Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T16:15:31.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Syntax: The Parametric Comparison Method

from Part II - Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2017

By
Giuseppe Longobardi  and
Cristina Guardiano
Edited by
Adam Ledgeway  and
Ian Roberts
Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Ian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 241 - 272
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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.)

References

Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. and Stavrou, M. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) 2001. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbançon, F. G., Evans, S.N., Nakhleh, L., Ringe, D. and Warnow, T. 2013. ‘An experimental study comparing linguistic phylogenetic reconstruction methods’, Diachronica 30(2): 143–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, J. 2001. ‘The DP hypothesis: Identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), pp. 536–61.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2008. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheean, M. (eds.) 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Piattelli Palmarini, M. 2005. ‘Language as a natural object; Linguistics as a natural science’, The Linguistic Review 22(2–3): 447–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortolussi, L., Longobardi, G., Guardiano, C. and Sgarro, A. 2011. ‘How many possible languages are there?’, in Bel-Enguix, G., Dahl, V. and Jiménez-López, M. D. (eds.), Biology, computation and linguistics. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 168–79.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, R., Lemey, P., Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Alekseyenko, A. V., Drummond, A. J., Gray, R. D., Suchard, M. A. and Atkinson, Q. D. 2012. ‘Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family’, Science 337: 957–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R., Bogerhoff-Mulder, M., Durham, W. H. and Richerson, P. J. 1997. ‘Are cultural phylogenies possible?’, in Weingart, P., Mitchell, S. D., Richerson, P. J. and Maasen, S. (eds.), Human by nature: Between biology and the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 355–86.Google Scholar
Braudel, F. 1985. La Mediterranée. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Cavalli Sforza, L. L. 2000. Genes, peoples, and languages. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cavalli Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P. and Piazza, A. 1994. The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cavalli Sforza, L. L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P. and Mountain, J. 1988. ‘Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archeological and linguistic data’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 85: 6002–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. MS, MIT (published in 1975, New York: Plenum).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clackson, J., Forster, P. and Renfrew, C. (eds.) 2004. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 299–345.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. 1998. Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M. and Boeckx, C. (eds.) 2011. The biolinguistic enterprise. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. 1998. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, M., Terrill, A., Reesink, G., Foley, R. A. and Levinson, S. C. 2005. ‘Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history’, Science 309(5743): 2072–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyen, I., Kruskal, J. B. and Black, P. 1992. ‘An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(5): 1–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embleton, S. 1986. Statistics in historical linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. 2012. Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1993. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.5c. Distributed by the author. Department of Genetics, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Fitch, T. W. 2010. The evolution of language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. D. 2001. ‘Setting syntactic parameters’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), pp. 730–67.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, J., Paul, I. and Wiltschko, M. (eds.) 2009. Determiners: Universals and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–41.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Giuseppe, L. 1991. The syntax of noun phrases: Configuration, parameters and empty categories. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, R. D. and Atkinson, Q. D. 2003. ‘Language tree divergences support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin’, Nature 426: 435–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, J. 1963. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 2000. Indo-European and its closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic language family. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenhill, S. J. 2011. ‘Levenshtein distances fail to identify language relationships accurately’, Computational Linguistics 37: 689–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2005. ‘Parametric comparison and language taxonomy’, in Batllori, M., Hernanz, M.-Ll., Picallo, C. and Roca, F. (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric variation. Oxford University Press, pp. 149–74.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2016. ‘Parameter theory and parametric comparison’, in Roberts, I. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 377-401.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. Forthcoming. ‘Formal syntactic methods for establishing language phyogenies’, in Janda, R.D., Joseph, B.D. and Vance, B. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, Vol. II. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C., Michelioudakis, D., Ceolin, A., Irimia, M. A., Longobardi, G., Radkevich, N., Silvestri, G. and Sitaridou, I. 2016. ‘South by southeast: A syntactic approach to Greek and Romance microvariation’, unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, T. W. 2002. ‘The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?’, Science 298: 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heggarty, P. 2004. ‘Interdisciplinary indiscipline? Can phylogenetic methods meaningfully be applied to language data – and to dating language?’, in Clackson, , Forster, and Renfrew, (eds.), pp. 183–94.Google Scholar
Jäger, G. 2013. ‘Lexikostatik 2.0’, in Plewnia, A. and Witt, A. (eds.), Sprachverfall? Dynamik – Wandel – Variation. Jahrbuch 2013 des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 197–216.Google Scholar
Jäger, G. 2015. ‘Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment’. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science 112(41): 12752–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kayne, R. 2000. Parameters and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. 1994. ‘Creating anaphors: An historical study of the English reflexive pronouns’, unpublished MS, UCLA.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2000. ‘An historical explanation of some binding theoretic facts in English’, unpublished MS, UCLA.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2002. ‘Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–54.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. and Paperno, D. (eds.) 2012. Handbook of quantifiers in natural languages. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyrè, A. 1961. ‘Du monde de l’à peu près’ à l’univers de la precision’, in Etudes d’histoire de la pensée philosophique. Paris: Colin, pp. 311–29.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1991. How to set parameters. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohr, M. 1998. ‘Methods for the genetic classification of languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. ‘Reference and proper names’, Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609–65.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1996. ‘The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory’, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics 5, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001a. ‘How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names’, Natural Language Semantics 9: 335–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001b. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2003. ‘Methods in parametric linguistics and cognitive history’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 101–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2005. ‘A minimalist program for parametric linguistics?’, in Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. and Koster, J. (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies for Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 407–14.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters’, in Klinge, A. and Müller, H. Høeg (eds.), Essays on nominal determination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2012. ‘Convergence in parametric phylogenies: Homoplasy or principled explanation?’, in Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F. and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter theory and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 304–19.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. and Guardiano, C. 2009. ‘Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness’, Lingua 119(11): 1679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G., Guardiano, C., Silvestri, G., Boattini, A. and Ceolin, A. 2013. ‘Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages’, Journal of Historical Linguistics 3: 122–52.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G., Ghirotto, S., Guardiano, C., Tassi, F., Benazzo, A., Ceolin, A. and Barbujani, G. 2015. ‘Across language families: Genome diversity mirrors linguistic variation within Europe’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 157: 630–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G., Ceolin, A., Bortolussi, L., Guardiano, C., Irimia, M. A., Michelioudakis, D., Radkevich, N. and Sgarro, A. 2016a. ‘Mathematical modeling of grammatical diversity supports the historical reality of formal syntax’, in Bentz, C., Jäger, G. and Yanovich, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the Leidon Workshop on Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms for Linguistics. University of Tubingen, online publication system, https://publikationen.unituebingen.do/xmlui/handle/10900/68558.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G., Ceolin, A., Ecay, A., Ghirotto, S., Guardiano, C., Irimia, M. A., Michelioudakis, D., Radkevic, N., Luiselli, D., Pettener, D. and Barbujani, G. 2016b. ‘Formal linguistics as a cue to demographic history’, Journal of Anthropological Sciences 94: 1–10..Google ScholarPubMed
Mantel, N. 1967. ‘The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach’, Cancer Research 27: 209–20.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. 1990. ‘On megalocomparison’, Language 66: 106–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. 2010. ‘Computational models and language contact’, in Hickey, R. (ed.), The handbook of language contact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 31–47.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. and McMahon, R. 2003. ‘Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classifying’, Transaction of the Philological Society 101(1): 7–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. and McMahon, R. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakhleh, L., Warnow, T., Ringe, D. and Evans, S. N. 2005. ‘A comparison of phylogenetic reconstruction methods on an IE dataset’, Transactions of the Philological Society 3(2): 171–92.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, J. and Kretzschmar, W. 2003. ‘Introducing computational methods in dialectometry’, in Nerbonne, J. and Kretzschmar, W. (eds.), Computational methods in dialectometry (special issue of Computers and the Humanities 37(3)), pp. 245–55.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1996. ‘The comparative method as heuristic’, in Durie, M. and Ross, M. (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novembre, J., Johnson, T., Bryc, K., Kutalik, Z., Boyko, A. R., Auton, A., Indap, A., King, K. S., Bergmann, S., Nelson, M. R., Stephens, M. and Bustamante, C. D. 2008. ‘Genes mirror geography within Europe’, Nature 456: 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piattelli Palmarini, M. 1989. ‘Evolution, selection and cognition: From “learning” to parameter setting in biology and in the study of language’, Cognition 31: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (ed.) 2003. Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1992. ‘Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity’, Man 27(3): 445–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, D. 1992. ‘On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(1): 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, D. 1996. ‘The mathematics of Amerind’, Diachronica 13: 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, D., Warnow, T. and Taylor, A. 2002. ‘Indo-European and computational cladistics’, Transactions of the Philological Society 100(1): 59–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1998. ‘Review of Harris and Campbell 1995’, Romance Philology 51: 363–70.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2007. ‘The mystery of the overlooked discipline: Modern syntactic theory and cognitive science’, available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001611.Google Scholar
Sihler, A. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. 1988. ‘Genetic, geographic, and linguistic distances in Europe’, PNAS 85: 1722–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spruit, M. R. 2008. Quantitative perspectives on syntactic variation in Dutch dialects. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufmann, T. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Cort, T. 2001. ‘Computational evolutionary linguistics: Tree-based models of language change’, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvey Mudd College, Pomona, CA.Google Scholar
Warnow, T., Evans, S. N., Ringe, D. and Nakhleh, L. 2004. ‘Stochastic models of language evolution and an application to the Indo-European family of languages’, in Clackson, , Forster, and Renfrew, (eds.), n.p. (available at www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/evans/659.pdf).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×