1

Module: Historical Linguistic

Level: Master 1
Option: LLA
Semester:1
Lecture Two: Language Classification
Teacher: Dr. GHODBANE

Everything it is possible for us to analyze depends on a clear method which distinguishes the similar from
the not similar. Linneus, Genera Plantarum (1754)

Introduction
In the world today, there are thousands of different languages, each with its own sound patterns,
grammar, and vocabulary. Regardless of how different these languages are, they have important
similarities that allow linguists to group them into a fairly small number of families and types.
Although languages can be classified genetically, typologically, geographically and in other ways,
normally the term ‘classification of languages’ (or ‘language classification’) is used to refer to
classification of languages according to genetic relationships among related languages: however, this
classification can be done according to the type of relationship between languages. Hence, a quick glance
on any contemporary linguistics encyclopedia would demonstrate that there are 7.200 alive languages
currently attested. All of them represent complex systems in their own right; all of them are gradually
constituted and are codes enrooting underpinning infrastructures that determine not only their structural
properties, but also their genetic/historical blueprint. Historical Linguistics records and archives.
Campbell (1998) holds that there are 420 language families taking into account dead and isolate
languages. These families are the explicit finding and the direct result of highly structured studies that fall
under the heading of ‘Classification of Languages.
Language
Language is a dialect which has an army and a navy. This emphasizes the fact that the definition of
language is not strictly a linguistic matter. But, often involves political and cultural considerations. For
example, Swedish and Norwegian, though largely mutually intelligible, are considered separate languages
for political reasons (Mixo, 2007). Language is a social fact, a kind of social contract that exists not in an
individual. But, in a community. It is a system of conventional vocal signs by means of which human
beings communicate (Bauer, 2OO7, p.3).
Classification

An elementary method of analysis of taxonomic structuralism that after the segmentation of the
linguistic continuum into basic units (phone, morph) attributes the units arrived at in this way to certain
 2

classes of elements with the same characteristics by comparing these units with one another (Kazzazi,
1996).

Language Classification

Definition and Concept

According to Campbell and Mixico (2007, pp.38–39), “ Classification of Languages or Language
Classification -Although languages can be declassified typologically, geographically and in other ways,
normally the term ‘ Classification of Languages’ or ‘ Language Classification ’ is used to refer to
classification of languages according to the genetic relationships among related languages.” It is the
process and the result of grouping several languages together based on certain criteria (Kazzazi, 1996)

Prior to the 19th century, people, namely language scholars, had an atomistic and/or traditional
approach to studying language. Atomism, otherwise deemed Traditional Grammar, viewed language as a
set of unrelated elements and items studying each separately. The Atomistic view is regarded to refer to
two eras in the history of studying language; the narrow sense (referring to grammar theories originated
from ancient Greeks, Romans, and Indians), and the broad sense (referring to what is known as
‘Comparative Philology’). Comparative Philologists studied languages analogously basing their
assumptions on; 1. Geographical proximity, and 2. Borrowing. Latin was taken as a reference in such
comparative studies on account of its being, tentatively, the purest of languages. It was the outstanding
discovery of Sir William Jones that led Comparative Philology to deliver Language Classification, which
is the process of grouping languages into types and families according to a vast array of criteria.

Criteria of Language Classification

Early philologists and historical linguists of the 18th and 19th centuries explored the similarities
and differences between specific target linguistic structures in particular spoken languages and
subsequently tried to determine the possible ways in which the languages developed. These early
researchers provided a basis for their successors to create language classification systems. The objects of
special interest in comparative linguistics are:
1. Phonology studies how languages or dialects systematically organize their sounds or, for sign
languages, their constituent parts of signs. The term can also refer specifically to the sound or sign
system of a particular language variety (Brentari et all., 2018).
2. Morphology is the study of words, how they are formed, and their relationship to other words in
the same language.
3. Syntax refers to the rules that govern the ways in which words combine to form phrases, clauses,
and sentences (Richard, 2020)
 3

Aims of Language Classification

Scholars have attempted to classify languages with particular purposes in mind :

1. To have a record of all the world’s languages.

2. To demonstrate cultural and cross-cultural patterns given that native languages and commonly
spoken languages have previously been classified linguistically.
3. To illustrate issues connecting linguistic cultures to nine areas of concern (such as economics,
cultural resources, demography) with key variables for each area (railways, water,
telecommunications) by Philip Parker provided a detailed statistical analysis of languages in 1997.
His analyses are especially valuable for the development of nations, especially those designated as
Third World countries.
4. To classify languages according to their use between and among cultures and across nations. Such
an endeavor is particularly challenging because there are historic dimensions as well as current
cross-cultural variables that need to be characterized in the documentation.
5. To prove the existence of properties that underlie different attested natural languages.
6. To group languages into families.
7. To prove the existence of properties that underlie different attested natural languages.
8. To group languages into families.
9. To establish universal properties from which to fathom the universality of human language and
ultimately understand how we operate on language.
10. To clear misconceptions concerning convoluted relationships between unrelated languages such as
false cognates and isolates.
11. To assist other fields in understanding matters in which language is central such as history,
anthropology, and humanities.
12. To break down the intricate systematicness of language, and thus, help facilitate the tasks of
theoretical and macro linguistics, especially the case of minority languages or languages of low
proliferation.
Methods of Classification
As far as language classification is concerned, several methods and models are introduced so as to
classify languages accurately and rigorously.

The Comparative Method

The comparative method is known as the central method in comparative linguistics for that it is
the most predominantly proliferating method in the field of Historical Linguistics. As defined by
 4

(Campbell, et al., 1988, p.41), the Comparative Method is a set of procedures for comparing languages to
determine whether they are related and, if related, how they have descended from a mutual ancestor.
It functions by operating on different morphosyntactic items and phonosemantic elements of more than
two languages, as such these items and elements are deemed cognates. The process by virtue of which
the comparative method groups or classifies languages into families and sub-groups is called
reconstruction. This latter is the simulation of what would the proto-language be like and how language
variation resulted in constituting the contemporary variants upon which the comparative method is
applied. Reconstruction takes a variety of forms depending on the level of stratum concerned. 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 sub-grouping related
languages and establishing their family tree. This type of linguistics is concerned with making
comparison between different states of language in different periods of that language's history.
It refers to the practice of comparing forms in two or more languages with a view to discovering
regularities of correspondence. According to John Lyon, the comparative method in historical linguistics
was developed in the course of the 19th century. It is concerned with the reconstruction of an earlier
language or earlier state of a language on the basis of a comparison of related words and expressions in
different languages or dialects derived from it. The study of language can be compared across languages
in order to find out the differences and similarities of those languages.
Accordingly, genetic relatedness implies a common origin or proto-language. Comparative
linguistics has the goal of constructing language families, reconstructing proto-languages, and specifying
the changes that have resulted in the documented languages. To maintain a clear distinction between
attested language and reconstructed forms, comparative linguists prefix an asterisk (*) to any form that is
not found in surviving texts.
Steps and Assumptions of the Comparative Method
The comparative method is mainly and widely concerned with the sound reconstruction, however,
other aspects of the language may be concerned. The process of reconstruction is the building block for
this method. Therefore, the method undergoes a set of procedures, starting from gathering conjectured
cognates before deciding about what level of representation is concerned. The following are the
procedures for applying the comparative method:

1. Speculating that the currently studied language was a variant (dialect of a proto language).
2. Conjecturing about the language split.
 5

3. Investigating the subsequent splits of the proto language.

4. Assuming about the sound change in a trial for recreating the sound system that would allow for
variance akin to that of the currently attested languages.
5. Setting aside the contemporary features of the studied language in order not to delve into the
history of elements having no history.
According to (Campbell, 1999, pp.108–123), the comparative method, however, applies a set of
these major steps:
1. assemble cognates,
2. establish sound correspondences,
3. reconstruct the proto-sound which is admittedly uncertain but may be guided by (a)
directionality, (b) majority wins, and (c) economy,
4. determine the status of similar (partially) overlapping correspondence sets,
5. check the plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of the overall
phonological inventory of the proto-language, and
6. check the plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of the linguistic
universals and typological expectations, and
7. reconstruct individual morphemes.
In other words:
1. Find sets of cognates (sets of words in different languages that have been inherited in direct
descent from an etymological ancestor in a common parent language) or putatively cognate
forms in the languages or dialects being compared.
2. Extract sets of phonological correspondences from cognate forms.
3. Discover which sets are in complementary distribution.
4. Reconstruct proto-phonemes.
5. Examine typologically the reconstructed system.
Criticism of the Comparative Method
In spite of the merits that characterize it, and despite its worldwide predominance, the comparative
method received numerous criticisms from scholars and proponents like the German scholar, Johannes
Schmidt (1972) claiming new methods, techniques, and models.
The question the most salient and from which many limitations were attributed to the comparative
method is "to what extent the reconstructed languages are realistic?”. The following is an enumeration of
these criticisms from the point of view of (Harrison, 2003):
1. The Relative Temporal Limitations: In this regard, it is illustrated that the successive and frequent
changes in allegedly related languages is a factor that minimizes the authenticity of the
comparative method.
 6

2. The Socio-Historical Limitations: The degree to which intra-lingual linguistic change occurs
through history and the historical sociolinguistic variation that have not been documented are
factors exalting the vagueness of the comparative method.
3. Purely Linguistic Limitations: As far as language per se is concerned, certain forms, elements,
items, and structures cannot be approached implicating the comparative method).
4. Limitations of the Type of Classification: The comparative method does not concern itself with
comparing all forms relating to typology or area; it is concerned with comparing changes
stemming from genetic relationships only.
5. The comparative method is based upon a misleading genealogical metaphor. This means that there
is obviously no point in time at which it can be said that new languages are “born” of a common
parent language.
6. The same point of view is for parent language “lives on” for a while, relatively unchanged, and
then “dies.” It is easy enough to recognize the inappropriateness of these biological expressions.
7. The dialects of England are fast disappearing and are far more similar in grammar and vocabulary
today than they were even a generation ago. They have been strongly influenced by the standard
language.
8. The wave theory instead of the family tree theory. Thus, the remained issue is to determine the
extent to which the reconstructed languages are realistic?"
Types of Language Classification (brief)
The different methods and models of language classification have resulted in the erosion of multiple
types of Language Classification.
Genetic Classification categorizes languages according to their descent. Languages that developed
historically from the same ancestor language are grouped together and are said to be genetically related.
This ancestor may be attested (that is, texts written in this language have been discovered or preserved, as
in the case of Latin), or it may be a reconstructed proto-language for which no original texts exist (as is
the case for Indo-European). Although genetically related languages often share structural characteristics,
they do not necessarily bear a close resemblance.
A major result of historical and comparative linguistics investigation has been the mapping of the
world’s languages into groupings of related languages, called ‘families’, and sub-groupings within these
families. When a given language has been shown to belong within the folds of a particular grouping as
defined by linguistic relationships indicating a common descent from an earlier source language (a proto-
language), it is said to have been classified genetically. (This use of ‘genetic’ has nothing to do with DNA
or bio-logical genetics but rather reflects the meaning of the Ancient Greek source for the word, i.e.,
having to do with origins). A useful method for expressing genetic relationships is the family-tree diagram
 7

consisting of the parent (proto-)language as the starting point and branches indicating the descended
‘offspring’ languages (to extend the metaphor of a biological family tree).

Genetic classification has shown that the vast majority of the languages currently spoken in
Europe belong to one of four families: Indo-European, Uralic, Caucasian, and Basque. In addition, some
300 or more other language families have been recognized around the world. It may well be that some
reduction of this number is possible, in that some families may form higher-order ‘phyla’ with other
families, but such moves are often controversial and not warranted by the methods mentioned here (e.g.
rigorous application of the comparative method, which depends on an assumption of relatedness if it is to
work). (John, Aderson, Hope, Dawson, & Brian, pp.225-226)

For this reason, another approach to language classification is useful. Known as linguistic
typology, it classifies languages only according to their structural characteristics, without regard for
genetic relationships. Thus, topologists might group together languages with similar sound patterns or,
alternatively, those with similar grammatical structures. Typological studies also endeavor to identify
linguistic universals, that is, structural characteristics that occur in all or most languages.
Hence, Typological classification is based on structural similarities that are independent of
geographical influence and/or genealogical affiliation, e.g., isolating/ analytic vs synthetic languages,
ergative vs nominative languages, and languages with various word orders. Typological similarities can
be explained either functionally, i.e., as performing functions that are common to all human languages, or
as resulting from a common biological capacity for language present in all human beings (universals). In
specific cases, it is often very difficult to discern between areal(genealogical) and typological factors: for
example, there are cases where genealogically related languages are still in geographical contact after
their development into separate languages (Bussman, 2006, p.184). The typological study has
contributed to the understanding of many concepts of grammar and of how they interact with one another,
how they function, and how they are distributed in the world’s languages (Campell,2007, p.16).
Languages were classified into types according to their morphological structure, the types taken as
representing or being correlated with evolutionary stages. Structural change in a language was taken as
nothing more than the result of social evolution. For many, following Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–
1835), the typological categories - isolating, agglutinative, and flexional (Campbell, 2007, p.9).
In short, typological classification is the act of grouping languages on the basis of the type of their
structural properties. Campbell et al (2007, p.218 ) claimed that topological classification operates on a
number of tentatively related languages upon a number of interrelated factors (linguistic traits). As
illustrated by the records of studies falling under this type, typological classification initiated its tradition
with morphological analogies resulting in the emergence of notions like agglutination, inflection, and
isolation. It has some types:
 8

1. Morphological typology (examines similarities between languages at the level of their

morphemes. Morphology is the study of word formation, Typology (views language through word
order in the sentence, in that word order is the sole criterion with which to analyze and compare
languages.
2. Phonological Typology (Although granted little attention in the study of typology, phonological
typology has indeed had a role in typological classification, in the sense that it distinguished
between languages that are stress-timed and others that are syllable-timed.

Finally, areal classification identifies characteristics shared by languages that are in geographical
contact. Languages in contact often borrow words, sounds, morphemes, and even syntactic patterns from
one another. As a result, neighboring languages can come to resemble each other, even though they may
not be genetically related (Aronoff, & Janie, 2007, pp. 348–9). Areal linguistics, related to borrowing, is
concerned with the diffusion of structural features across language boundaries within a geographical area.
It is very important because the goal of historical linguistics is to determine the full history of languages,
to find out what really happened. The full history includes understanding both inherited traits (traits
shared in genetically related languages because they come from common parent languages) and diffused
features (traits shared because of borrowing and convergence among neighboring languages). This is
important in many ways. For example, in order to reconstruct proto-languages accurately or to determine
family relationships, it is necessary to distinguish material that is borrowed from that which is inherited
from a common ancestor. The term linguistic area refers to a geographical area in which, due to
borrowing and language contact, languages of the region come to share (CampbelL, 1999, p299).
In short, out of the general dissatisfaction with the various types of language classification, and
corresponding to the shortcomings of each. Areal Classification emerged in an attempt to consider the
social and geographical factors affecting language change after they have been neglected. It analogizes
languages considering two major factors:
(1) Language Contact; due to geographical proximity, languages intersect resulting in the creation of a
new linguistic system (pidgins and creoles and,
(2) Borrowing: following myriads of factors ranging from (cultural, economic, and religious) languages
can be set at a state where they come into contact.

Conclusion
Language classification is a complex and evolving field that categorizes languages based on
linguistic, historical, and cultural factors. It plays a vital role in understanding human communication but
can be challenging due to diverse methods and ongoing debates among linguists.
Good Luck!!!!