1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 42, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 42, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

Morphological complexity metrics like entropy, and notions like the Paradigm Cell-Filling Problem, have recently (re)gained popularity for the synchronic analysis of inflectional systems. The potential of these quantitative approaches for diachronic research, however, remains largely untapped. This paper constitutes a first exploration of whether and, if so, how these methods can be used profitably in this domain. We first use Romance, for which we have rich historical knowledge, to establish the diagnostic value of complexity metrics for phylogenetic relatedness under a best-case scenario. We then apply these methods to Pamean (Otomanguean, Mexico) to show that the same metrics help diagnose the phylogenetic relatedness of tenses and inflection classes even when, as is the case in this family, most of the morphological material has been replaced or altered beyond recognition. Results suggest that complexity metrics can successfully diagnose phylogenetic relatedness over extended periods of time and fruitfully complement traditional qualitative approaches.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23004.her
2025-03-04
2026-02-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.23004.her
    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.23004.her.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23004.her&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ackerman, Farrell, James P. Blevins & Robert Malouf
    2009 Parts and wholes: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. InJames P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition: 54–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman, Farrell, & Robert Malouf
    2013 Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language89(3). 429–464. 10.1353/lan.2013.0054
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0054 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alpher, Barry, Nicholas Evans, and Mark Harvey
    2003 Proto Gunwinyguan verb suffixes. InNicholas Evans (ed.), The Non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. De Angulo, Jaime
    1933 The Chichimeco language (Central Mexico). International Journal of American Linguistics7(3/4). 152–194. 10.1086/463802
     https://doi.org/10.1086/463802 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bank, Sebastian
    2017 Segmentation: a remark on the Syncretism Principle. Morphology27(1). 1–20. 10.1007/s11525‑016‑9295‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-016-9295-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartholomew, Doris
    1965 The reconstruction of Otopamean (México). PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Beniamine, Sacha, Martin Maiden & Erich Round
    2020 Opening the Romance Verbal Inflection Dataset 2.0: A CLDF Lexicon. InNicoletta Calzolari, Frédéric Béchet, Philippe Blache, Khalid Choukri, Christopher Cieri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi … Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 3027–3035.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bickel, Balthasar, and Johanna Nichols
    2007 Inflectional morphology. InMatthew S. Dryer and Timothy Shopen (eds.), Language typology and syntactic description: 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blasi, Damián E., Søren Wichmann, Harald Hammarström, Peter F. Stadler, and Morten H. Christiansen
    2016 Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(39). 10818–10823. 10.1073/pnas.1605782113
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605782113 [Google Scholar]
  10. Blevins, James P.
    2013 The information-theoretic turn. Psihologija46(4). 355–375. 10.2298/PSI1304355B
     https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1304355B [Google Scholar]
  11. Bonami, Olivier, Gauthier Caron & Clément Plancq
    2014 Construction d’un lexique flexionnel phonétisé libre du français [Construction of a free phoneticized inflectional lexicon of French.] InFranck Neveu, Peter Blu-menthal, Linda Hriba, Annette Gerstenberg, Judith Meinschaefer and Sophie Prévost (eds.), Actes du quatrième congrès mondial de linguistique française: 2583–2596.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bonami, Olivier & Sacha Beniamine
    2016 Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Structure, 9(2). 156–182. 10.3366/word.2016.0092
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2016.0092 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boyé, Gilles, and Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr
    2006 The structure of allomorphy in Spanish verbal inflection. Cuadernos de Lingüística del Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset131. 9–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bürkner, Paul-Christian
    2017 brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of statistical software80(1). 1–28. 10.18637/jss.v080.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2018 Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal101. 395–411. 10.32614/RJ‑2018‑017
     https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017 [Google Scholar]
  16. Campbell, Eric W.
    2017 Otomanguean historical linguistics: Exploring the subgroups. Language and Linguistics Compass11. 7. 10.1111/lnc3.12244
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12244 [Google Scholar]
  17. Carpenter, Bob, Andrew Gelman, Matthew D. Hoffman, Daniel Lee, Ben Goodrich, Michael Betancourt … Allen Riddell
    2017 Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software76(1). 1–32. 10.18637/jss.v076.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
    1994 Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language701: 737–788. 10.2307/416326
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416326 [Google Scholar]
  19. Carstairs, Andrew
    2010 The evolution of morphology. Orford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cotterell, Ryan, Christo Kirov, Mans Hulden, and Jason Eisner
    2019 On the complexity and typology of inflectional morphological systems. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics71. 327–342. 10.1162/tacl_a_00271
     https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00271 [Google Scholar]
  21. Erben Johansson, Niklas, Andrey Anikin, Gerd Carling, and Arthur Holmer
    2020 The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features. Linguistic Typology24(2). 253–310. 10.1515/lingty‑2020‑2034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2034 [Google Scholar]
  22. Feist, Timothy & Enrique L. Palancar
    2015 Oto-Manguean Inflectional Class Database. University of Surrey. 10.15126/SMG.28/1
     https://doi.org/10.15126/SMG.28/1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Finkel, Raphael & Gregory Stump
    2007 Principal parts and morphological typology. Morphology17(1). 39–75. 10.1007/s11525‑007‑9115‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-007-9115-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2009 What your teacher told you is true: Latin verbs have four principal parts. Digital Humanities Quarterly3. 1.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ford, Lysbeth Julie
    1990 The phonology and morphology of Bachamal (Wogait). PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Greenhill, Simon J., Quentin D. Atkinson, Andrew Meade, and Russell D. Gray
    2010 The shape and tempo of language evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences277(1693). 2443–2450. 10.1098/rspb.2010.0051
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0051 [Google Scholar]
  27. Harvey, Mark
    2001 A grammar of Limilngan: A language of the Mary River region, Northern Territory, Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2011 A grammar of Gaagudju. Amsterdam: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Heath, Jeffrey
    1980a Basic materials in Warndarang: grammar, texts and dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 1980b Basic materials in Ritharngu: Grammar, texts and dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 1981 Basic materials in Mara: Grammar, texts, and dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hein, Johannes & Gereon Müller
    2009 Quantitative and qualitative aspects of paradigm economy in lesser studied languages. Paper presented atMorphology of the World’s Languages, Universität Leipzig.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Herce, Borja
    2020 Alignment of forms in Spanish verbal inflection: The gang poner, tener, venir, salir, valer as a window into the nature of paradigmatic analogy and predictability. Morphology30(2). 91–115. 10.1007/s11525‑020‑09352‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09352-8 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2021 Stem alternations in Kiranti and their implications for the morphology–phonology interface. Journal of Linguistics57(2). 321–363. 10.1017/S0022226720000341
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000341 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2024 VeLeSpa: An inflected verbal lexicon of Peninsular Spanish and a quantitative analysis of paradigmatic predictability. Language Resources and Evaluation (2024): 1–14. 10.1007/s10579‑024‑09776‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-024-09776-2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Herce, Borja & Bogdan Pricop
    2024 VeLeRo: An inflected verbal lexicon of Standard Romanian and a quantitative analysis of morphological predictability. Language Resources and Evaluation. 10.1007/s10579‑024‑09721‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-024-09721-3 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jamieson, Carole Ann
    1982 Conflated subsystems marking person and aspect in Chiquihuitlán Mazatec verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics48(2). 139–167. 10.1086/465725
     https://doi.org/10.1086/465725 [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnson, Tamar, Kexin Gao, Kenny Smith, Hugh Rabagliati, and Jennifer Culbertson
    2021 Investigating the effects of i-complexity and e-complexity on the learnability of morphological systems. Journal of Language Modeling9(1), 97-150. 10.15398/jlm.v9i1.259
     https://doi.org/10.15398/jlm.v9i1.259 [Google Scholar]
  39. Josserand, J. Kathryn, Marcus Winter & Nicholas A. Hopkins
    1984 Essays in Otomanguean culture history. Nashiville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kaufman, Terrence
    2006 Oto-Manguean languages. InKeith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, vol.91, 118–124. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/02286‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02286-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kaufman, Terrence & Justeson, John
    2009 Historical linguistics and pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica. 20 (2). 221–231. 10.1017/S0956536109990113
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536109990113 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kirov, Christo, Ryan Cotterell, John Sylak-Glassman, Géraldine Walther, Ekaterina Vylomova, Patrick Xia, Manaal Faruqui
    2018 UniMorph 2.0: universal morphology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11101.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kolmogorov, Andrei N.
    1965 Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems of Information Transmission1(1). 1–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
    1945 La nature des procès dits «analogiques». Acta Linguistica5(1). 15–37. 10.1080/03740463.1945.10410880
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1945.10410880 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kusters, Wouter
    2003 Linguistic complexity. Leiden: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Maiden, Martin
    2018 The Romance Verb: Morphomic Structure and Diachrony. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199660216.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199660216.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mańczak, Witold
    1957 Tendances générales des changements analogiques [General trends in analog changes.] Lingua71. 298–325. 10.1016/0024‑3841(57)90101‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(57)90101-8 [Google Scholar]
  48. Manrique Castañeda, Leonardo
    2000 Lingüística histórica [Historical linguistics], InManzanilla, Linda y Leonardo López Lujan (eds.), Historia antigua de México, Volumen I: El México antiguo, sus áreas culturales, los orígenes y le horizonte Preclásico, México, INAH-UNAM-PORRUA: 53–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Matthews, Peter H.
    1965 The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar. Journal of Linguistics1(2). 139–171. 10.1017/S0022226700001146
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700001146 [Google Scholar]
  50. Matras, Yaron
    2015 Why is the borrowing of inflectional morphology dispreferred. InFrancesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev, and Nino Amiridze (eds.), Borrowed morphology: 47–80. Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614513209.47
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513209.47 [Google Scholar]
  51. Meillet, Antoine
    1925 La méthode comparative en linguistique historique [The Comparative Method and historical linguistics]. Paris: Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 1958 Linguistique historique et linguistique générale [Historical linguistics and general linguistics]. Société Linguistique de Paris, Collection Linguistique, 81. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Merlan, Francesca MS.
    n.d.Jawoyn grammar, texts and dictionary. Manuscript held in Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Milin, Petar, Victor Kuperman, Aleksandar Kostic, and R. Harald Baayen
    2009 Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. InJuliette Blevins and James Blevins (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition: 214–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  55. Montermini, Fabio & Olivier Bonami
    2013 Stem spaces and predictability in verbal inflection. Lingue e linguaggio12(2). 171–190.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Nichols, Johanna
    1996 The Comparative Method as heuristic. InDurie, Mark, and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The Comparative Method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 39–71. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195066074.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195066074.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2014 Derivational paradigms in diachrony and comparison. InMartine Robbeets and Walter Bisang (eds.) Paradigm change in the Transeurasian languages and beyond, 61–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.161.08nic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.08nic [Google Scholar]
  58. Olson, Donald
    1955 Mode-aspect-person inflection in Pame. Unpublished manuscript, SIL.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Palancar, Enrique L., and Heriberto Avelino
    2019 Inflectional complexity and verb classes in Chichimec. Amerindia411. 323–360. 10.56551/OPRQ9670
     https://doi.org/10.56551/OPRQ9670 [Google Scholar]
  60. Pellegrini, Matteo & Marco Passarotti
    2018 LatInfLexi: an Inflected Lexicon of Latin Verbs. CLiC-it, 324–329. 10.4000/books.aaccademia.3582
     https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.3582 [Google Scholar]
  61. Pellegrini, Matteo, and Alessandra Teresa Cignarella
    2020 (Stem and Word) Predictability in Italian verb paradigms: An entropy-based study exploiting the new resource LeFFI. Proceedings of CLiC-it 2020: 1–6. 10.4000/books.aaccademia.8830
     https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.8830 [Google Scholar]
  62. Perea, Maria-Pilar, & Hiroto Ueda
    2010 Applying Quantitative Analysis Techniques to La flexió verbal en els dialectes catalans. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica18(1). 99–114. 10.1515/dig.2010.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/dig.2010.006 [Google Scholar]
  63. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2020 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from www.R-project.org/
  64. Reid, Nicholas John
    1990 Ngan’gityemerri: A language of the Daly River region. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Saulwick, Adam
    2003 Aspects of the verb in Rembarrnga: A polysynthetic language of northern Australia: Grammatical description, texts and dictionary. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Schultze-Berndt, Eva Friederike
    2000 Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung: A study of event categorisation in an Australian language. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Scrucca, Luca, Michael Fop, T. Brendan Murphy and Adrian E. Raftery
    2016 mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models. The R Journal, 8(1). 289–317. 10.32614/RJ‑2016‑021
     https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2016-021 [Google Scholar]
  68. Shannon, Claude E.
    1948 A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal27(3), 379–423. 10.1002/j.1538‑7305.1948.tb01338.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x [Google Scholar]
  69. Sims, Andrea D. & Jeff Parker
    2016 How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicative structure. Word Structure9(2). 215–239. 10.3366/word.2016.0094
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2016.0094 [Google Scholar]
  70. Singer, Ruth
    2006 Agreement in Mawng: Productive and lexicalised uses of agreement in an Australian language. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Snyder, Benjamin & Regina Barzilay
    2008 Unsupervised multilingual learning for morphological segmentation. InProceedings of ACL-08: hlt, 737–745.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Spencer, Andrew
    2012 Identifying stems. Word Structure5(1). 88–108. 10.3366/word.2012.0021
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2012.0021 [Google Scholar]
  73. Stump, Gregory & Raphael A. Finkel
    2013 Morphological typology: From word to paradigm. Vol.1381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139248860
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139248860 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2015 The complexity of inflectional systems. Linguistics Vanguard1(1). 101–117. 10.1515/lingvan‑2014‑1007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1007 [Google Scholar]
  75. Tadmor, Uri
    2009 Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. InMartin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 55–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110218442.55
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218442.55 [Google Scholar]
  76. Trudgill, Peter
    2011 Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Verkerk, Annemarie, and Francesca Di Garbo
    2022 Sociogeographic correlates of typological variation in northwestern Bantu gender systems. Language Dynamics and Change11. 1–69. 10.1163/22105832‑bja10017
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-bja10017 [Google Scholar]
  78. Widmer, Manuel, Mathias Jenny, Wolfgang Behr, and Balthasar Bickel
    2021 Morphological structure can escape reduction effects from mass admixture of second language speakers: evidence from Sino-Tibetan. Studies in Language45(4). 707–752. 10.1075/sl.19059.wid
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19059.wid [Google Scholar]
  79. Wilbur, Joshua
    2014 A grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_533870
     https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_533870 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23004.her
Loading
Paradigmatic complexity metrics as signals of phylogenetic relatedness
Diachronica 42, 1 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23004.her
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23004.her
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23004.her
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognacy; complexity metrics; diachrony; paradigm structure; relatedness

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