Volume 35, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714


This article investigates the evolutionary and spatial dynamics of typological characters in 117 Indo-European languages. We partition types of change (i.e., gain or loss) for each variant according to whether they bring about a simplification in morphosyntactic patterns that must be learned, whether they are neutral (i.e., neither simplifying nor introducing complexity) or whether they introduce a more complex pattern. We find that changes which introduce complexity show significantly less areal signal (according to a metric we devise) than changes which simplify and neutral changes, but we find no significant differences between the latter two groups. This result is compatible with a scenario where certain types of parallel change are more likely to be mediated by advergence and contact between proximate speech communities, while other developments are due purely to drift and are largely independent of intercultural contact.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2007 Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in contact, 1–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. Harald
    2008Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baerman, Matthew , Dunstan Brown & Greville Corbett
    (eds.) 2015Understanding and measuring morphological complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723769.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723769.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauer, Brigitte
    2007 The definite article in Indo-European: Emergence of a new grammatical category?In Elisabeth Stark , Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds.), Nominal determination: Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence, 103–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.89.07bau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.89.07bau [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaulieu, Jeremy M. & Brian C. O’Meara
    2014 Hidden Markov models for studying the evolution of binary morphological characters. In László Zsolt Garamszegi (ed.), Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutionary biology: Concepts and practice, 395–408. Heidelberg: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentz, Christian & Bodo Winter
    2013 Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change3(1). 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bickel, Balthasar
    2011 Statistical modeling of language universals. Linguistic Typology15. 401–413. doi: 10.1515/lity.2011.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2011.027 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bollback, Jonathan P.
    2006 SIMMAP: Stochastic character mapping of discrete traits on phylogenies. BMC Bioinformatics7. 88. doi: 10.1186/1471‑2105‑7‑88
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-88 [Google Scholar]
  9. Botero, Carlos A. , Beth Gardner , Kathryn R. Kirby , Joseph Bulbulia , Michael C. Gavin & Russell D. Gray
    2014 The ecology of religious beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(47). 16784–16789. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408701111
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408701111 [Google Scholar]
  10. Braunmüller, Kurt
    1984 Morphologische Undurchsichtigkeit – ein Charakteristikum kleiner Sprachen. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik22. 48–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Carling, Gerd
    (ed.) 2017Diachronic atlas of comparative linguistics online. Lund: Lund University, https://diacl.ht.lu.se/ (30July 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang, William , Chundra Cathcart , David Hall & Andrew Garrett
    2015 Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European Steppe Hypothesis. Language91(1). 194–244. doi: 10.1353/lan.2015.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0005 [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark, Philip J. & Francis C. Evans
    1954 Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology35(4). 445–453. doi: 10.2307/1931034
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1931034 [Google Scholar]
  14. Darlington, Richard B. & Andrew F. Hayes
    2017Regression analysis and linear models: Concepts, applications, and implementation. London: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Daumé, Hal
    2009 Non-parametric Bayesian areal linguistics. InHuman language technologies: The 2009 annual conference of the North American chapter of the ACL, 593–601. Boulder, CO: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dediu, Dan
    2010 A Bayesian phylogenetic approach to estimating the stability of linguistic features and the genetic biasing of tone. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B278(1704). 474–479. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1595
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1595 [Google Scholar]
  17. Delbrück, Berthold
    1900Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol.3. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Drummond, A. J. , M. A. Suchard , D. Xie & A. Rambaut
    2012 Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Molecular Biology and Evolution29(8). 1969–1973. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss075
    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss075 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryer, Matthew S.
    1989 Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language13(2). 257–292. doi: 10.1075/sl.13.2.03dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.13.2.03dry [Google Scholar]
  20. Dunn, Michael
    2015 Language phylogenies. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 190–211. Oxford: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunn, Michael , Tonya Kim Dewey , Carlee Arnett , Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2017 Dative sickness: A phylogenetic analysis of argument structure evolution in Germanic. Language93(1). e1–e22.10.1353/lan.2017.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0012 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunn, Michael , Simon J. Greenhill , Stephen C. Levinson & Russell D. Gray
    2011 Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature473(7345). 79–82. doi: 10.1038/nature09923
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09923 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dunn, Michael , Stephen C. Levinson , Eva Lindström , Ger Reesink & Angela Terrill
    2008 Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in Island Melanesia. Language84(4). 710–759. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0069
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0069 [Google Scholar]
  24. Felsenstein, Joseph
    2004Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fortson, Benjamin W.
    2015 Indo-European: Methods and problems. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 645–656. Oxford: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. François, Alexandre
    2011 Social ecology and language history in the northern Vanuatu linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. Journal of Historical Linguistics1(2). 175–246. doi: 10.1075/jhl.1.2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.1.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  27. Friedrich, Paul
    1975Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of meaningful elements (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 1). Butte, MT: Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz & Vyacheslav I. Ivanov
    1995Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans (translated by Johanna Nichols ). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110815030
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815030 [Google Scholar]
  29. Garrett, Andrew
    2006 Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: Phylogeny and chronology. In Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 139–151. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gelman, Andrew & Donald B. Rubin
    1992 Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science7. 457–511. doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011136
    https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136 [Google Scholar]
  31. Graham, Christopher
    2016Geographical correlates of rare word orders: A computational approach to quantitative typology and language contact. University of California, Davis dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gumperz, John J. & Robert Wilson
    1971 Convergence and creolization. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, 151–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Haspelmath, Martin , Matthew Dryer , David Gil & Bernard Comrie
    2005The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Haug, Dag
    2015 Treebanks in historical linguistic research. In Carlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, 187–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Haynie, Hannah , Claire Bowern & Hannah LaPalombara
    2014 Sound symbolism in the languages of Australia. PloS One9(4). e92852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092852
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092852 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hock, Hans Henrich
    1996 [1993] Subversion or convergence? The issue of pre-Vedic retroflexion reexamined. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences23(2). 73–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoenigswald, Henry M.
    1960Language change and linguistic reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1966 Criteria for the subgrouping of languages. In Henrik Birnbaum & Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European dialects, 1–12. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jäger, Gerhard & Johann-Mattis List
    . Forthcoming. Using ancestral state reconstruction methods for onomasiological reconstruction in multilingual word lists. Language Dynamics and Change8.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Jordan, Michael
    2004 Graphical models. Statistical Science19(1). 140–155. doi: 10.1214/088342304000000026
    https://doi.org/10.1214/088342304000000026 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kroch, Anthony , Ann Taylor & Donald Ringe
    2000 The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In Susan C. Herring , Pieter Th. van Reenen & Lene Schøsler (eds.), Textual parameters in older languages, 353–392. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kusters, Wouter
    2008 Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In Matti Miestamo , Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.94.03kus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.03kus [Google Scholar]
  43. Lass, Roger
    1997Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620928
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620928 [Google Scholar]
  44. Liggett, Thomas M.
    2010Continuous time Markov processes: An introduction, vol.113Graduate Studies in Mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.10.1090/gsm/113
    https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/113 [Google Scholar]
  45. List, Johann-Mattis , Shijulal Nelson-Sathi , William Martin & Hans Geisler
    2014 Using phy-logenetic networks to model Chinese dialect history. In Søren Wichmann & Jeff Good (eds.), Quantifying language dynamics, 125–154. Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789004281523_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004281523_006 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale
    2010 Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS One5. 1–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008559
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559 [Google Scholar]
  47. Martinet, André
    1975Évolution des langues et reconstruction. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Meid, Wolfgang
    1975 Probleme der räumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indogermanischen. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung, 204–19. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Meillet, Antoine
    1925La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Miestamo, Matti , Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson
    (eds.) 2008Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nakhleh, Luay , Donald Ringe & Tandy Warnow
    2005 Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language81(2). 382–420. doi: 10.1353/lan.2005.0078
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0078 [Google Scholar]
  52. Nichols, Johanna
    1986 Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language62. 56–119. doi: 10.1353/lan.1986.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1986.0014 [Google Scholar]
  53. 1998 The Eurasian spread zone and the Indo-European dispersal. In Roger M. Blench & Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and language II: Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypotheses, 220–266. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203202913_chapter_10
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203202913_chapter_10 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2003 Diversity and stability in languages. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical linguistics, 283–310. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756393.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2009 Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Geoffrey Sampson , David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 110–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Nichols, Johanna & Tandy Warnow
    2008 Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass2(5). 760–820. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00082.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00082.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Nielsen, Rasmus
    2002 Mapping mutations on phylogenies. Systematic Biology51(5). 729–739. doi: 10.1080/10635150290102393
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150290102393 [Google Scholar]
  58. Paradis, Emmanuel
    2014 Simulation of phylogenetic data. In László Zsolt Garamszegi (ed.), Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutionary biology: Concepts and practice, 335–350. Heidelberg: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Renfrew, Colin
    2000 At the edge of knowability: Towards a prehistory of languages. Cambridge Archaeological Journal10(1). 7–34. doi: 10.1017/S0959774300000019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774300000019 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rosenthal, Jeffrey S.
    2011 Optimal proposal distributions and adaptive MCMC. In Steve Brooks , Andrew Gelman , Galin L. Jones & Xiao-Li Meng (eds.), Handbook of Markov chain Monte Carlo, 93–112. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. doi: 10.1201/b10905‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1201/b10905-5 [Google Scholar]
  61. Ross, Malcolm
    2013 Diagnosing contact processes from their outcomes: The importance of life stages. Journal of Language Contact6(1). 5–47. doi: 10.1163/19552629‑006001002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-006001002 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sapir, Edward
    1921Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Schaller, Helmut Wilhelm
    1975Die Balkansprachen: eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Swadesh, Morris
    1952 Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society96. 452–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 1955 Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics21. 121–137. doi: 10.1086/464321
    https://doi.org/10.1086/464321 [Google Scholar]
  66. Trudgill, Peter
    1974 Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language in Society3(2). 215–246. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500004358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004358 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2001 Contact and simplification: Historical baggage and directionality in linguistic change. Linguistic Typology5. 371–374.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Vennemann, Theo
    1994 Linguistic reconstruction in the context of European prehistory. Transactions of the Philological Society92. 215–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1994.tb00432.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1994.tb00432.x [Google Scholar]
  69. Viti, Carlotta
    2010 The information structure of OVS in Vedic. In Gisella Ferraresi & Rosemarie Lühr (eds.), Diachronic studies on information structure: Language acquisition and change, 37–62. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2014 Reconstructing syntactic variation in Proto-Indo-European. Indo-European Linguistics2. 73–111. doi: 10.1163/22125892‑00201004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22125892-00201004 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wichmann, Søren
    2015 Diachronic stability and typology. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 212–224. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Willis, David
    1998Syntactic change in Welsh: A study of the loss of the verb-second. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Winford, Donald
    2005 Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica22(2). 373–427. doi: 10.1075/dia.22.2.05win
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22.2.05win [Google Scholar]
  74. Yang, Ziheng
    2014Molecular evolution: A statistical approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602605.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602605.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  75. Yanovich, Igor
    2016 Genetic drift explains Sapir’s “drift” in semantic change. In Seán G. Roberts , Christine Cuskley , Luke McCrohon , Lluis Barceló-Coblijn , Olga Fehér & Tessa Verhoef (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th international conference (EVOLANGX11), Online atevolang.org/neworleans/papers/24.html.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error