Behind Family Trees

Although it has long been recognized that the family tree model is too simplistic to account for historical connections between languages, most computational studies of language history have concentrated on tree-building methods. Here, we employ computational network methods to assess the utility of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Language Dynamics and Change
Main Authors: Lehtinen, Jyri, Honkola, Terhi, Korhonen, Kalle, Syrjänen, Kaj, Wahlberg, Niklas, Vesakoski, Outi
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: Brill 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00402007
https://brill.com/view/journals/ldc/4/2/article-p189_1.xml
https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/ldc/4/2/article-p189_1.xml
id crbrillap:10.1163/22105832-00402007
record_format openpolar
spelling crbrillap:10.1163/22105832-00402007 2024-09-15T18:32:38+00:00 Behind Family Trees Secondary Connections in Uralic Language Networks Lehtinen, Jyri Honkola, Terhi Korhonen, Kalle Syrjänen, Kaj Wahlberg, Niklas Vesakoski, Outi 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00402007 https://brill.com/view/journals/ldc/4/2/article-p189_1.xml https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/ldc/4/2/article-p189_1.xml unknown Brill Language Dynamics and Change volume 4, issue 2, page 189-221 ISSN 2210-5824 2210-5832 journal-article 2014 crbrillap https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00402007 2024-08-12T04:07:25Z Although it has long been recognized that the family tree model is too simplistic to account for historical connections between languages, most computational studies of language history have concentrated on tree-building methods. Here, we employ computational network methods to assess the utility of network models in comparison with tree models in studying the subgrouping of Uralic languages. We also compare basic vocabulary data with words that are more easily borrowed and replaced cross-linguistically (less basic vocabulary) in order to find out how secondary connections affect computational analyses of this language family. In general, the networks support a treelike pattern of diversification, but also provide information about conflicting connections underlying some of the ambiguous divergences in the trees. These are seen as reflections of unclear divergence patterns (either in ancestral protolanguages or between languages closely related at present), which pose problems for a tree model. The networks also show that the relationships of closely related present-day languages are more complex than what the tree models suggest. When comparing less basic with basic vocabulary, we can detect the effect of borrowing between different branches (horizontal transfer) mostly between and within the Finnic and Saami subgroups. We argue that the trees obtained with basic vocabulary provide the primary pattern of the divergence of a language family, whereas networks, especially those constructed with less basic vocabulary, add reality to the picture by showing the effect of more complicated developments affecting the connections between the languages. Article in Journal/Newspaper saami Brill Language Dynamics and Change 4 2 189 221
institution Open Polar
collection Brill
op_collection_id crbrillap
language unknown
description Although it has long been recognized that the family tree model is too simplistic to account for historical connections between languages, most computational studies of language history have concentrated on tree-building methods. Here, we employ computational network methods to assess the utility of network models in comparison with tree models in studying the subgrouping of Uralic languages. We also compare basic vocabulary data with words that are more easily borrowed and replaced cross-linguistically (less basic vocabulary) in order to find out how secondary connections affect computational analyses of this language family. In general, the networks support a treelike pattern of diversification, but also provide information about conflicting connections underlying some of the ambiguous divergences in the trees. These are seen as reflections of unclear divergence patterns (either in ancestral protolanguages or between languages closely related at present), which pose problems for a tree model. The networks also show that the relationships of closely related present-day languages are more complex than what the tree models suggest. When comparing less basic with basic vocabulary, we can detect the effect of borrowing between different branches (horizontal transfer) mostly between and within the Finnic and Saami subgroups. We argue that the trees obtained with basic vocabulary provide the primary pattern of the divergence of a language family, whereas networks, especially those constructed with less basic vocabulary, add reality to the picture by showing the effect of more complicated developments affecting the connections between the languages.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Lehtinen, Jyri
Honkola, Terhi
Korhonen, Kalle
Syrjänen, Kaj
Wahlberg, Niklas
Vesakoski, Outi
spellingShingle Lehtinen, Jyri
Honkola, Terhi
Korhonen, Kalle
Syrjänen, Kaj
Wahlberg, Niklas
Vesakoski, Outi
Behind Family Trees
author_facet Lehtinen, Jyri
Honkola, Terhi
Korhonen, Kalle
Syrjänen, Kaj
Wahlberg, Niklas
Vesakoski, Outi
author_sort Lehtinen, Jyri
title Behind Family Trees
title_short Behind Family Trees
title_full Behind Family Trees
title_fullStr Behind Family Trees
title_full_unstemmed Behind Family Trees
title_sort behind family trees
publisher Brill
publishDate 2014
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00402007
https://brill.com/view/journals/ldc/4/2/article-p189_1.xml
https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/ldc/4/2/article-p189_1.xml
genre saami
genre_facet saami
op_source Language Dynamics and Change
volume 4, issue 2, page 189-221
ISSN 2210-5824 2210-5832
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00402007
container_title Language Dynamics and Change
container_volume 4
container_issue 2
container_start_page 189
op_container_end_page 221
_version_ 1810474374290997248