Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T01:37:55.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural Phylogeny in Historical Linguistics: Methodological Explorations Applied in Island Melanesia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Michael Dunn ,
Stephen C. Levinson ,
Eva Lindström ,
Ger Reesink  and
Angela Terrill
Michael Dunn*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and Radboud University Nijmegen
Stephen C. Levinson*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Eva Lindström*
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
Ger Reesink*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
Angela Terrill*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
*
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics P.O. Box 310 6500 AH Nijmegen The Netherlands [michael.dunn@mpi.nl]
[stephen.levinson@mpi.nl]
[evali@ling.su.se]
[ger.reesink@let.ru.nl]
[a.terrill@let.ru.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using various methods derived from evolutionary biology, including maximum parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, we tackle the question of the relationships among a group of Papuan isolate languages that have hitherto resisted accepted attempts at demonstration of interrelatedness. Instead of using existing vocabulary-based methods, which cannot be applied to these languages due to the paucity of shared lexemes, we created a database of STRUCTURAL FEATURES—abstract phonological and grammatical features apart from their form. The methods are first tested on the closely related Oceanic languages spoken in the same region as the Papuan languages in question. We find that using biological methods on structural features can recapitulate the results of the comparative method tree for the Oceanic languages, thus showing that structural features can be a valid way of extracting linguistic history. Application of the same methods to the otherwise unrelatable Papuan languages is therefore likely to be similarly valid. Because languages that have been in contact for protracted periods may also converge, we outline additional methods for distinguishing convergence from inherited relatedness.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 710 - 759
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by 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

Adelaar, Willem, and Muysken, Pieter. 2004. The languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1996. Areal diffusion in Northwest Amazonia: The case of Tariana. Anthropological Linguistics 38.73–116.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.) 2001. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198299813.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Gerald, and Hurd, Conrad. 1965. Languages of the Bougainville district. Port Moresby: Department of Information and Extension Services.Google Scholar
Antilla, Raimo. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2000. Why lexicostatistics doesn't work. Time depth in historical linguistics, vol. 2, ed. by Renfrew, Colin, McMahon, April, and Trask, Larry, 311–31. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Bryant, David, Filimon, Flavia; and Gray, Russell. 2005. Untangling our past: Languages, trees, splits and networks. In Mace et al., 67–84.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1995. The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12.2. 157–200.10.1075/dia.12.2.02camCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2003. How to show languages are related: Methods for distant genetic relationship. In Joseph & Janda, 262–82.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2004. Typological traits and genetic linguistics. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, ms. Online: http://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/Typ-Gen.pdf.Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry, and Dixon, Robert M. W.. 1981. Tasmanian. Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 2, ed. by Dixon, Robert M. W. and Blake, Barry, 395–421. Canberra: Australian National University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curnow, Timothy J. 2001. What language features can be ‘borrowed‘? In Aikhenvald & Dixon, 412–36.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark, and Musgrave, Simon. 2007. Typology and the linguistic macrohistory of Island Melanesia. Oceanic Linguistics 46.2. 325–64.10.1353/ol.2008.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Foley, Robert A., Levinson, Stephen C., Reesink, Ger; and Terrill, Angela. 2007. Statistical reasoning in the evaluation of typological diversity in Island Melanesia. Oceanic Linguistics 46.2. 388–403.10.1353/ol.2008.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Reesink, Ger; and Terrill, Angela. 2002. The East Papuan languages: A preliminary typological appraisal. Oceanic Linguistics 41.28–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, and Ross, Malcolm. 2007. Is Kazukuru really Austronesian? Oceanic Linguistics 46.210–31.10.1353/ol.2007.0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Terrill, Angela, Reesink, Ger, Foley, Robert A.; and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309.2072–75.10.1126/science.1114615CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durie, Mark, and Ross, Malcolm (eds.) 1996. The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. W. F., and Luca Cavalli-Sforza, L.. 1963. The reconstruction of evolution. Annals of Human Genetics 27.105–6.Google Scholar
Farris, James S. 1989. The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics 5.417–19.10.1111/j.1096-0031.1989.tb00573.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, Joseph. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1998. Toward understanding Papuan languages. Perspectives on the Bird's Head, ed. by Miedema, Jelle, Odé, Cecilia, and Dam, Rien A. C., 503–18. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2000. The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29.357–404.10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlaender, Jonathan S. (ed.) 1987. The Solomon Islands project: A long-term study of health, human biology, and culture change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedlaender, Jonathan S. (ed.) 2007. Genes, language and culture history in the Southwest Pacific. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Galis, K. W. 1960. Telsystemen in Nederlands-Nieuw-Guinea. Nieuw Guinea Studiën 4.131–49.Google Scholar
Gray, Russell D., and Atkinson, Quentin D.. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426.435–39.10.1038/nature02029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, Russell D., and Jordan, Fiona M.. 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature 405.1052–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1971. The Indo-Pacific hypothesis. Linguistics in Oceania (Current trends in linguistics 8), ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., 807–71. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenhill, Simon, and Gray, Russell. 2005. Testing population dispersal hypotheses: Pacific settlement, phylogenetic trees and Austronesian languages. In Mace et al., 31–52.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C., and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. P. 2003. On the limits of the comparative method. In Joseph & Janda, 213–43.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals: Quantitative analyses of linguistic structure. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich, and Joseph, Brian D.. 1996. Language history, language change, and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holden, Clare J. 2001. 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 269.793–99.Google Scholar
Hunley, Keith, Dunn, Michael, Lindström, Eva, Reesink, Ger, Terrill, Angela, Norton, Heather, Scheinfeldt, Laura, Friedlaender, Françoise R., Merri-wether, D. Andrew, Koki, George; and Friedlaender, Jonathan S.. 2007. Inferring prehistory from genetic, linguistic, and geographic variation. In Friedlaender 2007, 118–40.Google Scholar
Huson, Daniel. 1998. SplitsTree—a program for analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data. Bioinformatics 14.68–73.10.1093/bioinformatics/14.1.68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D.. 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Black well.10.1002/9780470756393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, Brent. 2001. The significance of word lists. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lindström, Eva, Terrill, Angela, Reesink, Ger; and Dunn, Michael. 2007. The languages of Island Melanesia. In Friedlaender 2007, 141–54.Google Scholar
Lynch, John, Ross, Malcolm; and Crowley, Terry. 2002. The Oceanic languages. London: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Mace, Ruth, Holden, Clare J.; and Shennan, Stephen (eds.) 2005. The evolution of cultural diversity: Phylogenetic approaches. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1982. Do languages obey general laws? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April, and McMahon, Robert. 2003. Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classification. Transactions of the Philological Society 101.7–55.10.1111/1467-968X.00108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April, and McMahon, Robert. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199279012.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minett, James W., and Wang, William S.-Y.. 2003. On detecting borrowing: Distance-based and character-based methods. Diachronica 20.289–331.10.1075/dia.20.2.04minCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2007. Integrating approaches to diversity: Argument structure on the NW Coast. Diversity in language: Perspectives and implications (Lecture notes 176), ed. by Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Oshima, David, Robinson, Orrin, and Sells, Peter, 9–36. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2009. Core argument patterns and deep genetic relations: Hierarchical systems in Northern California. Typology of argument structure and grammatical relations, ed. by Comrie, Bernard. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Language contact. Universals of human language, vol. 1: Method and theory, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 93–122. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nakhleh, Luay, Ringe, Don; and Warnow, Tandy. 2005. Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language 81.382–420.10.1353/lan.2005.0078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1990. Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language 66.475–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1995. Diachronically stable structural features. Historical linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993 (Current issues in linguistic theory 124), ed. by Henning Andersen, 337–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.124.27nicCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1996. The comparative method as heuristic. In Durie & Ross, 39–71.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1997. Sprung from two common sources: Sahul as a linguistic area. Archaeology and linguistics: Global perspectives on ancient Australia, ed. by McConvell, Patrick and Evans, Nicholas, 135–68. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1998. The origin and dispersal of languages: Linguistic evidence. The origin and diversification of language, ed. by Jablonski, Nina and Aiello, Leslie C., 127–70. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Joseph & Janda, 283–310.Google Scholar
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Atkinson, Quentin; and Meade, Andrew. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449.717–20.10.1038/nature06176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, Emmanuel, Claude, Julien; and Strimmer, Korbinian. 2004. APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20.289–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pawley, Andrew. 2007. Recent research on the historical relationships of the Papuan languages, or, What can linguistics add to the stories of archaeology and other disciplines about the prehistory of Melanesia? In Friedlaender 2007, 36–58.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, Attenborough, Robert, Golson, Jack; and Hide, Robin (eds.) 2005. Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples. (Pacific linguistics 572.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Pritchard, Jonathan K. 2000. Documentation for structure software. Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Pritchard, Jonathan K., Stephens, Matthew; and Donnelly, Peter. 2000. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155.945–59.10.1093/genetics/155.2.945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rankin, Robert L. 2003. The comparative method. In Joseph & Janda, 183–212.Google Scholar
Reesink, Ger. 2005a. Sulka of East New Britain: A mixture of Oceanic and Papuan traits. Oceanic Linguistics 44.1. 145–93.10.1353/ol.2005.0026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reesink, Ger. 2005b. West Papuan languages: Roots and development. In Pawley et al., 185–218.Google Scholar
Rexová, Kateřina, Frynta, Daniel; and Zrzavý, Jan. 2003. Cladistic analysis of languages: The Indo-European classification based on lexico-statistical data. Cladistics 19.120–27.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don, Warnow, Tandy; and Taylor, Ann. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100.59–129.10.1111/1467-968X.00091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronquist, Fredrik. 2004. Bayesian inference of character evolution. Trends in ecology and evolution 19.475–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, Noah A., Pritchard, Jonathan K., Weber, James L., Cann, Howard M., Kidd, Kenneth K., Zhivotovsky, Lev A.; and Feldman, Marcus W.. 2002. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298.2381–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, Malcolm. 1988. Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian Languages of Western Melanesia. (Pacific linguistics C-98.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1996. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: Cases from Papua New Guinea. In Durie & Ross, 180–217.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1999. Exploring metatypy: How does contact-induced typological change come about? Keynote talk given at the Australian Linguistic Society's annual meeting, Perth, 1999.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2001a. Is there an East Papuan phylum? Evidence from pronouns. The boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton, ed. by Pawley, Andrew, Ross, Malcolm, and Tryon, Darrell, 301–21. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2001b. Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in north-west Melanesia. In Aikhenvald & Dixon, 134–66.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Pawley et al., 15–65.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm, and Næss, Åshild. 2007. An Oceanic origin for Äiwoo, the language of the Reef Islands. Oceanic Linguistics 46.2. 456–98.10.1353/ol.2008.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générate, ed. by Bally, Charles and Sechehaye, Albert, the, with of, collaboration Riedlinger, Albert. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Smith, Geoffrey P. 1988. Morobe counting systems. Papers in New Guinea linguistics 26.1–132. (Pacific linguistics A-76.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Specht, Jim. 2005. Revisiting the Bismarcks: Some alternative views. In Pawley et al., 235–88.Google Scholar
Spriggs, Matthew. 1997. The Island Melanesians. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steever, Sanford B. 1998. The Dravidian languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swofford, David L. 1998. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (* and other methods). Version 4. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Terrell, John. 1986. Prehistory in the Pacific Islands: A study of variation in language, customs, and human biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Terrell, John E., Kelly, Kevin M.; and Rainbird, Paul. 2001. Foregone conclusions? In search of ‘Papuans’ and ‘Austronesians’. Current Anthropology 42.97–124.10.1086/318436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 2003. Linguistic stratigraphy in the central Solomon Islands: Lexical evidence of early Papuan/Austronesian interaction. Journal of the Polynesian Society 112.369–401.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G., and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520912793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurston, William R. 1982. A comparative study of Anêm and Lusi. (Pacific linguistics B-83.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Thurston, William R. 1994. Renovation and innovation in the languages of north-western New Britain. Language contact and change in the Austronesian world, ed. by Dutton, Thomas E. and Tryon, Darrell, 573–609. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, Evelyn. 1975. The Solomon language family. Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene (Pacific linguistics C-38), ed. by Wurm, Stephen A., 805–46. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Trask, Larry. 1996. Historical linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tuffley, Chris, and Steel, Mike. 1997. Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 59.3. 581–607.10.1007/BF02459467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnow, Tandy. 1997. Mathematical approaches to comparative linguistics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 94.6585–90.10.1073/pnas.94.13.6585CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 75–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warnow, Tandy, Ringe, Don; and Taylor, Ann. 1995. Reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. (Institute for Research in Cognitive Science report 95–1b.) Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1976. Towards proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems. Chicago Linguistic Society 12.2. 305–26.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 2001. An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method? In Aikhenvald & Dixon, 44–63.10.1093/oso/9780198299813.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurm, Stephen A. 1982. Papuan languages of Oceania. (Ars linguistica 7.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Wurm, Stephen A., Laycock, Donald C., Voorhoeve, Clemens L.; and Dutton, Thomas E.. 1975. Papuan linguistic prehistory, and past language migrations in the New Guinea area. New Guinea area languages and language study (Pacific linguistics C-38), ed. by Wurm, Stephen A., 935–60. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar