Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of LanguagesPeter Forster, Colin Renfrew McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2006 - 198 Seiten Evolutionary ('phylogenetic') trees were first used to infer lost histories nearly two centuries ago by manuscript scholars reconstructing original texts. Today, computer methods are enabling phylogenetic trees to transform genetics, historical linguistics and even the archaeological study of artefact shapes and styles. But which phylogenetic methods are best suited to retracing the evolution of languages? And which types of language data are most informative about deep prehistory? In this book, leading specialists engage with these key questions. Essential reading for linguists, geneticists and archaeologists, these studies demonstrate how phylogenetic tools are illuminating previously intractable questions about language prehistory. This innovative volume arose from a conference of linguists, geneticists and archaeologists held at Cambridge in 2004. |
Im Buch
Ergebnisse 1-3 von 37
Seite 33
... comparison . Using that technique , he claimed to demonstrate genetic relationship between many languages : four families in Africa ( Greenberg 1963 ) , previously unclassified languages of Papua and vicinity ( the Indo - Pacific ...
... comparison . Using that technique , he claimed to demonstrate genetic relationship between many languages : four families in Africa ( Greenberg 1963 ) , previously unclassified languages of Papua and vicinity ( the Indo - Pacific ...
Seite 34
... comparison . In this paper we attempt to elaborate multilateral comparison into something that produces valid , con- vincing , and perhaps even useful results , while retain- ing as many of the properties of the methodology as possible ...
... comparison . In this paper we attempt to elaborate multilateral comparison into something that produces valid , con- vincing , and perhaps even useful results , while retain- ing as many of the properties of the methodology as possible ...
Seite 40
... comparisons , and Marcantonio ( 2002 , 136–53 ) failed to uncover sufficient statistical evidence for establishing a Uralic family . The success in grouping these languages may be taken as a vindication of multilateral comparison . It ...
... comparisons , and Marcantonio ( 2002 , 136–53 ) failed to uncover sufficient statistical evidence for establishing a Uralic family . The success in grouping these languages may be taken as a vindication of multilateral comparison . It ...
Inhalt
CLARE J HOLDEN RUSSELL D GRAY | 19 |
Bantu Classification Bantu Trees and Phylogenetic Methods | 43 |
Chapter 6 | 67 |
Urheberrecht | |
11 weitere Abschnitte werden nicht angezeigt.
Andere Ausgaben - Alle anzeigen
Häufige Begriffe und Wortgruppen
Albanian algorithms Anatolian Archaeological assumptions Bantu languages Bantu trees Bastin Bayesian binary Biology borrowing branch lengths Cambridge Chapter clade cladistics classification coded cognate cognate class cognate sets comparative computational correspondences data set data-cognate dating dialects distribution divergence Dyen East Bantu edge English estimates evidence evolutionary example Figure Forster genetic Germanic glottochronology Gray & Atkinson Greek guages Historical Linguistics Hittite Holden homoplasy Indo-European languages Indo-Iranian inference innovations islands language data language evolution language family lexical evolution lexical replacement lexicostatistics likelihood Malagasy Markov matrix maximum parsimony McDonald Institute McMahon meaning Molecular morphological Mycenaean Neighbor-Net Nichols nodes Pagel parameters phonetic phonological characters phylogenetic methods phylogenetic trees phylogeny posterior probability probability problem Proto-Indo-European rates of lexical reconstruction relationships Renfrew reticulations root semantic slot similar split splits graph statistical subgroup Swadesh Swadesh list telic tion Tocharian verbs vocabulary Warnow word lists zone