Cover not available
Part of
Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches
Edited by Peter Bakker, Finn Borchsenius, Carsten Levisen and Eeva M. Sippola
[Not in series 211] 2017
► pp. 35–58

Chapter 3
Phylogenetics in biology and linguistics

| Aarhus University
| Aarhus University
| Aarhus University
The main goal of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the parallels and commonalities that exist between the fields of biology and linguistics. Researchers from both fields faced similar problems when seeking to account for the descent and diversification of related entities (species, languages). Therefore, they often sought mutual inspiration and opted for similar solutions. This has resulted in a convergence of models and methods in both fields. This chapter is divided into two parts. Firstly, we review some of the methodological and conceptual developments that have occurred in biology since the emergence of the field of evolutionary biology. There will be an emphasis on the last decade, where a variety of computer-based analyses have been developed. To illustrate the benefits of these tools, phylogenetic methods are applied in the second part of the chapter to a group of high-contact languages (creoles), which have long defied attempts at classification due to their multiple ancestry.
Article outline
  • 3.1Origin of phylogenetics in biology and linguistics
  • 3.2Phylogenetic studies in linguistics
  • 3.3Dated language phylogenies
  • 3.4Is linguistic evolution tree-like?
  • 3.5Other lateral influences between biology and linguistics
  • 3.6Creoles, stable features and their substrates and lexifiers
  • 3.7Creoles and genetic affiliation: Stammbaum, convergence, contact
  • 3.8A cognitive account of creole genesis
  • 3.9Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 31 May 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.211.03bor
References (119)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Altschuler, E. L., Calude, A. S., Meade, A. & Pagel, M. 2013. Linguistic evidence supports date for Homeric epics. BioEssays 35(5): 417–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amano T., Sandel B., Eager H., Bulteau E., Svenning J.-C., Dalsgaard B., Rahbek C., Davies R. G. & Sutherland W. J. 2014. Global distribution and drivers of language extinction risk. Proc. R. Soc. B 281: 20141574.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Q. D. 2011. Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa. Science 332: 346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Q. D. & Gray, R. D. 2005. Curious parallels and curious connections – Phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Systematic Biology 54(4): 513–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avise, J. C. 2000. Phylogeography: The History and Formation of Species. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. 2014. Creoles and typology: Problems of sampling and definition. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(2): 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A., Parkvall, M. & Plag, I. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. In P. Bhatt & T. Veenstra (eds), Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1): 5–42. Republished in P. Bhatt & T. Veenstra (eds). 2013. Creole Languages and Linguistic Typology [Benjamins Current Topics 57], 9–45. Amserdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barbançon, F., Evans S. N., Nakhleh, L., Ringe, D. & Warnow, T. 2013. An experimental study comparing linguistic phylogenetic reconstruction methods. Diachronica 30(2): 143–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergsland, K. & Vogt, H. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3(2): 115–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, R., Lemey, P., Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Alekseyenko, A. V., Drummond, A. J., Gray, R. D., Suchard, M. A. & Atkinson., Q. D. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337(6097): 957–960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C., Epps, P., Gray, R. D., Hill, J., Hunley, K., McConvell, P. & Zentz, J. 2011. Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages? PLoS ONE 6(9): e25195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C. & Atkinson, Q. 2012. Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 88(4): 817–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryant, D. & Moulton, V. 2004. NeighborNet: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21: 255–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. 1998. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cardoso, H. 2008. The meaning of “European”. The challenge of high-contact varieties for linguistic taxonomy. Sophia Journal of European Studies 1: 31–54.Google Scholar
Clements, J. C. 2002. On classifying language-contact varieties. In Selected Proceedings of the First Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, L. Sayahi (ed.), 1–10. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Collin, H. S. & Schlyter, C. J. 1827. Corpus iuris Sueo-Gotorum antiqui. Samling af Sweriges gamla lagar, Vol. 1: Westgötalagen. Stockholm: Häggström.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Daval-Markussen, A. 2011. Of Networks and Trees in Contact Linguistics: New Light on the Typology of Creoles. MA thesis, Aarhus Universitet.Google Scholar
2013. First steps towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 45(2): 274–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dediu, D. 2011. A Bayesian phylogenetic approach to estimating the stability of linguistic features and the genetic biasing of tone. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 278(1704): 474–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dediu, D. & Cysouw, M. 2013. Some structural aspects of language are more stable than others: A comparison of seven methods. PLoS ONE 8(1): e55009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimmendaal, G. J. 1995. Do some languages have a multi-genetic or non-genetic origin? An exercise in taxonomy. In Actes du Cinquième Colloque de Linguistique Nilo-Saharienne / Proceedings of the Fifth Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Nice, 24–29 August 1992 Nilo-Saharan Language Studies [Nilo-Saharan: Linguistic Analyses and Documentation 10], R. Nicolaï & F. Rottland (eds), 357–372. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, M., Denham, T. & Oppenheimer, S. 2012. New methodologies for historical linguistics? Calibrating a lexicon-based methodology for diffusion vs. subgrouping. Diachronica 29(4): 505–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drummond, A. J., Ho, S. Y. W., Phillips, M. J. & Rambaut, A. 2006. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biology 4(5): e88 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drummond, A. J., Suchard, M. A., Xie, D. & Rambaut, A. 2012. Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29: 1969–1973. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (eds). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]>
Dryer, M. S. 2013a. Indefinite articles. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds). <[URL]> (11 November 2014).
2013b. Negative morphemes. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds). <[URL]> (11 November 2014).
2013c. Position of tense-aspect affixes. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds). <[URL]> (11 November 2014).
Dunn, M. 2009. Contact and phylogeny in Island Melanesia. Lingua 119(11): 1664–1678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, M., Terrill, A., Reesink, G., Foley, R. A., & Levinson, S. C. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309(5743): 2072–2075. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, M., Levinson, S. C., Lindström, E., Reesink, G. & Terrill, A. 2008. Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in island Melanesia. Language 84: 710–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellison, T. M. 2014. Identifying typological features likely to show synchronic variation. Paper presented at the Australian Linguistic Society Annual Conference, The University of Newcastle, Australia 10–12 December.Google Scholar
Erdem, E., Lifschitz, V. & Ringe, D. 2006. Temporal phylogenetic networks and logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6: 539–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic Epidemiology: Semantics and Grammar of Language Contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 2004. Inferring Phylogenies. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Forster, P., Toth, A. & Bandelt, H.-J. 1998. Evolutionary networks of word lists: Visualising the relationships between Alpine Romance languages. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 5: 174–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, L. & Jordan, F. 2010. Your place or mine? A phylogenetic comparative analysis of marital residence in Indo-European and Austronesian societies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365: 3913–3922. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friðriksson, F. 2008. Language Change vs. Stability in Conservative Language Communities: A Case Study of Icelandic. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Gavin, M. C., Botero, C. A., Bowern, C., Colwell, R. K., Dunn, M., Dunn, R. R., Gray, R. D., Kirby, K. R., McCarter, J., Powell, A., Rangel, T. F., Stepp, J. R., Trautwein, M., Verdolin, J. L. & Yanega, G. 2013. Toward a mechanistic understanding of linguistic diversity. BioScience 63(7): 524–535.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geisler, H. & List, J.-M. 2013. Do languages grow on trees? The tree metaphor in the history of linguistics. In Classification and Evolution in Biology, Linguistics and the History of Science, H. Fangerau, H. Geisler, T. Halling & W. Martin (eds), 111–124. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 2013. Numeral classifiers. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds). <[URL]> (11 November 2014).
Givón, T. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica 2(1): 35–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, T., Lan, S. & Zhang, M. 2014a. Modelling language evolution: Examples and predictions. Physics of Life Reviews 11: 280–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b. Key issues for the prosperity of modelling research of language evolution. Reply to comments on “Modelling language evolution: Examples and predictions”. Physics of Life Reviews 11: 324–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. D. & Jordan, F. M. 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature 405(6790): 1052–1055. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. D. & Atkinson, Q. D. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426: 435–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. D., Drummond, A. J. & Greenhill, S. J. 2009. Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science 323: 479–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. D., Bryant, D. & Greenhill, S. J. 2010. On the shape and fabric of human history. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 365: 3923–3933. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, S. J., Currie, T. E. & Gray, R. D. 2009. Does horizontal transmission invalidate cultural phylogenies? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 276: 2299–2306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, S. J., Atkinson, Q. D., Meade, A. & Gray, R. D. 2010. The shape and tempo of language evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 277: 2443–2450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1959. Neo-Melanesian and glottochronology. International Journal of American Linguistics 25(4): 265–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancock, I. F. 1987. A preliminary classification of the anglophone Atlantic creoles with syntactic data from thirty-three representative dialects. In Pidgin and Creole Languages. Essays in Memory of John E. Reinecke, G. G. Gilbert (ed.), 264–333. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Heggarty, P. 2006. Interdisciplinary indiscipline? Can phylogenetic methods meaningfully be applied to language data – and to dating language? In Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages, P. Forster & C. Renfrew (eds), 183–194. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar. A Reconstruction [Studies in the Evolution of Language 9]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutscher zentralverlag.Google Scholar
Holden, C. J. 2002. Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan Africa: A maximum-parsimony analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 269: 793–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honkola, T., Vesakoski, O., Korhonen, K., Lehtinen, J., Syrjanen, K. & Wahlberg N. 2013. Cultural and climatic changes shape the evolutionary history of the Uralic languages. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 26(6): 1244–1253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P. & Ronquist, F. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17: 754–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huson, D. H. & Bryant, D. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23: 254–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansson, F., Parkvall, M. & Strimling, P. 2015 Modeling the evolution of creoles. Language Dynamics and Change 5: 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanj, I. A., Nakhleh, L. & Xia, G. 2008. The compatibility of binary characters on phylogenetic networks: Complexity and parameterized algorithms. Algorithmica 51(2): 99–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraft, K. H., Brown, C. H., Nabhan, G. P., Luedeling, E., Ruiz, J. D. L., d’Eeckenbrugge, G. C., Hijmans, R. J. & Gepts, P. 2014. Multiple lines of evidence for the origin of domesticated chili pepper, Capsicum annuum, in Mexico. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States Of America 111: 6165–6170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83: 344–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. & Hasegawa, T. 2011. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis supports an agricultural origin of Japonic languages. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278(1725): 3662–3669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C. 1998. Creole Genesis and the Acquisition of Grammar: The Case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2011. The problem of the typological classification of creoles. In Creoles, their Substrates, and Language Typology [Typological Studies in Language 95], C. Lefebvre (ed.), 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
List, J.-M., Nelson-Sathi, S., Geisler, H. & Martin, W. 2014a. Networks of lexical borrowing and lateral gene transfer in language and genome evolution. BioEssays 36: 141–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
List, J.-M., Nelson-Sathi, S., Martin W. & Geisler, H. 2014b. Using phylogenetic networks to model Chinese dialect history. Language Dynamics and Change 4(2): 222–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marx, V. 2013. Biology: The big challenges of big data. Nature 498: 255–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maurits, L. & Griffiths, T. L. 2014. Tracing the roots of syntax with Bayesian phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(37): 13576–13581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. & McMahon, R. 2003. Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classification. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(1): 7–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Why linguists don’t do dates: Evidence from Indo-European and Australian languages. In Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages, P. Forster & C. Renfrew (eds), 153–160. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. & Parkvall, M. 2002. Pas tout à fait du français: Une étude créole. Études Créoles XXV(1): 179–231.Google Scholar
Mir, C., Zerjal, T., Combes, V., Dumas, F., Madur, D., Bedoya, C., Dreisigacker, S., Franco, J., Grudloyma, P., Hao, P. X., Hearne, S., Jampatong, C., Laloe, D., Muthamia, Z., Nguyen, T., Prasanna, B. M., Taba, S., Xie, C. X., Yunus, M., Zhang, S., Warburton, M. L. & Charcosset, A. 2013. Out of America: tracing the genetic footprints of the global diffusion of maize. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 126: 2671–2682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. 2007. Les créoles: De nouvelles variétés indo- européennes désavouées? In Actes du colloque: Créolisation linguistique et sciences humaines, 59–70. Paris: Les Presses universitaires Haitiano-Antillaises.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 1980. Structural expansion and the process of creolization. In Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies, A. Valdman & A. Highfield, (eds), 19– 55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nakhleh, L., Warnow, T., Ringe, D. & Evans, S. N. 2005. A comparison of phylogenetic reconstruction methods on an IE dataset. Transactions of the Philological Society 3(2): 171–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nettle, D. 1999. Is the rate of linguistic change constant? Lingua 108: 119–136 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. & Warnow, T. 2008. Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 760–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurbakova, D., Rusakov, S. & Alexandrov, V. 2013. Quantifying uncertainty in phylogenetic studies of the Slavonic languages. Procedia Computer Science. 2013 International Conference on Computational Science 18: 2269–2277. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Owens, J. 1991. Nubi, genetic linguistics, and language classification. Anthropological Linguistics 33(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Pagel, M. 2009. Human language as a culturally transmitted replicator. Nature Reviews Genetics 10: 405–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M., Atkinson, Q. D., Calude, A. S. & Meade, A. 2013. Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(21): 8471–8476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkvall, M. 2008. Which parts of language are the most stable? STUF 61(3): 234–250.Google Scholar
Parkvall, M. & Goyette, S. Forthcoming. Principia Creolica.
Parkvall, M., Jansson, F. & Strimling, P. 2013. Simulating the genesis of Mauritian. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 45(2): 265–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perrier, X., De Langhe, E., Donohue, M., Lentfer, C., Vrydaghs, L., Bakry, F., Carreel, F., Hippolyte, I., Horry, J.-P., Jenny, C., Lebot, V., Risterucci, A.-M., Tomekpe, K., Doutrelepont, H., Ball, T., Manwaring, J., de Maret, P. & Denham, T. 2011. Multidisciplinary perspectives on banana (Musa spp.) domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(28): 11311–11318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reesink, G., Singer, R., & Dunn, M. 2009. Explaining the linguistic diversity of Sahul using population models. PLoS Biology 7(11), e1000241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rexová, K., Frynta, D. & Zrzavy, J. 2003. Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data. Cladistics 19: 120–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutschmann, F. 2006. Molecular dating of phylogenetic trees: A brief review of current methods that estimate divergence times. Diversity and Distributions 12: 35–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saitou, N. & Nei, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4(4): 406–425.Google Scholar
Schlegel, F. 1808. Ueber die sprache und weisheit der Indier: Ein beitrag zur begrundung der alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer.Google Scholar
Schleicher, A. 1853. Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes. Allgemeine Zeitung für Wissenschaft und Literatur (August 1853): 786–787.Google Scholar
1863. Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. 1871. Zur Geschichte des indogermanischen Vocalismus, Vol. 1. Weimar: H. Böhlau.Google Scholar
Sicoli, M. A. & Holton, G. 2014. Linguistic phylogenies support back-migration from Beringia to Asia. PLoS ONE 9(3): e91722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. 2013. Predicative possession. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds). <[URL]> (11 November 2014).
Steel, M. A., Penny, D. & Hendy, M. D. 1988. Loss of information in genetic distances. Nature 336(6195): 118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, M. 1952. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96: 453–463.Google Scholar
1955. Toward greater accuracy in lexicostatistical dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 21: 121–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1972. The Origin and Diversification of Languages. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Towner, M. C., Grote, M. N., Venti, J. & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. 2012. Cultural macroevolution on neighbor graphs. Human Nature 23: 283–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turvey, S. & Pettorelli, N. 2014. Spatial congruence in language and species richness but not threat in the world’s top linguistic hotspot. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 218: 20141644.Google Scholar
Walker, R. S. & Ribeiro, L. A. 2011. Bayesian phylogeography of the Arawak expansion in lowland South America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278(1718): 2562–2567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, S. & Kamholz, D. 2008. A stability metric for typological features. STUF 61(3): 251–262.Google Scholar
Wichmann, S. & Holman, E. W. 2009. Temporal Stability of Linguistic Typological Features. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Wichmann, S. & Grant, A. P. (eds). 2012. Quantitative Approaches to Linguistic Diversity: Commemorating the Centenary of the Birth of Morris Swadesh [Benjamins Current Topics 46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1988. Vicariance biogeography. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 19: 513–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winford, D. 2005. Contact-induced changes. Classification and processes. Diachronica 22(2): 373–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z., Wei, S. G., Gui, H. S., Yuan, Z. Y. & Li, S. B. 2014. The contribution of genetic diversity to subdivide populations living in the silk road of China. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar