Explanation
Comparison explicitly relates two initially separate domains through a selected common feature. It does not simply discover similarity but produces a perspective: one feature is foregrounded from many possibilities while differences temporarily recede. An unfamiliar object may thereby be approached through a familiar one, a standard exposed, or an evaluation suggested. The movement remains limited, however. When the selected respect is transferred to the whole, an aid to understanding turns into equation. Comparison thus shows that comparative thought always connects and separates at once. Its scientific quality depends on making the units, respect, scale, and limits of comparison explicit.
Movement of thought
1. Two objects or domains first appear as different and are placed beside each other for a particular question. 2. A specific respect selects the feature or relation that is to become relevant between them. 3. Similarities and differences are ordered along this standard, producing a new perspective on both domains. 4. A counter-test changes the standard and unit to ask whether the asserted similarity remains stable or misleads. 5. The domains return as partly connected yet still distinct, with the boundary of the analogy kept visible.
Scientific use case
Comparative linguistics and discourse research must specify units, tertium comparationis, data, and scope. Controlled counter-comparisons can reveal whether findings arise from typology, genre, or sampling.
Example
A researcher compares two words only with respect to their function in marking speaker change. Their histories and forms remain explicitly different.
Counterexample
Two terms occur next to one another alphabetically without a specified common respect. This is adjacency, not comparison; saying that they are somehow similar is likewise insufficient.
Distinction
Distinguish comparison from metaphor, analogy, equivalence, and identity. Comparison specifies a respect; analogy often foregrounds relational similarity, while equivalence concerns functional correspondence.
Effect on thought and perception
Comparison makes unfamiliar structures accessible and differences precisely describable, but a concealed standard may naturalise hierarchy or produce false equality.
Resonance
Two separate domains answer each other along a selected line; their limited correspondence makes the contours of each more clearly perceptible.
Etymology
Technical core term; individual etymological review pending
Provenance
Unresolved relation network → core-concept review → Metzler/HWRh cross-check → ATLAS 238
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Comparison“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-CORE-238-027. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-CORE-238-027The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Aristotle brings simile close to metaphor, contrasting an explicit likeness with the transfer of a name. The shared trait supplies the route between the compared subjects; it does not assert identity in every respect. This is a historical strand within the Atlas's broad Comparison profile, rather than a complete account of scientific or everyday comparison. The source's literary examples help identify what is selected and what remains outside the comparison. In an original Atlas exercise, describing a discussion as like a crossroads highlights alternatives but need not imply fixed destinations or a single traveller. The countertest asks where the likeness stops helping. The English translation provides access to an ancient analysis; the word comparison and its technical developments across disciplines need their own histories.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
The countertest asks where the likeness stops helping. The English translation provides access to an ancient analysis; the word comparison and its technical developments across disciplines need their own histories.
References for the historical section
- Aristotle, Rhetoric; English translation by W. Rhys Roberts, Internet Classics Archive transcription · Rhetoric III.4
Selected historical passage, not a complete genealogy or an English first attestation. Atlas examples and present-day countertests are editorial applications. Ancient argument inspected in English translation; Greek/Latin wording and manuscript transmission not independently collated. The online transcription contains apparent errors.