Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T21:46:33.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unchanged Cognates as a Criterion in Linguistic Subgrouping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Bh. Krishnamurti ,
Lincoln Moses  and
Douglas G. Danforth
Bh. Krishnamurti
Affiliation:
Osmania University
Lincoln Moses
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Douglas G. Danforth
Affiliation:
Wang Laboratories
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If a sound change has lexically diffused without completing its course, one finds that among the lexical items qualified for the change, some have already changed (c), others have remained unchanged (u), and still others show variant forms (u/c). When such a change has affected a group of genetically related languages, the consequent comparative pattern u—u/c—c can be used to set up subrelations among languages. In this paper, we draw on data from six languages belonging to the South-Central subfamily of Dravidian, with reference to an atypical sound change called ‘apical displacement’. There are 63 etymologies which qualify for the study. A total of 945 possible binary-labeled trees fall into six types for the six languages under study. In terms of our postulates, that tree is the best which scores the lowest m, i.e. the minimum number of independent instances of change needed to account for the u-c-o (o = no cognate) pattern of a given entry. Each of the 63 entries has been applied to the possible 945 trees, and the trees have been scored for the value m by computer. The one tree which scored the lowest (71 points) is identical with the traditionally established tree for these languages. This paper shows that: (a) one shared innovation is sufficient to give genetic subrelations among languages, within the framework of the theory of lexical diffusion; (b) unchanged cognates are as important as changed cognates in giving differential scores for possible trees; and (c) the notion of shared innovation can be further refined within the theory of lexical diffusion.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 541 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Burrow, Thomas, and Emeneau, M. B. 1961. A Dravidian etymological dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1968. A Dravidian etymological dictionary: Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Mathew, and Wang, William S-Y. 1975. Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Lg. 51.255–81.Google Scholar
D'Andrade, Roy G. 1978. U-statistic hierarchical clustering. Psychometrika 43.59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1953. Review of Malgache et maanjan: Une comparaison linguistique, by Dahl, Otto Chr. Lg. 29.577–90.Google Scholar
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1956. The ABC's of lexicostatistics (glottochronology). Word 12.175–210. [Reprinted in Hymes 1964:612–23.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1966. Criteria for the subgrouping of languages. Ancient Indo-European dialects, ed. by Birnbaum, Henrik & Puhvel, Jaan, 1–12. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Hsin-I. 1973. A new method of dialect subgrouping. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1.64–92. [Reprinted in Wang 1977:158–96.]Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell (ed.) 1964. Language in culture and society. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Janson, Tore. 1977. Reversed lexical diffusion and lexical split: Loss of -d in Stockholm. In Wang, 252–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. 1961. Telugu verbal bases: A comparative and descriptive study. (UCPL 24.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. 1978. Areal and lexical diffusion of sound change: Evidence from Dravidian. Lg. 54.1–20.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. 1980. A vowel-lowering rule in Kui-Kuvi. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistic Society, 495–506.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Meyers, L. F., and Wang, William S-Y. 1963. Tree representations in linguistics. (POLA reports, Series I, 3.55–139.) Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. (ed.) 1977. The lexicon in phonological change. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William; and Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for historical linguistics, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov, 97–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar