Comparative research method. Method of comparative analysis. How to Write a Comparative Analysis

This is one of the most common and universal methods research. Famous aphorism“everything is known by comparison” - the best for that proof.

In the study comparison is called the establishment of similarities and differences between objects and phenomena of reality. As a result of comparison, the commonality that is inherent in two or more objects is established, and the identification of commonality that is repeated in phenomena, as is known, is a step on the path to knowledge of the law.

The essence comparative analysis method relatively simple: comparison of individual properties of phenomena and processes in control systems in order to detect their similarities and differences.

For a comparison to be fruitful, it must satisfy two basic requirements.

1. Only such phenomena should be compared between which there can be a certain objective commonality. You can’t compare things that are obviously incomparable; it doesn’t give you anything. IN best case scenario here one can only come to superficial and therefore fruitless analogies.

2. Comparison should be made according to the most important characteristics. Comparison based on unimportant characteristics can easily lead to confusion.

Thus, formally comparing the work of enterprises producing the same type of product, one can find much in common in their activities. If at the same time a comparison is missed on such important parameters as the level of production, the cost of production, the various conditions in which the compared enterprises operate, then it is easy to come to a methodological error leading to one-sided conclusions. If we take these parameters into account, it will become clear what the reason is and where the real sources of the methodological error lie. Such a comparison will already give a true idea of the phenomena under consideration, corresponding to the real state of affairs.

Various objects of interest to the researcher can be compared directly or indirectly- through comparing them with some third object. In the first case, qualitative results are usually obtained (more - less; lighter - darker; higher - lower, etc.). When objects are compared with some third object that acts as a standard, quantitative characteristics acquire special value, since they describe objects without regard to each other and provide deeper and more detailed knowledge about them.

Based on the identified similarities a presumptive or sufficiently substantiated conclusion is made, for example,

About them uniformity,

More or less similar content,

- general orientation their development, etc.

In this case, known data about one of the phenomena or processes being compared can be used to study others.

Identified during the comparative analysis differences of the studied phenomena and processes indicate their specifics and perhaps uniqueness some of them.

From the above it follows that the method of comparative analysis is largely based on such a general scientific method as analogy. However, in a comparative analysis social phenomena Such general scientific methods of thinking and cognition as analysis and synthesis, modeling, induction, deduction, etc. are also used.

These methods correspond to category system, those. most general concepts, within the framework of which mental procedures of comparative analysis are carried out:

- “comparison”, “similarity”, “difference”,

- “object of comparison”, “subject carrying out comparative analysis” (with his views, ideological attitudes and value orientations),

-“vision angle” of the compared phenomena”,

- “whole”, “part”,

- “segmentation” (dividing the whole into separate segments for the purpose of studying them),

- “homogeneity” and “heterogeneity” of the studied phenomena and processes,

- “comparison method”, etc.

Basic meaning comparative analysis - obtaining new information not only about properties compared phenomena and processes, but also about them direct and indirect relationships and perhaps about general trends their functioning and development.

As the French researchers M. Dogan and D. Ilassi rightly point out, “although comparison may initially be caused by the search for information, it is at the same time the key to cognition. This is what makes it one of the most fruitful directions of thinking" [Doğan M., Pelassi D. Comparative political sociology. - M.: RAS, 1994].

Benchmarking helps critical revision the researcher’s views on certain phenomena and processes that emerged during his study of a particular control system and which he is ready to consider universal, i.e. acceptable for many other systems.

However, a comparative analysis will reveal specific features , characteristic of different control systems that were previously unknown to the researcher, the groundlessness of claims to the universality of his previous views will become clear.

So, comparative analysis various phenomena and management system processes contributes to a deeper understanding of them general properties and differences, trends in their development, as well as a more grounded critical assessment of the experience of one’s own country and other countries.

This, in turn, poses the problem of assimilating the management experience of different countries, expanding cooperation with them in various fields public life.

What is it like benchmarking mechanism?

Some have already been mentioned earlier components mechanism for comparative analysis of control systems:

- general scientific methods cognition (analogy, analysis, synthesis, etc.) and

- logical apparatus (primarily the system of categories used in the logical operations of comparative analysis, its inherent judgments and inferences).

Let us now consider such a comparative analysis procedure as

- segmentation: dividing the whole into segments and highlighting those of them that will be subject to comparative analysis, while highlighting similar phenomena, which allows for their comparative analysis in more detail and depth.

Objects comparative analysis can become

- various subsystems and their elements;

- production processes;

- management processes;

- subjects these processes: social groups, individuals.

Segmentation as a method of comparative analysis involves studying not only structural properties the phenomenon being studied, but also the nature of its functioning within the whole(for example, a comparative analysis of the activities of various categories of management personnel).

Other important components (stages) of comparative analysis are

- processing of received data,

Their systematization and scientific interpretation, which includes simultaneously analysis and synthesis, searches for empirical evidence and formulation of concepts, and other logical operations.

In any case, it must be shown

-validity phenomena and their processes discovered in a comparative analysis similarities and differences,

Open them up nature,

Direct reasons for their appearance, as well as their

-social significance.

In this case, based on a comparative analysis, there can be

Useful practical implications.

Benchmarking can play a significant role in forecasting management processes.

The simplest method of forecasting is direct data comparison about the development of the processes being studied in different countries, at different enterprises. Another way of forecasting based on comparative analysis is extrapolation(distribution) of the obtained data for the future development of a particular process.

It has been argued (with good reason) that benchmarking forecasts have good reliability, especially for short-term forecasts, and remain one of the most promising approaches in control systems research.

Measurement

Measurement has historically developed from the operation of comparison, which is its basis. However, unlike comparison, measurement is a more powerful and universal cognitive tool.

Dimension- a set of actions performed using measuring instruments in order to find numerical value measured quantity in accepted units of measurement. Distinguish direct measurements(for example, measuring length with a graduated ruler) and indirect measurements, based on a known relationship between the desired quantity and directly measured quantities.

The measurement assumes the presence of the following basic elements:

-object of measurement;

-units of measurement, i.e. reference object;

-measuring instrument(s);

-measurement method;

-observer (researcher).

With direct measurement the result is obtained directly from the measurement process itself (for example, in sports competitions, measuring the length of a jump using a tape measure, measuring the length of carpets in a store, etc.).

With indirect measurement the desired quantity is determined mathematically on the basis of knowledge of other quantities obtained by direct measurement. For example, knowing the size and weight building bricks, you can measure the specific pressure (with appropriate calculations) that the brick must withstand during the construction of multi-story buildings.

Experiment

Experiment- the study of any phenomena by actively influencing them by creating new conditions that correspond to the goals of the study, or by changing the flow of the process in the right direction. This is the most difficult and effective method empirical research. It involves the use of the simplest empirical methods - observation, comparison and measurement. However, its essence is not in particular complexity, “syntheticity,” but in the purposeful, deliberate transformation of the phenomena under study, in the intervention of the experimenter in accordance with his goals during natural processes.

It should be noted that the establishment of the experimental method in science is a long process that took place in the bitter struggle of advanced scientists of the New Age against ancient speculation and medieval scholasticism. (For example, the English materialist philosopher F. Bacon was one of the first to oppose experimentation in science, although he advocated experience.)

Advantages of experiment compared to observation:

1. During the experiment, it becomes possible to study this or that phenomenon in its “pure” form. This means that all kinds of “side” factors that obscure the main process can be eliminated, and the researcher receives accurate knowledge about the phenomenon of interest to us.

2. The experiment allows you to study the properties of objects of reality under extreme conditions: at ultra-low and ultra-high temperatures; at the highest pressures; at enormous electric and magnetic field strengths, etc.

Working under these conditions can lead to the discovery of the most unexpected and amazing properties in ordinary things and thereby allows one to penetrate much deeper into their essence. An example of this kind of “strange” phenomena discovered under extreme conditions related to the field of control is superconductivity.

3. The most important advantage of the experiment is its repeatability. During the experiment, the necessary observations, comparisons and measurements can be carried out, as a rule, as many times as necessary to obtain reliable data. This feature of the experimental method makes it very valuable in research.

It is difficult to find two significant regions or two social groups that would not differ in the composition of the onomastic units functioning in them. Usually there is no need to talk about the existence and subsequent decay of the “onomastic proto-language” and, therefore, to engage in its reconstruction (as is done when processing the neonomastic array of genetically related languages). For example, the toponymy of our north and south, west and east does not coincide, although, of course, it has a lot in common. Therefore, onomatologists (toponymists, anthroponymists, etc.) compare both related (closely related, distantly related) and unrelated onomastic systems. The method of their work is comparison (in the presence of genetically common traits) and comparison (in the presence of typologically similar, although unrelated phenomena). It is possible to compare both the entire onomastic space and its individual zones - anthroponymy, cosmonymy, toponymy, as well as their smaller “sections”, for example: hydronymy, oikonymy, microtoponymy. Various phenomena of the content plane (pre-onomastic and onomastic semantics, in particular, types of nomination of onomastic objects, semantic models of onyms, motives for naming people, the range of bases, roots, words used as personal names) and the plane of expression (the structure of onyms, their word-formation) are subject to comparison. structure, grammatical, phonetic, accentological indicators). The comparison results can be expressed in qualitative and quantitative (statistical) characteristics.

As an example of comparison of similar and closely related onomastic systems, we can take Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian name books (the composition of personal names and the patterns of their functioning).

Having a primordial common common Slavic, then East Slavic, and with the adoption of Christianity (988) a Byzantine fund of personal names, Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians, despite common anthroponymic traditions and trends, developed their own characteristics that allow us to speak about Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian names as independent systems.

Each of the historical periods in the life of the East Slavic peoples is characterized by its own set of similar and distinctive features, largely coinciding with the previous period, but also noticeably different from it, since onomastic vocabulary in general is extremely sensitive to socio-political, social and cultural transformations, setting up your system and its individual components for optimal fulfillment of the social order.

East Slavic anthroponymic systems can be studied in synchronic-comparative and comparative-diachronic aspects. Each of them has its own specifics, as well as scientific and practical value. It seems that we need to start with a synchronous description of the names, i.e., with a consideration of the composition of personal names and the nature of their functioning in a specific historical period, and then move on to tracing their dynamics.

To develop a methodology for comparative analysis of genetically identical names, it is advisable to focus on comparing Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian names of our time, in particular on the composition and usage of modern official personal names, leaving aside their abbreviated and other derivative forms for now.

A frontal comparison of the names of the East Slavic peoples should include a comparison of: 1) the entire composition of names existing in a given period among the peoples being studied, showing the similarities and differences in the set of names and their “material” design; 2) specific repertoires of names: a) all residents of a particular locality or region, b) newborns of a selected chronological section (annual, five-year, ten-year, etc.), c) individual social groups and strata of society; 3) the statistical structure of names, i.e. the proportion and degree of use of various groups of names.

To compare Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian names, you can use a technique tested on Russian material.

A comparison of the names of residents of Russian villages of the Penza region (the villages of Lermontovo and the village of Veselovka, 100 km apart from each other) shows that in them the men's names are 74% similar, and the women's names are 71% similar (and accordingly different by 26% and 29%).

Two regional centers (the village of Ternovka and the village of Poim of the same region), located 50 km from each other, differ by 23% in the composition and frequency of names.

It should, however, be emphasized that the “distance” between names is not entirely determined by the degree of remoteness of the corresponding settlements. It happens that the names of neighboring villages are “further” from each other than the names of remote regions. For example, “distance” in the names of the female population with. Ushinki and s. Bolshaya Izhmora, Zemetchinsky district, Penza region, is 32%. In Ushinka, common names are: Evdokia, Lyubov, Marfa, Raisa, in Bolshaya Izhmora - Alexandra, Antonina, Valentina, Ekaterina, Maria, etc.

No less indicative is a comparison of the names of newborns (we take, as a rule, five-year sections - for 1971-1975). Thus, the city of Serdobsk, Penza region, and the city of Rzhev, Kalinin region, differ in male names by 18%, and in female names by 21%. Approximately the same “distance” is in the names of newborns in the cities of Serdobsk and Polevsky, Sverdlovsk region (18% in men’s and 20% in women’s).

Comparison of the names of Russian children 1971-1975. birth of the city of Serdobsk and the Belarusian city of Smorgon, Grodno region, the BSSR reveals more high level discrepancies - 35% for boys and 27% for girls. In Serdobsk, the following names are more popular than in Smorgon: Alexey (by 5.7%), Valentin (by 5%), Evgeniy (by 2.7%), Roman (by 5%), Yuri (by 3.8% ); Irina (by 4.3%), Lyubov (by 5.8%), Marina (by 2.2%), Tatyana (by 3.6%); in Smorgon, on the contrary, the popularity of names is higher: Alexander (by 8.8%), Victor (by 4.8%), Ivan (by 2%), Nikolay (by 1.3%), Sergey (by 3.5% ); Alla (by 3.6%), Zhanna (by 2.5%), Inna (by 2.4%), Natalya (by 3.6%), Olga (by 2.3%), etc. In Serdobsk in the named years are used for naming names (and some quite widely): Artem, German, Grigory, Denis, Konstantin, Marat, Milan, Felix, Yuri, Yakov, Yaroslav; Alena, Albina, Anastasia, Veronica, Diana, Lada, Margarita, Olesya, Snezhana, Elmira, Yulia, but there are no such people in Smorgon. But here we see names that the Serdob parents did not use: Arnold, Gennady, Georgy, Ivan, Joseph, Kirill, Leonid, Renat, Stanislav; Alexandra, Alla, Victoria, Zina, Inessa, Inna, Leopolda, Maya, Eleanor, Yanina.

Indicators close to the Belarusian-Russian ones are provided by a comparison of Russian and Ukrainian names (the cities of Chernigov, Sevastopol and Artemov, Donetsk region).

When comparing unrelated languages that have a materially different set of names, the subject of comparison turns out to be general structure name book (its volume, statistical organization, patterns of use, etc.). A comparison of the names of the Russian and Tatar populations showed that in Russian villages (the region of the Middle Volga region was surveyed) the repertoire of names used and the statistical organization of names remain largely similar. On the contrary, the repertoire of Tatar names gives a much greater range of fluctuations from village to village. As for the statistical structure of the Tatar name book, then, like the Russians, it is basically the same in all surveyed Tatar villages.

A comparison of the statistical organization of the Tatar name book with the Russian name book revealed, firstly, similarities in the share of the group of common names (for Tatars it averages 75%, for Russians - 80%), and secondly, significant differences in the share of the first five, as well as the first ten common names: among Russians, the first five most common male names cover about 50%, among Tatars - 25% (half as much), among Russians the first ten male names cover up to 70-75% of all speakers, among Tatars - only 40% (almost two times less); Among Russians, the most popular five female names account for an average of 35% of women, among Tatars - 20%, and the top ten most common names among Russian women cover 55%, among Tatars - only 35%. Consequently, in the Tatar name book the load on frequent names is distributed more evenly than in the Russian name book.

A comparative study of the names of different peoples makes the specificity of each of the national anthroponymic systems clear and “measurable”.

Comparative studies of anthroponymy prepare the basis for typological classifications on a wide scale. One of these attempts is the identification (for example, by I.V. Bestuzhev-Lada) of nine anthroponymic zones on our planet. The Russian anthroponymic system (with a three-member designation of a person - by last name, first name, patronymic) is assigned to the third (“northern”) zone. Here is its description “according to the most general categories”: “3) Northern zone (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus). Influence Orthodox Church undermined in 1917. The choice of names is formally unlimited, but in practice customs, traditions and fashion have narrowed it extremely. Unlike the first two zones (“northwestern”, covering North America, northwestern German-speaking Europe, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and “southwestern”, including Latin America and southwestern Romance-speaking Europe.—V.B.), only one personal name is given. But the middle name has been preserved.”

Comparative and comparative work in the synchronic and diachronic aspects, both in the linguistic proper and in the linguo-sociological, psychological and other plans, will have to confirm or refute the universal nature of phenomena supposedly attributed to onomastic universals.

Bondaletov V.L. Russian onomastics - M., 1983

Among the empirical methods for studying certain events, the method of comparative analysis is most often used. Thanks to it, common and distinct features (characteristics) of any phenomenon, the process under study at different stages of development (temporal, event-related, etc.) are revealed.

Definition

The comparative method is one of the dominant logical methods of cognition of objects, phenomena, events of the external world, which begins with the fact that analysts separate them from all objects and (or) establish their similarity with related objects and phenomena.

Through comparison, common and different methodological approaches of scientific schools are determined, which study certain processes and compare certain criteria and categories. Moreover, only those phenomena (characteristics) are compared that have similar characteristics and objective commonality within the chosen scientific research. As a result, it is possible to find out the general thing that was repeated in the phenomena and became a step towards identifying a number of patterns of the events being studied.

Application

To study the dynamics of changes in certain processes, to search for differences and commonalities, comparative analysis is often used. Examples practical use can be found in sociology, law, political and economic analysis, science and culture.

It is well known that it is convenient to determine the dynamics of an enterprise’s efficiency not using abstract values, but by comparing it either with other similar companies, or based on the company’s statistics in an equilibrium period of time. For example, how labor productivity (income, losses) has changed in the current year relative to the same period of time in previous years, how competing enterprises have performed during this time.

The method of comparative analysis is indispensable in sociology, research public opinion, statistical analysis. Only by relying on data from previous studies can we accurately identify the dynamics of changes in sentiment in society, quickly identify growing problems and respond to them in a timely manner. Comparative analysis is effective and indicative at all levels: from an individual family to the entire society, from a team to the team of a large enterprise, from the municipal level to the state level.

Types of Benchmarking

The types of analysis depend on the methodology and the number of indicators being compared. When tracking a certain phenomenon, you can rely on the data of the phenomenon itself, compare it with a similar one or with a set of phenomena. For example, when tracking the dynamics of a company's economic activity, one can rely on its own statistics for various time periods, compare it with a competing company, or evaluate it in the context of the entire industry (a set of companies).

Classification

Types of analysis are divided into:

Quantitative - analysis from the point of view of quantitative representation of characteristics.
Qualitative - analysis of qualitative characteristics, properties.
Retrospective - analysis of changes over time, their impact on current events.
Applied - the practical activities of the structure under study are analyzed.
Research - used in analytical sciences.
Descriptive - analysis begins with studies of the structure of a phenomenon, then moves to its functions and purpose.
General - based on general theory systems
Structural - the general structure of the phenomenon is analyzed.
Microsystem - a specific system is studied.
Macrosystemic - the role of a specific system in a set of related systems is analyzed.
Vital - the development of the system is analyzed, its main stages are determined.
Genetic - used in the analysis of genetic systems and mechanisms of inheritance.
Other types.

Legal research methodology

A comparative analysis of the legal systems of different countries allows developing countries to adopt effectively proven management methods, improve legislation, and the structure of the administrative system.

The study of the theoretical heritage indicates that the development of legal theory in one country is out of context world history and the achievements of legal thought in other countries is impossible and leads to a narrow, limited approach to defining legal problems. This is what, in fact, determines the pattern of the transnational nature of legal science, without excluding the socio-political function of jurisprudence in a particular state. For example, even Soviet legal science was not an isolated system, but part of a dialectically integral world jurisprudence.

Features of the application of the technique

The legal method of comparative analysis is, first of all, a comparison of comparative studies, that is, an analysis of similar features. A number of respected researchers note two fundamental conditions for the correct use of the comparative method:

We should not limit ourselves to comparing peoples of the same race or religion.
You can only compare legislation or legal systems, located at the same level of social development.

Why? Comparative history of law should not be limited to a simple comparison of the legal systems being studied simply because they coexist simultaneously in time or territorially close. After all, there is no room for experimentation in law - for every decision aimed at creating or implementing law, the fate and interests of citizens, the economy, and the state are at stake. The law must be as perfect and systemic as possible. That is why, instead of an experiment, comparative legal research is used, which will indicate important options for decisions and warn against making outdated or ineffective ones. current conditions decisions.

Enterprise Development Forecast

Declared entry of the country into world community in the context of the transition of the economies of the leading countries of the world to innovative development, it forces domestic producers to modernize production. Delay threatens a systemic break from developed countries and transformation into a raw material appendage, a donor of cheap labor force. Understanding this, advanced domestic enterprises are trying to find their place in the world market, relying on new developments.

However, the search for ideas for innovative developments is mainly carried out purely intuitively, while the chances of success are insignificant and depend more on subjective factors. At the same time, there is a method of comparative analysis. It allows:

Conduct a targeted search for ideas for new products, technologies for their production, and management methods.
Select the most suitable innovation ideas, thereby increasing investors' chances of success.
Lay the foundations for the transition to innovative development.

Business Analysis

For effective management, the comparative method is vital. How else can you track whether a company is performing better or worse? What is its place in the market? How are competitors developing? Only by comparison with previous time periods of one’s own activities and, if possible, competing structures can one build strategic development plans.

When researching large amounts of data, a comparative analysis table is a great help. It allows you to clearly structure indicators. An example of the simplest comparative table (the coefficients are taken conditionally):

Criterion	Competitor	Researched company
Product quality			Improve quality by upgrading equipment
			Optimize costs
Delivery speed			Reduce production time

Performance			Improve employee qualifications

Application in political science

The period of relatively rapid political change into which the world entered beginning of XXI century, causes an increased need for their scientific understanding. As part of research modern stage political transformations apply a comparative analysis plan. It must meet three important conditions:

Handling a large volume of empirical data.
Ensuring maximum researcher autonomy from value-based and ideologically charged approaches.
Identification of special features and general trends of the processes under study.

The method of comparative analysis is best suited for this. It guarantees relevance, scientific and practical significance research of a significant part of the modern methodological tools of political science. Comparative analysis can also be valuable when considering political reform projects. Studying the experiences of our neighbors on the planet helps us more accurately assess their advantages and disadvantages. Accordingly, the attention of comparative political science research in recent decades has been mainly focused on the search for models of administrative and public administration, taking into account the dynamics of reforms, last decade carried out in Western and post-socialist countries.

Sometimes, for in-depth assessment historical figures, processes, phenomena, it is advisable to use the method of comparative analysis. For example, compare the political system of two countries with a similar mentality of people and level of economic development. The classic structure of comparative analysis includes comparing several objects, evaluating the object from different angles, identifying features and shortcomings. The author's goal is to discover common features and characteristic differences of compared objects.

At the moment, there are many known ways to conduct comparative analysis. Let us pay attention to the main points on which a comparative analysis of the object under study is based. Here are some of them.

1. Context.

it is necessary to find the context, the main idea around which subsequent work will be carried out. Simply put, the context can be: a certain problem, theory, main idea, which is related to the main object of study. Here is an example: if the purpose of the study is to compare two legal norms that are externally similar to one another, it would be correct to fully study the issue the question asked, building on those areas legal relations, in which legal norms are implemented. In order to add firmness to the work, finally convincing readers of your conclusions, it is necessary to conduct a deep analysis of the processes being studied, to scroll through various judgments and approaches to this issue in your head. then highlight the main conclusions that will become the basis for presenting the context in the comparative analysis. When working, it is advisable to use authoritative sources by placing a link to them. A comparative analysis cannot be compiled without a verified context, because this will deprive you of the foundation necessary to build an evidence base when comparing two objects.

2. real grounds for comparison.

During the research process, it is necessary to justify the reason for which comparisons of two similar objects will be made. For example, we need to compare which is healthier: cabbage or beets. The reader will look for the logic that guided the researcher when choosing objects for comparison. What should the researcher do in this case, give the reader ironclad arguments why it is necessary to pay attention to these particular objects of research? Having assessed the correctness of your choice and realized the logical chain of your arguments, the reader will understand that this topic did not arise out of thin air, which means that attention should be paid to it. So, the reasons for choosing the research topic should be stated.

3. Arguments.

You are engaged in comparative analysis, which means you need to be guided by facts when objectively comparing two objects. It is worth showing the strength of your statements by highlighting those features in which objects interact with each other. What points should you pay attention to? Determine how the selected objects complement, enrich, contradict, challenge, or exclude each other? What is the purpose of well-structured arguments? Evaluate the interaction of two objects. Facts are determined according to the accepted context of the idea (problem, theory), in which the compared objects are bracketed (see Point 1). In order to focus on the interaction of objects, the following words should be used: “while”, “whereas”, “on the contrary”, “in addition”, “complementing”, “excluding”, etc.

4. Methods of comparative analysis.

Having edited the introductory part of the task: context, real reasons for comparison, facts and arguments, define one more thing, a method of comparison. To conduct a comparative analysis, the following methods are used:
A) describe all the advantages and disadvantages of object X, and then object Y.
B) One by one, take turns to sort out similar elements of the objects being compared.
C) when comparing X and Y, you need to clearly emphasize one of the objects. This method is used in the only case where X and Y cannot be completely compared with each other. So, object X acts as a tool used to check the arguments of object Y, which were discussed in Point 3.

5. Determine the relationship between the objects being compared and the given arguments of Point 3.

The work should feel like single organism, for this you need to show the relationship between objects, creating a logical chain of facts characterizing the interaction of two objects. Without such a structure of the work, it will be difficult for the reader to see the connections by which the compared objects interact with each other’s arguments.

The comparative method was first described by W. von Humboldt along with the emergence of a new discipline in comparative studies - linguistic typology. The comparative method is also called comparative or typological. Initially, it was intended to study the grammatical structure of unrelated languages. It was developed by Friedrich and August Schlegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt, August Schleicher, Charles Bally, Evgeniy Dmitrievich Polivanov. The comparative method is a system of techniques for studying both related and differently structured languages in order to identify common and distinctive properties and features in them.

As a result of the discovery of commonalities in the compared languages, so-called language unions were discovered. According to the definition of N.S. Trubetskoy, who first proposed this concept to science, a language union is a group of languages that display significant similarities in syntax, morphology, and sometimes external similarities in phonetics and have a common fund of cultural words, but are not connected (as in a language family) by a system of sound correspondences and primordial elementary vocabulary, for example, Balkan, Volga (Volga-Kama), Central Asian (Himalayan).

Thus, the languages that are part of the Balkan Language Union have in common the presence of a postpositive article, the coincidence of the dative and genitive cases, the formation of the future tense using the auxiliary verb “to want,” and the loss of the syntactic form of the infinitive. This is despite the fact that each language separately has special properties and characteristics inherent only to it.

The main research techniques of the comparative method are:

a) Establishing the basis for comparison- this is the definition of the subject of comparison. There are two ways to solve this problem: 1) by language matching and 2) by feature matching. One of the languages being studied is selected (usually the choice is motivated by either the research task or the level of knowledge of the languages, such as Latin for many European languages or English for many Indian languages Latin America). If establishing the basis of comparison follows the second path, then, as a rule, the search is focused on one of the aspects of the two-sided essence of a linguistic unit - on its plane of expression and plane of content. In terms of expression, any formal phenomenon can serve as such a basis: a morpheme, formation, syntactic or word-formation model. In terms of content - facts and phenomena of the ideal side of linguistic units. In the course of language comparison, a general panorama of the common and distinctive properties of the languages under study is created. Feature comparison allows you to more deeply imagine the uniqueness of the compared phenomena. However, the most effective is an integrated approach, when the feature comparison complements the linguistic one, being its logical continuation.

b) Comparative interpretation relies on the method of parallel study, when facts and phenomena (the subject of comparison) are first studied in each individual language, and then the results of such a descriptive study are compared. Parallel research mainly reveals common and distinctive properties and characteristics of the languages being studied, their substantive differences are concretized with the help of substantive (structural and stylistic) interpretation. This kind of interpretation is especially important in the typological study of closely related languages, where comparison according to linguistic criteria focuses mainly on their similarities. Meanwhile, despite the genetic similarity of related languages, the typological differences between them can be very significant. So, with all the external similarity of the vowel systems in Slavic languages There are also differences between them that are invisible at first glance and require meaningful interpretation. An example of this is the qualitative uniqueness of fluent vowels.

The main line of differences between Slavic languages (qualitative characteristics of fluent vowels) runs along the variants of one of these vowels, reflected in East Slavic languages as [o] (Russian, Ukrainian, blr. son - sleep, sleep, skating rink - skating rink), in Western Slavic languages as [e] (p., h., slt. sen-snu) and like [o] (vl. sun-snu, nl. son-sni, slt. bocka), in Slovak also [a] (dаzd", mach ), Bulgarian - like [ъ] (сън - саніша, the vowel does not drop out; зъл - angry), in Macedonian - like [о] (sleep - dream), in Serbian - like [ä] (with ä n - сн ä) and in Slovene - as long [ā] or short [ĕ] (māh "moss", sĕn - sna).

The variety of variants of this fluent vowel in individual Slavic languages [e, o, a, ъ] is explained by two reasons. Firstly, its origin from the Proto-Slavic reduced vowel [ъ], which was distinguished by a very uncertain qualitative character, in which it could be equally close to any open short vowel. And, secondly, the duration of the process of vocalization of strong reduced ones, which began at the end of the Proto-Slavic period, and ended in the conditions of the independent existence of individual Slavic languages. Another fluent vowel in almost all Slavic languages, with the exception of Serbian and partially Slovenian, has the same qualitative character [e] (Russian day - day, end - end, Ukrainian day - day, end - end, blr. zen - day, kanets - kanza, n. dzien - dnia, Koniec - kossa, h. den - dne, konec - konce, Sl. den - dnia, koniec - konca, ow. . den - days, end - ends). This is explained by the origin of this fluent vowel from the Proto-Slavic reduced [b], which was apparently closest to the short closed [e]. IN Serbian language this fluent vowel, like the first one, has the sound character [a] (dan, konats), in Slovenian it is partially [a], partially [e] (dan, kones). The differences are explained by the fact that in the Serbian and Slovenian languages the reduced [ь], to which the second fluent vowel goes back, in the process of vocalization coincided with the reduced [ъ], together with which it gave the same general reflexes.

Boris Andreevich Uspensky (b. 1937)

c) Typological study of languages usually carried out according to one of two models - questionnaire or reference. The questionnaire model is based on a list of features inherent in a particular language. Based on the characteristics specified in the list, a comparison of languages is carried out. The questionnaire model is designed for inductive analysis. The reference model was developed by Boris Andreevich Uspensky. In this case, the standard is the language in which the linguistic phenomenon under study exists.

So, to describe the system foreign language The standard is the native language. A classic example of this can be considered Latin grammars, created on the Greek model. In addition to the native language, a specially created metalanguage can serve as a standard, which is understood as a system of rules for constructing a typological description of languages. A standard language is usually created for the typological study of a certain level of the language system: phonological, word-formative, lexical, syntactic. The standard language can already be oriented: to a specific area (subsystem) of the appropriate level (for the study of parts of speech, members of a sentence, terminology, intonation).

The considered techniques of the comparative method and typological research models are purposefully used to determine the general structural features characteristic of all or most languages. Such interlingual communities are called linguistic universals. These are signs, properties, laws, tendencies that are inherent in all languages or language as a whole. The doctrine of linguistic universals was developed by Charles Francis Hockett.

There are different types of linguistic universals in terms of their logical nature and in terms of their logical structure.

Absolute (complete) linguistic universals- statements characterizing language in general (a feature, a property, everything that is inherent in all languages), such as “all languages have onyms and appellatives”, “all languages have a nominative function”, etc. Such universals carry little information because they are generally known.

Statistical (incomplete) linguistic universals characteristic large groups, types, unions of languages. They allow certain “exceptions from general rules”, which, however, do not destroy universal laws, that is, they are entirely structured on a high statistical probability.

Statistical (incomplete) linguistic universals are divided into simple and complex. The former only indicate the presence/absence of the phenomenon under study in the language, while the latter also reveal the dependence existing between languages in this regard. A simple statistical universal can include, for example, the statement: the presence of an inflection system in a language certainly presupposes a word formation system in it. A complex statistical universal is usually called an inversely proportional relationship between a small number of phonemes in a particular language and the frequency of occurrence of each of them as part of morphemes.

Absolute universals are derived deductively (in the form of hypotheses), and statistical ones - inductively (empirically, as a result of practical experience, observations). Hypothetical statements must be tested (confirmed or disproved) by empirical information. Statistical universals, as a result of the accumulation of knowledge about language, can become absolute, that is, the material accumulated empirically can become the basis for new generalizations.

In relation to the object benchmarking differentiate linguistic universals of language And linguistic universals of speech(text). Thus, the statement that a phoneme is a bundle of semantically distinctive features can be considered a universal of language, and the establishment of restrictions imposed on the number of combinations of phonemes in a text can be considered a universal of speech. But despite all the differences, the universals of language and the universals of speech are linguistic. Along with them, extralinguistic (extralinguistic) universals are sometimes also distinguished - the subject of study of semiotic typology. Extralinguistic universals show the place and specificity of language as a linguosemiotic system in comparison with other sign systems (artificial languages, “languages” of animals, Morse code, flag signaling among sailors, etc.).

And finally, depending on the level of affiliation, comparison units are distinguished phonological, grammatical, lexical, semantic universals. Outside of level reference there is a special type - symbolic universals.

Most notable contribution to the study phonological universals made by Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy (“Fundamentals of Phonology.” M., 1960), Boris Andreevich Uspensky (“Structural Typology of Languages.” M., 1965) and the American researcher Charles Ferguson.

A complete list of absolute phonological universals (more than 100) was compiled by Boris Andreevich Uspensky. An example of this type of universal is the following postulate: if the compared languages have a simple nasal consonant, then they certainly also have a noisy consonant.

Researchers grammatical universals(Charles Hockett, Edward Sapir, Joseph Greenberg) note that in every language grammatical universals are divided into morphological and syntactic. In the field of morphology, nouns in all languages denote objects and abstract concepts, numerals - numbers, adjectives - attributes of objects, and verbs - action or state. The exception is the Chinese language, in which the idea of quality is expressed not by an adjective, but by a verb (E. Sapir). Majority

morphological universals (45) were defined by Joseph Greenberg. Yet the list of phonological and grammatical universals is not exhaustive.

Quite a detailed classification semantic universals belongs to the English linguist Stefan Ullman. Most of these kinds of universals belong to the category of statistical ones. They can be either synchronic or diachronic.

As a result of typological research, starting with the work of the brothers August and Friedrich Schlegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt and August Schleicher, typological classifications of world languages.

Of the well-known typological classifications, the Humboldt-Schleicher classification has received the most recognition, the basis of which is the nature of the relationship between the lexical and grammatical meanings of a word. From this point of view, all languages of the world form four types: inflectional, agglutinating, isolating and incorporating. In inflectional languages, lexical grammatical meanings are expressed by the same word form (by a joint change of the root and affixes: “I write - wrote”, “friend - friendship”). Separate expression of lexical and grammatical meanings, when a change in the affixes expressing the grammatical meaning does not cause a change in the stem of the word, which can act as a separate word: Tatar. urman "forest" - urmanlar "forest". Words of an isolating language do not contain elements expressing grammatical meanings. Such languages do not have inflection mechanisms (it is no coincidence that A. Schlegel called them amorphous); Later, W. Humboldt abandoned this term, rightly believing that there are no formless languages, and proposed calling them root, or isolating (most languages of Southeast Asia, Chinese). Amorphous words in the Russian language include adverbs (yesterday, forward, quickly), unchangeable lexical borrowings (kangaroo, bureau). Grammatical meanings in isolating languages are expressed by word order and intonation. In incorporating languages, grammatical meanings are expressed by including (incorporating) other members of the sentence into the predicate verb (Chukchi-Kamchatka languages, North American Indian languages). In this case, the predicate verb can be coordinated simultaneously with several members of the sentence. It is no coincidence that isolating languages are also called polysynthetic.

When grouping languages by type of grammatical structure, one should, however, remember that there are no absolutely typologically sterile languages. In some languages, typological features are manifested to a greater extent, in others - to a lesser extent. Thus, in the Russian language synthetism and inflection predominate, in English and French - analyticism and isolation, in Semitic - introreflectivity, in Turkic - agglutination, in the languages of Southeast Asia - polysynthesis, etc.

4. Descriptive method.

The descriptive method is the oldest and at the same time modern method of linguistics. The earliest Chinese, Indian and Greek grammars were primarily descriptive; modern linguistic schools turn primarily to the principles and methods of scientific study and description of modern languages.

The descriptive method is a system of research techniques used to characterize language phenomena at a given stage of its development; This is a synchronous analysis method. The descriptive method is of exceptional importance for the practice of language teaching. It consists in identifying and describing linguistic units with their subsequent classification.

At the first stage Descriptive analysis identifies words and sentences from the text, that is, nominative and communicative units of language. In practice, isolating words and sentences from modern written text is not difficult, since they are graphically highlighted by the author or publisher. Applicable graphic segmentation technique. Words are segments of text (segments) from gap to gap; and sentences - segments of text from point to point (there may be others separators punctuation - question and exclamation marks, ellipsis, red line).

However, the capabilities of the graphic segmentation technique are limited. The author can punctuationally isolate parts of a sentence (especially complex ones) and, on the contrary, use punctuation marks that separate the main function to update parts of simple and complex sentences; It is also known that the combined and separate spelling of words can be fluctuating and variant. In addition, nominative and communicative units are not identical to one-word and two-word (multi-word) sections of text, since there are two-word “nominative” units (phraseologisms and analytical word forms) and one-word sentences. Therefore, graphical segmentation must be supplemented methodology for identifying linguistic units, which is based on comparison" of different texts and the use of previous experience. Consequently, isolating language units from a text requires not only observation, but also extensive knowledge.

Second stage descriptive analysis consists of dividing units isolated from the text, that is, finding structural units using structural segmentation techniques. Since the primary segmentation gave two types of units, the secondary (or structural) segmentation proceeds in two ways: a morpheme and a word form, a phrase and a sentence member are isolated. The technique of secondary segmentation is very diverse and depends to a large extent on the understanding of the structural unit.

You should pay attention to two points. Firstly, structural units have a formal-structural and functional-structural side, and they differ for different structural units. Therefore, the method of structural segmentation should be fundamentally diverse, taking into account the structural features of the analyzed units. Secondly, structural segmentation is not identical to text segmentation, since variants, including individual ones, of language units are often identified in the text, while structural segmentation does not highlight the units themselves, but their components.

–Third stage descriptive analysis is associated with structural interpretation of the selected nominative-communicative and structural units. Structural interpretation is most often carried out using methods of categorical and discrete analysis.

Categorical analysis consists in the fact that the selected units are combined into groups, the structure of these groups is analyzed and each unit is considered as part of a particular category. The methodology of categorical analysis has various techniques, among which the most famous are techniques of classification, paradigms and transformations.

Discrete analysis technique(lat. discretus - “separate, intermittent”) consists in the fact that in a structural unit the smallest, further indivisible, limiting features are identified, which are analyzed as such, their structure, distribution and significance are studied, so that a unit of language is considered as the intersection of these features-figures.

Based on a comparison of language units and units of analysis, two different methods for describing language are distinguished.

Units of language and units of linguistic analysis can coincide if the units of analysis are real units of language. For example, a morpheme can be a unit of analysis of a word, a word form - a sentence. Units of language and units of linguistic analysis may not coincide if the units of analysis are the functions and relationships of linguistic units.

In cases where the units of analysis are real units, their relationship to the units of language, in turn, is twofold: a) the unit of analysis turns out to be smaller than the unit of language and speech; b) the unit of analysis turns out to be larger than the unit of language and speech.

Depending on this, the methods of component and contextual analysis differ.

Component Analysis proceeds from the fact that the units of analysis are parts (elements) of a linguistic unit - nominative-communicative and structural. The methodology for such analysis was developed by the Kazan and Moscow linguistic schools. Examples of component analysis are analysis of a word by its morphemic composition, analysis of a sentence by composition.

An example of component analysis is also the interpretation of words, for example in a normative dictionary. So, lexical meaning words " soldier» - "ordinary army soldier." The definition specifies three features of lexical meaning: private, military, army. These components of the lexical meaning generalize all uses of a given lexeme, therefore such a generalization is sufficient to explain all cases of application of the specified lexical meaning, its implementation, actualization and expression of contextual meanings. But in different areas communication and individuals the lexical meaning is specified, indicating a private infantryman, a private sailor, a soldier of the tsarist army, a Soviet soldier, a warrior in general and a man of duty (cf. soldier of the revolution). In all cases, the meaning is expressed not only by the lexeme, but is also clarified by the context.

Contextual analysis proceeds from the fact that the units of analysis are speech or, less often, language units that are broader than the unit being studied; it is an analysis of a part through the whole. In linguistics, however, a method of contextual analysis is more often used, in which a unit of language is analyzed as part of speech formation - context. In this case, the context is considered to be a part of the text, isolated from it and united by a linguistic unit, which realizes and actualizes its meaning in it. Contextual analysis is therefore most often used in the semantic analysis of words.

The most well-known techniques of the contextual technique: reception of semantic-syntactic context Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya, stratification technique Furs - Holiday schools and acceptance of operational context, proposed by Gennady Vladimirovich Kolshansky.

The main types of descriptive method techniques are.