Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-ndmrv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-24T08:52:21.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent work in computational linguistic phylogeny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Joseph F. Eska  and
Don Ringe
Joseph F. Eska*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Don Ringe*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
Eska, Department of English, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 [eska@vt.edu]
Ringe , Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 [dringe@unagi.cis.upenn.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A number of recent attempts by nonlinguists to reconstruct linguistic evolutionary trees have made news. Reconstructions of the phylogeny of the Indo-European (IE) family of languages are especially well represented; well-known examples include Rexová et al. 2003, Gray & Atkinson 2003—which is discussed by Searls (2003) and briefly reported in U.S. news & world report (10 December 2003)—and Forster & Toth 2003, which also generated considerable attention in the popular media. Scientific linguists have not been impressed for a variety of reasons. Though no two of the publications in question exhibit exactly the same weaknesses, all can be impugned on one or more of the following grounds: the linguistic data employed have not been adequately analyzed, or—in some cases—even competently analyzed; the model of language change employed has not been shown to fit the known facts of language change; attempts to fix the dates of prehistoric languages have ignored the fatal shortcomings of glottochronology discovered by Bergsland and Vogt (1962; see further §4); the researchers assume that vocabulary replacement is governed by a LEXICAL CLOCK (similar to the controversial MOLECULAR CLOCK posited by some biological cladists); and/or the data set used is too small to yield statistically reliable conclusions.

Information

Type
Discussion Notes
Information
Language , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 569 - 582
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 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

Adams, J. N. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J. N., Janse, Mark; and Swain, Simon (eds.) 2002. Bilingualism in ancient society: Language contact and the written word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsland, Knud, and Vogt, Hans. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3.115–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billy, Pierre-Henry. 1993. Thesaurus linguae Gallicae. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
Delamarre, Xavier. 2003. Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise: Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental. 2nd edn. Paris: Errance.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore, Kruskal, Joseph; and Black, Paul. 1992. An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Embleton, Sheila M. 1986. Statistics in historical linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Eska, Joseph F. 1995. Observations on the thematic genitive singular in Lepontic and Hispano-Celtic. Hispano-Gallo-Brittonica: Essays in honour of Professor D. Ellis Evans on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. by Eska, Joseph F., Gruffydd, R. Geraint, and Jacobs, Nicolas, 33–46. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Eska, Joseph F. 1998. The linguistic position of Lepontic. Berkeley Linguistics Society 24S.2–11.Google Scholar
Forster, Peter, and Toth, Alfred. 2003. Toward a phylogenetic chronology of ancient Gaulish, Celtic, and Indo-European. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.9079–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, Georg, and Gundermann, Gotthold (eds.) 1888. Corpus glossariorum Latinorum 2, Glossae Latinograecae et Graecolatinae. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Gray, Russell D., and Atkinson, Quentin D.. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426.435–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, Kenneth. 1953. Language and history in early Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kishino, Hirohisa, Thorne, Jeffrey; and Bruno, William. 2001. Performance of a divergence time estimation method under a probabilistic model of rate evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution 18.352–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 1989. Review of Marichal 1988. Etudes celtiques 26.259–61.Google Scholar
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 1994. La langue gauloise: Description linguistique, commentaire d'inscriptions choisies. Paris: Errance. [2nd edn., 2002.]Google Scholar
Lejeune, Michel. 1988. Recueil des inscriptions gauloises 2.1: Textes gallo-étrusques, Textes gallo-latins sur pierre. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Mallory, J. P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, archeology and myth. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Marichal, Robert. 1988. Les graffites de La Graufesenque. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
McManus, Damian. 1983. A chronology of the Latin loan-words in early Irish. Ériu 34.21–71.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
Muse, S. V., and Weir, B. S.. 1992. Testing for equality of evolutionary rates. Genetics 132.269–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oštir, K. 1930. Drei vorslavisch-etruskischen Vogelnamen. Ljublana: Znanstveno Drusto.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin. 1987. Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rexová, Kateřina, Frynta, Daniel; and Zrzavý, Jan. 2003. Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, Michael. 1997. A nonparametric approach to estimating divergence times in the absence of rate constancy. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14.1218–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searls, David B. 2003. Trees of life and language. Nature 426.391–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tischler, Johann. 1973. Glottochronologie und Lexikostatistik. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar
Uhlich, Jürgen. 1999. Zur sprachlichen Einordnung des Lepontischen. Akten des zweiten deutschen Keltologen-Symposiums, ed. by Zimmer, Stefan, Ködderitzsch, Rolf, and Wigger, Arndt, 277–304. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walde, A., and Hofmann, J. B.. 1938-54. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Warnow, Tandy. 1997. Mathematical approaches to comparative linguistics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94.6585–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whatmough, Joshua. 1970. The dialects of ancient Gaul: Prolegomena and records of the dialects. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar