The comparative method in the study and teaching of foreign languages

The comparative method in linguistics serves to address both theoretical and practical issues. Within the field, it has achieved a degree of recognition and advancement, as evidenced by numerous scholarly works. Nevertheless, the very concept of "comparison" is subject to varying interpretations, and the importance of the comparative method in linguistics, along with the extent and utility of its application, are defined in diverse ways. This diversity of perspectives underpins the ongoing scholarly interest in the topic. E.Sh. Isaev considers E.D. Polivanov to be the founder of the comparative method [1, p. 1]. The 1931 work by Polivanov, "Perception of Sounds of a Foreign Language," illustrated that the specific difficulties in perceiving foreign speech vary with each language pair – like Russian-Japanese or Russian-Chinese – as new perceptual hurdles arise. Polivanov explained this by proposing that a listener interprets the sounds of a foreign tongue through the phonological framework of their mother language. According to Isaev, this foundational idea was later taken up and elaborated by A.A. Reformatsky. The theory they built was essentially founded on contrasting Russian (the native language) with other languages in a binary fashion. These principles were later further developed in the context of Soviet linguistics, focusing on the comparative analysis of Russian, as a lingua franca, alongside the numerous languages spoken within the country [1].

L.S. Andreeva attributes the origin of comparative linguistics in Russian science to the 19th century, considering its development within comparative-historical linguistics, the emergence of a scientific method, and the gradual formation of comparative linguistics into a separate field [2, p. 2]. She names Baudouin de Courtenay, a professor at Kazan University, as the founder of comparative language studies (using the example of Russian and Polish). “The personal experience of Baudouin de Courtenay in comparative studies is unique... The legacy of comparative studies of the Polish and Russian languages is significant and diverse in genre... Unfortunately, it has not yet been generalized... The comparison of Russian and Polish forms is necessary to determine their common genetic source” [2].

The presentation of the theoretical foundations of comparative linguistics can be found in the article by Baudouin de Courtenay “On the Mixed Character of All Languages” [3]. L.S. Andreeva particularly emphasizes that, in de Courtenay’s understanding, comparative linguistics is aimed at identifying differences between two compared languages, including related ones [2].

According to the researcher, Baudouin de Courtenay brilliantly anticipated the prospects of comparative studies: “Everywhere we encounter questions about the causes of similarities and differences in the structure of language and in the evolutionary process in one context or another. Such comparison of languages serves as the basis for the broadest linguistic generalizations both in the field of morphology and, finally, in the field of semasiology, or the science of the meanings of words and expressions” [3].

Andreeva notes that de Courtenay’s ideas were consistently developed in the works of his students, both in the field of theory and in the methodology of teaching foreign languages. The laws of language development discovered by de Courtenay on the basis of the comparative study of the Polish and Russian languages are considered “as the scientific basis of the technology of teaching these languages” [2, p. 8].

L.I. Anokhina also considers the development of the comparative method from a historical perspective, calling the emergence of its predecessor, the comparative-historical method in the early 19th century, an important event in the history of linguistics, when the idea of language kinship was proven and solid foundations were laid for the genetic classification of the world’s languages [4, p. 7]. However, as noted in Anokhina’s research, at the same time the first steps were taken and another, completely different – comparative – approach to language study was strengthened, the purpose of which was to identify not genetic, but structural relationships and connections among various languages of all regions of the world.

U.K. Yusupov also considers the comparative-historical method to be the historical predecessor of the comparative method. “Comparative linguistics began to move onto a scientific basis in the first quarter of the 20th century, when the comparative-historical method of language research was developed. The use of this method led to the creation of comparative linguistics, after which the second and third components (typology, comparative linguistics) were formed” [5, p. 20]. Yusupov объединяет comparative-historical linguistics, typology, and comparative linguistics on the basis of their use of systematic interlingual comparison, on which they are founded [5], while noting that their goals and objectives, as well as the methods and principles of language comparison, differ. He understands comparative linguistics as a branch of linguistics that studies languages in a comparative perspective. “With this understanding of comparative linguistics, the concepts ‘to compare,’ ‘comparison,’ ‘comparative’ become synonymous with the concepts ‘to contrast,’ ‘contrast,’ ‘contrastive,’ which are often used in comparative linguistics” [5].

Thus, comparative linguistics is a product of the development of comparative-historical linguistics, and the comparative method arises on its basis.

Comparative linguistics is a part of comparative language studies. Here, the concept “to compare” is synonymous with the concept “to contrast.”

Khanina dates the emergence of the comparative-historical method to the beginning of the 19th century [6, p. 4], noting its application to the analysis of genetically related groups of languages, in the study of the commonality of their sound form and the patterns of change in the phonetic system, grammatical structure, and vocabulary. Following Reformatsky, she contrasts the comparative-historical method with the comparative method, which is a set of techniques proving the equivalence or kinship of words or morphemes in cases where this is not obvious.

A.A. Reformatsky expressed the view that it is inadmissible to confuse the comparative and contrastive methods in the study of language [7, p. 41]. At the same time, he pointed out the differences between the methods in terms of their object of study: “The contrastive method, unlike the comparative one, is based on synchrony, seeks to establish what is different and specific to each language individually, and must beware of any similarity, as it leads to the leveling of the individual and provokes the substitution of the foreign with one’s own. Only the consistent identification of contrasts and differences between one’s own and a foreign language can and should be the legitimate goal of the contrastive method of language study” [7, p. 40].

These five theses were not only reflected in the consideration of theoretical issues but were also widely applied in solving practical problems. “Comparison, not contrast” – this is the idea expressed by B.A. Serebryannikov: “When the study of a language has not yet reached the level of automatic mastery, the system of the native language … exerts strong pressure. The comparison of the facts of one language with the facts of another language is necessary прежде всего for eliminating the possibility of this pressure of the native language system… Such grammars are best called contrastive rather than comparative” [11, p. 7]. Thus, the contrastive study of languages developed under the influence of the need to teach a language of interethnic communication both in the Russian Empire (Baudouin de Courtenay) and in the Soviet Union (Polivanov). Initially, the contrastive study of languages was carried out within the framework of comparative-historical linguistics as one of its techniques. Gradually, the contrastive method itself was formed, based on both the recognition of living languages as the main object of study and the clear distinction between dynamics and statics in the functioning of languages. The contrastive method is based on synchrony and is aimed at identifying differences. The theses characterizing the method were proposed by A.A. Reformatsky. These ideas were reflected both in the consideration of theoretical issues and in solving practical problems. Researchers express similar views on the application of the contrastive method for practical purposes. U.K. Yusupov believes that “the task of studying languages for linguodidactic purposes includes not only the identification of interlingual similarities and differences, interlingual correspondences and mismatches of a systemic nature, but also the determination of the methodological relevance of similarities and differences, as well as the nature of interlingual interference. Solving these complex tasks will turn contrastive linguistics into a real basis for the specific methodology of teaching a non-native language” [5, p. 123]. The issue of interference arising in the process of learning foreign languages is reflected in the works of a number of researchers. L. Khanina considers this problem undesirable and believes that it is necessary to foresee and overcome it, given that every foreign language teacher encounters this phenomenon [6].

“Interlingual interference in the contact between the native and the target language is such an influence of the native language that either leads to deviation or prevents switching from the native language to the target language, that is, leads to silence. Interlingual interferences manifested in the form of silence are the most harmful; however, unfortunately, they still remain outside the field of view of linguists and methodologists,” Yusupov believes [5, p. 130].

Solving the problem of overcoming interlingual interference is an applied task of contrastive linguistics, and the contrastive method can be used to address it.

The contrastive method is of particular importance in the theory and practice of translation, including machine translation. M.A. Grosheva notes: “Traditionally, translation was considered an applied discipline, while contrastive linguistics was recognized as its theory” [8]. The contrastive method was applied by V.I. Gak to analyze the vocabulary and grammar of the Russian and French languages, as well as to prepare works devoted to the theory and practice of translation (including works on language theory) [8, p. 3].

In addition, V.N. Komissarov includes in contrastive analysis “the identification of similarities, differences, and correlations not only of structure, but also of the content of texts,” not only texts “as integral entities, but also the comparison of individual elements of these texts” [9].

M.A. Grosheva, in turn, points to the necessity of studying the relationship between contrastive linguistics and translation theory: “Translation practically relies on knowledge of contrastive linguistics and the typology of two languages; it (translation theory) uses contrastive analysis as a method for selecting a form that most adequately conveys both the content and the already chosen form” [8]. And further: “The contrastive study of languages can be based on the analysis of the original text and the translated text, while contrastive linguistics represents the theory of translation, providing knowledge about the correlation of language units for the translation process” [8]. Thus, the contrastive method can be considered recognized and widely used for solving both practical and theoretical problems of translation. Here, the contrastive method is in demand; it forms the basis of contrastive analysis–a multifaceted process that underlies the development and improvement of translation. The practical application of the contrastive method is highly diverse, especially for linguodidactic purposes. Thus, the author already cited by us, L.S. Anokhina, noting two components in the contrastive study of languages and designating the first component as theoretical (close to typology and related to anthropology and cultural studies), identifies the second as a practical component oriented toward the teaching of foreign languages [4, p. 9]. An interesting practical application of the contrastive method is presented in the work of N.G. Bazhenova [10]. Considering paralinguistic means (gestures) as an integral part of the linguocultural aspect of teaching, N.G. Bazhenova carried out a contrastive analysis of the kinetic means of the French communicative system with analogous means in the Russian communicative system [10, p. 7]. Here, the paralinguistic means of the native and foreign languages were examined in their entirety as systems; systemic oppositions were established, while the information obtained was not opposed but rather contrasted within the framework of the native and the foreign language.

Bazhenova notes that the comparison of kinetic elements of two communicative systems (native and acquired) led to the question of their selection. The following principles were used in this selection: functionality, clear differentiation from the native culture, exoticness (interest), systematicity, etc.

An important role in the study was assigned to the principle of taking the native culture into account. Many gestures may be non-informative simply because they are not correlated with the native culture. Therefore, mastering foreign-language models of nonverbal communication is impossible without understanding them through communication in the native language and contrasting the two nonverbal systems (native and acquired) through comparison and analysis of their similarities and differences [10].

As a result, the following outcomes were achieved: a methodology for teaching nonverbal means of communication in a foreign language course was theoretically substantiated; a selection of kinetic means of communication was carried out; and a foundation was laid for further scientific and practical work in this field. In addition to addressing theoretical issues in linguistics, the contrastive method is widely applied in teaching and in the development of methodologies for teaching foreign languages, in overcoming interlingual interference, and in constructing new approaches to mastering all aspects of language. The importance of contrastive linguistics and the contrastive method for the theory and practice of translation, including machine translation, is undeniable. In modern linguistics, the contrastive method remains relevant and in demand.