili prokázat či vyvrátit vzájemnou příbuznost staročeštiny a čínštiny, nebo pátrali po důsledcích jejich vzájemného kontaktu.

text: :::3. Je pochopitelné, že většina odborníků na staré jazyky bude ve větší či menší míře z h. l. čerpat i v případě, že budou usilovat o synchronní popis. Nezaměňujme však příčinu za následek.

text: ::Jinak bych chtěl dodat, že jsem celé to heslo psal docela dávno, sice už coby aktivní lingvista, nicméně bez vážnější konzultace s relevantní literaturou. Z toho hlediska by bylo třeba to heslo vylepšit, ozdrojova a popř. opravit místa, kde jsem nebyl úplně konvenční. Budu rád, když se na tom budeš podílet. A samozřejmě ti dávám volnou ruku, abys editoval (v tom smyslu, že ti to nebudu hned měnit:)).
replies: text: :::Rád přispěji, ovšem jak vidíš z času této editace, málokdy nacházím vhodný čas. :-) A vzhledem k času, během něhož tyto reakce píši, pochybuji o jeho vhodnosti. Ale to ukáže až příchod kuropění a návrat k bdělé soudnosti, jíž už se mi v tuto chvíli nedostává.  --Petusek (diskuse) 16. 11. 2015, 02:09 (CET)

text: :: Radooz (diskuse) 4. 11. 2015, 14:17 (CET)

text: :: Přidávám jeden relevantní citát: "At least in a technical sense, then, diachronic linguistics and historical linguistics are not synonymous, because only the latter includes research on 'old-time synchrony' for its own sake, without any focus on language change." Radooz (diskuse) 4. 11. 2015, 21:03 (CET)
replies: text: ::: Mám nachystánu řadu dalších citátů potvrzujících má tvrzení, ale už nemám sílu je sem vložit. Snad ve dnech příštích. ;-) --Petusek (diskuse) 16. 11. 2015, 02:09 (CET)
replies: text: :::: Výborně, tak směle do editace! Mně osobně je to celkem jedno a jsem více méně ztotožněn s tím, co píšeš. Jediná věc, co mi už teď přijde zvláštní, je, proč se vůbec obtěžovat s termínem "historická lingvistika", je-li to zkrátka lingvistika (= disciplína), definovaná a podmíněná tím, že užívá diachronní přístup. Proč by potom měla být taková bota, říkat "diachronní lingvistika"? Koneckonců je to naprosto běžný postup v tvorbě termínů pro disciplíny. Jen pár příkladů: matematická lingvistika (od užívání matematických metod), experimentální lingvistika (od užívání experimentálních metod), korpusová lingvistika (od užívání korpusu coby materiálu), atd. atd. Radooz (diskuse) 16. 11. 2015, 10:33 (CET)
replies: text: ::::: Ha, výborně, v tom se tedy do značné míry shodujeme. Pro mě (a zdá se, že i pro drtivou většinu lingvistů) jsou skutečně termíny d. l. a h. l. synonymní, takže bych to tak v článku uvedl. Rozhodně si tedy nemyslím, že je to, jak píšeš, nějaká "bota". Oba termíny jsou svým způsobem adekvátní a oba mají svá pro a proti: h. l. evokuje v [jak vidím, tak nejen] laikovi poněkud mylnou (či značně nedokonalou) představu, že jde (primárně či obecně) o lingvistiku starých jazyků, kdežto d. l. může na druhou stranu jednak vzbuzovat (opět pomýlený) pocit, že není nutno, ba dokonce ani možno, opírat se o výsledky synchronních analýz (přitom, jak víš, už obyčejná fonematická analýza lexikálních data ruku v ruce s analýzou sémantických a morfologických domén je výživným zdrojem hypotéz o historických souvislostech, stačí si vzpomenout na původně marginální status /f/ v češtině, dnes již v podstatě konsolidovaného nativního fonému, jehož nenativní původ dodnes prozrazuje výskyt takřka výhradně v kulturní slovní zásobě a onomatopoických výrazech; podobná synchronní analýza by měla předcházet hledání hláskových responzí, abychom věděli, co vlastně lze s čím srovnávat, že ano), jednak - a to asi pravděpodobněji - že jde o synonymum k diachronnímu přístupu, a tedy o protiklad k tzv. synchronní lingvistice (rozuměj synchronnímu přístupu), přičemž, jak jistě uznáváš, neexistuje disciplína zvaná "synchronní lingvistika", tudíž - v tomto smyslu - logicky nemůže existovat ani "diachronní lingvistika" jakožto disciplína. :-) Zkrátka a dobře, s termínem historická lingvistika se "obtěžovat" musíme, jen je třeba vše uvést na pravou míru.

text: :::::Jinak to, co cituješ z Jandy & Josepha, je tedy v podstatě opravdu jen zdůraznění odlišení přístupu od disciplíny, v čemž spolu asi taky souhlasíme. Neexistuje totiž (přinejmenším jsem takového ještě neviděl) diachronní/historický lingvista, který by se nemusel opírat o synchronní popisy dvou stádií jazyka, nebo který by v jednom konkrétním stádiu, například v morfonologických alternacích, nehledal historickou motivaci (ať už v podobě alofonických variací, nebo externího vlivu kontaktového jazyka). De Saussure sice zavedl užitečné rozlišení dimenzí (budeme-li v prostorové analogii důslední, oddělil osu y or roviny P definované osami x a z), nicméně je nutno mít na paměti, což taky musíme zmínit, že jde o dimenze téhož spojitého prostoru, že ona vertikála vždy protíná onu horizontální rovinu.

text: :::::Ale dost už metafor. Večer snad konečně začnu dělat nějaké změny a přidávat citace (zatím jsem prošel Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Dictionary of Linguistics, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, The Routledge Linguistic Encyclopaedia, The Handbook of Historical Linguistics a několik dalších, jejichž názvy si nepamatuji - to by mohlo docela stačit :-)).--Petusek (diskuse) 16. 11. 2015, 12:57 (CET)
replies: text: :::::: Tak ode mě snad jen ještě poslední slovo. Měl jsem shodou okolností tu možnost bavit se o té věci s dalšími dvěma "historickými" lingvisty (Julia Bacskai-Atkari a Lukasz Jedrzejowski). Když jsem se jich ptal, jaký je podle nich rozdíl mezi historickou lingvistikou a diachronní lingvistikou (resp. přístupem), aniž bych jim předem cokoliv podsouval, tak mi řekli, že historická ještě nemusí znamenat diachronní (resp. využití diachronního přístupu). Tak nevím, možná je to otázka konvence v ČR versus v zahraničí (Polsko, Maďarsko, Německo), nebo dokonce odlišný úzus jednotlivých pracovišť. Já tak zůstávám s tím pocitem, že podmíníme-li termín "historická lingvistika" využitím diachronního přístupu, tak podle mě nesprávně vypouštíme lingvistiku, která se zabývá starými jazyky (aniž by zkoumala diachronní hledisko). Jasně, chápu námitku, že disciplíně, která se zaobírá současnými jazyky, taky neříkáme specifičtěji než prostě "lingvistika" (neříkáme "současná lingvistika" nebo něco takového), nicméně to už je prostě úzus - to bezpříznakové se často nijak nenálepkuje, to příznakové ano. To se mimochodem týká i tebou zmíněné terminologické asymetrie "diachronní lingvistika" vs. nepoužívaná "synchronní lingvistika".

text: :::::: Nakonec bych ještě chtěl dodat, abychom pro stromy nezapomněli na les. Jedním ze zásadních účelů takového článku na wikipedii, aspoň podle mě, je pomoct čtenáři rozumět (odbornému) diskurzu, který se o daném tématu vede. Tedy, pokud možno, zachytit nějaký úzus, nikoliv stanovovat preskriptivní zásady.

text: :::::: Radooz (diskuse) 17. 11. 2015, 16:18 (CET)
replies: text: :::::::Nějak nám ta diskuze bobtná. :-) Mluvil jsem s dalšími historickými i obecnými lingvisty z našeho i jiných ústavů (Ústav obecné lingvistiky na FF UK, Ústav srovnávací lingvistiky na FF UK a další) a ti spíše potvrzovali mé vidění věci. Oslovil jsem například i Piotra Gąsiorowského z Polska nebo Allana Bomharda z USA, kteří to vidí zcela stejně. I podle německé či polské Wikipedie to je tak, jak jsem říkal ("językoznawstwo historyczno-porównawcze" je částí "językoznawstwa historycznego", což je totéž jako "językoznawstwo diachroniczne". Někteří kolegové říkají, že termín "diachronní lingvistika" jim přijde trochu vágní, jiní rádi používají "historická a srovnávací" lingvistika, aby zdůraznili dva nejdůležitější aspekty a vyhnuli se více/nejednoznačnosti. Zítra můžu přidat citace z dalších materiálů, ale hesla se v podstatě shodují s těmi, která jsem už ocitoval níže. Ještě čekám na vyjádření dalších lingvistů, tak uvidíme, jestli do věci nepřinesou více světla. :-)--Petusek (diskuse) 19. 11. 2015, 18:14 (CET)
replies: text: :::::::: Těžko věřit, že už je to skoro dva roky, co jsme tady s tím začali. Já jsem za tu dobu získal víc zkušeností, hlavně díky tomu, že jsem cíleně sledoval, jak se termínů užívá. A musím ti dát za pravdu - primární význam "historické lingvistiky" je v užívání diachronních metod. Vzhledem k tomu, že jsi větší odborník, než já, byl bych rád, kdybys daný řádek, popř. odstaveček, pozměnil sám. A třeba to i povede k celému heslu "historická lingvistika", co? Zdravím! Radooz44 (diskuse) 16. 6. 2017, 10:32 (CEST)
thread_title:  Diachronní vs. historická vs. srovnávací + Lingvistika vs. přístup 

message: Níže shromažďuji materiál pro případnou další diskuzi, editaci, jakož i - budeme-li chtít - založení samostatného článku o historické lingvistice (teď mě ale napadá, jestli je tohle správné místo; možná bych měl vytvořit podsekce k jednotlivým dílům, ať se to snáze edituje/hledá/maže...hm, raději to udělám rovnou). Uvedl jsem hlavně taková hesla, která nejjasněji ukazují/exemplifikují, co všechno je/není historická lingvistika.
===CAMPBELL (2013:3) === 
 1.2 What is Historical Linguistics About?
 As already mentioned, historical linguistics deals with language change. Historical linguistics is sometimes called diachronic linguistics (from Greek dia- 'through' + chronos 'time' + -ic), since historical linguists are concerned with change in language or languages over time. This is contrasted with synchronic linguistics, which deals with a language at a single point in time; for example, linguists may attempt to write a grammar of present-day English as spoken in some particular speech community, and that would be a synchronic grammar. Similarly, a grammar written of Old English intended to represent a single point in time would also be a synchronic grammar. There are various ways to study language diachronically. For example, historical linguists may study changes in the history of a single language, for instance the changes from Old English to Modern English, or between Old French and Modern French, to mention just two examples. Modern English is very different from Old English, as is Modern French from Old French. Often the study of the history of a single language is called philology, for example English philology, French philology, Hispanic philology and so on. (The term philology has several other senses as well; see Chapter 14.)
 The historical linguist may also study changes revealed in the comparison of related languages, often called comparative linguistics. We say that languages are related to one another when they descend from (are derived from) a single original language, a common ancestor: for example, the modern Romance languages (which include Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and others) descend from earlier Latin (see Chapters 5 and 6).
===MILLER (2010) ===
 Language and changeHistorical is a multidisciplinary a applied branch of linguistics. It is perhaps the most challenging branch because it requires specilized knowledge of the other core branches of linguistics and from many different disciplines outside of linguistics. At the same time, historical linguistics is about natural language change, which presupposes that languages do in fact change. [s. 1]
 The first task of the historical linguist is to decide whether a change has occurred. [s. 12]
 The second task is to decide what has changed. [s. 12]
 The third task is to ascertain what triggered the change. [s. 13]
 1.2 Studying anterior stages of a languageStudying language change requires specialized training in older languages, many of which are poorly documented and/or written in obscure scripts. Sophisticated modern computational techniques, e.g., on interpreting the Elamite script of Ancient Persia, have not even succeeded in duplicating "a century of hard work 'by hand'" (Smith 2007: 64)The special training includes textual exegesis. Texts cannot be taken at face value. Especially for less well documented languages, valid texts and interpretations must be established. This is the subbranch of linguistics known as philology.One may also need training in palaeography and the reading of manuscripts. There are many scribal errors in the copying of manuscripts. Some become standard. Obsidian goes back to a nonexistent Latin form *obsidiānus, a manuscript error for Obsiānus 'relating to Obsius', who is mentioned by Piny the Elder (36.196) as the supposed discoverer of a stone similar to obsidian. If the manuscript error had been caught and corrected, the English word would be *obsian. [s. 14]
--Petusek (diskuse) 20. 11. 2015, 18:04 (CET)
===CAMPBELL (2007) ===
 comparative linguistics The subfield of linguistics that compares languages; usually understood as meaning the application of the comparative method to the comparison of languages. Sometimes the term comparative linguistics is used as a synonym or near synonym of historical linguistics. See also comparative method. [s. 34]
 comparative method The most important method of historical linguistics; a method (or set of procedures) for comparing languages to determine whether they are related and, if related, how they have developed from a common ancestor. The method compares forms from related languages, cognates, that have descended from a common ancestral language (the proto-language), in order to reconstruct the form in that ancestral language and to determine the changes related languages have undergone. It is also the basis for subgrouping related languages and establishing their family tree. See also basic assumptions of the comparative method, limitations on the comparative method, reconstruction. [s. 34]
 diachronic Having to do with the temporal dimension, change over time, from Greek dia- ‘through’ + chronos ‘time’. See also diachronic linguistics, synchrony. [s. 42]
 diachronic linguistics Roughly equivalent to historical linguistics, having to do with the study of language in its temporal dimension, through time. See also diachronic, diachrony, synchrony. [s. 42]
 diachrony Temporal dimension, viewed through time. With respect to language, the historical investigation of linguistic elements, of language changes and evolution. The concept is often associated with de Saussure’s distinction between diachronic and synchronic linguistics. See also diachronic linguisticstics. [s. 42]
 historical linguist A linguist who studies language change. [s. 77]
 historical linguistics (sometimes called historical and comparative linguistics) The study of language change, of how and why languages change. See also diachronic linguistics, philology. [s. 77]
 philology (< Greek philologia ‘love of words’) Has several senses. Sometimes philology means the study of some classical or older language – English philology, Germanic philology, Romance philology etc. In another sense, philology means historical linguistics as practiced in the nineteenth century; what today is called historical linguistics was often referred to earlier as ‘philology’, as in ‘Indo-European philology’. In yet another sense, philology is the field that attempts to retrieve systematic information about a language from written records, for example, to obtain historical information from documents in order to learn about the culture and history of the people behind the text, and, to interpret older written attestations with the goal of obtaining information about the history of the language (or languages) in which the documents are written. This concern with what linguistic information can be acquired from written documents, with how we can get it and with what we can make of the information once we have it, is the sense of philology most common today in historical linguistics. The philological investigation of older written attestations can contribute in several ways – for example, by documenting sound changes, distinguishing inherited from borrowed material, dating changes and borrowings and helping to understand the development and change in writing systems and orthographic conventions. Results of these studies can have implications for claims about scribal practice, subgrouping classification, causes of changes, the reconstruction of a protolanguage, borrowed changes and rules, the identification of extinct languages and the historical interpretation of many changes within the languages investigated in this way. Philological investigation of extant written materials is often the only avenue available for the study of extinct native languages or earlier stages of the surviving indigenous languages in several areas of the world. [s. 151-152]
===BUSSMANN (2006) ===
 comparative linguistics
 Developed in the nineteenth century as an independent linguistic discipline with the goal of reconstructing the origins, developmental history, and relationships of and between individual languages on the basis of comparative studies (⇒ reconstruction). It can be stated that comparative linguistics was born in Germany during the ‘Romantic period,’ in which both the study of the history of the Europeans as well as of Sanskrit were pursued. This period is associated primarily with the names of F.V.Schlegel, F. Bopp, R.Rask, J.Grimm, and A.Schleicher, each of whom studied the genetic relationships between the Germanic languages and other Indo-European languages throughout their recorded history. Based on a thorough description of the most important Indo-European languages, as undertaken by Bopp and Grimm, Schleicher attempted to derive all such languages from a reconstructed Indo-European proto-language; the genetic relationships that were uncovered were represented in the form of a genetic ‘family tree’ (⇒ genetic tree theory). Through the so-called Neogrammarians the historical view of language became the primary, indeed for a while almost exclusive, direction of linguistic studies (see Paul 1880, and the over-views in Bragmann and Delbrück 1886–1900; Hirt 1921–37; Meillet 1903; and others). [s. 210]
 diachronic linguistics [Grk chrónos ‘time’]
 Systematic description and elucidation of all linguistic changes through time (internal historical linguistics) with regard to external facts such as political history, cultural influences, social change, territorial changes, language contact (external historical linguistics) among others (⇒ language change) (⇒ also historical linguistics). [s. 304]
 diachrony
 A term introduced by F.de Saussure for the type of historical linguistics conducted nearly exclusively by the Neogrammarians in the nineteenth century, whose atomistic procedure (e.g. study of the development of single sounds or forms without regard to the systemic character of language) was vigorously attacked by de Saussure. In the dichotomy synchrony vs diachrony, diachrony is accorded a subordinate function; at the most it is regarded as complementary to synchronic study. The generally ahistorical, purely descriptive linguistics carried out by the structuralist stream of research largely adopted this view. It is only since the 1960s that problems of language change have moved into the general focus of research again. [s. 305]
 historical grammars
 Description of the individual historical stages of a language as well as the representation of the historical relationships between individual languages. The most comprehensive historical grammars of Indo-European and its daughter languages were compiled in the nineteenth century by the Neogrammarians as part of comparative linguistics. [s. 513]
 historical linguistics
 Subdiscipline of general linguistics concerned with developing a theory of language change in general or of a specific language. This comprises, among others, the following subareas: (a) representation of the origins and development of individual languages and language groups (through internal and, where actual linguistic data are lacking, external reconstruction); (b) development of a typology of processes leading to language change (types of phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic changes); (c) explanation of individual processes of change or universal types of change with special reference to articulatory phonetics, cognitive psychology (⇒ cognitive linguistics), sociolinguistics, and communication theory; and (d) study of the origin and the spread of language-internal and language-external changes. (⇒ also comparative linguistics) [s. 513-514]
===CRYSTAL (2008) ===
 comparative (adj.) (1) A term used to characterize a major branch of LINGUISTICS, in which the primary concern is to make statements comparing the characteristics of different LANGUAGES (DIALECTS, VARIETIES, etc.), or different historical states of a language. During the nineteenth century, the concern for comparative analysis was exclusively historical, as scholars investigated the relationships between such FAMILIES of languages as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, their hypothetical antecedents (i.e. the PROTO-language from which such families developed), and the subsequent processes which led to the formation of the language groups of the present day. This study became known as comparative philology (or simply PHILOLOGY) – sometimes as comparative grammar. The phrase comparative method refers to the standard comparative philological technique of comparing a set of forms taken from COGNATE languages in order to determine whether a historical relationship connects them. If there were such a relationship, this analysis would then be used to deduce the characteristics of the ancestor language from which they were assumed to have derived (a process of ‘comparative’ or ‘internal’ RECONSTRUCTION).   Early twentieth-century linguistics switched from a DIACHRONIC to a SYNCHRONIC emphasis in language analysis, and, while not excluding historical studies, comparative linguistics these days is generally taken up with the theoretical and practical analysis of the STRUCTURAL correspondences between living languages, regardless of their history, with the aim of establishing general types of language (‘TYPOLOGICAL comparison’, or ‘typological linguistics’) and ultimately the UNIVERSAL characteristics of human language. [s. 91]
 diachronic (adj.) One of the two main temporal dimensions of LINGUISTIC investigation introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure (see SAUSSUREAN), the other being SYNCHRONIC. In diachronic linguistics (sometimes called linguistic diachrony), LANGUAGES are studied from the point of view of their historical development – for example, the changes which have taken place between Old and Modern English could be described in phonological, grammatical and semantic terms (‘diachronic PHONOLOGY/SYNTAX/SEMANTICS’). An alternative term is HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS. The earlier study of language in historical terms, known as COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY, does not differ from diachronic linguistics in subject-matter, but in aims and method. More attention is paid in the latter to the use of synchronic description as a preliminary to historical study, and to the implications of historical work for linguistic theory in general. [s. 142]
 genetic classification In HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS, the classification of languages according to a hypothesis of common origin; also called genealogical classification. Languages which are genetically related have a common ancestor. The terminology of description derives from that of the FAMILY tree of human relationships. Non-genetic links between languages can also be established using COMPARATIVE linguistic techniques. [s. 209]
 historical linguistics A branch of LINGUISTICS which studies the development of LANGUAGE and languages over time; also known as DIACHRONIC linguistics. The data of study are identical to that of COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY, viz the extant records of older states of languages; but the methods and aims are not the same. Historical linguistics uses the methods of the various schools of SYNCHRONIC linguistics (including SOCIOLINGUISTICS and PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, especially in considering the reasons for language change). One thus encounters such subfields as ‘historical PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX’, etc. It also aims to relate its findings to general linguistic theory. [s. 229]
 language change In HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS, a general term referring to change within a LANGUAGE over a period of time, seen as a universal and unstoppable process. The phenomenon was first systematically investigated by comparative PHILOLOGISTS at the end of the eighteenth century, and in the twentieth century by historical linguists and SOCIOLINGUISTS. All aspects of language are involved, though most attention has been paid to PHONOLOGY and LEXIS, where change is most noticeable and frequent. See also CHANGE FROM ABOVE, LANGUAGE SHIFT, SOUND CHANGE. [s. 266-267]
 philology (n.) The traditional term for the study of LANGUAGE history, as carried on by COMPARATIVE philologists since the late eighteenth century. The study of literary texts is also sometimes included within the term (though not in Britain), as is the study of texts as part of cultural, political, etc., research. [s. 360]
 reconstruction (n.) (1) A method used in HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS and COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY in which a hypothetical SYSTEM of sounds or FORMS representing an earlier, non-extant state of a LANGUAGE (‘PROTO-forms’ in a ‘proto-language’) is established deductively (reconstructed) from an analysis of the attested sounds and forms of extant TEXTS. This process of comparative reconstruction is dependent on the existence of good written records or several known related languages where systematic sound correspondences can be set up. When these do not exist, as in many African and American Indian languages, it is still possible to hypothesize about the historical development of the languages by analysing the STRUCTURAL regularities and irregularities of their contemporary states, and deducing UNDERLYING forms which might reflect earlier states – a process of internal reconstruction. [s. 405]
Kategorie:Údržba:Články s referencemi v nadpisech
thread_title: Reference a relevantní citáty

message: 1.2 What is Historical Linguistics About?
 As already mentioned, historical linguistics deals with language change. Historical linguistics is sometimes called diachronic linguistics (from Greek dia- 'through' + chronos 'time' + -ic), since historical linguists are concerned with change in language or languages over time. This is contrasted with synchronic linguistics, which deals with a language at a single point in time; for example, linguists may attempt to write a grammar of present-day English as spoken in some particular speech community, and that would be a synchronic grammar. Similarly, a grammar written of Old English intended to represent a single point in time would also be a synchronic grammar. There are various ways to study language diachronically. For example, historical linguists may study changes in the history of a single language, for instance the changes from Old English to Modern English, or between Old French and Modern French, to mention just two examples. Modern English is very different from Old English, as is Modern French from Old French. Often the study of the history of a single language is called philology, for example English philology, French philology, Hispanic philology and so on. (The term philology has several other senses as well; see Chapter 14.)
 The historical linguist may also study changes revealed in the comparison of related languages, often called comparative linguistics. We say that languages are related to one another when they descend from (are derived from) a single original language, a common ancestor: for example, the modern Romance languages (which include Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and others) descend from earlier Latin (see Chapters 5 and 6).
thread_title: '''CAMPBELL (2013:3)''' <ref name="Cambell13">{{Citace monografie
 | příjmení = Campbell
 | jméno = Lyle
 | titul = Historical Linguistics: An Introduction
 | vydavatel = Edinburgh University Press
 | rok = 2013
 | počet_stran = 512
 | kapitola = What is Historical Linguistics About?
 | strany = 3
 | isbn = 0748646019
 | jazyk = en
 | vydání = 3. přepracované
 | isbn2 = 9780748646012
}}</ref>

message: Language and changeHistorical is a multidisciplinary a applied branch of linguistics. It is perhaps the most challenging branch because it requires specilized knowledge of the other core branches of linguistics and from many different disciplines outside of linguistics. At the same time, historical linguistics is about natural language change, which presupposes that languages do in fact change. [s. 1]
 The first task of the historical linguist is to decide whether a change has occurred. [s. 12]
 The second task is to decide what has changed. [s. 12]
 The third task is to ascertain what triggered the change. [s. 13]
 1.2 Studying anterior stages of a languageStudying language change requires specialized training in older languages, many of which are poorly documented and/or written in obscure scripts. Sophisticated modern computational techniques, e.g., on interpreting the Elamite script of Ancient Persia, have not even succeeded in duplicating "a century of hard work 'by hand'" (Smith 2007: 64)The special training includes textual exegesis. Texts cannot be taken at face value. Especially for less well documented languages, valid texts and interpretations must be established. This is the subbranch of linguistics known as philology.One may also need training in palaeography and the reading of manuscripts. There are many scribal errors in the copying of manuscripts. Some become standard. Obsidian goes back to a nonexistent Latin form *obsidiānus, a manuscript error for Obsiānus 'relating to Obsius', who is mentioned by Piny the Elder (36.196) as the supposed discoverer of a stone similar to obsidian. If the manuscript error had been caught and corrected, the English word would be *obsian. [s. 14]
--Petusek (diskuse) 20. 11. 2015, 18:04 (CET)
thread_title: '''MILLER (2010)''' <ref name="Miller10">{{Citace monografie
 | příjmení = Miller
 | jméno = D. Gary
 | titul = Language Change and Linguistic Theory I
 | podtitul = Approaches, Methodology, and Sound Change
 | vydavatel = Oxford University Press
 | rok = 2010
 | svazek = 1
 | isbn = 9780199583423
 | jazyk = en
 | isbn2 = 9780199590216
}}</ref>

message: comparative linguistics The subfield of linguistics that compares languages; usually understood as meaning the application of the comparative method to the comparison of languages. Sometimes the term comparative linguistics is used as a synonym or near synonym of historical linguistics. See also comparative method. [s. 34]
 comparative method The most important method of historical linguistics; a method (or set of procedures) for comparing languages to determine whether they are related and, if related, how they have developed from a common ancestor. The method compares forms from related languages, cognates, that have descended from a common ancestral language (the proto-language), in order to reconstruct the form in that ancestral language and to determine the changes related languages have undergone. It is also the basis for subgrouping related languages and establishing their family tree. See also basic assumptions of the comparative method, limitations on the comparative method, reconstruction. [s. 34]
 diachronic Having to do with the temporal dimension, change over time, from Greek dia- ‘through’ + chronos ‘time’. See also diachronic linguistics, synchrony. [s. 42]
 diachronic linguistics Roughly equivalent to historical linguistics, having to do with the study of language in its temporal dimension, through time. See also diachronic, diachrony, synchrony. [s. 42]
 diachrony Temporal dimension, viewed through time. With respect to language, the historical investigation of linguistic elements, of language changes and evolution. The concept is often associated with de Saussure’s distinction between diachronic and synchronic linguistics. See also diachronic linguisticstics. [s. 42]
 historical linguist A linguist who studies language change. [s. 77]
 historical linguistics (sometimes called historical and comparative linguistics) The study of language change, of how and why languages change. See also diachronic linguistics, philology. [s. 77]
 philology (< Greek philologia ‘love of words’) Has several senses. Sometimes philology means the study of some classical or older language – English philology, Germanic philology, Romance philology etc. In another sense, philology means historical linguistics as practiced in the nineteenth century; what today is called historical linguistics was often referred to earlier as ‘philology’, as in ‘Indo-European philology’. In yet another sense, philology is the field that attempts to retrieve systematic information about a language from written records, for example, to obtain historical information from documents in order to learn about the culture and history of the people behind the text, and, to interpret older written attestations with the goal of obtaining information about the history of the language (or languages) in which the documents are written. This concern with what linguistic information can be acquired from written documents, with how we can get it and with what we can make of the information once we have it, is the sense of philology most common today in historical linguistics. The philological investigation of older written attestations can contribute in several ways – for example, by documenting sound changes, distinguishing inherited from borrowed material, dating changes and borrowings and helping to understand the development and change in writing systems and orthographic conventions. Results of these studies can have implications for claims about scribal practice, subgrouping classification, causes of changes, the reconstruction of a protolanguage, borrowed changes and rules, the identification of extinct languages and the historical interpretation of many changes within the languages investigated in this way. Philological investigation of extant written materials is often the only avenue available for the study of extinct native languages or earlier stages of the surviving indigenous languages in several areas of the world. [s. 151-152]
thread_title: '''CAMPBELL (2007)''' <ref name="Cambell07">{{Citace monografie
 | příjmení = Campbell
 | jméno = Lyle
 | příjmení2 = Mixco
 | jméno2 = Mauricio J.
 | titul = A Glossary of Historical Linguistics
 | vydavatel = Edinburgh University Press
 | rok = 2007
 | počet_stran = 237
 | strany = 37, 42, 77, 151-152
 | isbn = 0748623795
 | jazyk = en
 | isbn2 = 9780748623792
}}</ref>

message: comparative linguistics
 Developed in the nineteenth century as an independent linguistic discipline with the goal of reconstructing the origins, developmental history, and relationships of and between individual languages on the basis of comparative studies (⇒ reconstruction). It can be stated that comparative linguistics was born in Germany during the ‘Romantic period,’ in which both the study of the history of the Europeans as well as of Sanskrit were pursued. This period is associated primarily with the names of F.V.Schlegel, F. Bopp, R.Rask, J.Grimm, and A.Schleicher, each of whom studied the genetic relationships between the Germanic languages and other Indo-European languages throughout their recorded history. Based on a thorough description of the most important Indo-European languages, as undertaken by Bopp and Grimm, Schleicher attempted to derive all such languages from a reconstructed Indo-European proto-language; the genetic relationships that were uncovered were represented in the form of a genetic ‘family tree’ (⇒ genetic tree theory). Through the so-called Neogrammarians the historical view of language became the primary, indeed for a while almost exclusive, direction of linguistic studies (see Paul 1880, and the over-views in Bragmann and Delbrück 1886–1900; Hirt 1921–37; Meillet 1903; and others). [s. 210]
 diachronic linguistics [Grk chrónos ‘time’]
 Systematic description and elucidation of all linguistic changes through time (internal historical linguistics) with regard to external facts such as political history, cultural influences, social change, territorial changes, language contact (external historical linguistics) among others (⇒ language change) (⇒ also historical linguistics). [s. 304]
 diachrony
 A term introduced by F.de Saussure for the type of historical linguistics conducted nearly exclusively by the Neogrammarians in the nineteenth century, whose atomistic procedure (e.g. study of the development of single sounds or forms without regard to the systemic character of language) was vigorously attacked by de Saussure. In the dichotomy synchrony vs diachrony, diachrony is accorded a subordinate function; at the most it is regarded as complementary to synchronic study. The generally ahistorical, purely descriptive linguistics carried out by the structuralist stream of research largely adopted this view. It is only since the 1960s that problems of language change have moved into the general focus of research again. [s. 305]
 historical grammars
 Description of the individual historical stages of a language as well as the representation of the historical relationships between individual languages. The most comprehensive historical grammars of Indo-European and its daughter languages were compiled in the nineteenth century by the Neogrammarians as part of comparative linguistics. [s. 513]
 historical linguistics
 Subdiscipline of general linguistics concerned with developing a theory of language change in general or of a specific language. This comprises, among others, the following subareas: (a) representation of the origins and development of individual languages and language groups (through internal and, where actual linguistic data are lacking, external reconstruction); (b) development of a typology of processes leading to language change (types of phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic changes); (c) explanation of individual processes of change or universal types of change with special reference to articulatory phonetics, cognitive psychology (⇒ cognitive linguistics), sociolinguistics, and communication theory; and (d) study of the origin and the spread of language-internal and language-external changes. (⇒ also comparative linguistics) [s. 513-514]
thread_title: '''BUSSMANN (2006)''' <ref name="Bussmann06">{{Citace elektronické monografie
 | příjmení = Bussmann
 | jméno = Hadumond
 | titul = Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics
 | vydavatel = Taylor & Francis e-Library
 | datum_vydání = 2006
 | jazyk = en
 | strany = 210, 304, 305, 513, 514
 | url = http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/142124/Routledge_Dictionary_of_Language_and_Linguistics.pdf
 | isbn = 0203980050
 | isbn2 = 0415203198
}}</ref>

message: comparative (adj.) (1) A term used to characterize a major branch of LINGUISTICS, in which the primary concern is to make statements comparing the characteristics of different LANGUAGES (DIALECTS, VARIETIES, etc.), or different historical states of a language. During the nineteenth century, the concern for comparative analysis was exclusively historical, as scholars investigated the relationships between such FAMILIES of languages as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, their hypothetical antecedents (i.e. the PROTO-language from which such families developed), and the subsequent processes which led to the formation of the language groups of the present day. This study became known as comparative philology (or simply PHILOLOGY) – sometimes as comparative grammar. The phrase comparative method refers to the standard comparative philological technique of comparing a set of forms taken from COGNATE languages in order to determine whether a historical relationship connects them. If there were such a relationship, this analysis would then be used to deduce the characteristics of the ancestor language from which they were assumed to have derived (a process of ‘comparative’ or ‘internal’ RECONSTRUCTION).   Early twentieth-century linguistics switched from a DIACHRONIC to a SYNCHRONIC emphasis in language analysis, and, while not excluding historical studies, comparative linguistics these days is generally taken up with the theoretical and practical analysis of the STRUCTURAL correspondences between living languages, regardless of their history, with the aim of establishing general types of language (‘TYPOLOGICAL comparison’, or ‘typological linguistics’) and ultimately the UNIVERSAL characteristics of human language. [s. 91]
 diachronic (adj.) One of the two main temporal dimensions of LINGUISTIC investigation introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure (see SAUSSUREAN), the other being SYNCHRONIC. In diachronic linguistics (sometimes called linguistic diachrony), LANGUAGES are studied from the point of view of their historical development – for example, the changes which have taken place between Old and Modern English could be described in phonological, grammatical and semantic terms (‘diachronic PHONOLOGY/SYNTAX/SEMANTICS’). An alternative term is HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS. The earlier study of language in historical terms, known as COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY, does not differ from diachronic linguistics in subject-matter, but in aims and method. More attention is paid in the latter to the use of synchronic description as a preliminary to historical study, and to the implications of historical work for linguistic theory in general. [s. 142]
 genetic classification In HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS, the classification of languages according to a hypothesis of common origin; also called genealogical classification. Languages which are genetically related have a common ancestor. The terminology of description derives from that of the FAMILY tree of human relationships. Non-genetic links between languages can also be established using COMPARATIVE linguistic techniques. [s. 209]
 historical linguistics A branch of LINGUISTICS which studies the development of LANGUAGE and languages over time; also known as DIACHRONIC linguistics. The data of study are identical to that of COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY, viz the extant records of older states of languages; but the methods and aims are not the same. Historical linguistics uses the methods of the various schools of SYNCHRONIC linguistics (including SOCIOLINGUISTICS and PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, especially in considering the reasons for language change). One thus encounters such subfields as ‘historical PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX’, etc. It also aims to relate its findings to general linguistic theory. [s. 229]
 language change In HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS, a general term referring to change within a LANGUAGE over a period of time, seen as a universal and unstoppable process. The phenomenon was first systematically investigated by comparative PHILOLOGISTS at the end of the eighteenth century, and in the twentieth century by historical linguists and SOCIOLINGUISTS. All aspects of language are involved, though most attention has been paid to PHONOLOGY and LEXIS, where change is most noticeable and frequent. See also CHANGE FROM ABOVE, LANGUAGE SHIFT, SOUND CHANGE. [s. 266-267]
 philology (n.) The traditional term for the study of LANGUAGE history, as carried on by COMPARATIVE philologists since the late eighteenth century. The study of literary texts is also sometimes included within the term (though not in Britain), as is the study of texts as part of cultural, political, etc., research. [s. 360]
 reconstruction (n.) (1) A method used in HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS and COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY in which a hypothetical SYSTEM of sounds or FORMS representing an earlier, non-extant state of a LANGUAGE (‘PROTO-forms’ in a ‘proto-language’) is established deductively (reconstructed) from an analysis of the attested sounds and forms of extant TEXTS. This process of comparative reconstruction is dependent on the existence of good written records or several known related languages where systematic sound correspondences can be set up. When these do not exist, as in many African and American Indian languages, it is still possible to hypothesize about the historical development of the languages by analysing the STRUCTURAL regularities and irregularities of their contemporary states, and deducing UNDERLYING forms which might reflect earlier states – a process of internal reconstruction. [s. 405]
Kategorie:Údržba:Články s referencemi v nadpisech
thread_title: '''CRYSTAL (2008)''' <ref name="Crystal08">{{Citace monografie
 | příjmení = Crystal
 | jméno = David
 | titul = A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
 | vydavatel = Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 | rok = 2008
 | isbn = 9781405152969
 | vydání = 6
 | isbn2 = 9781405152976
}}</ref>