Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 32:3 (2015) ► pp.397–433

Reconstructing phylogeny from linkage diffusion

Evidence for cladistic hinge variation

| Ryerson University
Linkage models of language diversification (Ross 1988, François 2014) represent the slow differentiation of closely related sister languages via dialect continua. Such historical relationships are said to prevent the reconstruction of branchinternal phylogeny. A newly defined mode of linkage variation challenges this restriction. In cladistic hinge diversification, speakers of a geographically central variety mediate innovations between isolated extremes of a sub-branch, while all three daughter branches maintain evidence of their own exclusive innovations. The resulting pattern blends linkage relations with family relations. Following a contextual review, the paper presents supporting evidence for the distinction from the Phowa languages of southwest China (Ngwi < Burmic < Tibeto-Burman). Data analysis includes sociohistory, dialectometry and genetic linguistic components. The argument affirms both wave and tree models of language change, enabling an enriched understanding of focal, relic and transition areas and their influence on the leveling, development and diffusion of linguistic innovations.
Keywords: subgrouping, Ngwi, Tibeto-Burman, Phula, wave model, dialect continuum, diversification, tree model
Published online: 10 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.32.3.04pel
References (72)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.). 2001. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1994. Collaterality and genetic linguistics. In Michael Shapiro (ed.), The Peirce Seminar papers: Essays in semiotic analysis, vol. 21, 29–46. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James N. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1974. Naturalness in historical reconstruction and changes that are not natural. In Anthony Bruck, Robert A. Fox & Michael W. LaGaly (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, April 18, 1974, 13–29. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
. 1996. Conceptualizing dialects as implicational constellations rather than as entities bounded by isoglossic bundles. In Peter Mülhäusler (ed.), Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, 118–150. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Barbançon, François, Tandy Warnow, Steven N. Evans, Donald Ringe & Luay Nakhleh. 2013. An experimental study comparing linguistic phylogenetic reconstruction methods. Diachronica 30(2). 143–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 2009. Divergence, convergence, contact: Challenges for the genealogical classification of languages. In Kurt Braunmüller & Juliane House (eds.), Convergence and divergence in language contact situations (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 8), 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2013. Relatedness as a factor in language contact. Journal of Language Contact 6(2). 411–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire, Patience Epps, Russell Gray, Jane Hill, Keith Hunley, Patrick McConvell & Jason Zentz. 2011. Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages? PloS ONE 6(9), e25195. 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire & Quentin Atkinson. 2012. Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 88(4). 817–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David. 1979. Proto-Loloish (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph 39). London: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. Grammaticalization of extent in Mran-Ni. Linguistics of the Tibeto-­Burman Area 18(1). 1–28.Google Scholar
. 1997. What did they eat? Grain crops of the Burmic groups. Mon-Khmer Studies 271. 161–170.Google Scholar
. 2002. The subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In Christopher Beckwith & Henk Blezer (eds.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages (International Association for Tibetan Studies Proceedings 9 and Brill Tibetan Studies Library 2), 73–112. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2012. The characteristics of the Burmic family of Tibeto-Burman. Language and Linguistics 13(1). 171–192.Google Scholar
Bryant, David & Vincent Moulton. 2004. Neighbor-Net: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21(2). 255–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, James K. & Peter Trudgill. 1998. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuanren. 1930. A system of tone letters. Le Maître Phonétique 301. 24–27.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2008. Evolutionary linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 371. 219–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Australian languages: Their nature and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, Jerold A. 2002. Phu Kha, Xá Phó, Mantsi, Coong, Sila, Lahu, Hani, and Proto-Loloish data List. Online: [URL] (1 July 2005).Google Scholar
. 2003. Three Tibeto-Burman languages of Vietnam. In David Bradley, Boyd Michailovsky, Randy LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 305–320. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2011. Social ecology and language history in the northern Vanuatu linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(2). 175–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Trees, waves and linkages: Models of language diversification. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 161–189. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fried, Robert Wayne. 2000. A preliminary phonological sketch of Phu-kha, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in northern Vietnam. University of Texas, Arlington, MA thesis.
Gray, Russell D., David Bryant & Simon J. Greenhill. 2010. On the shape and fabric of human history. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, B: Biological Sciences 3651. 3923–3933. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957 [2005]. The problem of linguistic subgroupings. In William Croft (ed.), Genetic linguistics: Essays on theory and method, 47–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Thomas E. Currie & Russell D. Gray. 2009. Does horizontal transmission invalidate cultural phylogenies? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2761. 2299–2306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Quentin D. Atkinson, Andrew Meade & Russell D. Gray. 2010. The shape and tempo of language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2771. 2443–2450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamp, Eric P. 1998. Whose were the Tocharians? Linguistic subgrouping and diagnostic idiosyncrasy. In Victor H. Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia, 307–346. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert & John Nerbonne. 2001. Dialect areas and dialect continua. Language Variation and Change 13(3). 375–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heggarty, Paul, Warren Maguire & April McMahon. 2010. Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3651. 3829–3843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2011. Areas of grammaticalization and geographical typology. In Osamu Hieda, Christa König & Hiroshi Nakagawa (eds.), Geographical typology and linguistic areas: With special reference to Africa, 41–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
HHYC, Editorial Committee (eds.). 2002. 红河彝族辞典Hónghé Yízǔ cídiǎn [An encyclopedic dictionary on the Yi nationality of Honghe Prefecture]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Hieda, Osamu, Christa König & Hiroshi Nakagawa (eds.). 2011. Geographical typology and linguistic areas: With special reference to Africa (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Studies in Linguistics 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holden, Clare J. & Russell D. Gray. 2006. Rapid radiation, borrowing, and dialect continua in the Bantu languages. In Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 19–31. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archeological Research.Google Scholar
Huson, Daniel H. 1998. SplitsTree: A program for analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data. Bioinformatics 14(10). 68–73. [URL] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huson, Daniel H. & David Bryant. 2010. SplitsTree4, version 4.11.3. Downloaded from [URL] (1 February 2011).
Kalyan, Siva & Alexandre François. Forthcoming. Freeing the comparative method from the tree model: A framework for historical glottometry. In Ritsuko Kikusawa & Lawrence A. Reid (eds.), Let’s talk about trees: Tackling problems in representing phylogenetic relationships among languages (Senri Ethnological Studies). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, [URL]. (2 July 2015).
Kessler, Brett. 2001. The significance of wordlists (Dissertations in Linguistics). Stanford: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83(2). 344–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2012. Comments on methodology and evidence in Sino-Tibetan comparative linguistics. Language and Linguistics 13(1). 117–132.Google Scholar
. 2013. Subgrouping in Tibeto-Burman: Can an individual-identifying standard be developed? How do we factor in the history of migrations and language contact? In Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency: A festschrift to honor Johanna Nichols, 463–474. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Russell D. Gray. 2012. Tools from evolutionary biology shed new light on the diversification of languages. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16(3). 167–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1972. The Loloish tonal split revisited (Research Monograph 7). Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies.Google Scholar
. 1978. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman (Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics 6). Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.Google Scholar
. 1983. Linguistic diversity and language contact. In John McKinnon & Wanat Bhruksasri (eds.), Highlanders of Thailand, 56–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Sino-Tibetan linguistics: Present state and future prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology 201. 469–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1925 [1967]. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique [The comparative method in historical linguistics]. Translated by Gordon B. Ford, Jr. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2009. Data-driven dialectology. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). ­175–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1996. The comparative method as heuristic. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed, 39–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pelkey, Jamin. 2008. The Phula languages in synchronic and diachronic perspective. Melbourne: La Trobe University Ph.D. dissertation.
. 2011a. Dialectology as dialectic: Interpreting Phula variation (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 229). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. A Phula comparative lexicon: Phola, Phuza, Muji, Phowa, Azha (SIL Language and Culture Documentation and Description 18). Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
. 2013. Analogy, automation and diagrammatic causation: The evolution of Tibeto-Burman *lak. Studies in Language 37(1). 144–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Diagnostic dialectology: Interpreting Ngwi variation in China’s Red River valley. In Alena Barysevich, Alexandra d’Arcy & David Heap (eds.), Proceedings of Methods XIV: Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 2011 (Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics 57), 236–248. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech-community events. In Roger Blench & Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and language 1: Theoretical and methodological orientations, 209–261. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1988. Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of western Melanesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roth, Tim. 2011. The genetic classification of Wungu: Implications for Bantu historical linguistics. Langley, BC: Trinity Western University MA Thesis.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes. 1872. Die Verwandschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Shafer, Robert. 1974. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan, vol. 11. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1991. Reconstructing the past: Parsimony, evolution, and inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1989. Contact and isolation in linguistic change. In Leiv E. Breivik & Ernst H. Jahr (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 43), 227–237. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Dialect typology and social structure. In Ernst H. Jahr (ed.), Language contact: Theoretical and empirical studies, 195–212 (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 60). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Cathryn. 2012. Classifying Lalo languages: Subgrouping, phonetic distance and intelligibility. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 35(2). 113–137.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Yang, Cathryn
2022. The phonetic tone change *high > rising. Diachronica 39:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don, Danielle Barth & Wolfgang Barth
2019. Subgrouping the Sogeram languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 9:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Stanford, James N.
2018. Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, Grammatical variation in British English dialects: A study in corpus-based dialectometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xvii+211. 2013 hardback ISBN 9781107003453 and 2015 paperback ISBN 9781107515772.. English Language and Linguistics 22:01 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Salmons, Joseph
2017. The Anglo-Frisian Relationship as Contact and Linkage. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 77:1-2 ► pp. 377 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 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.