Internal Classification of the Alor-Pantar Language Family Using Computational Methods Applied to the Lexicon

Abstract

The non-Austronesian languages of Alor and Pantar in eastern Indonesia have been shown to be genetically related using the comparative method, but the identified phonological innovations are typologically common and do not delineate neat subgroups. We apply computational methods to recently collected lexical data and are able to identify subgroups based on the lexicon. Crucially, the lexical data are coded for cognacy based on identified phonological innovations. This methodology can succeed even where phonological innovations themselves fail to identify subgroups, showing that computational methods using lexical data can be a powerful tool supplementing the comparative method.

Linguistic Phylogenies Support Back-Migration from Beringia to Asia

“…In the last decade, computational phylogenetic tools developed primarily in evolutionary biology have been incorporated into the field of historical linguistics bringing new methods to bear on questions of prehistoric migrations [11] , [12] , [13] , language contact [14] , language classification [15] , [16] , and language universals [17] , [18] , thereby potentially pushing the upper-limit of historical linguistic inference into the Terminal Pleistocene [19] , [20] , [21] . Greenhill and Gray [12] advocate the use of a phylogenetic framework to test how linguistic data match migration hypotheses, observing that without such rigorous testing migration scenarios “are little more than plausible narratives.” They argue for the use of Bayesian likelihood modeling over parsimony and use Austronesian lexical cognate sets to test between competing dispersal hypotheses for the Austronesian expansion throughout the Pacific.…”

The dialect chain of the Timor-Alor-Pantar language family

“…The differences between Robinson and Holton (2012a) and our core analysis S are due to both the quantity and quality of the data as well as the chosen methodology. A major difference is that the tree in Fig.…”

“…The earlier reconstructions of the TAP family Holton et al, 2012;Robinson and Holton, 2012a) conclusively show the relatedness of the languages. However, they leave large gaps in our understanding of the linguistic history of the TAP family, especially in its subgrouping.…”

“…2. Robinson and Holton (2012a) compared this tree with a Bayesian phylogenetic inference tree, given in Fig. 3.…”

“…Both trees were created using data collected up to 2009. Since then, the sample of TAP lan- Subgroupings tree based on shared phonological innovations, according to Holton et al (2012) figure 3 Non-ultrametric tree from Bayesian phylogenetic inference with a stochastic Dollo model, as described in and reproduced from Robinson and Holton (2012a). The languages are the same, in the same order, as Fig.…”