Hostname: page-component-699b5d5946-l4bsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-02T08:02:11.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Typological feature analysis models linguistic geography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Mark Donohue ,
Bronwen Whiting ,
Simon Musgrave  and
Søren Wichmann
Mark Donohue*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Bronwen Whiting*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Simon Musgrave*
Affiliation:
Monash University
Søren Wichmann*
Affiliation:
Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and Leiden University
*
[mark.donohue@anu.edu.au]
[Simon.Musgrave@arts.monash.edu.au]
[bronwen.whiting@anu.edu.au]
[wichmann@eva.mpg.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dunn and colleagues (2008) describe and exemplify the use of sophisticated analyses of abstract structural features to reconstruct language histories. The techniques that they use do show some clustering in the groups of languages that they examine; Dunn et al. state that they ‘tend to favor a phylogenetic origin for the signal of relatedness’ (p. 748), and that the results of their test case ‘show a close degree of correspondence to the existing linguistic classification based on sound-meaning correspondences’ (p. 747). We argue that a more parsimonious explanation for the results obtained by Dunn et al.'s methodology is that it accurately maps linguistic geography, the network of contact and diffusion that postdates a proto-language, in most cases corresponding to geographic distance.

Keywords

typologyhistorical linguisticscomputational methodsAustronesianPapuan

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 369 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 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

Allen, Jim. 1996. The Pre-Austronesian settlement of Island Melanesia: Implications for Lapita archaeology. Prehistoric settlement of the Pacific, ed. by Goodenough, Ward H., 11–27. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2009. Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2009. Geography is more robust than linguistics. Science e-letter, 13 August 2009. Online: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/324/5926/464-c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark, and Musgrave, Simon. 2007. Typology and the linguistic macro-history of Island Melanesia. Oceanic Linguistics 46.2. 348–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark, and Whiting, Bronwen. 2009. Assessing California as a linguistic area. Paper presented at the Workshop on American Indigenous Languages, University of California, Santa Barbara, 8–9 May 2009.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark, Wichmann, Søren; and Albu, Mihai. 2008. Typology, areality and diffusion. Oceanic Linguistics 47.1. 223–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Foley, Robert, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Levinson, Stephen C., Lindström, Eva, Reesink, Ger; and Terrill, Angela. 2008. Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in Island Melanesia. Language 84.4. 710–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David; and Comrie, Bernard. 2005. World atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holman, Eric W., Schulze, Christian, Stauffer, Dietrich; and Wichmann, Søren. 2007. On the relation between structural diversity and geographical distance among languages: Observations and computer simulations. Linguistic Typology 11.2. 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., Ronquist, Frederik, Nielsen, Rasmus; and Bollback, Jonathan P.. 2001. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294.2310–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunley, Keith, Dunn, Michael, Lindström, Eva, Reesink, Ger, Terrill, Angela, Healy, Meghan E., Koki, George, Friedlaender, Françoise R.; and Friedlaender, Jonathan S.. 2008. Genetic and linguistic coevolution in Northern Island Melanesia. PLoS Genetics 4.10.el000239. Online: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huson, Daniel H., and Bryant, David. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23.2. 254–67. Software available from http://www.splitstree.org.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, John, Ross, Malcolm; and Crowley, Terry. 2002. The Oceanic languages. London: Curzon.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 283–310. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, and Warnow, Tandy. 2008. Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass 2.5. 760–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2001. Is there an East Papuan phylum? Evidence from pronouns. The boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Button, ed. by Pawley, Andrew, Ross, Malcolm, and Tryon, Darrel, 301–21. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Spriggs, Matthew. 1997. The Island Melanesians. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Rijsbergen, C. J. Keith. 1979. Information retrieval. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren, and Saunders, Arpiar. 2007. How to use typological databases in historical linguistic research. Diachronica 24.2. 373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Ziheng. 2008. Empirical evaluation of a prior for Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B363.4031–39.Google Scholar