Abstract

AbstractSkepticism regarding the tree model has a long tradition in historical linguistics. Although scholars have emphasized that the tree model and its long-standing counterpart, the wave theory, are not necessarily incompatible, the opinion that family trees are unrealistic and should be completely abandoned in the field of historical linguistics has always enjoyed a certain popularity. This skepticism has further increased with the advent of recently proposed techniques for data visualization which seem to confirm that we can study language history without trees. In this article, we show that the concrete arguments that have been brought up in favor of achronistic wave models do not hold. By comparing the phenomenon of incomplete lineage sorting in biology with processes in linguistics, we show that data which do not seem as though they can be explained using trees can indeed be explained without turning to diffusion as an explanation. At the same time, methodological limits in historical reconstruction might easily lead to an overestimation of regularity, which may in turn appear as conflicting patterns when the researcher is trying to reconstruct a coherent phylogeny. We illustrate how, in several instances, trees can benefit language comparison, although we also discuss their shortcomings in modeling mixed languages. While acknowledging that not all aspects of language history are tree-like, and that integrated models which capture both vertical and lateral language relations may depict language history more realistically than trees do, we conclude that all models claiming that vertical language relations can be completely ignored are essentially wrong: either they still tacitly draw upon family trees or they only provide a static display of data and thus fail to model temporal aspects of language history.

Highlights

  • All languages develop by descent with modification (Darwin 1859): linguistic material is transferred from generation to generation of speakers, and slight modifications in pronunciation, denotation, and grammar may sum up to changes which are so large that when two or more linguistic varieties have been separated in some way, be it by geographical or political separation of their speakers, they may become mutually incomprehensible

  • Starting from a brief overview on the historical debate between trees and waves in the history of linguistics, we will introduce the core arguments of the new debate about trees and waves, and defend tree thinking in historical linguistics by showing that patterns which do not look tree-like from a first sight may still be explained by a branching tree model, while on the other hand patterns that look like common inheritance may go back to processes of language contact, which can be readily included into a rooted network model in which the family tree model serves as a backbone representing inheritance, and horizontal edges represent borrowing events

  • We have shown that Schleicher himself was far more aware of the obvious insufficiencies of his tree model than is usually acknowledged in the literature, and that the wave theory by Schmidt, which is often praised as the alternative to the tree, never really reached the level of sophistication to depict the temporal dynamics of language history

Read more

Summary

Introduction

All languages develop by descent with modification (Darwin 1859): linguistic material is transferred from generation to generation of speakers, and slight modifications in pronunciation, denotation, and grammar may sum up to changes which are so large that when two or more linguistic varieties have been separated in some way, be it by geographical or political separation of their speakers, they may become mutually incomprehensible. Linguistic material may be transferred across linguistic boundaries or diffuse across similar speech varieties This does, not change the fact that the primary process by which languages are transmitted is the acquisition of a first language by children (Ringe et al 2002:61, Hale 2007:27-48). That largely incomprehensible and different languages may share a common genetic origin was one of the great insights of 19th century linguistics, and even if lateral forces of diffusion may drastically change the shape of languages, this does not invalidate the crucial role that vertical transmission plays in language history, and we follow Labov (2007:347) in strictly distinguishing transmission of language via first-language-acquisition from diffusion via contact as two distinct processes. The logical and practical necessity of using both models for tree-like and non-tree-like evolution shows that we cannot abandon the tree model in historical linguistics, but should rather work on integrating vertical transmission and horizontal diffusion in a common framework

Dendrophobia and Dendrophilia in Linguistics
Tree Thinking in Schleicher’s Work
Tree Skepticism in the Work of Schmidt and Schuchardt
Early Arguments Against the Stammbaumtheorie
The New Debate on Trees and Waves
Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction after the Quantitative Turn
Linguistic Data and Data-Display Networks
Shared Innovations and Historical Glottometry
Saving the Trees from the Critics
Inherited Variation and Incomplete Lineage Sorting
Alternations
G Knappe
Proto-Variation
Concluding Remarks
The Problem of Identifying Lexical Innovations
Undetectable Borrowings
Nativization of Loanwords
The Benefit of Trees in Language Comparison
Parallel Innovations
Reconstruction of the Ursprache
Directionality of Change
Common Tendencies of Language Change
Language Change and Migration History
The Limits of the Tree model
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call