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. 59–78

Chapter 4
Methods

On the use of networks in the study of language contact

| Aarhus University
| University of Bremen
| Aarhus University
This chapter provides an overview of the phylogenetic models used in this book. In the introduction, we present the aims and limitations of the chapter and clarify some basic concepts. After presenting the steps of linguistic phylogenetic analyses, we proceed to explain the different data types that are examined in this book, such as lexical and typological features, and describe how these are coded. In the final sections, we discuss the resulting network and tree models and how to interpret the graphic representations built using linguistic data. In short, this chapter enables the reader to interpret the graphs and to assess the validity of the results.
Article outline
  • 4.1Introduction
  • 4.2Steps of analysis: Encoding, representation, and interpretation
  • 4.3Data types
    • 4.3.1Lexical data
    • 4.3.2Typological data
  • 4.4Data coding
  • 4.5Networks and trees
  • 4.6Interpreting the results
  • Notes
  • 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.211.04bak
References (35)
References
Bakker, D., Müller, A., Velupillai, V., Wichmann, S., Brown, C. H., Brown, P., Egorov, D., Mailhammer, R., Grant, A. & Holman, E. W. 2009. Adding typology to lexicostatistics: A combined approach to language classification. Linguistic Typology 13(1): 169–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bøegh, K. F., Daval-Markussen, A. & Bakker, P. 2016. A phylogenetic analysis of stable structural features in West African languages. Studies in African Linguistics 45(1–2): 61–94.Google 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: 957–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, C. H., Holman, E. W., Wichmann, S. & Velupillai, V. 2008. Automated classification of the world’s languages: A description of the method and preliminary results. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 61(4): 285–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryant, D. & Moulton, V. 2004. Neighbor-net: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21(2): 255–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crevels, M. & van der Voort, H. 2008. The Guaporé-Mamoré region as a linguistic area. In From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series 90], P. Muysken (ed.), 151–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, M. & Comrie, B. 2009. How varied typologically are the languages of Africa? In The Cradle of Language, P. Botha & C. Knight (eds), 189–203. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Daval-Markussen, A. 2011. Of Networks and Trees in Contact Linguistics: New Light on the Typology of Creoles. MA thesis, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
2013. First steps towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 45(2): 274–295. 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]> (29 December 2015)
Dunn, M. 2014. Language phylogenies. In The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, C. Bowern & B. Evans (eds), 190–211, London: Routledge.Google 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
Felsenstein, J. 2004. Inferring Phylogenies. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Gray, R. D., Greenhill, S. J. & Ross, R. M. 2007. The pleasures and perils of Darwinizing culture (with phylogenies). Biological Theory 2(4): 360–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, S. J. 2011. Levenshtein distances fail to identify language relationships accurately. Computational Linguistics 37(4): 689–698. DOI logoGoogle 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
Holm, J. & Patrick, P. L. 2007. Comparative Creole Syntax. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Holman, E. W., Wichmann, S., Brown, C. H., Velupillai, V., Müller, A. & Bakker, D. 2008. Explorations in automated language classification. Folia Linguistica 42(2): 331–354.Google Scholar
Huson, D. H. & Bryant, D. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(2): 254–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huson, D. H., Rupp, R. & Scornavacca, C. 2010. Phylogenetic Networks: Concepts, Algorithms and Applications. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehtinen, J., Honkola, T., Korhonen, K., Syrjänen, K., Wahlberg, N. & Vesakoski, O. 2014. Behind family trees: Secondary connections in Uralic language networks. Language Dynamics and Change 4: 189–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G., Guardiano, C., Silvestri, G., Boattini, A. & Ceolin, A. 2013. Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages. The Journal of Historical Linguistics 3(1): 122–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. & McMahon, R. 2005. Language Classification by Numbers. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M. (eds). 2013a. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(eds). 2013b. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (29 December 2015).
Muysken, P. 2000. Drawn into the Aymara Mold? Notes on Uru grammar. In Indigenous Languages of Lowland South America [Indigenous Languages of Latin America (ILLA) Vol. 1; CNWS Publications 90], H. van der Voort & S. van de Kerke (eds), 99–109 Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS).Google Scholar
Nichols, J. & Warnow, T. 2008. Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 760–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. The spread of language around the Pacific Rim. Evolutionary Anthropology 3: 206–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prokić, J. 2010. Families and Resemblances. Groningen: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics.Google 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
Wichmann, S. 2015. Diachronic stability and typology. In Handbook of Historical Linguistics, C. Bowern & B. Evans (eds), 212–224. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wichmann, S. & Saunders, A. 2007. How to use typological databases in historical linguistic research. Diachronica 24(2): 373–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, S. & Good, J. (eds). 2014. Quantifying Language Dynamics: On the Cutting Edge of Areal and Phylogenetic Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar