scholarly journals Aslian linguistic prehistory

Diachronica ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Dunn ◽  
Niclas Burenhult ◽  
Nicole Kruspe ◽  
Sylvia Tufvesson ◽  
Neele Becker

This paper analyzes newly collected lexical data from 26 languages of the Aslian subgroup of the Austroasiatic language family using computational phylogenetic methods. We show the most likely topology of the Aslian family tree, discuss rooting and external relationships to other Austroasiatic languages, and investigate differences in the rates of diversification of different branches. Evidence is given supporting the classification of Jah Hut as a fourth top level subgroup of the family. The phylogenetic positions of known geographic and linguistic outlier languages are clarified, and the relationships of the little studied Aslian languages of Southern Thailand to the rest of the family are explored.

Author(s):  
Martine Robbeets

Even if the hypothesis of Transeurasian affiliation is gradually gaining acceptance, supporters do not coincide on the internal structure of the family. Over the last century, a range of different classifications has been proposed. While these proposals show some remarkable overlap, the position of the Tungusic branch in the family tree remains a recurrent issue. Here the best supportable tree for the Transeurasian family is inferred, notably a binary topology with a Japano-Koreanic and an Altaic branch, in which Tungusic is the first to split off from the Altaic branch. To this end, the power of classical historical-comparative linguistics is combined with computational Bayesian phylogenetic methods. In this way, a quantitative basis is introduced to test various competing hypotheses with regard to the internal structure of the Transeurasian family and to solve uncertainties associated with the application of the classical historical-comparative method.


Author(s):  
Alexander Savelyev

Despite more than 150 years of research, the internal structure of the Turkic language family remains a controversial issue. In this study, the Bayesian phylogenetic approach is employed in order to provide an independent verification of the contemporary views on Turkic linguistic history. The data underlying the study are Turkic basic vocabularies, which are resistant to replacement and likely to reflect the genealogical relationships among the Turkic languages. The method tested in the chapter is based on the strict clock model of evolution, which assumes that relevant changes occur at the same rate at every branch of the family. This study supports the widespread view that the binary split between Bulgharic and Common Turkic was the earliest split in the Turkic family. The model further replicates most of the conventional subgroups within the Common Turkic branch. Based on a Bayesian analysis, the time depth of Proto-Turkic is estimated to be around 2,119 years BP, which is in accordance with the traditional estimates of 2,000–2,500 years BP.


Author(s):  
Hans Nugteren

The Mongolic languages constitute a compact language family with limited written history. Given the paucity of decisive shared features such as sound laws, it has been relatively hard to set up a Mongolic family tree. Owing to the steady increase in the number of sufficiently studied Mongolic languages and dialects in the past 60 years, Mongolists have reached a rough consensus. This chapter will provide a brief overview of published opinions and a survey of phonological, morphological, and lexical arguments traditionally used in classification. In addition, it will attempt to make use of irregular, not easily repeated, developments as an alternative avenue to fine-tune the classification.


Diachronica ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaj Syrjänen ◽  
Terhi Honkola ◽  
Kalle Korhonen ◽  
Jyri Lehtinen ◽  
Outi Vesakoski ◽  
...  

Encouraged by ongoing discussion of the classification of the Uralic languages, we investigate the family quantitatively using Bayesian phylogenetics and basic vocabulary from seventeen languages. To estimate the heterogeneity within this family and the robustness of its subgroupings, we analyse ten divergent sets of basic vocabulary, including basic vocabulary lists from the literature, lists that exclude borrowing-susceptible meanings, lists with varying degrees of borrowing-susceptible meanings and a list combining all of the examined items. The results show that the Uralic phylogeny has a fairly robust shape from the perspective of basic vocabulary, and is not dramatically altered by borrowing-susceptible meanings. The results differ to some extent from the ‘standard paradigm’ classification of these languages, such as the lack of firm evidence for Finno-Permian.


1999 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Bowden

ABSTRACTThis paper surveys the literature regarding the linguistic subgrouping and historical affiliations of languages within the Oceanic subgroup of the Austronesian language family. It provides an overview of the evidence for the Oceanic subgroup and its external affiliations, as well as an overview of the internal relationships between languages of the family. It explores questions that have been settled to the satisfaction of most people working within the field, and identifies outstanding issues still of importance to practitioners in the area. A final section discusses a range of literature which surveys aspects of Oceanic linguistics apart from its subgrouping.


Author(s):  
Stefan Dienst

ABSTRACT The Arawan language family of south-western Amazonia was named after the extinct Arawá language, which is only known from a short wordlist collected by William Chandless in 1867. This paper investigates what Chandless’s list tells us about the position of Arawá within the family and what can currently be said about the relationship between the living Arawan languages.KEYWORDS: Arawan, historical linguistics, linguistic classification. RESUMO A família lingüística Arawá do sudoeste da Amazônia recebeu o nome de uma língua extinta que é conhecida somente a partir de uma curta lista de palavras coletada por William Chandless em 1867. Este artigo examina o que a lista de Chandless revela sobre a posição da língua Arawá dentro da família e o que se pode dizer atualmente sobre a relação entre as línguas vivas.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Arawá, lingüística histórica, classificação lingüística


2010 ◽  
Vol 365 (1559) ◽  
pp. 3829-3843 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Heggarty ◽  
Warren Maguire ◽  
April McMahon

Linguists have traditionally represented patterns of divergence within a language family in terms of either a ‘splits’ model, corresponding to a branching family tree structure, or the wave model, resulting in a (dialect) continuum. Recent phylogenetic analyses, however, have tended to assume the former as a viable idealization also for the latter. But the contrast matters, for it typically reflects different processes in the real world: speaker populations either separated by migrations, or expanding over continuous territory. Since history often leaves a complex of both patterns within the same language family, ideally we need a single model to capture both, and tease apart the respective contributions of each. The ‘network’ type of phylogenetic method offers this, so we review recent applications to language data. Most have used lexical data, encoded as binary or multi-state characters. We look instead at continuous distance measures of divergence in phonetics. Our output networks combine branch- and continuum-like signals in ways that correspond well to known histories (illustrated for Germanic, and particularly English). We thus challenge the traditional insistence on shared innovations, setting out a new, principled explanation for why complex language histories can emerge correctly from distance measures, despite shared retentions and parallel innovations.


2007 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
APRIL MCMAHON ◽  
PAUL HEGGARTY ◽  
ROBERT MCMAHON ◽  
WARREN MAGUIRE

Linguists are able to describe, transcribe, and classify the differences and similarities between accents formally and precisely, but there has until very recently been no reliable and objective way of measuring degrees of difference. It is one thing to say how varieties are similar, but quite another to assess how similar they are. On the other hand, there has recently been a strong focus in historical linguistics on the development of quantitative methods for comparing and classifying languages; but these have tended to be applied to problems of language family membership, at rather high levels in the family tree, not down at the level of individual accents. In this article, we outline our attempts to address the question of relative similarity of accents using quantitative methods. We illustrate our method for measuring phonetic similarity in a sample of cognate words for a number of (mainly British) varieties of English, and show how these results can be displayed using newer and more innovative network diagrams, rather than trees. We consider some applications of these methods in tracking ongoing changes in English and beyond, and discuss future prospects.


Author(s):  
Constanze Weise

Many societies in pre-1800 Africa depended on orality both for communication and for record keeping. Historians of Africa, among other ways of dealing with this issue, treat languages as archives and apply what is sometimes called the “words and things” approach. Every language is an archive, in the sense that its words and their meanings have histories. The presence and use of particular words in the vocabulary of the language can often be traced back many centuries into the past. They are, in other words, historical artifacts. Their presence in the language in the past and their meanings in those earlier times tell us about the things that people knew, made use of, and talked about in past ages. They provide us complex insights into the world in which people of past societies lived and operated. But in order to reconstruct word histories, historians first need to determine the relationships and evolution of the languages that possessed those words. The techniques of comparative historical linguistics and language classification allow one to establish a linguistic stratigraphy: to show how the periods can be established in which meaning changes in existing words or changes in the words used for particular meanings took place, to assess what these word histories reveal about changes in a society and its culture, and to identify whether internal innovation or encounters with other societies mediated such changes. The comparative method on its own cannot establish absolute dates of language divergence. The method does allow scholars, however, to reconstruct the lexicons of material culture used at each earlier period in the language family tree. These data identify the particular cultural features to look for in the archaeology of people who spoke languages of the family in earlier times, and that evidence in turn enables scholars to propose datable archaeological correlations for the nodes of the family tree. A second approach to dating a language family tree has been a lexicostatistical technique, often called glottochronology, which seeks to estimate how long ago sister languages began to diverge out of their common ancestor language by using calculations based on the proportion of words in the most basic parts of the vocabulary that the languages still retain in common. Recent work in computational linguistic phylogenetics makes use of elements of lexicostatistics, and there have been efforts to automate the comparative method as well. In order to compare languages historically, two important issues first have to be confronted, namely data acquisition and data analysis. Linguistic field collection of vocabularies from native speakers and linguistic archive work, especially with dictionaries, are principal means of data acquisition. The comparative historical linguistic approach and methods provide the tools for analyzing these linguistic data, both diachronically and synchronically. Nearly all African languages have been classified into four language families, namely: Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic, and Khoisan. The Malagasy language of Madagascar is an exception, in that it was brought west across the Indian Ocean to that island from the East Indies early in the first millennium ce. Malagasy as well as several languages with an Indo-European origin, such as Afrikaans, Krio, and Nigerian Pidgin English, are not part of this discussion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document