Explaining the Linguistic Diversity of Sahul Using Population Models

Reesink, Ger P.; Singer, Ruth; Dunn, Michael

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000241

Cited by 71 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This probably reflects the paucity of structural data available for the Bantu languages together with the absence of variation in such data [38]. Therefore, more informative structural data, comparable with those collected by Reesink et al [39], would be needed to investigate the complex expansion history of the Bantu languages.…”

Section: Discussion (A) Demic Diffusion Of Bantu-speaking Peoplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The expansion of Bantu languages represents one of the most momentous events in the history of Africa. While it is well accepted that Bantu languages spread from their homeland (Cameroon/Nigeria) approximately 5000 years ago (ya), there is no consensus about the timing and geographical routes underlying this expansion. Two main models of Bantu expansion have been suggested: The 'early-split' model claims that the most recent ancestor of Eastern languages expanded north of the rainforest towards the Great Lakes region approximately 4000 ya, while the 'late-split' model proposes that Eastern languages diversified from Western languages south of the rainforest approximately 2000 ya. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the language dispersal was coupled with the movement of people, raising the question of language shift versus demic diffusion. We use a novel approach taking into account both the spatial and temporal predictions of the two models and formally test these predictions with linguistic and genetic data. Our results show evidence for a demic diffusion in the genetic data, which is confirmed by the correlations between genetic and linguistic distances. While there is little support for the early-split model, the late-split model shows a relatively good fit to the data. Our analyses demonstrate that subsequent contact among languages/populations strongly affected the signal of the initial migration via isolation by distance.

show abstract

Section: Discussion (A) Demic Diffusion Of Bantu-speaking Peoplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As more large linguistic databases become available 28 , the approach Information section 3). In the case of the Bantu language family, four invariant features (indicated in grey) were excluded from the analyses.…”

Section: Research Lettermentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals

Dunn

Greenhill

Levinson

et al. 2011

Nature

Self Cite

401

341

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Languages vary widely but not without limit. The central goal of linguistics is to describe the diversity of human languages and explain the constraints on that diversity. Generative linguists following Chomsky have claimed that linguistic diversity must be constrained by innate parameters that are set as a child learns a language 1,2 . In contrast, other linguists following Greenberg have claimed that there are statistical tendencies for co-occurrence of traits reflecting universal systems biases [3][4][5] , rather than absolute constraints or parametric variation. Here we use computational phylogenetic methods to address the nature of constraints on linguistic diversity in an evolutionary framework 6 . First, contrary to the generative account of parameter setting, we show that the evolution of only a few word-order features of languages are strongly correlated. Second, contrary to the Greenbergian generalizations, we show that most observed functional dependencies between traits are lineage-specific rather than universal tendencies. These findings support the view that-at least with respect to word order-cultural evolution is the primary factor that determines linguistic structure, with the current state of a linguistic system shaping and constraining future states.Human language is unique amongst animal communication systems not only for its structural complexity but also for its diversity at every level of structure and meaning. There are about 7,000 extant languages, some with just a dozen contrastive sounds, others with more than 100, some with complex patterns of word formation, others with simple words only, some with the verb at the beginning of the sentence, some in the middle, and some at the end. Understanding this diversity and the systematic constraints on it is the central goal of linguistics. The generative approach to linguistic variation has held that linguistic diversity can be explained by changes in parameter settings. Each of these parameters controls a number of specific linguistic traits. For example, the setting 'heads first' will cause a language both to place verbs before objects ('kick the ball'), and prepositions before nouns ('into the goal') 1,7 . According to this account, language change occurs when child learners simplify or regularize by choosing parameter settings other than those of the parental generation. Across a few generations such changes might work through a population, effecting language change across all the associated traits. Language change should therefore be relatively fast, and the traits set by one parameter must co-vary 8 .In contrast, the statistical approach adopted by Greenbergian linguists samples languages to find empirically co-occurring traits. These cooccurring traits are expected to be statistical tendencies attributable to universal cognitive or systems biases. Among the most robust of these tendencies are the so-called ''word-order universals'' 3 linking the order of elements in a clause. Dryer has tested these generalizations on a worldwide sample...

show abstract

“…But given the apparent genetic bottlenecks at the beginning of the modern human diaspora out of Africa (Amos & Hoffman 2009), something close to language monogenesis seems a reasonable assumption, rendering Galton's problem insurmountable. Furthermore, typological features can be remarkably stable over the life of whole language families (witness the case of Bantu in our study), so typological settings are likely in part to outdate known families (see Dunn et al 2005, Reesink et al 2009, Greenhill et al 2010a, Dediu 2011a). We therefore think there is every reason to take covert phylogenetic dependence seriously.…”

Section: Two Strategies For Finding Linked Traits Implicational Univmentioning

confidence: 77%

Universal typological dependencies should be detectable in the history of language families

Levinson

Greenhill

Gray

et al. 2011

Linguistic Typology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Introduction We claim that making sense of the typological diversity of languages demands a historical/evolutionary approach.We are pleased that the target paper (Dunn et al. 2011a) has served to bring discussion of this claim into prominence, and are grateful that leading typologists have taken the time to respond (commentaries denoted by boldface). It is unfortunate though that a number of the commentaries in this issue of LT show significant misunderstandings of our paper. Donohue thinks we were out to show the stability of typological features, but that was not our target at all (although related methods can be used to do that: see, e.g., Greenhill et al. 2010a, Dediu 2011a). Plank seems to think we were arguing against universals of any type, but our target was in fact just the implicational universals of word order that have been the bread and butter of typology. He also seems to think we ignore diachrony, whereas in fact the method introduces diachrony centrally into typological reasoning, thereby potentially revolutionising typology (see Cysouw’s commentary). Levy & Daumé think we were testing for lineage-specificity, whereas that was in fact an outcome (the main finding) of our testing for correlated evolution. Dryer thinks we must account for the distribution of language types around the world, but that was not our aim: our aim was to test the causal connection between linguistic variables by taking the perspective of language evolution (diversification and change). Longobardi & Roberts seem to think we set out to extract family trees from syntactic features, but our goal was in fact to use trees based on lexical cognates and hang reconstructed syntactic states on each node of these trees, thereby reconstructing the processes of language change

show abstract

Explaining the Linguistic Diversity of Sahul Using Population Models

Abstract: Areal and genealogical links between the diverse ancient languages of Australia and New Guinea are investigated using a phylogenetic clustering method adopted from population genetics.

Cited by 71 publications

References 22 publications

Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion

Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion

Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals

Universal typological dependencies should be detectable in the history of language families

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About