Volodymyr A. Glushchenko
Doctor of Science (Linguistics), Professor at the Department
of Germanic and Slavonic Linguistics
Donbas State Pedagogical University,
Sloviansk – Dnipro, Ukraine
e-mail: sdpunauka@ukr.net
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2394-4966
Viktoriia V. Roman
Candidate of Science (Linguistics), Associate Professor at the Department
of Germanic and Slavonic Linguistics
Donbas State Pedagogical University
Sloviansk – Dnipro, Ukraine
e-mail: roman.victoriya2016@gmail.com
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3468-1062
Marуnа Yu. Rudenko
Candidate of Science (Linguistics), Associate Professor at the Department
of Linguistics and European Languages
Horlivka Institute of Foreign Languages
Donbas State Pedagogical University,
Horlivka – Dnipro, Ukraine
e-mail: marinarudenko2016@gmail.com
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000–0002–6587–3860
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24195/2616-5317-2025-41.9
SUMMARY
The authors of the article reveal the content of the comparative- historical method as a means of understanding linguistic history. By means of the comparative-historical method, comparativists uncover the laws that governed the development of related languages in the past, trace the evolution of these languages on the basis of their common origin from the proto-language (the basic language). This proto-language is reconstructed and hypothetically restored by scholars.
The structure of the comparative-historical method is characterized in the context of a broad interpretation of the linguistic method as a heterogeneous unit. Within the structure of the linguistic method three heterogeneous components are distinguished: ontological, teleological, and operational. The authors characterize such means within the ontological component as principle and approach. The teleological component of the linguistic method includes the aim of the research. The operational component consists of certain techniques and procedures.
Within the ontological component of the comparative- historical method are included the principles of historicism, causality, and systemicity as concretizations and manifestations of the principle of general connection of the phenomena, as well as historical, causal, and systemic approaches. Within the teleological component, the purpose of the research is interpreted in factual and methodological aspects. First, this is the reproduction of models of proto-linguistic states of families and groups of related languages, their further development and division into independent languages, as well as the creation of comparative-historical descriptions (grammars and dictionaries) of related languages. Second, the purpose of comparative-historical research may be presented as the disclosure of historical, causal, and systemic connections of linguistic facts, that is, as the realization of the principle of general connection of the phenomena on specific historical-linguistic material.
Considering the genesis and evolution of the comparative- historical method, the authors distinguish three stages of its history. Regarding the first stage (1820s–1860s), it is appropriate to speak of the emergence and formation of the comparative-historical method. The content of the second (classical) stage (the 1870s – the 1910s) is the development of the comparative-historical method and the systematization of comparative-historical material. The third stage (the 1920s – the 2020s) is characterized by the study of new languages, the incorporation of newly discovered ancient manuscripts (and, with the advent of printing, printed works), as well as the application of new research methods that complement the comparative-historical method.
The authors emphasize that during the 19th century and the early 20th century, the comparative-historical method was the leading method in linguistics. It remains relevant today.
Key words: comparative-historical method, comparative-historical linguistics (comparativistics), content, structure, genesis, evolution, ontological, operational and teleological components, ontological, operational and teleological components, genesis, evolution, stages.
REFERENCES
Akhmanova O. S. (1966). Slovarʼ lingvisticheskikh terminov [Dictionary of Linguistic Terms]. Moscow : Sovetskaya entsiklopediya.
Desnitskaya A. V., Serebrennikov B. A. (eds.). (1956). Voprosy metodiki sravnitelʼno-istoricheskogo izucheniya indoevropeyskikh yazykov [Issues of Methodology of Comparative-Historical Study of Indo-European Languages]. Moscow : Izd-vo AN SSSR.
Glushchenko V. A. (1998). Pryntsypy porivnialno-istorychnoho doslidzhennia v ukrainsʼkomu i rosiisʼkomu movoznavstvi (70-i rr. ХІХ st. – 20-i rr. ХХ st.) [Principles of Comparative-Historical Research in Ukrainian and Russian Linguistics (1870s – 1920s)]. Donetsk [in Ukrainian].
Glushchenko V. A. (2010). Linhvistychnyi metod i yoho struktura [The Linguistic Method and its Structure]. Movoznavstvo [Linguistics], № 6, P. 32–44 [in Ukrainian]
Glushchenko V. A. (2017). Porivnialno-istorychnyi metod v ukrainskomu ta rosiiskomu movoznavstvi ХІХ st. – 30-kh rr. ХХ st. [The comparative-historical Method in Ukrainian and Russian Linguistics of the 19th Century – 30s of the 20th Century]: monograph. Sloviansk : Vyd-vo B. I. Matorina [in Ukrainian].
Glushchenko V. A., Roman V. V., Rudenko M. Yu. (2020). Do pytannia pro aktualistychnyi metod yak metod studii iz linhvistychnoi istoriohrafii [On the Actualistic Method as a Method of Studies in Linguistic Historiography]. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Seriia: Filolohiia [International Humanitarian University Herald. Philology], № 45, Vol. 1, P. 90–93 [in Ukrainian].
Glushchenko V. A. (2023). Pryntsypy y pidkhody u strukturi porivnialno- istorychnoho metodu [Principles and Approaches in the Structure of the Comparative-Historical Method]. Naukovyi visnyk Pivdennoukrainskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu im. K. D. Ushynskoho. Linhvistychni nauky: zbirnyk naukovykh prats [Scientific Research Issues of South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University Named after K. D. Ushynsky: Linguistic Sciences] / [ed. A. I. Iliadi], № 36, P. 70–82 [in Ukrainian].
Glushchenko V. A. (2024). The Principle of Historicism and the Origins of the Comparative-Historical Method. Naukovyi visnyk Pivdennoukrainskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu im. K. D. Ushynskoho. Linhvistychni nauky: zbirnyk naukovykh prats [Scientific Research Issues of South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University Named after K. D. Ushynsky: Linguistic Sciences] / [ed. A. I. Iliadi], № 39, P. 18–34 [in English].
Klimov G. A. (1973). Metodika lingvogeneticheskikh issledovaniy (Vvedenie) [Methodology of Linguogenetic Researches (Introduction)]. Obshchee yazykoznanie: metody lingvisticheskikh issledovaniy [General Linguistics: Methodology of Linguistic Researches]. Moscow : Nauka, P. 9–33.
Klimov G. A. (1990). Osnovy lingvisticheskoy komparativistiki [Foundations of Linguistic Comparative Studies]. Moscow : Nauka.
Kovalyk I. I., Samiilenko S. P. (1985). Zahalʼne movoznavstvo: istoriia linhvistychnoi dumky [General Linguistics: The History of Linguistic Thought]. Kyiv : Vyshcha shkola [in Ukrainian].
Melnychuk O. S. (ed.). (1982–2012). Etymologichnyi slovnyk ukrayinskoii movy [An Etymological Dictionary of Ukrainian Language]. T. 1–6. Kyiv : Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian].
Neroznak V. P. (1990). Sravnitelno-istoricheskii metod [Comparative- Historical Method]. Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary] / [editor-in-chief V. N. Yartseva]. Moscow : Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, P. 485–486.
Postovalova V. I. (1978). Istoricheskaia fonologiia i eio osnovaniia: opyt logiko-metodologicheskogo analiza [Historical Phonology and its Grounds: Experience of Logical and Methodological Analysis]. Moscow : Nauka.
Zhuravlev V. K. (1986). Diakhronicheskaia fonologia [Diachronic Phonology]. Moscow : Nauka.