Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T05:16:13.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Natural Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Luay Nakhleh,
Don Ringe and
Tandy Warnow
Luay Nakhleh*
Affiliation:
Rice University
Don Ringe*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Tandy Warnow*
Affiliation:
University of Texas
*
Nakhleh, Department of Computer Science, Rice University, 6100 Main St., MS 132, Houston, TX 77005-1892 [nakhleh@cs.rice.edu]
Ringe, Department of Linguistics, 619 Williams Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305, [dringe@unagi.cis.upenn.edu]
Warnow, Department of Computer Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Taylor Hall 2.124, Austin, TX 78712-1188 [tandy@cs.utexas.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this article we extend the model of language evolution exemplified in Ringe et al. 2002, which recovers phylogenetic trees optimized according to a criterion of weighted maximum compatibility, to include cases in which languages remain in contact and trade linguistic material as they evolve. We describe our analysis of an Indo-European (IE) dataset (originally assembled by Ringe and Taylor) based on this new model. Our study shows that this new model fits the IE family well and suggests that the early evolution of IE involved only limited contact between distinct lineages. Furthermore, the candidate histories we obtain appear to be consistent with archaeological findings, which suggests that this method may be of practical use. The case at hand provides no opportunity to explore the problem of conflict between network optimization criteria; that problem must be left to future research.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , June 2005, pp. 382 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alroy, John. 1995. Continuous track analysis: A new phylogenetic and biogeographic method. Biology 44. 2. 152–78.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1968. IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta linguistica Hafniensia 11. 171–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appel, René, and Muysken, Pieter. 1987. Language contact and bilingualism. Baltimore: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Bergsland, Knud, and Vogt, Hans. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3. 115–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Maria, Phillips, Cynthia A., Warnow, Tandy; and Yooseph, Shibu. 1996. Constructing evolutionary trees in the presence of polymorphic characters. SIAM Journal of Computing 29. 103–31.Google Scholar
Buck, Carl D. 1949. A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cardona, George. 1960. The Indo-European thematic aorists. New Haven, CT: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1960. Greek ou and Armenian oč’. Language 36. 347–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1965. The Old English present indicative ending -e. Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryłowicz, 44–50. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
Demiraj, Bardhyl. 1997. Albanische Etymologien. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, Annette J. 1969. Lexicostatistical grouping. Anthropological Linguistics 11. 216–21.Google Scholar
Dobson, Annette J. 1974. Unrooted trees for numerical taxonomy. Journal of Applied Probability 11. 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichner, Heiner. 1992. Anatolian. Indo-European numerals, ed. by Gvozdanović, Jadranka, 29–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embleton, Sheila M. 1986. Statistics in historical linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Eska, Joseph F., and Ringe, Don. 2004. Recent work in computational linguistic phylogeny. Language 80. 569–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Steven N., Ringe, Don; and Warnow, Tandy. 2005. Inference of divergence times as a statistical inverse problem. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, ed. by Clackson, James al, et. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Feist, Sigmund. 1939. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, Walter M. 1971. Toward defining the course of evolution: Minimum change for a specified tree topology. Systematic Zoology 20. 406–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garey, Michael R., and Johnson, David S.. 1979. Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Gleason, Henry A. 1959. Counting and calculating for historical reconstruction. Anthropological Linguistics 1. 22–32.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1987. Language family trees, topological and metrical. In Hoenigswald & Wiener, 257–67.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M., and Wiener, Linda (eds.) 1987. Biological metaphor and cladistic classification: An interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, Clare J. 2002. Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across subSaharan Africa: A maximum-parsimony analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 269. 793–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hübschmann, H. 1897. Armenische Grammatik, I. Theil: Armenische Etymologie. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1997. An Italo-Celtic isogloss: The 3pl. mediopassive in *-ntro. Festschrift for Eric Hamp, vol. 1, ed. by Adams, Douglas Q., 146–61. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Kannan, Sampath, and Warnow, Tandy. 1997. A fast algorithm for the computation and enumeration of perfect phylogenies when the number of character states is fixed. SIAM Journal of Computing 16. 1749–63.Google Scholar
Kim, Ronald. 2000. To drink’ in Anatolian, Tocharian, and Proto-Indo-European. Historische Sprachwissenschaft 113. 151.-70.Google Scholar
King, Ruth. 2000. The lexical basis of grammatical borrowing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Ruth. 2003. Language contact and linguistic structure. Paper presented at NWAVE 32, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mair, Victor (ed.) 1998. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Mallory, J. P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1925. La Méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Mous, Maarten. 1996. Was there ever a Southern Cushitic language (pre-) Ma’a? Cushitic and Omotic languages, ed. by Griefenow-Mewis, Catherine and Voigt, Rainer, 201–11. Cologne: Rüdiger Koppe.Google Scholar
Mous, Maarten. 1997. The ela alternation in Mbugu: The limits of allomorphy. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997. 123–34.Google Scholar
Nakhleh, Luay. 2004. Phylogenetic networks in biology and historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Holger. 1913. Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen, Zweiter Band. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Porzig, Walter. 1954. Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets in neuer Sicht. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., and Pintzuk, Susan. 2000. Bilingual code-switching and the open/closed class distinction. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 3. 237–57.Google Scholar
Rayfield, J. R. 1970. The languages of a bilingual community. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don. 1996. On the chronology of sound changes in Tocharian. Vol. 1. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don. 1999. How hard is it to match CVC-roots? Transactions of the Philological Society 97. 213–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don. 2000. Tocharian class II presents and subjunctives and the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European verb. Tocharian and Indo-European studies 9. 121–42.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don, Warnow, Tandy; and Taylor, Ann. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100. 59–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don, Warnow, Tandy, Taylor, Ann, Michailov, Alexander; and Levison, Libby. 1998. Computational cladistics and the position of Tocharian. In Mair, 391–414.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. G., Jones, R.; and Smith, M. A.. 1990. Thermoluminescence dating of a 50,000- year-old human occupation site in Northern Australia. Science 345. 153–56.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech-community event. Archaeology and language 1: Theoretical and methodological orientations, ed. by Blench, Roger and Spriggs, Matthew, 209–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ruvolo, Maryellen. 1987. Reconstructing genetic and linguistic trees: Phenetic and cladistic approaches. In Hoenigswald & Wiener, 193–216.Google Scholar
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1948. Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. 2nd and 3rd edn. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Stang, Christian. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Stiles, Patrick V. 1985. The fate of the numeral ‘4’ in Germanic. North-Western European Language Evolution 6. 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swofford, Daniel. 1996. PAUL*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods), version 4.0. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1926. Gedanken über den lateinischen a-Konjunktiv. Beiträge zur griechischen und lateinischen Sprachforschung (Festschrift for Paul Kretschmer), 267–74. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Jugend und Volk.Google Scholar
Warnow, Tandy, Ringe, Don; and Taylor, Ann. 1995. Reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. (Institute for Research in Cognitive Science report 95-16.) Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Warnow, Tandy, Evans, Steven N., Ringe, Don; and Nakhleh, Luay. 2005. A stochastic model of language evolution that incorporates homoplasy and borrowing. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, ed. by Clackson, James al, et. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
White, J. Peter, and O’Connell, James F.. 1982. A prehistory of Australia, New Guinea, and Sahul. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1998. Lexical archaisms in the Tocharian languages. In Mair, 347–57.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Kazuhiko. 1990. The Hittite mediopassive endings in -ri. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar