Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Calibrated weighted permutation test detects ancient language connections in the Circumpolar area (Chukotian-Nivkh and Yukaghir-Samoyedic)

 | The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public AdministrationMoscow | Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscow
 | National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscow | Santa Fe InstituteNew Mexico
 | National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscow | Russian State University for the HumanitiesMoscow
 | Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscow | National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscow | Federal State Institution “Scientific Research Institute for System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences”Moscow
Relationships between universally recognized language families represent a hotly debated topic in historical linguistics, and the same is true for correlation between signals of genetic and linguistic relatedness. We developed a weighted permutation test which represents the classical permutation tests with weights introduced for individual Swadesh concepts according to their typological stability. Further, the obtained values were calibrated on a negative control group to override non-uniform distribution of phonemes within the Swadesh wordlist. We applied the calibrated permutation test to the basic vocabularies of nine languages and reconstructed proto-languages to show that three groups of circumpolar language families in the Northern Hemisphere show evidence of relationship through common descent or borrowing in the basic vocabulary: [Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh]; [Yukaghir, Samoyedic]; and [Yeniseian, Na-Dene, Burushaski]. The former two pairs showed the most significant signals of language relationship. Our findings further support some hypotheses on long-distance language relationships previously put forward based on linguistic methods but lacking universal acceptance.
Keywords: Circumpolar languages, permutation test, Chukotian-Itelmen, Nivkh, Samoyedic-Yukaghir, Dene-Yeniseian, Burushaski
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Materials and methods
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • Online supplement
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 18 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.00014.kas
References (59)
References
Aikio, Ante. 2014. The Uralic-Yukaghir Lexical Correspondences: Genetic Inheritance, Language Contact or Chance Resemblance? Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 621:7–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alekseenko, Evgenia A. 1980. Ketskaja problema [The Ket Problem]. Ètnogenez narodov Severa [Ethnogenesis of the peoples of the North] ed. by Ilya S. Gurvich, 118–140. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Baxter, William H. & Alexis Manaster Ramer. 2000. Beyond Lumping and Splitting: Probabilistic Issues in Historical Linguistics. Time Depth in Historical Linguistics ed. by Renfrew Colin April McMahon & Larry Trask, 167–188. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Berge, Anna. 2018. Re-evaluating the Reconstruction of Proto-Eskimo-Aleut. Journal of Historical Linguistics 8:2.230–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergsland, Knut. 1994. Aleut Dictionary. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2011. Review of ‘The Dene-Yeniseian Connection’ by James Kari and Ben A. Potter (eds.). International Journal of American Linguistics 77:3.445–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chlenova, Natalia L. 1972. Xronologija pamjatnikov karasukskoj èpoxi [The Chronology of Monuments of the Karasuk Epoch]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1975. Sootnošenie kul’tur karasukskogo tipa i ketskix toponimov na territorii Sibiri [The Correlation between Karasuk-Type Cultures and Ket Toponyms in Siberia]. Ètnogenez i ètničeskaja istorija narodov Severa [Ethnogenesis and History of the Peoples of the North] ed. by Ilya S. Gurvich, 223–230. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dolgikh, Boris O. 1960. Rodovoj i plemennoj sostav narodov Sibiri v XVII veke [The Tribal Composition of the Peoples of Siberia in the 17th Century]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
1961. O poxoronnom obrjade ketov [On the Ket Funeral Ritual]. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 31:102–112.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region Containing an Introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of Language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Dulzon, Andrey P. 1959. Ketskie toponimy Zapadnoj Sibiri [Ket Toponyms of Western Siberia]. Uchenye zapiski Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta 181:91–111.Google Scholar
Flegontov, Pavel, N. Ezgi Altınışık, Piya Changmai, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Nicole Adamski, Deborah A. Bolnick, Nasreen Broomandkhoshbacht, Francesca Candilio, Brendan J. Culleton, Olga Flegontova, T. Max Friesen, Choongwon Jeong, Thomas K. Harper, Denise Keating, Douglas J. Kennett, Alexander M. Kim, Thiseas C. Lamnidis, Ann Marie Lawson, Iñigo Olalde, Jonas Oppenheimer, Ben A. Potter, Jennifer Raff, Robert A. Sattler, Pontus Skoglund, Kristin Stewardson, Edward J. Vajda, Sergey Vasilyev, Elizaveta Veselovskaya, M. Geoffrey Hayes, Dennis H. O’Rourke, Johannes Krause, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich & Stephan Schiffels. 2019. Palaeo-Eskimo Genetic Ancestry and the Peopling of Chukotka and North America. Nature 570:7760.236–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flegontov, Pavel, Piya Changmai, Anastassiya Zidkova, Maria D. Logacheva, N. Ezgi Altınışık, Olga Flegontova, Mikhail S. Gelfand, Evgeny S. Gerasimov, Ekaterina E. Khrameeva, Olga P. Konovalova, Tatiana Neretina, Yuri V. Nikolsky, George Starostin, Vita V. Stepanova, Igor V. Travinsky, Martin Tříska, Petr Tříska & Tatiana V. Tatarinova. 2016. Genomic Study of the Ket: A Paleo-Eskimo-Related Ethnic Group with Significant Ancient North Eurasian Ancestry. Scientific Reports 6:1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language Relations Across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
. 2011. The Relationship of Nivkh to Chukotko-Kamchatkan Revisited. Lingua 121:8.1359–1376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Loanword Typology: Steps Toward a Systematic Cross-Linguistic Study of Lexical Borrowability. Aspects of Language Contact: New Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Findings with Special Focus on Romancisation Processes ed. by Stolz Tomas Dik Bakker & Rosa Salas Paloma, 43–62. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holm, Sture. 1979. A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6:2.65–70.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Johann Mattis List. 2018. Using Ancestral State Reconstruction Methods for Onomasiological Reconstruction in Multilingual Word Lists. Language Dynamics and Change 8:1.22–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kari, James. 2010. The Concept of Geolinguistic Conservatism in Na-Dene Prehistory. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 5:1–2.194–222.Google Scholar
Kassian, Alexei S. 2014. Lexical Matches Between Sumerian and Hurro-Urartian: Possible Historical Scenarios. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 0041.Google Scholar
Kassian, Alexei S., George Starostin, Anna Dybo & Vasily Chernov. 2010. The Swadesh Wordlist: An Attempt at Semantic Specification. Journal of Language Relationship 41:46–89.Google Scholar
Kassian, Alexei S., George Starostin, Ilya M. Egorov, Ekaterina S. Logunova & Anna V. Dybo. 2021a. Permutation Test Applied to Lexical Reconstructions Partially Supports the Altaic Linguistic Macrofamily. Evolutionary Human Sciences 31:e32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kassian, Alexei S., George S. Starostin & Mikhail A. Zhivlov. 2015a. Proto-Indo-European-Uralic Comparison from the Probabilistic Point of View. Journal of Indo-European Studies 431:3–4.301–347.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Lexicostatistics, Probability, and Other Matters. Journal of Indo-European Studies 431:3–4.376–392.Google Scholar
Kassian, Alexei S., Mikhail A. Zhivlov, George S. Starostin, Artem A. Trofimov, Petr A. Kocharov, Anna Kuritsyna & Mikhail N. Saenko. 2021b. Rapid Radiation of the Inner Indo-European Languages: An Advanced Approach to Indo-European Lexicostatistics. Linguistics 59:4.949–979. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiselev, Sergey V. 1951. Drevnjaja istorija Juzhnoj Sibiri [The Ancient History of South Siberia]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael E. 1976. Na-Dene. Native Languages of the Americas ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 283–358. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legrand, Sophie. 2006. The Emergence of the Karasuk Culture. Antiquity 801.843–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makarov, Nikolay P. & Mikhail S. Batashev. 2004. Cultural Origins of the Taiga-Dwelling Peoples of the Middle Yenisei. Languages and Prehistory of Central Siberia ed. by Edward J. Vajda, 235–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mudrak, Oleg A. & Sergei L. Nikolaev. 1989. Gilyak and Chukchi-Kamchatkan as Almosan-Keresiouan Languages: Lexical Evidence (Preliminary Report). Explorations in Language Macrofamilies: Materials from the First International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 8–12 November, 1988 ed. by Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin, 67–87. Bochum: N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2010. Proving Dene-Yeniseian Genealogical Relatedness. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 51:1–2.299–309.Google Scholar
Nikolaev, Sergei L. 2015. Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan: Part 1: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan Relationship. Journal of Language Relationship 131:23–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina A. 2006. A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novgorodova, Eleonora A. 1970. Central’naja Azia i karasukskaja problema [Central Asia and the Karasuk Problem]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L. 1970. The Detection of Remote Linguistic Relationships. Computer Studies in the Humanities and Verbal Behavior 31:117–129.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2007. Contact in the Prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and Genetic Perspectives. Utrecht: LOT (Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap).Google Scholar
Pozdniakov, Konstantin I. 2014. O poroge rodstva i indekse stabilʹnosti v bazisnoj leksike pri massovom sravnenii: atlantičeskie jazyki [On the Threshold of Relationship and the “Stability Index” of Basic Lexicon in Mass Comparison: Atlantic Languages]. Journal of Language Relationship 111:187–210.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1994. On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. The Origin of the Na-Dene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:23.13994–13996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salminen, Tapani. 2002. Problems in the Taxonomy of the Uralic Languages in the Light of Modern Comparative Studies. Lingvističeskij bespredel: Sbornik statej k 70-letiju A. I. Kuznecovoj ed. by T. B. Agranat & O. A. Kazakevich, 44–55. Moscow: MGU.Google Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka. 1988. Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages. The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences ed. by Denis Sinor, 478–554. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starostin, Sergei A. 2005. Sino-Caucasian Etymology. The Tower of Babel: An Etymological Database Project ed. by Sergei A. Starostin. Online: [URL]
2007. Opredelenie ustojčivosti bazisnoj leksiki [Defining the Stability of Basic Lexicon]. Trudy po jazykoznaniju [Works on Linguistics], 827–839. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
Starostin, George S. 2010. Dene-Yeniseian and Dene-Caucasian: Pronouns and Other Thoughts. Alaska Native Language Center Working Papers 81:107–117.Google Scholar
2012. Dene-Yeniseian: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Language Relationship 81:117–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. From Wordlists to Proto-Wordlists: Reconstruction as ‘Optimal Selection’. Faits de langues 47:1.177–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starostin, Sergei A. & Merritt Ruhlen. 1994. Proto-Yeniseian Reconstructions, with Extra-Yeniseian Comparisons. On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy, 70–92. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svyatko, Svetlana V., James P. Mallory, Eileen M. Murphy, Andrey V. Polyakov, Paula J. Reimer & Rick J. Schulting. 2009. New Radiocarbon Dates and a Review of the Chronology of Prehistoric Populations from the Minusinsk Basin, Southern Siberia, Russia. Radiocarbon 51:1.243–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syrjänen, Kaj, Terhi Honkola, Kalle Korhonen, Jyri Lehtinen, Outi Vesakoski & Niklas Wahlberg. 2013. Shedding More Light on Language Classification Using Basic Vocabularies and Phylogenetic Methods: A Case Study of Uralic. Diachronica 30:3.323–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vadetskaya, Elga B. 1986. Arxeologičeskie pamjatniki v stepjax Srednego Eniseja [Archaeological Sites in the Middle Yenisei Steppes]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Vajda, Edward J. 2001. Yeniseian Peoples and Languages: A History of Yeniseian Studies with an Annotated Bibliography and a Source Guide. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
2010a. A Siberian Link with the Na-Dene Languages. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 51:1–2.33–99.Google Scholar
2010b. Yeniseian, Na-Dene, and Historical Linguistics. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 51:1–2.100–118.Google Scholar
2012. The Dene-Yeniseian Connection: A Reply to G. Starostin. Journal of Language Relationship 81:138–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walworth, Mary. 2017. Reo Rapa: A Polynesian Contact Language. Journal of Language Contact 10:1.98–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2022. Leksičeskie innovacii i klassifikacija uralʹskix jazykov [Lexical Innovations and Classification of the Uralic Languages]. Hämeenmaalta Jamalille. Kirja Tapani Salmiselle ed. by Kaheinen Kaisla, Larisa Leisiö, Riku Erkkilä & Toivo E. H. Qiu, 361–375. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston kirjasto.Google Scholar