6

Language Classification

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) hold 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.
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.”

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
 7

discovery of Sir William Jones that led the Comparative Philology to deliver Language Classification,
which is the process of grouping languages into types and families according to a vast array of criteria.

Aims of Language Classification

1. To prove the existence of properties that underlie different attested natural languages.
2. To group languages into families.
3. To establish universal properties from which to fathom the universality of human language and
ultimately understand how we operate on language.
4. To clear misconceptions concerning convoluted relationships between unrelated languages such as
false cognates and isolates.
5. To assist other fields in understanding matters in which language is central such as history,
anthropology, and humanities.
6. 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
(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 via 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
 8

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 history.
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.
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, (4) Determine the status of (partially overlapping) correspondence sets, (5) Check the
plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of the overall phonological inventory of the
proto language, (6) Check the plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of linguistic
universals and typological expectations, and (7) Reconstruct individual morphemes. These major
procedures underlie other sub-steps and tend to vary considerably in application and in adherence to the
type of material studied. As to the procedures of the Comparative Method, they are seven, as follows
(Campbell, 2013, pp. 111-28):
(i) assemble cognates,
(ii) establish sound correspondences,
(iii) reconstruct the proto-sound which is admittedly uncertain but may be guided by (a) directionality,
(b) majority wins, and (c) economy,
(iv) determine the status of similar (partially) overlapping correspondence sets,
(v) check the plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of the overall phonological
inventory of the proto-language, and
(vi) check the plausibility of the reconstructed sound from the perspective of the linguistic universals and
typological expectations, and
(vii) reconstruct individual morphemes.
 9

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 claiming new methods and models
The question the most salient and from which many limitations were attributed to the comparative
method is that "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.
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.
 10

Models of Classification
The Family Tree Model
The shortcomings latent within the Comparative Method have led to the emergence of new
methods and models to cater for the incomprehensiveness of the latter. August Schleicher (1856–7) has
introduced the model of the family tree to provide a solid basis upon which reliable classification can be
postulated. According to Mixico et al. (1988), “ The Tree Model is the standard means for representing
the genetic relationship among languages, shown in terms of a genealogical tree. In tree diagram or
model, the branching – represented by the lines between individual languages and the nods or subgroups
to which they belong –shows which languages that are more closely related to one another within each of
the branches and what their intermediate parent language within the language family is. According to the
same source, the cladistic model elucidates only relationships of descendants of a one particular proto
language through genetic inheritance. Other types of relationships, however, are not demonstrated
through this model. At the most basic level, Stammaun Theory attempts to diversify languages on the
premise that they diverge from a one single proto-language, that is to say, language divergence is
inevitable and that diverged languages do not converge once the split occurs.
The Wave Model
As criticisms from dialectologists were forwarded to the Neogrammarians, proponents of the Tree
Model mainly Schmidt (1872), the basis for a new model which would cater for the inadequacy of the
assumption underlying the criticized method was constituted. The Wave Theory/ Method, otherwise,
known as Wellen theory, is defined by Mauricio et al. (2007) as “ A model of linguistic change seen by
some as an alternative to the Tree Model, but thought by others to complement the Family Tree; it is
intended to deal with changes due to contact among languages and dialects. According to the Wave
Theory, linguistic changes spread outward concentrically as waves on a pond do when a stone is thrown
into it, becoming progressively weaker with the distance from their central point. Since later changes may
not cover the same area there may be no sharp boundaries between neighboring dialects or languages;
rather, the greater the distance between them, the fewer linguistic traits dialects or languages may share”.
As such the Wave Model is built on the principle of granting prominence to dialectology and the
geographical proximity between linguistic communities. Through considering the effect of proximity and
language contact, the Wave Model resulted in the generation of language classification types other than
the genetic.
Types of Language Classification
The different methods and models of language classification have resulted in the erosion of
multiple types of Language Classification.
 11

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 lndo-European).
Although genetically related languages often share structural characteristics, they do not
necessarily bear a close resemblance. For example, Latvian and English are genetically related (both are
descended from Indo-European), but their morphological structure is quite different. An English sentence
like It lras to be figured out can be expressed in Latvian by a single word .
1)
ja:izgudro
(one) must out figure (it)
'It has to be figured out.'

Of course, Latvian and English are very distantly related, ahd languages that are more closely
related will typically share a larger number of similarities. On the other hand, it is also necessary to
recognize that even languages that are totally unrelated may share some structural similarities. Thus,
English and Swahili, which are unrelated, both employ Subject-Verb-Object word order in simple
declarative sentences.

2)
Maria anapenda Anna
'Maria likes Anna.'
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 typologists 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.
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).
 12

Genetic Classification
How are languages shown to be related to one another? How are language families established?
Judging from media attention, it is one of the hottest questions in contemporary linguistics. The issue of
language classification comes up when we are dealing with more than one language, as soon as we are
faced with two languages or more the question is whether that they are similar, or dissimilar rises. The
broader and more central aim here is to understand linguistic kinship. And furthermore to identify
precisely what is genetic classification? What criteria can be used for identifying whether two or more
languages could be grouped in one set, or one family concept. However, debate, and considerable
confusion about the methods for demonstrating family relationships among languages as yet not known,
also the ways those language families have come to be established. So to clarify the vision, we must take
a look not only on the linguistic kinship, but also revealing which methods, techniques, strategies and
rules were utilized and proved successful in genetic classification and sir William Jones contribution.
Grouping the world's languages into families is relatively possible through a variety of methods
and in the form of a variety of types, nevertheless, some methods place a great deal of requirements on
the part of scholars attempting to perform the act of classification. In agreement with O' Grady (1997),
genetic classification can be said to refer to the analysis of languages according to their form and meaning
resemblances, that is, they should have developed from an ancestral language following a documented
evidence. In regard to Genetic Classification, a set of intermingling terms appear; genetic linguistics,
genetic model, and genetic relationship.

1. Genetic relationship/ Affiliation: is the kinship binding languages descending from a common
ancestor.
2. Genetic linguistics: the study of genealogy.
3. Genetic model: refers to the sub-groupings of languages into families and/or establishing
relationships between them.
4. Genetic Classification: is the process that historical linguists perform on languages speculated to
come from a mutual proto language.
Genetic Classification deploys the Tree Model to group languages into families with regard to what they
share as similarities such as cognates.

Definition(s) of the Concept

What do we mean by 'Genetic Classification', how can languages be shown to be related? The idea
of relationships between languages is quite old and can be traced to Sir William Jones‘s proclamation, in
the latter part of the 18th century, Ubiquitous mistaken belief is that genetic classification starts with Sir
William Jones’ famous declaration of 1786, but there are those who preceded him . Jones felt that the
type of relationship he found between languages like Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, etc. was such that it could
 13

not be accounted as due to chance, nor due to borrowing, rather should be explained as due only to
genetic inheritance.
Genetic Classification of Languages
1. When languages are known to have developed out of a common ancestral language they are said
to be genetically related.
2. Genetic relationships; therefore, have to do with the linguistic characteristics that are inherited by
one generation of speakers from another (as opposed to those which are acquired from other
sources).
3. That is, “all languages of the world are classified into families. All languages belonging to a
particular family are believed to have the same origin, that is, they originated from the same
ancestor language (Dakubu, 1988)
4. Languages are related if they are divergent continuations of a single language spoken at an earlier
time; this implies that if we were to trace each language back in time, we would find increasing
similarities until finally we would be dealing with a single language.
5. Languages which are genetically related have a common ancestor.
6. The ancestral language is usually referred to as the proto-language. The languages derived from
this are said to be its daughter languages, and the degrees of interrelatedness are often described
by using the metaphor of a family
7. Technically, a lower level grouping is usually called a language family. The highest level
grouping is called a phylum, super stock, or even family.

Sir William Jones’s Contributions

During the 19th Century linguistic scholarship had the outstanding achievement which was the
comparative method. Sir William Jones (1746-1794) considered as the founder of the comparative
method. He was an English oriental’s, philosopher and student of ancient India .Jones was a judge on
supreme court in Bengal. Sir William Jones founded the Asiatic society in 1784 under the patronage of
Warren Hastings. While Jones was studying the Sanskrit language, he observed that Sanskrit, Latin and
Greek languages are similar , for example the word ‘Pitar ‘ in Sanskrit it is similar to the word ‘Patar’ in
Greek language , as well as to in Latin language 'petar’ .sir William Jones in his third anniversary
discourse to the Asiatic society in 1786 , he declared that “ Sanskrit ,Latin and Greek languages are
related to each other and had a common root « in his famous philologer passage ,these Indo-European
languages are related to Gothic and Celtic languages , as well as to Persian language .this declaration
made the beginning of the Indo-European languages and the comparative historical linguistics , according
to Bengston and Rulen's (1997:3) that sir William Jones “ discovered the method of comparative
linguistics –and with it the Indo-European family “. Cannon (1990, p.246), declared that "Jones was the
 14

first known printed statement of the fundamental postulate of Indo-European comparative Grammar
;more than that of comparative linguistics as whole “ . Although Jones' name was associated with
comparative method, he was not only the one who talked about this observation. In the 16 th century there
were many visitors to India observed the similarities between the Indian and European languages, among
the observers was Van Boxhon in early 1653 he published a proposal for proto- language (Scythian ). Sir
William Jones his grand plan to write a history of human races in Asia rather than the historical
linguistics matters; according to him study language was a help to him to study the origins of the human
in Asia.
 15

What is a Language Family?

A language family is a set of languages deriving from a common ancestor or "parent." Languages
with a significant number of common features in phonology, morphology and syntax are said to belong to
the same language family. Subdivisions of a language family are called "branches". English, along with
most of the other major languages of Europe, belongs to the Indo-European language family. "It is
estimated that there are more than 250 established language families in the world, and over 6,800 distinct
languages, many of which are threatened or endangered."(Brown & Ogilvie, 2008 Concise Encyclopedia
of Languages of the World. Elsevier Science). Here some of the main language families:
Major Language Families

Here some of the main language families :

1. Niger–Congo (1,542 languages) (21.7%): are the world's largest language

family and Africa's largest in terms of geographical area, number of speakers and number of
distinct languages.
2. Austronesian (1,257 languages) (17.7%): are a language family widely spoken
throughout Maritime Southeast Asia, Madagascar and the islands of the Pacific Ocean. There
are also a few speakers in continental Asia.
3. Trans–New Guinea (482 languages) (6.8%): is an extensive family of Papuan
languages spoken in New Guinea and neighboring islands, perhaps the third-largest language
family in the world by number of languages.
4. Sino-Tibetan (455 languages) (6.4%) : in a few sources also known as Trans-Himalayan, is
a family of more than 400 languages, second only to Indo-European in number of native
speakers.
5. Indo-European (448 languages) (6.3%) : are a language family of several hundred
related languages and dialects.
6. Australian [dubious] (381 languages) (5.4%) : consist of around 290–363[1] languages
belonging to an estimated 28 language families and isolates
7. Afro-Asiatic (377 languages) (5.3%) : is a large language family of about 300 languages that
are spoken predominantly in West Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa and parts of
the Sahel
8. Nilo-Saharan [dubious] (206 languages) (2.9%) : The languages extend through 17 nations in
the northern half of Africa: from Algeria to Benin in the west; from Libya to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo in the centre; and from Egypt to Tanzania in the east.
9. Oto-Manguean (178 languages) (2.5%) : are a large family comprising several subfamilies
of indigenous languages of the Americas
 16

10. Austroasiatic (167 languages) (2.3%) : are a large language family of Mainland Southeast
Asia, also scattered throughout parts of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and southern China.
11. Tai–Kadai (91 languages) (1.3%) : are a language family of tonal languages found
in Mainland Southeast Asia, southern China, and Northeast India.
12. Dravidian (86 languages) (1.2%) : are a language family spoken by more than 215 million
people, mainly in Southern India and northern Sri Lanka, with pockets elsewhere in South
Asia
13. Tupian (76 languages) (1.1%): The Tupi or Tupian language family comprises some 70
languages spoken in South America, of which the best known are Tupi proper and Guarani.

Cognates
Identification of cognates is a component of two principle tasks of historical linguistics
demonstrating the relatedness of languages and reconstructing the histories of families. Genetically
related languages originate from a common proto-language. In the absence of historical records proto-
languages have to be reconstructed from cognates; reflexes of proto-words that survive in some form in
the daughter languages. A cognate of a word in one language (e.g. English) is a word in another language
(e.g. German) that has a similar form and is or was used with a similar meaning in which they have
gradually developed from the same ancestor word (inherited from a shared parent language). The English
words mother, father and friend are cognates of the German words Mutter, Vater and Freund. On the
basis of these cognates, we would imagine that modern English and modern German probably have a
common ancestor in what has been labeled the Germanic branch of Indo-European. By the same process,
we can look at similar sets in Spanish (madre, padre, amigo) and Italian (madre, padre, amico) and
conclude that these cognates are good evidence of a common ancestor in the Italic branch of Indo-
European. The word cognate derives from the Latin noun "cognatus" which means « blood relative.

Types of Cognates

False Cognates.
Cognates may have evolved similar, different or even opposite meanings, but in most cases there
are some similar sounds or letters in the words, in some cases appearing to be dissimilar. Some words
sound similar, but do not have the same meaning; these are called False Cognates. False cognates are two
words in different languages that appear to be cognates, but actually are not (for example, the English
advertisement and the French avertissement, which means "warning" or "caution". Also embarrassed in
English and the Spanish embarasada, which means "pregnant", Sensible in English which means
"reasonable" but "sensitive" in French and Spanish.
Perfect Cognates
 17

For perfect cognates are words that are spelled exactly the same for example, in both English and
Spanish, and they mean exactly the same thing, but their pronunciation is different. For example: English
‘chocolate’, Spanish ‘chocolate’, ‘ regular; regular’ and ‘animal; animal’.
Near Perfect Cognates
The next group of words are near perfect cognates. These are words that mean the same thing in
both "English and Spanish" for example, but are not quite spelt the same but almost the same. You will be
able to see that there are certain patterns that form with near perfect cognates that allow you to
potentionally predict when a near cognate is likely to exist. The main difference between two near perfect
cognates is the pronunciation and this is where you have to be careful. Therefore, for example, you have
the English word "basic", which in Spanish is "básico ". Also, you have the English word " information"
which in Spanish is " información ", " anniversary" and anniversario", " arbitrary" and "arbitrario".

Definitions of Pidgins and Creole Languages

Pidgin. (Sometimes called contact language) A simplified form of language, typically with a
reduced grammar and vocabulary, used for communication between groups speaking different languages
who have no other language in common, usually in situations where there are strikingly different levels
of power in a colonial setting. A pidgin is not spoken as a first or native language. The process by which
pidgins arise is referred to as pidginization. As a pidgin becomes the first language of a generation of
children, it acquires all the characteristics of a natural language, including a richer vocabulary and a
functioning, relatively stable phonology and grammar, and in this way becomes a creole.

Creole. The traditional definition of a creole is a language descended from a pidgin that has
become the native language of a group of people. The formation of a creole is referred to as creolization.

Special Cases
Language Isolates
Isolate (also called language isolate, sometimes isolated language) A language with no known
relatives, that is, a family with but a single member. Some well-known isolates are: Ainu, Basque,
Burushaski, Etruscan, Gilyak (Nivkh), Nahali, Sumerian, Tarascan and Zuni. In typology, the type of
language in which each morpheme is a separate word, that is, where there is no bound morphology, and
grammatical markers are independent words. Chinese is a much-cited example; many of the languages of
southeast Asia are also isolating languages.
Language Phyla
Phylogenetic relationship is a term associated with biology, but sometimes applied in linguistics to
refer to a genetic relationship or language-family relationship. Phylum is a proposed genetic relationship
 18

that would group together language families (also isolates) in a larger-scale classification. Potentially, a
phylum could refer to a more remote, larger-scale grouping of languages where the languages included
are in fact confirmed to be related to one another; however, this is seldom the case. More typically,
phylum refers to a grouping of languages thought by some to be distantly related to one another, though
on the basis of inconclusive evidence, more or less equivalent to macro-family.
Typological Classification
As the name suggests, 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 three main types: morphological typology (examines
similarities between languages at the level of their morphemes. Morphology, the study of word formation,
Typology (that views language through word order in the sentence, in that word order is the sole criterion
with which to analyze and compare languages. 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 which are syllable-timed.

Areal Classification
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 give
consideration to 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 new linguistic system (pidgins and
creoles and (2) Borrowing: following myriads of factors ranging from cultural, economic, to religious,
languages can be set at a state where they come into contact.
Conclusion
The focus of this section is on the criteria that linguists use to classify languages, and on the
enormous variety of languages found throughout the world. Linguists sometimes attempt to classify
languages solely in terms of their structural similarities and differences (that is, in terms of their linguistic
typology). Analysis of cross-linguistic data has identified a number of iinguistic universals, indicating the
most/common characteristics of human language. The other major type of classificatory work in
linguistics is concerned with genetic relationships-establishing language families whose members are
descended from a common ancestor. While research in this area is hampered both by the large number of
languages involved and the scarcity of the available data, a sizable portion of the world's several thousand
 19

languages have been placed, in families. Finally, we present the controversial work recently done on
linguistic phyla or macro-families. Research in these areas can shed light on the nature of language
change, as well as the movement of peoples throughout the world.