Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 32:3 (2015) ► pp.331–364

Calculating false cognates

An extension of the Baxter & Manaster-Ramer solution and its application to the case of Pre-Greek

 | Queen’s College – University of Oxford
This paper presents an extension of Baxter & Manaster-Ramer’s (2000) approach to the problem of false cognates in the determination of relationships between languages. Their approach uses a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate how many lexical similarities we can expect to be due to chance between two lexical lists from different languages, and consequently how many are too many to be all false cognates. Although very efficient, their model has the shortcoming of being applicable only to simple lexical lists such as the Swadesh list, with one-to-one semantic correspondences between the individual terms. Here I present a new model that can be applied to any kind of word list, and can include comparisons between multiple terms sharing the same semantic field. After a theoretical description, a controlled test and a contra-test, I finally apply the method to a real test case, investigating the probability of relation between Pre-Greek, the nonIndo-European substrate of classical Greek, and Proto-Basque, Proto-Uralic and ‘Proto-Altaic’.
Keywords: Pre-Greek, Proto-Altaic, lexicostatistics, phylogenetic relationship, false cognates, Baxter and Manaster-Ramer approach
Published online: 10 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.32.3.02kil
References (33)
Baxter, William H. 1995. ‘A stronger affinity … than could have been produced by accident’: A probabilistic comparison of Old Chinese and Tibeto-Burman. In William S.-Y. Wang (ed.), The ancestry of the Chinese language (Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8), 1–39. Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis.Google Scholar
. 1998. Response to Oswalt and Ringe. In Joe Salmons & Brian D. Joseph (eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the evidence, 217–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, William H. & Alexis Manaster-Ramer. 1996. Review of On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison, by Donald A. Ringe, Jr. Diachronica 13(2). 371–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Beyond 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.Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert S.P. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Blažek, Václav. 2005. Current progress in Altaic etymology. Folia Orientalia 521. 237–254.Google Scholar
Cortelazzo, Manlio & Paolo Zolli. 1979. Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana, 1st edn. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Doroszewski, Witold. 1958–1969. Slownik jezyka polskiego, vols. 1–111. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.Google Scholar
Duhoux, Yves. 2007. Pre-Greek languages: Indirect evidence. In Anastasios-Phoivos Christidēs, Maria Arapopoulou & Maria Chritē (eds.), A history of ancient Greek: From the beginnings to late antiquity, 223–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dybo, Anna V. & Georgiy Starostin. 2008. In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy. Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 31. 109–258.Google Scholar
Facchetti, Giulio M. 2003. Creta minoica: sulle tracce delle più antiche scritture d’Europa. Florence: LSOlschki.Google Scholar
Forster, Peter & Colin Renfrew (eds.). 2006. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge/Oxbow Books/David Brown Book Co.Google Scholar
Furnée, Edzard J. 1972. Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen: Mit einem Appendix über den Vokalismus. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelb, Ignace Jay. 1973. Hurrians and Subarians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Georg, Stefan. 2004. Review of Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages . Diachronica 21(2). 445–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georg, Stefan, Peter A. Michalove, Alexis Manaster-Ramer & Paul J. Sidwell. 1999. Telling general linguists about Altaic. Journal of Linguistics 35(1). 65–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heggarty, Paul. 2005. Enigmas en el origen de las lenguas andinas: aplicando nuevas técnicas a las incógnitas por resolver. Revista Andina 401. 9–57.Google Scholar
Holman, Eric W., Søren Wichmann, Cecil H. Brown, Viveka Velupillai, André Müller & Dik Bakker. 2008. Explorations in automated language classification. Folia Linguistica 42(2). 331–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kessler, Brett & Annukka Lehtonen. 2006. Multilateral 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: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Kessler, Brett. 2001. The significance of word lists. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2007. Word similarity metrics and multilateral comparison. In John Nerbonne, T. Mark Ellison & Grzegorz Kondrak (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Morphology and Phonology , 6–14. Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kondrak, Grzegorz. 2009. Identification of cognates and recurrent sound correspondences in word lists. Traitement automatique des langues 50(2). 201–235.Google Scholar
Martirosyan, Hrach K. 2010. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rachewiltz, Igor de, Volker Rybatzki & Jinfu Hong. 2010. Introduction to Altaic philology: Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, Colin. 1998. Word of Minos: The Minoan contribution to Mycenaean Greek and the linguistic geography of the Bronze Age Aegean. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8(2). 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rocławski, Bronisław. 1986. Zarys fonologii, fonetyki, fonotaktyki i fonostatystyki współczesnego języka polskiego. Gdańsk: Wydaw Uczelniane UG.Google Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simone, Carlo De. 2007. Greek and Etruscan. In Anastasios-Phoivos Christidēs, Maria Arapopoulou & Maria Chritē (eds.), A history of ancient Greek: From the beginnings to late antiquity, 786–791. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergei, Anna Dybo & Oleg Mudrak. 2003. Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Turchin, Peter, Ilia Peiros & Murray Gell-Mann. 2010. Analyzing genetic connections between languages by matching consonant classes. Journal of Language Relationship [Вопросы языкового родства] 31. 117–126.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 2005. The end of the Altaic controversy. Central Asiatic Journal 491. 71–132.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kassian, Alexei S., George Starostin, Mikhail Zhivlov & Sergey A. Spirin
2023. Calibrated weighted permutation test detects ancient language connections in the Circumpolar area (Chukotian-Nivkh and Yukaghir-Samoyedic)*. Journal of Historical Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 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.