1887
image of Phylogenetic signal in phonotactics

Abstract

Abstract

Phylogenetic methods have broad potential in linguistics beyond tree inference. Here, we show how a phylogenetic approach opens the possibility of gaining historical insights from entirely new kinds of linguistic data – in this instance, statistical phonotactics. We extract phonotactic data from 112 Pama-Nyungan vocabularies and apply tests for quantifying the degree to which the data reflect phylogenetic history. We test three datasets: (1) binary variables recording the presence or absence of (two-segment sequences) in a lexicon (2) frequencies of transitions between segments, and (3) frequencies of transitions between natural sound classes. Australian languages have been characterized as having a high degree of phonotactic homogeneity. Nevertheless, we detect phylogenetic signal in all datasets. Phylogenetic signal is greater in finer-grained frequency data than in binary data, and greatest in natural-class-based data. These results demonstrate the viability of employing a new source of readily extractable data in historical and comparative linguistics.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20004.mac
2021-02-02
2021-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/dia.20004.mac/dia.20004.mac.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20004.mac&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Albright, Adam & Bruce Hayes
    2003 Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition90(2). 119–161. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00146‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X [Google Scholar]
  2. Alpher, Barry J.
    2004 Pama-Nyungan: Phonological reconstruction and status as a phylogenetic group. InClaire Bowern & Harold Koch (eds.), Australian languages: Classification and the comparative method (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 249), 93–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/cilt.249.09alp
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.249.09alp [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, Peter
    1981 Proto-Kanyara and Proto-Mantharta historical phonology. Lingua54(4). 295–333. doi:  10.1016/0024‑3841(81)90009‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(81)90009-7 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Brett
    2014 Word structure in Australian languages. InHarold Koch & Rachel Nordlinger (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Australia: A comprehensive guide, 139–214. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110279771.139
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110279771.139 [Google Scholar]
  5. Balisi, Mairin, Corinna Casey & Blaire Van Valkenburgh
    2018 Dietary specialization is linked to reduced species durations in North American fossil canids. Royal Society Open Science5(4). 171861. doi:  10.1098/rsos.171861
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171861 [Google Scholar]
  6. Birchall, Joshua
    2015 A comparison of verbal person marking across Tupian languages. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas10(2). 325–345. doi:  10.1590/1981‑81222015000200007
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blasi, Damián E., Steven Moran, Scott R. Moisik, Paul Widmer, Dan Dediu & Balthasar Bickel
    2019 Human sound systems are shaped by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science363(6432). doi:  10.1126/science.aav3218
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav3218 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blomberg, Simon P. & Theodore Garland Jr.
    2002 Tempo and mode in evolution: Phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. Journal of Evolutionary Biology15(6). 899–910. doi:  10.1046/j.1420‑9101.2002.00472.x
    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00472.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Blomberg, Simon P., Theodore Garland Jr. & Anthony R. Ives
    2003 Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: Behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution57(4). 717–745. 10.1111/j.0014‑3820.2003.tb00285.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00285.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Bouckaert, Remco R., Claire Bowern & Quentin D. Atkinson
    2018 The origin and expansion of Pama-Nyungan languages across Australia. Nature Ecology & Evolution2(4). 741–749. doi:  10.1038/s41559‑018‑0489‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0489-3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowern, Claire
    2015 Pama-Nyungan phylogenetics and beyond [plenary address]. InLorentz center workshop on phylogenetic methods in linguistics. Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands. doi:  10.5281/zenodo.3032846
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3032846 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2016 Chirila: Contemporary and historical resources for the Indigenous languages of Australia. Language Documentation and Conservation10. hdl.handle.net/10125/24685
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2017 Standard Average Australian?InAssociation for Linguistic Typology (ALT). Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1104222
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1104222 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2018a Computational phylogenetics. Annual Review of Linguistics4(1). 281–296. doi:  10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011516‑034142
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034142 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2018b Pama-Nyungan cognate judgements: 285 languages. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1318310
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1318310 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bowern, Claire & Quentin D. Atkinson
    2012 Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language88(4). 817–845. doi:  10.1353/lan.2012.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0081 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bowern, Claire, Patience Epps, Russell Gray, Jane Hill, Keith Hunley, Patrick McConvell & Jason Zentz
    2011 Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages?PLoS ONE6(9). e25195. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0025195
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025195 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bowern, Claire & Harold Koch
    (eds.) 2004Australian languages: Classification and the comparative method (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 249). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.249
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.249 [Google Scholar]
  19. Busby, Peter A.
    1982 The distribution of phonemes in Australian Aboriginal languages. Pacific Linguistics. Series A. (60). 73–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Calude, Andreea S. & Annemarie Verkerk
    2016 The typology and diachrony of higher numerals in Indo-European: A phylogenetic comparative study. Journal of Language Evolution1(2). 91–108. doi:  10.1093/jole/lzw003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Campbell, Lyle
    2004Historical linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Capell, Arthur
    1956A new approach to Australian linguistics. Sydney: University of Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chang, Will, 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]
  24. Chao, Yuen-Ren
    1934 The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica4(4). 363–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Coleman, John & Janet Pierrehumbert
    1997 Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. InComputational phonology: ACL special interest group in computational phonology, 49–56. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9707017 (8 March, 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Crawford, Clifford J.
    2009Adaptation and transmission in Japanese loanword phonology. Cornell University thesis. core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4912071.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cysouw, Michael & Jeff Good
    2007 Towards a comprehensive languoid catalog. InLanguage catalogue meeting. Leipsig, Germany. cysouw.de/home/presentations_files/cysouwCATALOGUE_slides.pdf (11 December, 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Delsuc, Frédéric, Henner Brinkmann & Hervé Philippe
    2005 Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nature Reviews Genetics6(5). 361–375. doi:  10.1038/nrg1603
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1603 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1980The languages of Australia (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dockum, Rikker
    2018 Phylogeny in phonology: How Tai sound systems encode their past. InAnnual meeting on phonology (AMP). New York: Linguistic Society of America. doi:  10.3765/amp.v5i0.4238
    https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v5i0.4238 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dockum, Rikker & Claire Bowern
    2019 Swadesh lists are not long enough: Drawing phonological generalizations from limited data. Language Documentation and Description16. 35–54. www.elpublishing.org/PID/168
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dresher, B. Elan
    2009The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511642005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Dresher, B. Elan & Aditi Lahiri
    2005 Main stress left in early Middle English. InMichael Fortescue, Jens E. Mogensen & Lene Schøsler (eds.), International conference on historical linguistics (ICHL), 76–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cilt.257
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.257 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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. doi:  10.1353/lan.2017.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0012 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley & Stephen C. Levinson
    2005 Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science309(5743). 2072–2075. doi:  10.1126/science.1114615
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114615 [Google Scholar]
  37. Durie, Mark & Malcolm Ross
    1996The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Eddington, David
    2004Spanish phonology and morphology: Experimental and quantitative perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.53 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ernestus, Mirjam T. C. & R. Harald Baayen
    2003 Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language79(1). 5–38. doi:  10.1353/lan.2003.0076
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0076 [Google Scholar]
  40. Felsenstein, Joseph
    1985 Phylogenies and the comparative method. The American Naturalist125(1). 1–15. doi:  10.1086/284325
    https://doi.org/10.1086/284325 [Google Scholar]
  41. Freckleton, Robert P., Paul H. Harvey & Mark Pagel
    2002 Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: A test and review of evidence. The American Naturalist160(6). 712–726. doi:  10.1086/343873
    https://doi.org/10.1086/343873 [Google Scholar]
  42. Freckleton, Robert P. & Walter Jetz
    2009 Space versus phylogeny: Disentangling phylogenetic and spatial signals in comparative data. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences276(1654). 21–30. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0905. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2008.0905
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0905 [Google Scholar]
  43. Fritz, Susanne A. & Andy Purvis
    2010 Selectivity in mammalian extinction risk and threat types: A new measure of phylogenetic signal strength in binary traits. Conservation Biology24(4). 1042–1051. doi:  10.1111/j.1523‑1739.2010.01455.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01455.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Garland, Theodore, Jr. & Ramón Díaz-Uriarte
    1999 Polytomies and phylogenetically independent contrasts: Examination of the bounded degrees of freedom approach. Systematic Biology48(3). 547–558. doi:  10.1080/106351599260139
    https://doi.org/10.1080/106351599260139 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gasser, Emily & Claire Bowern
    2014 Revisiting phonotactic generalizations in Australian languages. InAnnual meeting on phonology (AMP). University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Linguistic Society of America. doi:  10.3765/amp.v1i1.17
    https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v1i1.17 [Google Scholar]
  46. Good, Jeff & Michael Cysouw
    2013 Languoid, doculect, and glossonym: Formalizing the notion ‘language’. Language Documentation and Conservation7. 331–359. hdl.handle.net/10125/4606
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gordon, Matthew K.
    2016Phonological typology (Oxford Surveys in Phonology and Phonetics 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669004.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669004.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Grafen, Alan
    1989 The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences326(1233). 119–157. doi:  10.1098/rstb.1989.0106
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1989.0106 [Google Scholar]
  49. Greenhill, Simon J., Thomas E. Currie & Russell D. Gray
    2009 Does horizontal transmission invalidate cultural phylogenies?Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences276(1665). 2299–2306. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2008.1944
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1944 [Google Scholar]
  50. Greenhill, Simon J., Chieh-Hsi Wu, Xia Hua, Michael Dunn, Stephen C. Levinson & Russell D. Gray
    2017 Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(42). E8822–E8829. doi:  10.1073/pnas.1700388114
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700388114 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hamilton, Philip J.
    1996Phonetic constraints and markedness in the phonotactics of Australian Aboriginal languages. Toronto: University of Toronto thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hayes, Bruce & Zsuzsa C. Londe
    2006 Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology23(1). 59–104. doi:  10.1017/S0952675706000765
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675706000765 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hockett, Charles F.
    1963 The problem of universals in language. InJoseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 1–29. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hutchinson, Matthew C., Marília P. Gaiarsa & Daniel B. Stouffer
    2018 Contemporary ecological interactions improve models of past trait evolution. Systematic Biology67(5). 861–872. doi:  10.1093/sysbio/syy012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy012 [Google Scholar]
  55. Hyman, Larry M.
    1970 The role of borrowing in the justification of phonological grammars. Studies in African Linguistics1(1). 1–48. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/elanguage/sal/article/view/927.html
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2008 Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review25(1). 83–137. doi:  10.1515/TLIR.2008.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLIR.2008.003 [Google Scholar]
  57. Jäger, Gerhard
    2019 Computational historical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics45(3). 151–182. doi:  10.1515/tl‑2019‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0011 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kang, Yoonjung
    2011 Loanword phonology. InMarc Van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol.IV, 2258–2282. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0095
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0095 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kembel, Steven W., Peter D. Cowan, Mattew R. Helmus, William K. Cornwell, Helene Morlon, David D. Ackerly, Simon P. Blomberg & Campbell O. Webb
    2010 Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics26(11). 1463–1464. doi:  10.1093/bioinformatics/btq166
    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq166 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kiparsky, Paul
    2018 Formal and empirical issues in phonological typology. InLarry M. Hyman & Frans Plank (eds.), Phonological typology, 54–106. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110451931‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110451931-003 [Google Scholar]
  61. Koch, Harold
    2014 Historical relations among the Australian languages: Genetic classification and contact-based diffusion. InHarold Koch & Rachel Nordlinger (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Australia: A comprehensive guide, 23–90. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110279771.23
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110279771.23 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kolipakam, Vishnupriya, Fiona M. Jordan, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill, Remco R. Bouckaert, Russell D. Gray & Annemarie Verkerk
    2018 A Bayesian phylogenetic study of the Dravidian language family. Royal Society Open Science5(3). 171504. doi:  10.1098/rsos.171504
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171504 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lass, Roger
    1984 Vowel system universals and typology: Prologue to theory. Phonology Yearbook1. 75–111. doi:  10.1017/S0952675700000300
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000300 [Google Scholar]
  64. Leff, Jonathan W., Richard D. Bardgett, Anna Wilkinson, Benjamin G. Jackson, William J. Pritchard, Jonathan R. Long, Simon Oakley,
    2018 Predicting the structure of soil communities from plant community taxonomy, phylogeny, and traits. The ISME Journal12. 1794–1805. doi:  10.1038/s41396‑018‑0089‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0089-x [Google Scholar]
  65. List, Johann-Mattis, Simon J. Greenhill & Russell D. Gray
    2017 The potential of automatic word comparison for historical linguistics. PLoS ONE12(1). e0170046. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0170046
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170046 [Google Scholar]
  66. List, Johann-Mattis, Mary Walworth, Simon J. Greenhill, Tiago Tresoldi & Robert Forkel
    2018 Sequence comparison in computational historical linguistics. Journal of Language Evolution3(2). 130–144. doi:  10.1093/jole/lzy006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzy006 [Google Scholar]
  67. Losos, Jonathan B.
    2008 Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species. Ecology Letters11(10). 995–1003. doi:  10.1111/j.1461‑0248.2008.01229.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01229.x [Google Scholar]
  68. Macklin-Cordes, Jayden L. & Erich R. Round
    2015 High-definition phonotactics reflect linguistic pasts. InJohannes Wahle, Marisa Köllner, Harald Baayen, Gerhard Jäger & Tineke Baayen-Oudshoorn (eds.), Quantitative investigations in theoretical linguistics (QITL-6). Tübingen: University of Tübingen. doi: 10.15496/publikation‑8609
    https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-8609 [Google Scholar]
  69. Marin, Julie, S. Blair Hedges & Koichiro Tamura
    2018 Undersampling genomes has biased time and rate estimates throughout the tree of life. Molecular Biology and Evolution35(8). 2077–2084. doi:  10.1093/molbev/msy103
    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy103 [Google Scholar]
  70. Maurits, Luke & Thomas L. Griffiths
    2014 Tracing the roots of syntax with Bayesian phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(37). 13576–13581. doi:  10.1073/pnas.1319042111
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319042111 [Google Scholar]
  71. Meillet, Antoine
    1925La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Paris: Honoré Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Moran, Steven & Michael Cysouw
    2018The Unicode cookbook for linguists: Managing writing systems using orthography profiles. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Moran, Steven, Eitan Grossman & Annemarie Verkerk
    2020 Investigating diachronic trends in phonological inventories using BDPROTO. Language Resources and Evaluation. doi:  10.1007/s10579‑019‑09483‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-019-09483-3 [Google Scholar]
  74. Moran, Steven & Annemarie Verkerk
    2018 Differential rates of change in consonant and vowel systems. InC. Cuskley, M. Flaherty, H. Little, Luke McCrohon, A. Ravignani & T. Verhoef (eds.), The evolution of language (EVOLANGXII). NCU Press. doi:  10.12775/3991‑1.077. evolang.org/torun/proceedings/papertemplate.html?p=98
    https://doi.org/10.12775/3991-1.077 [Google Scholar]
  75. Münkemüller, Tamara, Sébastien Lavergne, Bruno Bzeznik, Stéphane Dray, Thibaut Jombart, Katja Schiffers & Wilfried Thuiller
    2012 How to measure and test phylogenetic signal. Methods in Ecology and Evolution3(4). 743–756. doi:  10.1111/j.2041‑210X.2012.00196.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00196.x [Google Scholar]
  76. Nash, David, Patrick McConvell, Arthur Capell, Ken Hale, Peter Sutton, Deborah Bird Rose & Jim Wafer
    1988Mudburra wordlist. Word list. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Australian Indigenous Languages Collection, ms.aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/catalogue_resources/0031_access.zip
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Nichols, Johanna
    1997 Sprung from two common sources: Sahul as a linguistic area. InPatrick McConvell & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Archaeology and linguistics: Aboriginal Australia in global perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Nunn, Charles L.
    2011The comparative approach in evolutionary anthropology and biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226090009.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226090009.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  79. O’Grady, Geoffrey N., Charles F. Voegelin & Florence M. Voegelin
    1966 Languages of the world: Indo-Pacific fascicle six. Anthropological Linguistics1–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Orme, David, Rob Freckleton, Gavin Thomas, Thomas Petzoldt, Susanne Fritz, Nick Isaac & Will Pearse
    2013caper: Comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caper
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Rama, Taraka, Johann-Mattis List, Johannes Wahle & Gerhard Jäger
    2018 Are automatic methods for cognate detection good enough for phylogenetic reconstruction in historical linguistics?InNorth American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL): Human language technologies, volume 2 (short papers), 393–400. New Orleans: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:  10.18653/v1/N18‑2063
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-2063 [Google Scholar]
  82. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2017R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Revell, Liam J., Luke J. Harmon, David C. Collar & Todd Oakley
    2008 Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. Systematic Biology57(4). 591–601. doi:  10.1080/10635150802302427
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802302427 [Google Scholar]
  84. Rexová, Kateřina, Yvonne Bastin & Daniel Frynta
    2006 Cladistic analysis of Bantu languages: A new tree based on combined lexical and grammatical data. Naturwissenschaften93(4). 189–194. doi:  10.1007/s00114‑006‑0088‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-006-0088-z [Google Scholar]
  85. Round, Erich R.
    2017a Matthew K. Gordon: Phonological typology [book review]. Folia Linguistica51(3). 745–755. doi:  10.1515/flin‑2017‑0027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0027 [Google Scholar]
  86. 2017b The AusPhon-Lexicon project: 2 million normalized segments across 300 Australian languages. InPoznań linguistic meeting. Poznań, Poland. wa.amu.edu.pl/plm_old/2017/files/abstracts/PLM2017_Abstract_Round.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 2019a Phonemic inventories of Australia [database of 392 languages]. InSteven Moran & Daniel McCloy (eds.), PHOIBLE 2.0. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 2019bAustralian phonemic inventories contributed to PHOIBLE 2.0: Essential explanatory notes. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3464333
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333 [Google Scholar]
  89. 2021a Segment inventories in Australian languages. InClaire Bowern (ed.), Oxford handbook of Australian languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 2021b Phonotactics in Australian languages. InClaire Bowern (ed.), Oxford handbook of Australian languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Sallan, Lauren Cole & Matt Friedman
    2012 Heads or tails: Staged diversification in vertebrate evolutionary radiations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences279(1735). 2025–2032. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2011.2454
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2454 [Google Scholar]
  92. Schmidt, Wilhelm
    1919Die Gliederung australischen Sprachen: Geographische, bibliographische, linguistische Grundzüge der Erforschung der australischen Sprachen. Vienna: Druck und Verlag der Mechitharisten-Buchdruckerei.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Silverman, Daniel
    1992 Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: Evidence from Cantonese. Phonology9(2). 289–328. 10.1017/S0952675700001627
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001627 [Google Scholar]
  94. Sookias, Roland B., Samuel Passmore & Quentin D. Atkinson
    2018 Deep cultural ancestry and human development indicators across nation states. Royal Society Open Science5(4). 171411. doi:  10.1098/rsos.171411
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171411 [Google Scholar]
  95. Steiner, Lydia, Michael Cysouw & Peter Stadler
    2011 A pipeline for computational historical linguistics. Language Dynamics and Change1(1). 89–127. doi:  10.1163/221058211X570358
    https://doi.org/10.1163/221058211X570358 [Google Scholar]
  96. Uyeda, Josef C., Rosana Zenil-Ferguson, Matthew W. Pennell & Nicholas Matzke
    2018 Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods. Systematic Biology67(6). 1091–1109. doi:  10.1093/sysbio/syy031
    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy031 [Google Scholar]
  97. Van der Hulst, Harry
    2017 Phonological typology. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology, 39–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316135716.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316135716.002 [Google Scholar]
  98. Verkerk, Annemarie
    2014 Diachronic change in Indo-European motion event encoding. Journal of Historical Linguistics4(1). 40–83. doi:  10.1075/jhl.4.1.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.4.1.02ver [Google Scholar]
  99. 2017 Phylogenetic comparative methods for typologists (focusing on families and regions: A plea for using phylogenetic comparative methods in linguistic typology). InQuantitative analysis in typology: The logic of choice among methods (workshop at the 12th conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology). Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Villemereuil, Pierre de & Shinichi Nakagawa
    2014 General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology. InLászló Z. Garamszegi (ed.), Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutionary biology: Concepts and practice, 287–303. Berlin: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑662‑43550‑2_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43550-2_11 [Google Scholar]
  101. Voegelin, Florence M., Stephen A. Wurm, Geoffrey O’Grady, Tokuichiro Matsuda & Charles F. Voegelin
    1963 Obtaining an index of phonological differentiation from the construction of non-existent minimax systems. International Journal of American Linguistics29(1). 4–28. 10.1086/464707
    https://doi.org/10.1086/464707 [Google Scholar]
  102. Walker, Robert S. & Lincoln A. Ribeiro
    2011 Bayesian phylogeography of the Arawak expansion in lowland South America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences278(1718). 2562–2567. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2010.2579
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2579 [Google Scholar]
  103. Webb, Campbell O., David D. Ackerly, Mark A. McPeek & Michael J. Donoghue
    2002 Phylogenies and community ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics33(1). 475–505. doi:  10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448 [Google Scholar]
  104. Weiss, Michael
    2014 The comparative method. InClaire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics (Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics), 127–145. London: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315794013.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315794013.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  105. Widmer, Manuel, Sandra Auderset, Johanna Nichols, Paul Widmer & Balthasar Bickel
    2017 NP recursion over time: Evidence from Indo-European. Language93(4). 799–826. doi:  10.1353/lan.2017.0058
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0058 [Google Scholar]
  106. Wortley, Alexandra H., Paula J. Rudall, David J. Harris, Robert W. Scotland & Peter Linder
    2005 How much data are needed to resolve a difficult phylogeny? Case study in lamiales. Systematic Biology54(5). 697–709. doi:  10.1080/10635150500221028
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150500221028 [Google Scholar]
  107. Wurm, Stephen A.
    1963 Aboriginal languages: The present state of knowledge. InHelen Shiels (ed.), Australian Aboriginal studies: A symposium of papers presented at the 1961 research conference, 127–148. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 1972Languages of Australia and Tasmania. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110808292
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808292 [Google Scholar]
  109. Zheng, Li, Anthony R. Ives, Theodore Garland Jr., Bret R. Larget, Yang Yu & Kunfang Cao
    2009 New multivariate tests for phylogenetic signal and trait correlations applied to ecophysiological phenotypes of nine manglietia species. Functional Ecology23(6). 1059–1069. doi:  10.1111/j.1365‑2435.2009.01596.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01596.x [Google Scholar]
  110. Zhou, Kevin & Claire Bowern
    2015 Quantifying uncertainty in the phylogenetics of Australian numeral systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B282(1815). 20151278. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2015.1278
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1278 [Google Scholar]
  111. Zuraw, Kie R.
    2000Patterned exceptions in phonology. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20004.mac
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20004.mac
Loading

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