Uzbekistan state world languages university

1.2. Historical background of typological investigations The questions of timing the history of linguistic comparison are quite compli- nled and are the ones, which have not found their final solution yet. The history of Inguistic comparison is an integral part of linguistic science development, which is «Hind with the history of thenation and cognition. That is why there are no generally U'ceptcd criteria for timing this problem yet. We will see Dr. Buranov’s viewpoint.
In his book “Сравнительнаятипологияанглийскогоитюркскихязыков” he dcntijies 4 periods in the history of typological studies:


; I The first period is characterized as ^spontaneous or )
i I (evolutionary. It)begins with the emergence of the first
⁵ j. linguistic works. That
l f period was over not long
I ! before th^Renaissance.^
i I CHn Ancient Greece,-the
f I language was studied in
< ^!! the frames of
philosophy. The major
issue, which was in the
incus of discussion, was acorrelation of substances to
heir names. Still, already in the works of Protagoras
iiul Aristotle, there are statements related to
listinguishing words, word combinations, linguistic
•ntcgories like gender, case, number, thedefinition of the sentence, classification of voi ds into names and actions or parts of speech. These works served as the basis for listinguishing linguistics into an independent science. E.g. many scholars, while 'ompiling grammars of separate languages used the models of the languages with »I ready described grammatical structures. (The principle of analogy). For example, vliile compiling the first English grammars the models of Latin were widely used. Hie first grammars for the European languages were based on the Latin Grammars. ^v





7










The second period is characterized as a period ofestahlishing the first scientific \
comparison of languages and this period is related to the General and Rational





Grammar: Port-Royal Grammar by Arnauld A., Lancelot С, (XVII c.) in Indo-Eu-
ropcan languages. Port-Royal Grammar can be
considered one of the most precious contributions
to thedevelopment of Comparative Typology. It
was developed by 2 French monks in the small
abbey Port-Royal in the suburbs of Paris
(published in 1660). It is the synthesis of linguistic
and philosophic ideas of that time. The languages
(French, Latin, Greek and ancient Jewish/ Ides)
with thedifferent geneaiogic origin and typological
structure were compared based on the criteria and
principles elaborated by Arnauld A. and Claude
Lancelot.
Comparative study of Turkic language has its own history. Divan-Lugat At-Turk by
Mahmud Kashgariy is considered j the most solid work on thelinguistic • j comparison of Turkic languages.
I Mahmud Kashgariy analyzed phonetic, grammatical and lexical j units of a group of Turkic languages j and defined the level of their j genetic relation to each other.


her development of comparative study can be
traced in thcappearance of glossaries and
dictionaries, e.g. Turkic-Mongol-Persian _
dictionary compiled in Egypt (1245), Latin-
Persian Kypchak dictionary (XII c), and
other works.

Alisher Navoiy

One of the most prominent work is the poem


ol Alisher Navoi "Muhokamatul al-Lugatain" (Debate
ol I wo languages) written in 1499. Navoi compares
lexical, grammatical and word building specificities
uf 2 genetically non-related languages: old Uzbek and
Persian. Navoi reveals a number of language
specificities of Uzbek, which did not have direct
correspondences in Persian, e.g. suffixes of
lellexivity, reciprocity, causation, modality,
eomparativeness, etc. \