Cover not available
Part of
Proto-Indo-European Syntax and its Development
Edited by Leonid Kulikov and Nikolaos Lavidas
[Benjamins Current Topics 75] 2015
► pp. 125–156

Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages

| University of Trieste
| University of York
| University of Modena e Reggio Emilia
| University of Pisa
| University of Bologna
The Parametric Comparison Method (PCM, Guardiano & Longobardi 2005, Longobardi & Guardiano 2009) is grounded on the assumption that syntactic parameters are more appropriate than other traits for use as comparanda for historical reconstruction, because they are able to provide unambiguous correspondences and objective measurements, thus guaranteeing wide-range applicability and quantitative exactness. This article discusses a set of experiments explicitly designed to evaluate the impact of parametric syntax in representing historical relatedness, and performed on a selection of 26 contemporary Indo-European varieties. The results show that PCM is in fact able to correctly identify genealogical relations even from modern languages only, performing as accurately as lexical methods, and that its effectiveness is not limited by interference effects such as ‘horizontal’ transmission. PCM is thus validated as a powerful tool for the analysis of historical relationships not only on a long-range perspective (as suggested by Longobardi & Guardiano 2009), but even on more focused, though independently well-known domains.
Published online: 16 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.75.07lon
References (84)
Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Barbançon, François G., Steven N. Evans, Luay Nakhleh, Donald Ringe & Tandy Warnow. 2013. An Experimental Study Comparing Linguistic Phylogenetic Reconstruction Methods. Diachronica 30:2, 143–170. 10.1075/dia.30.2.01bar. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, ed. 2008. The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortolussi, Luca, Giuseppe Longobardi, Cristina Guardiano & Andrea Sgarro. 2011. How Many Possible Languages Are There? Biology, Computation and Liguistics ed. by Gemma Bel-Enguix, Verónica Dahl & Maria Dolores Jiménez-López, 168–179. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008a. What Will You Have, DP or NP? Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 37 ed. by Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow, 101–114. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
. 2008b. The NP/DP Analysis and Slovenian. Proceedings of the Novi Sad Generative Syntax Workshop ed. by Ljiljana Subotić, 53–73. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu.Google Scholar
. 2010. On NP and Clauses. Ms. University of Connecticut.
Bromham, Lindel & David Penny. 2003. The Modern Molecular Clock. Nature Reviews Genetics 4.216–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Colonna, Vincenza, Teresa Nutile & Ronald R. Ferrucci. 2009. Comparing Population Structure as Inferred from Genealogical Versus Genetic Information. European Journal of Human Genetics 17.1635–1641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Cort, Tracy. 2001. Computational Evolutionary Linguistics: Tree-based Models of Language Change. Pomona, CA: Harvey Mudd College PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley & Stephen C. Levinson. 2005. Structural Phylogenetics and the Reconstruction of Ancient Language History. Science 309:5743.2072–2075. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal & Paul Black. 1992. An Indoeuropean Classification: A Lexicostatistical Experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82:5.1–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Anthony W.F., & Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. 1963. The Reconstruction of Evolution. Annals of Human Genetics 27.105–106.Google Scholar
Embleton, Sheila M. 1986. Statistics in Historical Linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, Joseph. 1993. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.5c. Distributed by the author. Department of Genetics, University of Washington.
. 2004. Inferring Phylogenies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Ileana Paul & Martina Wiltschko, eds. 2009. Determiners: Universals and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gimbutas, Marija. 1973. The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans 3500/2500 B.C. Journal of Indo-European Studies 1.163–214.Google Scholar
Gray, Russel D. & Quentin D. Atkinson. 2003. Language Tree Divergences Support the Anatolian Theory of Indo-European Origin. Nature 426.435–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, Cristina & Giuseppe Longobardi. 2005. Parametric Comparison and Language Taxonomy. Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation ed. by Montserrat Batllori, Maria-Lluïsa Hernanz, Carme Picallo & Francesc Roca, 149–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, Cristina & Melita Stavrou. 2014. Greek and Romance in Southern Italy: History and Contact in Nominal Structures. L’Italia Dialettale LXXV, 121–147.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin & Nigel Vincent, eds. 1988. The Romance Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heggarty, Paul. 2006. Interdisciplinary Indiscipline? Can Phylogenetic Methods Meaningfully be Applied to Language Data — And to Dating Language? Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages ed. by James Clackson, Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew, 183–194. Cambridge: McDonalds Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond, ed. 2010. The Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. & Brian D. Joseph. 1996. Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holtus, Günter, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt, eds. 1988–2005. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Huson, Daniel H. & David Bryant. 2006. Application of Phylogenetic Networks in Evolutionary Studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23:2.254–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1999. Romanian and the Balkans: Some Comparative Perspectives. The Emergence of the Modern Language Sciences: Studies on the Transition from Historical-Comparative to Structural Linguistics in Honour of E.F.K. Koerner, Vol. 2 ed. by Sheila Embleton, John E. Joseph & Hans-Josef Niederehe, 218–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Denis Paperno, eds. 2012. Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language. (= Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 90.) Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazzeroni, Romano. 1968. Per una definizione dell’unita indo-iranica. Studi e Saggi Linguistici. Supplement to L’Italia Dialettale 8.131–159.Google Scholar
. 1998. Sanskrit. The Indo-European Languages ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paolo Ramat. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. How to Set Parameters. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindenbauer, Petrea, Michael Metzeltin & Margit Thir. 1995. Die romanischen Sprachen: Eine einführende Übersicht. Wilhelmsfeld: Egert.Google Scholar
Lohr, Marisa. 1998. Methods for the Genetic Classification of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and Proper Names. Linguistic Inquiry 25:4.609–665.Google Scholar
. 2001. How Comparative is Semantics? A Unified Parametric Theory of Bare Nouns and Proper Names. Natural Language Semantics 9.335–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Methods in Parametric Linguistics and Cognitive History. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3.101–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. A Minimalist Program for Parametric Linguistics? Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies for Henk van Riemsdijk ed. by Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster, 407–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. Reference to Individuals, Person, and the Variety of Mapping Parameters. Essays on Nominal Determination ed. by Alex Klinge & Henrik Høeg Müller, 189–211. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Convergence in Parametric Phylogenies: Homoplasy or Principled Explanation? Parameter Theory and Language Change ed. by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo & Juanito Avelar, 304–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe & Cristina Guardiano. 2009. Evidence for Syntax as a Signal of Historical Relatedness. Lingua 119:11.1679–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April. 2010. Computational Models and Language Contact. In Raymond Hickey, ed., 31–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April, Paul Heggarty, Robert McMahon & Natalia Slaska, 2005. Swadesh Sublists and the Benefits of Borrowing: An Andean Case Study. Quantitative Methods in Language Comparison (= Transactions of the Philological Society, 103:2) ed. by April McMahon, 147–169. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McMahon, April & Robert McMahon. 2003. Finding Families: Quantitative Methods in Language Classifying. Transaction of the Philological Society 101:1.7–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Language Classification by Numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1905. Avertissement. Abrégé de grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes d’après le Précis de grammaire comparée de K. Brugmann et B. Delbrück ed. by Antoine Meillet & Robert Gauthiot, i–v. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 1922. Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
. 1924. Le slave commun. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Nakhleh, Luay, Tandy Warnow, Don Ringe & Steven N. Evans. 2005. A Comparison of Phylogenetic Reconstruction Methods on an IE Dataset. Transactions of the Philological Society 3:2.171–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson-Sathi, Shijula, Johann Mattis List, Hans Geisler, Heiner Frangerau, Russel D. Gray, William Martin & Tal Dagan. 2010. Networks Uncover Hidden Lexical Borrowing in Indo-European Language Evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological sciences 1713.1794–1803.
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2010. Genetic Classification and Language Contact. In Raymond Hickey, ed., 48–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pellegrini, Giovan Battista. 1977. Carta dei dialetti d’Italia. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans, ed. 2003. Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pritchard, Jonathan K., Matthew Stephens & Peter Donnelly. 2000. Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data. Genetics 155.945–959.Google Scholar
Reesink, Ger, Ruth Singer & Michael Dunn. 2009. Explaining the Linguistic Diversity of Sahul Using Population Models. PLoS Biology 7:11. e1000241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, Colin. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo & Gianpaolo Salvi. 1994. Nuova Introduzione alla filologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor. 2002. Indo-European and Computational Cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100:1.59–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigon, Gabriele. 2009. A Quantitative Approach to the Study of Syntactic Evolution. Pisa: Università di Pisa PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2012. An Evolutionary Perspective on Diachronic Syntax. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 50:2.31–95.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1998. Review of Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 74) by Alice Harris & Lyle Campbell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Romance Philology 51.363–370.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Mystery of the Overlooked Discipline: Modern Syntactic Theory and Cognitive Science. Available at [URL].Google Scholar
Schleicher, August. 1861–1862. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indo-germanischen Sprachen: Kurzer Abriß einer Laut- und Formenlehre der indo-germanischen Ursprache. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes. 1872. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R. & Charles D. Michener. 1958. A Statistical Method for Evaluating Systematic Relationships. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 38.1409–1438.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1950. Salish Internal Relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 16.157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swofford, David L. 2003. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1957. The Problem of Balto-Slav Unity. Kratylos 2.97–123.Google Scholar
Tagliavini, Carlo. 1972. Le origini delle lingue neolatine. Introduzione alla filologia romanza. Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2000. Linguistic Areas and Language History. Languages in Contact ed. by Dicky Gilbers, John Nerbonne & Jos Schaeken, 311–327. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Rule Borrowing. Ms., University of Michigan.
. 2010. Contact Explanations in Linguistics. In Raymond Hickey, ed., 31–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tomić, Olga M. 2003. The Balkan Sprachbund Properties. Topics in Balkan Syntax and Semantics ed. by Olga M. Tomić, 1–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turakulov, Rust & Simon Easteal. 2003. Number of SNPs Loci Needed to Detect Population Structure. Human Heredity 55.37–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, David. 2008. Celtic and English Language Contact and Shift. 2nd Historical Sociolinguistics Network Summer School. University of Bristol, 7–13 August 2008.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Polyakov, Vladimir N., Elena A. Makarova & Valery D. Solovyev
2022. Phylogenetic trees: Grammar versus vocabulary. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Dinu, Anca, Liviu P. Dinu, Laura Franzoi & Andrea Sgarro
2018. Steinhaus Transforms of Fuzzy String Distances in Computational Linguistics. In Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. Theory and Foundations [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 853], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.