Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 41:1 (2024) ► pp.46–98

Disentangling Ancestral State Reconstruction in historical linguistics

Comparing classic approaches and new methods using Oceanic grammar

ORCID logo | Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Ancestral State Reconstruction (ASR) is an essential part of historical linguistics (HL). Conventional ASR in HL relies on three core principles: fewest changes on the tree, plausibility of changes and plausibility of the resulting combinations of features in proto-languages. This approach has some problems, in particular the definition of what is plausible and the disregard for branch lengths. This study compares the classic approach of ASR to computational tools (Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood), conceptually and practically. Computational models have the advantage of being more transparent, consistent and replicable, and the disadvantage of lacking nuanced knowledge and context. Using data from the structural database Grambank, I compare reconstructions of the grammar of ancestral Oceanic languages from the HL literature to those achieved by computational means. The results show that there is a high degree of agreement between manual and computational approaches, with a tendency for classical HL to ignore branch lengths. Explicitly taking branch lengths into account is more conceptually sound; as such the field of HL should engage in improving methods in this direction. A combination of computational methods and qualitative knowledge is possible in the future and would be of great benefit.
Keywords: Oceanic languages, classical ancestral state reconstruction, computational ancestral state reconstruction, grammatical change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The methods of ancestral state reconstruction in traditional historical linguistics
      • 2.1.1Disagreements in HL
    • 2.2Evaluating if the data are valid for phylogenetic analysis: The Double Cognacy Condition and phylogenetic signal
    • 2.3Computational phylogenetic methods
  • 3.Materials and methods
    • 3.1Methods: Maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and most common
    • 3.2Calculation of similarity between predictions from conventional HL and computational approaches
    • 3.3Data
      • 3.3.1The Grambank dataset
      • 3.3.2Data coverage
      • 3.3.3The trees
      • 3.3.4Data from historical linguistics on Oceanic proto-language grammar
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Concordance between traditional HL and computational methods
    • 4.2New predictions
    • 4.3Where the conflicts are: Ergativity
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Supplementary material
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 7 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22022.ski
References (98)
References
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Quentin D. and Russell D. Gray. 2005. Curious parallels and curious connections—Phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Systematic Biology 54(4). 513–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ball, Douglas. 2007. On ergativity and accusativity in Proto-Polynesian and Proto-Central Pacific. Oceanic Linguistics 128–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, Jeremy, Brian O’Meara, Jeffrey Oliver and James Boyko. 2022. corhmm: Hidden Markov models of character evolution. [URL]. R package version 2.8.
Bellwood, Peter. 2011. Holocene population history in the pacific region as a model for worldwide food producer dispersals. Current Anthropology 52(S4). S363–S378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, S. P. and T. Garland. 2002. Tempo and mode in evolution: Phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15(6). 899–910. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, Simon P., Theodore Garland and Anthony R. Ives. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: Behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57(4). 717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert A. 1996. The neogrammarian hypothesis and pandemic irregularity. In Mark Durie and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 135–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. *t to k: An Austronesian sound change revisited. Oceanic Linguistics 43(2). 365–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
2014. Some recent proposals concerning the classification of the Austronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 53(2). 300–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert A. and Victoria Chen. 2017. The pitfalls of negative evidence: ‘Nuclear Austronesian’, ‘ergative Austronesian’, and their progeny. Language and Linguistics 18(4). 577–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borges, Rui, Joã Paulo Machado, Cidália Gomes, Ana Paula Rocha and Agostinho Antunes. 2018. Measuring phylogenetic signal between categorical traits and phylogenies. Bioinformatics 35(11). 1862–1869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco and Joseph Heled. 2014. DensiTree 2: Seeing trees through the forest. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1996. On sound change and challenges to regularity. In Mark Durie and Malcom Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 72–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd and Chundra Cathcart. 2021. Reconstructing the evolution of Indo-European grammar. Language 971. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra Aroor. 2018. Modeling linguistic evolution: A look under the hood. Linguistics Vanguard 4(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Will, Chundra Cathcart, David Hall and Andrew Garrett. 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language 91(1). 194–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1977. Review of Clark, R. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 86(4). 537–540.Google Scholar
. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian languages. Austin: University of Texas. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, D. Ross. 1973. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. San Diego: University of California dissertation.
Crowley, Terry. 1985. Common noun phrase marking in Proto-Oceanic. Oceanic Linguistics 24(1/2). 135–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: Murray. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drummond, Alexei J. and Remco R. Bouckaert. 2015. Bayesian evolutionary analysis with BEAST. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Bethwyn. 2001. A study of valency-changing devices in Proto Oceanic. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.
Evans, Cara, Simon J. Greenhill, Joseph Watts, Johann-Mattis List, Carlos A. Botero, Russell Gray and Kathryn R. Kirby. 2021. The uses and abuses of tree thinking in cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 3761(1828). 20200056. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, Joseph. 2004. Inferring phylogenies, vol. 21. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Fritz, Susanne A. and Andy Purvis. 2010. Selectivity in mammalian extinction risk and threat types: A new measure of phylogenetic signal strength in binary traits. Conservation Biology 24(4). 1042–1051. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geraghty, Paul A. 1996. Problems with Central Pacific. In John Lynch and Fa’afo Pat (eds.), Oceanic studies: Proceedings of the first international conference on Oceanic linguistics, 83–91. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1993. Contamination in morphological change in Algonquian languages. In Aertsen and Robert J. Jeffers (eds.), Historical linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th international conference on historical linguistics, New Brunswick, 14–18 August 1989 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 106], 129–140. New Brunswick, NJ: John Benjamins: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, David. 2022. There’s no escaping phylogenetics. In Laura Grestenberger, Hannes A. Reiss, Charlesand Fellner and Gabriel Z. Pantillon (eds.), Ha! Linguistic studies in honor of Mark R. Hale, 71–91. Wiesbaden: Reichert. DOI logo [URL]
Grace, George William. 1958. The position of the Polynesian languages within the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) language family. New York: Columbia University dissertation.
Gray, Russell D., Alexei J. Drummond and Simon J. Greenhill. 2009. Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science 323(5913). 479–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, Simon. 2015. Evolution and language: Phylogenetic analyses. In James D. Wright (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences 2nd edn., 370–377. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, Simon and Russell Gray. 2009. Austronesian language phylogenies: Myths and misconceptions about Bayesian computational methods. In Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, 375–397. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics DOI logo. [URL]
Greenhill, Simon J., Robert Andrew Blust and Russell D. Gray. 2008. The Austronesian basic vocabulary database: From bioinformatics to lexomics. Evolutionary Bioinformatics 41. 271–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J. and Ross Clark. 2011. Pollex-online: The Polynesian lexicon project online. Oceanic Linguistics 50(2). 551–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1968. Review of Hohepa 1967. Journal of the Polynesian Society 77(1). 83–99.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Thom Castermans, Robert Forkel, Kevin Verbeek, Michel A. Westenberg and Bettina Speckmann. 2018. Simultaneous visualization of language endangerment and language description. Language Documentation & Conservation 121. 359–392. [URL]
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath and Sebastian Bank. 2021. Glottolog/glottolog: Glottolog database 4.5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction 731. 95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hohepa, Patrick W. 1967. A profile generative grammar of Maori. (Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics 20). Baltimore, MD: Waverly PressGoogle Scholar
1969. The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 78(3). 295–329.Google Scholar
Holland, Barbara R., Saan Ketelaar-Jones, Aidan R. O’Mara, Michael D. Woodhams and Gregory J. Jordan. 2020. Accuracy of ancestral state reconstruction for non-neutral traits. Scientific Reports 10(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., Rasmus Nielsen and Jonathan P. Bollback. 2003. Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Systematic Biology 52(2). 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, Nataliia. 2022. Phylogenetic signal and rate of evolutionary change in language structures. Royal Society Open Science 9(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ives, Anthony R. and Theodore Garland. 2009. Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Systematic Biology 59(1). 9–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard and Johann-Mattis List. 2018. Using ancestral state reconstruction methods for onomasiological reconstruction in multilingual word lists. Language Dynamics and Change 8(1). 22–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard and Søren Wichmann. 2016. Inferring the world tree of languages from word lists. In Seán G. Roberts, Christine Cuskley, Luke McCrohon, Lluis Barceló-Coblijn, Olga Feher and Tessa Verhoef (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th international conference. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jombart, Thibaut, Stéphane Dray and Anders Ellern Bilgrau. 2017. Package ‘adephylo’. [URL]
Jonsson, Niklas. 1997. Det polynesiska verbmorfemet -Cia; om dess funktion i samoanska [The Polynesian verbal morpheme -Cia; its function in Samoan] Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University BA thesis. Google Scholar
Joy, Jeffrey B., Richard H. Liang, Rosemary M. McCloskey, T. Nguyen and Art F. Y. Poon. 2016. Ancestral reconstruction. PLoS Computational Biology 12(7). e1004763. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2002. Proto Central Pacific ergativity: Its reconstruction and development in the Fijian, Rotuman and Polynesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2006. On the development of number systems in Oceanic pronouns. Talk given at Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Oceanic linguistics (cool6), Port Vila, Vanuatu.Google Scholar
de Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet. 1809. Philosophie zoologique, ou exposition des considérations relatives à l’histoire naturelle des animaux, tome 21. Paris: F Savy. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liggett, Thomas. 2010. Continuous time Markov chains. In Graduate studies in mathematics, 57–90. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
List, Johann-Mattis, Robert Forkel, Simon J. Greenhill, Christoph Rzymski, Johannes Englisch and Russell D. Gray. 2022. Lexibank, a public repository of standardized wordlists with computed phonological and lexical features. Scientific Data 9(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
List, Johann-Mattis, Simon J. Greenhill and Russell D. Gray. 2017. The potential of automatic word comparison for historical linguistics. PLOS ONE 12(1). e0170046. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louca, Stilianos and Michael Doebeli. 2017. Efficient comparative phylogenetics on large trees. Bioinformatics 34(6). 1053–1055. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, John, Malcolm Ross and Terry Crowley. 2011. Proto Oceanic. In John Lynch, Malcolm Ross and Terry Crowley (eds.), The Oceanic languages [Curzon Language Family Series] 54–91. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
Macklin-Cordes, Jayden L., Claire Bowern and Erich R. Round. 2021. Phylogenetic signal in phonotactics. Diachronica 38(2). 210–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maclaurin, James and Kim Sterelny. 2008. What is biodiversity? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marck, Jeffrey C. 2000. Polynesian languages. In J. Garry and C. Rubino (eds.), Facts about the world’s languages: An encyclopaedia of the world’s major languages, past and present, 560–567. New York: H.W. Wilson.Google Scholar
Orme, David, R. Freckleton, G. Thomas, Thomas Petzoldt, Susanne Fritz, Nick Isaac and Will Pearse. 2013. The caper package: Comparative analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version 5(2). 1–36.Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark. 1999. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401(6756). 877–884. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Andrew Meade and Daniel Barker. 2004. Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Systematic Biology 53(5). 673–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Emmanuel, Julien Claude and Korbinian Strimmer. 2004. Ape: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20(2). 289–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1970. Grammatical reconstruction and change in Polynesia and Fiji. In Stephen A. Wurm and Donald C. Laycock (eds.), Studies in honour of Arthur Capell, 301–368. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. [URL]
. 1972. On the internal relationships of Eastern Oceanic languages. In Roger C. Green and Marion Kelly (eds.), Studies in Oceanic culture history, vol. 3131, 1–142. Honolulu: Pacific Anthropological Records, Bishop Museum.Google Scholar
. 1973. Some problems in Proto-Oceanic grammar. Oceanic Linguistics 12(1/2). 103–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The meaning(s) of Proto Oceanic *panua. In Claudia Gross, Harriet D. Lyons and Dorothy A. Counts (eds.), A polymath anthropologist: Essays in honour of Ann Chowning (Research in Anthropology and Linguistics Monograph 6), 133–145. Auckland: Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya and Martin W. Lewis. 2015. Why linguists don’t do dates? – or do they? In The Indo-European controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [URL]
Revell, Liam J. 2023. phytools: Phylogenetic tools for comparative biology (and other things). [URL]. R package version 1.9-16.
Revelle, William. 2022. psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. [URL]. R package version 2.2.9.
Ronquist, Fredrik. 2004. Bayesian inference of character evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(9). 475–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm, Andrew Pawley and Meredith Osmond (eds.). 1998. Material culture (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 1). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(eds.). 2007. The physical environment (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 2). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(eds.). 2008. Plants (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 3). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(eds.). 2011. Animals (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 4). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(eds.). 2016. People: Body and mind (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 5). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Available at: [URL]
(eds.). 2023. People: Society (The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society 6). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. [URL]. Available at: [URL]
Ross, Malcolm D. 2004. The morphosyntactic typology of Oceanic languages. Language and Linguistics 5(2). 491–541. [URL]
2007. Two kinds of locative construction in Oceanic languages: A robust distinction. In Jeff Siegel, John Lynch and Diana Eades (eds.), Language description, history and development: Linguistic indulgence in memory of Terry Crowley, 281–295. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, Yutaka et al. 2007. The truth of the f-measure. Accessed 2021-05-26. [URL]
Savage, Wesley K. and Sean P. Mullen. 2009. A single origin of Batesian mimicry among hybridizing populations of admiral butterflies (limenitis arthemis) rejects an evolutionary reversion to the ancestral phenotype. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276(1667). 2557–2565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlegel, F. 1808. Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer.Google Scholar
Schliep, Klaus, Emmanuel Paradis, Leonardo de Oliveira Martins, Alastair Potts and Iris Bardel-Kahr. 2023. phangorn: Phylogenetic reconstruction and analysis. [URL]. R package version 2.11.1.
Schulmeister, Susanne and Ward C. Wheeler. 2004. Comparative and phylogenetic analysis of developmental sequences. Evolution and Development 6(1). 50–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns. In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. DOI logo [URL]
Skirgård, Hedvig, Hannah J. Haynie, Damián E. Blasi, Harald Hammarström, Jeremy Collins, Jay J. Latarche, Jakob Lesage, inter alia and Russell D. Gray. 2023. Grambank reveals global patterns in the structural diversity of the world’s languages. Science Advances 91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skirgård, Hedvig. 2023. Hedvigs/oceanic_computational_asr: v1.0. Zenodo archive. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slingerland, Edward, Quentin D. Atkinson, Carol R. Ember, Oliver Sheehan, Michael Muthukrishna, Joseph Bulbulia and Russell D. Gray. 2020. Coding culture: Challenges and recommendations for comparative cultural databases. Evolutionary Hu-man Sciences 21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Dia-chronica 30(1). 95–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Joseph, Oliver Sheehan, Quentin D. Atkinson, Joseph Bulbulia and Russell D. Gray. 2016. Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies. Nature 532(7598). 228–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2020. reshape2: Flexibly reshape data: A reboot of the reshape package, version 1.4. 4. [URL]
Wickham, Hadley, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy D’Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, inter alia and Hiroaki Yutani. 2019. Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4(43). 1686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar