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
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. DOI: [URL] DOI: 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

Cited by 4 other publications

Daniels, Don, Danielle Barth & Wolfgang Barth
2019. Subgrouping the Sogeram languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 9:1 ► pp. 92 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
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
Yang, Cathryn
2022. The phonetic tone change *high > rising. Diachronica 39:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 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.