1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 41, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Ancestral State Reconstruction (ASR) is an essential part of historical linguistics (HL). Conventional ASR in HL relies on three core principles: fewest changes on the tree, plausibility of changes and plausibility of the resulting combinations of features in proto-languages. This approach has some problems, in particular the definition of what is plausible and the disregard for branch lengths. This study compares the classic approach of ASR to computational tools (Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood), conceptually and practically. Computational models have the advantage of being more transparent, consistent and replicable, and the disadvantage of lacking nuanced knowledge and context. Using data from the structural database Grambank, I compare reconstructions of the grammar of ancestral Oceanic languages from the HL literature to those achieved by computational means. The results show that there is a high degree of agreement between manual and computational approaches, with a tendency for classical HL to ignore branch lengths. Explicitly taking branch lengths into account is more conceptually sound; as such the field of HL should engage in improving methods in this direction. A combination of computational methods and qualitative knowledge is possible in the future and would be of great benefit.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22022.ski
2024-03-07
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.22022.ski
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/dia.22022.ski.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22022.ski&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Anttila, Raimo
    1989 Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.6 [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkinson, Quentin D. and Russell D. Gray
    2005 Curious parallels and curious connections—Phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Systematic Biology54(4). 513–526. 10.1080/10635150590950317
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150590950317 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ball, Douglas
    2007 On ergativity and accusativity in Proto-Polynesian and Proto-Central Pacific. Oceanic Linguistics128–153. 10.1353/ol.2007.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2007.0014 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaulieu, Jeremy, Brian O’Meara, Jeffrey Oliver and James Boyko
    2022 corhmm: Hidden Markov models of character evolution. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=corHMM. R package version 2.8.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellwood, Peter
    2011 Holocene population history in the pacific region as a model for worldwide food producer dispersals. Current Anthropology52(S4). S363–S378. 10.1086/658181
     https://doi.org/10.1086/658181 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blomberg, S. P. and T. Garland
    2002 Tempo and mode in evolution: Phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. Journal of Evolutionary Biology15(6). 899–910. 10.1046/j.1420‑9101.2002.00472.x
     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00472.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Blomberg, Simon P., Theodore Garland and Anthony R. Ives
    2003 Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: Behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution57(4). 717. 10.1111/j.0014‑3820.2003.tb00285.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00285.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Blust, Robert A.
    1996 The neogrammarian hypothesis and pandemic irregularity. InMark Durie and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 135–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195066074.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195066074.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2004 *t to k: An Austronesian sound change revisited. Oceanic Linguistics43(2). 365–410. 10.1353/ol.2005.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2005.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009 The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2014 Some recent proposals concerning the classification of the Austronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics53(2). 300–391. 10.1353/ol.2014.0025
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2014.0025 [Google Scholar]
  12. Blust, Robert A. and Victoria Chen
    2017 The pitfalls of negative evidence: ‘Nuclear Austronesian’, ‘ergative Austronesian’, and their progeny. Language and Linguistics18(4). 577–621. 10.1075/lali.18.4.02blu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.18.4.02blu [Google Scholar]
  13. Borges, Rui, Joã Paulo Machado, Cidália Gomes, Ana Paula Rocha and Agostinho Antunes
    2018 Measuring phylogenetic signal between categorical traits and phylogenies. Bioinformatics35(11). 1862–1869. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty800
     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty800 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bouckaert, Remco and Joseph Heled
    2014 DensiTree 2: Seeing trees through the forest. 10.1101/012401
     https://doi.org/10.1101/012401 [Google Scholar]
  15. Campbell, Lyle
    1996 On sound change and challenges to regularity. InMark Durie and Malcom Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 72–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195066074.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195066074.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Carling, Gerd and Chundra Cathcart
    2021 Reconstructing the evolution of Indo-European grammar. Language971. 10.1353/lan.0.0253
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0253 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cathcart, Chundra Aroor
    2018 Modeling linguistic evolution: A look under the hood. Linguistics Vanguard4(1). 10.1515/lingvan‑2017‑0043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0043 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang, Will, Chundra Cathcart, David Hall and Andrew Garrett
    2015 Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language91(1). 194–244. 10.1353/lan.2015.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chung, Sandra
    1977 Review of Clark, R. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. The Journal of the Polynesian Society86(4). 537–540.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 1978 Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian languages. Austin: University of Texas. 10.7560/710511
     https://doi.org/10.7560/710511 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark, D. Ross
    1973 Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. San Diego: University of California dissertation.
  22. Crowley, Terry
    1985 Common noun phrase marking in Proto-Oceanic. Oceanic Linguistics24(1/2). 135–193. 10.2307/3623065
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3623065 [Google Scholar]
  23. Darwin, Charles
    1859 On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: Murray. 10.5962/bhl.title.82303
     https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.82303 [Google Scholar]
  24. Drummond, Alexei J. and Remco R. Bouckaert
    2015 Bayesian evolutionary analysis with BEAST. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139095112
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139095112 [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans, Bethwyn
    2001 A study of valency-changing devices in Proto Oceanic. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Evans, Cara, Simon J. Greenhill, Joseph Watts, Johann-Mattis List, Carlos A. Botero, Russell Gray and Kathryn R. Kirby
    2021 The uses and abuses of tree thinking in cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B3761(1828) 20200056. 10.1098/rstb.2020.0056
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0056 [Google Scholar]
  27. Felsenstein, Joseph
    2004 Inferring phylogenies, vol.21. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Fritz, Susanne A. and 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. 10.1111/j.1523‑1739.2010.01455.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01455.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Geraghty, Paul A.
    1996 Problems with Central Pacific. InJohn Lynch and Fa’afo Pat (eds.), Oceanic studies: Proceedings of the first international conference on Oceanic linguistics, 83–91. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Goddard, Ives
    1993 Contamination in morphological change in Algonquian languages. In Aertsen and Robert J. Jeffers (eds.), Historical linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th international conference on historical linguistics, New Brunswick, 14–18 August 1989 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 106], 129–140. New Brunswick, NJ: John Benjamins: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.106.11god
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.106.11god [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldstein, David
    2022 There’s no escaping phylogenetics. InLaura Grestenberger, Hannes A. Reiss, Charlesand Fellner and Gabriel Z. Pantillon (eds.), Ha! Linguistic studies in honor of Mark R. Hale, 71–91. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 10.29091/9783752000856https://davidgoldstein.netlify.app/publication/2022-no-escaping-phylogenetics/2022-no-escaping-phylogenetics.pdf
     https://doi.org/10.29091/9783752000856 [Google Scholar]
  32. Grace, George William
    1958 The position of the Polynesian languages within the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) language family. New York: Columbia Universitydissertation.
  33. Gray, Russell D., Alexei J. Drummond and Simon J. Greenhill
    2009 Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science323(5913). 479–483. 10.1126/science.1166858
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1166858 [Google Scholar]
  34. Greenhill, Simon
    2015 Evolution and language: Phylogenetic analyses. InJames D. Wright (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences2nd edn., 370–377. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.81035‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.81035-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Greenhill, Simon and Russell Gray
    2009 Austronesian language phylogenies: Myths and misconceptions about Bayesian computational methods. InAlexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, 375–397. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics10.15144/PL‑601. hdl.handle.net/1885/34582
     https://doi.org/10.15144/PL-601 [Google Scholar]
  36. Greenhill, Simon J., Robert Andrew Blust and Russell D. Gray
    2008 The Austronesian basic vocabulary database: From bioinformatics to lexomics. Evolutionary Bioinformatics41. 271–283. 10.4137/EBO.S893
     https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S893 [Google Scholar]
  37. Greenhill, Simon J. and Ross Clark
    2011 Pollex-online: The Polynesian lexicon project online. Oceanic Linguistics50(2). 551–559. 10.1353/ol.2011.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2011.0014 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hale, Kenneth
    1968 Review of Hohepa 1967. Journal of the Polynesian Society77(1). 83–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hammarström, Harald, Thom Castermans, Robert Forkel, Kevin Verbeek, Michel A. Westenberg and Bettina Speckmann
    2018 Simultaneous visualization of language endangerment and language description. Language Documentation & Conservation121. 359–392. hdl.handle.net/10125/24792
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath and Sebastian Bank
    2021 Glottolog/glottolog: Glottolog database 4.5. 10.5281/zenodo.5772642
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5772642 [Google Scholar]
  41. Harris, Alice C.
    2008 Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction731. 95. 10.1075/cilt.302.05har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.302.05har [Google Scholar]
  42. Heine, Bernd
    2003 Grammaticalization. InBrian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch18
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hohepa, Patrick W.
    1967 A profile generative grammar of Maori. (Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics 20). Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 1969 The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society78(3). 295–329.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Holland, Barbara R., Saan Ketelaar-Jones, Aidan R. O’Mara, Michael D. Woodhams and Gregory J. Jordan
    2020 Accuracy of ancestral state reconstruction for non-neutral traits. Scientific Reports10(1). 10.1038/s41598‑020‑64647‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64647-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Huelsenbeck, John P., Rasmus Nielsen and Jonathan P. Bollback
    2003 Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Systematic Biology52(2). 131–158. 10.1080/10635150390192780
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150390192780 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hübler, Nataliia
    2022 Phylogenetic signal and rate of evolutionary change in language structures. Royal Society Open Science9(3). 10.1098/rsos.211252
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211252 [Google Scholar]
  48. Ives, Anthony R. and Theodore Garland
    2009 Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Systematic Biology59(1). 9–26. 10.1093/sysbio/syp074
     https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syp074 [Google Scholar]
  49. Jäger, Gerhard and Johann-Mattis List
    2018 Using ancestral state reconstruction methods for onomasiological reconstruction in multilingual word lists. Language Dynamics and Change8(1). 22–54. 10.1163/22105832‑00801002
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00801002 [Google Scholar]
  50. Jäger, Gerhard and Søren Wichmann
    2016 Inferring the world tree of languages from word lists. InSeán G. Roberts, Christine Cuskley, Luke McCrohon, Lluis Barceló-Coblijn, Olga Feher and Tessa Verhoef (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th international conference. 10.17617/2.2248195
     https://doi.org/10.17617/2.2248195 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jombart, Thibaut, Stéphane Dray and Anders Ellern Bilgrau
    2017 Package ‘adephylo’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/adephylo/index.html
  52. Jonsson, Niklas
    1997 Det polynesiska verbmorfemet -Cia; om dess funktion i samoanska [The Polynesian verbal morpheme -Cia; its function in Samoan] Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University BA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Joy, Jeffrey B., Richard H. Liang, Rosemary M. McCloskey, T. Nguyen and Art F. Y. Poon
    2016 Ancestral reconstruction. PLoS Computational Biology12(7). e1004763. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004763
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004763 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kikusawa, Ritsuko
    2002 Proto Central Pacific ergativity: Its reconstruction and development in the Fijian, Rotuman and Polynesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2006 On the development of number systems in Oceanic pronouns. Talk given atProceedings of the 6th international conference on Oceanic linguistics (cool6), Port Vila, Vanuatu.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. de Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet
    1809 Philosophie zoologique, ou exposition des considérations relatives à l’histoire naturelle des animaux, tome21. Paris: F Savy. 10.1017/CBO9781139103817
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139103817 [Google Scholar]
  57. Liggett, Thomas
    2010 Continuous time Markov chains. InGraduate studies in mathematics, 57–90. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. 10.1090/gsm/113/02
     https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/113/02 [Google Scholar]
  58. List, Johann-Mattis, Robert Forkel, Simon J. Greenhill, Christoph Rzymski, Johannes Englisch and Russell D. Gray
    2022 Lexibank, a public repository of standardized wordlists with computed phonological and lexical features. Scientific Data9(1). 10.1038/s41597‑022‑01432‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01432-0 [Google Scholar]
  59. List, Johann-Mattis, Simon J. Greenhill and Russell D. Gray
    2017 The potential of automatic word comparison for historical linguistics. PLOS ONE12(1). e0170046. 10.1371/journal.pone.0170046
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170046 [Google Scholar]
  60. Louca, Stilianos and Michael Doebeli
    2017 Efficient comparative phylogenetics on large trees. Bioinformatics34(6). 1053–1055. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx701
     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx701 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lynch, John, Malcolm Ross and Terry Crowley
    2011 Proto Oceanic. InJohn Lynch, Malcolm Ross and Terry Crowley (eds.), The Oceanic languages [Curzon Language Family Series] 54–91. Richmond: Curzon.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Macklin-Cordes, Jayden L., Claire Bowern and Erich R. Round
    2021 Phylogenetic signal in phonotactics. Diachronica38(2). 210–258. 10.1075/dia.20004.mac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20004.mac [Google Scholar]
  63. Maclaurin, James and Kim Sterelny
    2008 What is biodiversity?Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226500829.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226500829.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  64. Marck, Jeffrey C.
    2000 Polynesian languages. InJ. Garry and C. Rubino (eds.), Facts about the world’s languages: An encyclopaedia of the world’s major languages, past and present, 560–567. New York: H.W. Wilson.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Orme, David, R. Freckleton, G. Thomas, Thomas Petzoldt, Susanne Fritz, Nick Isaac and Will Pearse
    2013 The caper package: Comparative analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version5(2). 1–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Pagel, Mark
    1999 Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature401(6756). 877–884. 10.1038/44766
     https://doi.org/10.1038/44766 [Google Scholar]
  67. Pagel, Mark, Andrew Meade and Daniel Barker
    2004 Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Systematic Biology53(5). 673–684. 10.1080/10635150490522232
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150490522232 [Google Scholar]
  68. Paradis, Emmanuel, Julien Claude and Korbinian Strimmer
    2004 Ape: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics20(2). 289–290. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412
     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412 [Google Scholar]
  69. Pawley, Andrew
    1970 Grammatical reconstruction and change in Polynesia and Fiji. InStephen A. Wurm and Donald C. Laycock (eds.), Studies in honour of Arthur Capell, 301–368. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/253824/1/PL-C13.301.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 1972 On the internal relationships of Eastern Oceanic languages. InRoger C. Green and Marion Kelly (eds.), Studies in Oceanic culture history, vol.3131, 1–142. Honolulu: Pacific Anthropological Records, Bishop Museum.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 1973 Some problems in Proto-Oceanic grammar. Oceanic Linguistics12(1/2). 103–188. 10.2307/3622854
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3622854 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2005 The meaning(s) of Proto Oceanic *panua. InClaudia Gross, Harriet D. Lyons and Dorothy A. Counts (eds.), A polymath anthropologist: Essays in honour of Ann Chowning (Research in Anthropology and Linguistics Monograph 6), 133–145. Auckland: Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Pereltsvaig, Asya and Martin W. Lewis
    2015 Why linguists don’t do dates? – or do they?InThe Indo-European controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107294332.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107294332.012 [Google Scholar]
  74. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2019 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
  75. Revell, Liam J.
    2023 phytools: Phylogenetic tools for comparative biology (and other things). https://github.com/liamrevell/phytools. R package version 1.9-16.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Revelle, William
    2022 psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych. R package version 2.2.9.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Ronquist, Fredrik
    2004 Bayesian inference of character evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution19(9). 475–481. 10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  78. Ross, Malcolm, Andrew Pawley and Meredith Osmond
    (eds.) 1998 Material culture (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 1). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. (eds.) 2007 The physical environment (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 2). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. (eds.) 2008 Plants (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 3). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. (eds.) 2011 Animals (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 4). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. (eds.) 2016 People: Body and mind (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 5). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Available at: hdl.handle.net/1885/106908
     [Google Scholar]
  83. (eds.) 2023 People: Society (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 6). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. hdl.handle.net/1885/106908. Available at: hdl.handle.net/1885/106908
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Ross, Malcolm D.
    2004 The morphosyntactic typology of Oceanic languages. Language and Linguistics5(2). 491–541. hdl.handle.net/1885/87569
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 2007 Two kinds of locative construction in Oceanic languages: A robust distinction. InJeff Siegel, John Lynch and Diana Eades (eds.), Language description, history and development: Linguistic indulgence in memory of Terry Crowley, 281–295. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cll.30.28ros
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.30.28ros [Google Scholar]
  86. Sasaki, Yutaka
    2007 The truth of the f-measure. Accessed2021-05-26. https://www.cs.odu.edu/mukka/cs795sum09dm/Lecturenotes/Day3/F-measure-YS-26Oct07.pdf
  87. Savage, Wesley K. and Sean P. Mullen
    2009 A single origin of Batesian mimicry among hybridizing populations of admiral butterflies (limenitis arthemis) rejects an evolutionary reversion to the ancestral phenotype. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences276(1667). 2557–2565. 10.1098/rspb.2009.0256
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0256 [Google Scholar]
  88. Schlegel, F.
    1808 Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Schliep, Klaus, Emmanuel Paradis, Leonardo de Oliveira Martins, Alastair Potts and Iris Bardel-Kahr
    2023 phangorn: Phylogenetic reconstruction and analysis. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phangorn. R package version 2.11.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Schulmeister, Susanne and Ward C. Wheeler
    2004 Comparative and phylogenetic analysis of developmental sequences. Evolution and Development6(1). 50–57. 10.1111/j.1525‑142X.2004.04005.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2004.04005.x [Google Scholar]
  91. Siewierska, Anna
    2013 Gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns. InMatthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. 10.5281/zenodo.7385533https://wals.info/chapter/44
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 [Google Scholar]
  92. Skirgård, Hedvig, Hannah J. Haynie, Damián E. Blasi, Harald Hammarström, Jeremy Collins, Jay J. Latarche, Jakob Lesage, inter alia and Russell D. Gray
    2023 Grambank reveals global patterns in the structural diversity of the world’s languages. Science Advances91. 10.1126/sciadv.adg6175
     https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adg6175 [Google Scholar]
  93. Skirgård, Hedvig
    2023 Hedvigs/oceanic_computational_asr: v1.0. Zenodo archive. 10.5281/zenodo.8370386
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8370386 [Google Scholar]
  94. Slingerland, Edward, Quentin D. Atkinson, Carol R. Ember, Oliver Sheehan, Michael Muthukrishna, Joseph Bulbulia and Russell D. Gray
    2020 Coding culture: Challenges and recommendations for comparative cultural databases. Evolutionary Hu-man Sciences 21. 10.1017/ehs.2020.30
     https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2020.30 [Google Scholar]
  95. Walkden, George
    2013 The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Dia-chronica30(1). 95–122. 10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal [Google Scholar]
  96. Watts, Joseph, Oliver Sheehan, Quentin D. Atkinson, Joseph Bulbulia and Russell D. Gray
    2016 Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies. Nature532(7598). 228–231. 10.1038/nature17159
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17159 [Google Scholar]
  97. Wickham, Hadley
    2020 reshape2: Flexibly reshape data: A reboot of the reshape package, version 1.4. 4. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/reshape2/index.html
  98. Wickham, Hadley, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy D’Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, inter alia and Hiroaki Yutani
    2019 Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software4(43). 1686. 10.21105/joss.01686
     https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22022.ski
Loading
Disentangling Ancestral State Reconstruction in historical linguistics
Diachronica 41, 46 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22022.ski
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22022.ski
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22022.ski
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): classical ancestral state reconstruction; computational ancestral state reconstruction; grammatical change; Oceanic languages

Most Cited

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