Historical linguists have been debating for decades about
whether the classical comparative method provides sufficient evidence to
consider Altaic languages as part of a single genetic unity, like Indo-European
and Uralic, or whether the implicit statistical robustness behind regular sound
correspondences is lacking in the case of Altaic. In this paper, I run a
significance test on Swadesh-lists representing Turkish, Mongolian and Manchu to
see if there are regular patterns of phonetic similarities or correspondences
among word-initial phonemes in the basic vocabulary that cannot be expected to
have arisen by chance. The methodology draws on Oswalt (1970), Ringe (1992), Baxter &
Manaster Ramer (2000) and Kessler (2001, 2007).
The results only partially point towards an Altaic family: Mongolian and Manchu
show significant sound correspondences, while Turkish and Mongolian show some
marginally significant phonological similarity, that might however be the consequence of areal
contact. Crucially, Turkish and Manchu do not test positively under any
condition. [1] 1
1998Response to Oswalt and Ringe. In Joseph Salmons & Brian Joseph (eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the evidence, 217–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baxter, William H. & Alexis Manaster Ramer
2000Beyond lumping and splitting: Probabilistic issues in historical
linguistics. In Colin Renfrew, April McMahon & Larry Trask (eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics 167–188. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Bomhard, Allan R.
1996Indo-European and the Nostratic hypothesis. Charleston: Signum Desktop Publishing.
Bomhard, Allan R.
2008Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative phonology, morphology and
vocabulary. Leiden: Brill.
Bomhard, Allan R.
2011The Nostratic hypothesis in 2011: Trends and issues. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
Comrie, Bernard
1981The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press.
1973Lautgesetz und Zufall: Betrachtungen zum Omnicomparatismus. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Dolgopolsky, Aaron B.
1986A probabilistic hypothesis concerning the oldest relationships
among the language families in Northern Eurasia. In Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin & Thomas L. Markey (eds.), Typology, relationship and time, 27–50. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Dybo, Anna & George Starostin
2008In defence of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin
controversy. Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies 191.
Georg, Stefan
1999Haupt und Glieder der Altaischen Hypothese: die
Körperteilbezeichnungen im Türkischen, Mongolischen und
Tungusischen. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 161. 143–182.
Georg, Stefan
2008Review article of Martine Robbeets, 2005, Is Japanese related to
Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic?Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 321. 247–278.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1957Essays in linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hangin, John G., John R. Krueger & Robert G. Service
1986A modern Mongolian-English dictionary. Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies.
Hock, Hans Henrich & Brian D. Joseph
1996Language change, and language relationship. An introduction to
historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kassian, Alexei, Mikhail Zhivlov & George Starostin
2015Proto-Indo-European-Uralic comparison from the probabilistic
point of view. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 43(3–4). 301–347.
Kessler, Brett
2001The significance of word lists. Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Kessler, Brett
2007Word similarity metrics and multilateral
comparison. In Proceedings of Ninth Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in
Computational Morphology and Phonology, 6–14. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Kessler, Brett
2015Response to Kassian et al., 2015, Proto-Indo-European-Uralic
comparison from the probabilistic point of view. Journal of Indo-European Studies 43(3–4). 357–367.
Kessler, Brett & Annukka Lehtonen
2006Multilateral comparison and significance testing of the
Indo-Uralic question. In Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 33–42. Cambridge, England: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Li, Gertraude Roth
2000Manchu: A textbook for reading documents. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Ligeti, Lajos
1960Les anciens éléments mongols dans le mandchou. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 10(3). 231–248.
Longobardi, Giuseppe, Andrea Ceolin, Luca Bortolussi, Cristina Guardiano, Monica Alexandrina Irimia, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Nina Radkevich & Andrea Sgarro
2016Mathematical modeling of grammatical diversity supports the
historical reality of formal syntax. In Proceedings of the Leiden Workshop on Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms
for Linguistics, Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen.
Manaster Ramer, Alexis & Paul Sidwell
1997The truth about Strahlenberg’s classification of the languages of
Northeastern Eurasia. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 871. 139–160.
Menges, Karl Heinrich
1975Altajische Studien: II. Japanisch und Altajisch, vol. 41, 3. Steiner Franz Verlag.
Miller, Roy Andrew
1971Japanese and the other Altaic languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, Roy Andrew
1996Languages and History: Japanese, Korean, and Altaic. Bangkok: White Orchid Press.
Nichols, Johanna
1996The Comparative Method as Heuristic. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language
change, 39–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norman, Jerry
1978A concise Manchu-English lexicon. University of Washington.
Oswalt, Robert L.
1970The detection of remote linguistic relationships. Computer Studies in the Humanities and Verbal Behavior 3(3). 117–129.
1960Vergleichende Grammatik Der Altaischen Sprachen; Teil 1: Vergleichende
Lautlehre. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Poppe, Nicholas
1965Introduction to Altaic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Ramstedt, Gustav John
1957Introduction to Altaic linguistics. Moscow: Publishing House of Foreign. lit.
Redhouse, James
1968New Redhouse Turkish-English Dictionary. Publications Department of the American Board.
Ringe, Donald A.
1992On calculating the factor of chance in language
comparison. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(1). 1–110.
Ringe, Donald A.
1998Probabilistic evidence for Indo-Uralic. In Joseph Salmons & Brian Joseph (eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the evidence, 153–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ringe, Donald A.
2015Response to Kassian et al., 2015, Proto-Indo-European-Uralic
comparison from the probabilistic point of view. Journal of Indo-European Studies 43(3–4). 348–356.
Robbeets, Martine
2005Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic?, vol. 641. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Robbeets, Martine
2015Diachrony of verb morphology: Japanese and the Transeurasian
languages, vol. 2911. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ross, Alan S. C.
1950Philological probability problems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B
(Methodological) 19–59.
Rozycki, William
1994Mongol elements in Manchu, vol. 1571. Indiana University Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies.
1988The Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign
influences. Leiden: Brill.
Starostin, Sergei
1991On the hypothesis of a genetic connection between the
Sino-Tibetan languages and the Yeniseian and North Caucasian
languages. In Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin (ed.), Dene-Sino-Caucasian languages, 12–41. Ann Arbor: Brockmeyer.
Starostin, Sergei, Anna Dybo, Oleg Mudrak & Ilya Gruntov
2003Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages. Leiden: Brill.
Swadesh, Morris
1955Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic
dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 21(2). 121–137.
Swadesh, Morris
1971The origin and diversification of language. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Unger, Marshall J.
1990Summary report of the Altaic panel. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 451. 479–482.
Villemin, François
1983Un essai de détection des origines du japonais à partir de deux
méthodes statistiques. In Barron Brainerd (ed). Historical linguistics, 116–135. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Vovin, Alexander
2005The end of the Altaic controversy. In memory of Gerhard
Doerfer. Central Asiatic Journal 49(1). 71–132.
Cited by
Cited by 6 other publications
Ceolin, Andrea, Cristina Guardiano, Monica Alexandrina Irimia & Giuseppe Longobardi
2020. Formal Syntax and Deep History. Frontiers in Psychology 11
Ceolin, Andrea, Cristina Guardiano, Giuseppe Longobardi, Monica Alexandrina Irimia, Luca Bortolussi & Andrea Sgarro
2021. At the boundaries of syntactic prehistory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376:1824
Guardiano, Cristina, Giuseppe Longobardi, Guido Cordoni & Paola Crisma
2020. Formal Syntax as a Phylogenetic Method. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ► pp. 145 ff.
Kassian, Alexei S., George Starostin, Ilya M. Egorov, Ekaterina S. Logunova & Anna V. Dybo
2021. Permutation test applied to lexical reconstructions partially supports the Altaic linguistic macrofamily. Evolutionary Human Sciences 3
List, Johann-Mattis
2023. Open Problems in Computational Historical Linguistics. Open Research Europe 3 ► pp. 201 ff.
Santos, Patrícia, Gloria Gonzàlez-Fortes, Emiliano Trucchi, Andrea Ceolin, Guido Cordoni, Cristina Guardiano, Giuseppe Longobardi & Guido Barbujani
2020. More Rule than Exception: Parallel Evidence of Ancient Migrations in Grammars and Genomes of Finno-Ugric Speakers. Genes 11:12 ► pp. 1491 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2023. 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.