A full-scale test of the language farming dispersal hypothesis
Harald Hammarström | Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen and Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
One attempt at explaining why some language families are large (while others are small) is the hypothesis that the families that are now large became large because their ancestral speakers had a technological advantage, most often agriculture. Variants of this idea are referred to as the Language Farming Dispersal Hypothesis. Previously, detailed language family studies have uncovered various supporting examples and counterexamples to this idea. In the present paper I weigh the evidence from ALL attested language families. For each family, I use the number of member languages as a measure of cardinal size, member language coordinates to measure geospatial size and ethnographic evidence to assess subsistence status. This data shows that, although agricultural families tend to be larger in cardinal size, their size is hardly due to the simple presence of farming. If farming were responsible for language family expansions, we would expect a greater east-west geospatial spread of large families than is actually observed. The data, however, is compatible with weaker versions of the farming dispersal hypothesis as well with models where large families acquire farming because of their size, rather than the other way around.
2013. Some Structural Aspects of Language Are More Stable than Others: A Comparison of Seven Methods. PLoS ONE 8:1 ► pp. e55009 ff.
Derungs, Curdin, Martina Köhl, Robert Weibel & Balthasar Bickel
2018. Environmental factors drive language density more in food-producing than in hunter–gatherer populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285:1885 ► pp. 20172851 ff.
Hamilton, Marcus J., Robert S. Walker & Yang Xu
2019. Nonlinear diversification rates of linguistic phylogenies over the Holocene. PLOS ONE 14:7 ► pp. e0213126 ff.
Holman, Eric W., Cecil H. Brown, Søren Wichmann, André Müller, Viveka Velupillai, Harald Hammarström, Sebastian Sauppe, Hagen Jung, Dik Bakker, Pamela Brown, Oleg Belyaev, Matthias Urban, Robert Mailhammer, Johann-Mattis List & Dmitry Egorov
2011. Automated Dating of the World’s Language Families Based on Lexical Similarity. Current Anthropology 52:6 ► pp. 841 ff.
Kim, Jangsuk & Jinho Park
2020. Millet vs rice: an evaluation of the farming/language dispersal hypothesis in the Korean context. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2
Loretta O'Connor & Pieter Muysken
1920. The Native Languages of South America,
Rama, Taraka & Lars Borin
2014. N-Gram Approaches to the Historical Dynamics of Basic Vocabulary*. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 50 ff.
Rama, Taraka & Tobias Preis
2013. Phonotactic Diversity Predicts the Time Depth of the World’s Language Families. PLoS ONE 8:5 ► pp. e63238 ff.
2017. Languages of the New Guinea Region. In The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, ► pp. 758 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 january 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.