Towards a Formal Genealogical Classification of the Lezgian Languages (North Caucasus): Testing Various Phylogenetic Methods on Lexical Data

Alexei Kassian

53 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Linguistics and language evolution Linguistics and Cultural Studies Language and cultural evolution

Abstract

A lexicostatistical classification is proposed for 20 languages and dialects of the Lezgian group of the North Caucasian family, based on meticulously compiled 110-item wordlists, published as part of the Global Lexicostatistical Database project. The lexical data have been subsequently analyzed with the aid of the principal phylogenetic methods, both distance-based and character-based: Starling neighbor joining (StarlingNJ), Neighbor joining (NJ), Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA), Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), Unweighted maximum parsimony (UMP). Cognation indexes within the input matrix were marked by two different algorithms: traditional etymological approach and phonetic similarity, i.e., the automatic method of consonant classes (Levenshtein distances). Due to certain reasons (first of all, high lexicographic quality of the wordlists and a consensus about the Lezgian phylogeny among Caucasologists), the Lezgian database is a perfect testing area for appraisal of phylogenetic methods. For the etymology-based input matrix, all the phylogenetic methods, with the possible exception of UMP, have yielded trees that are sufficiently compatible with each other to generate a consensus phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects. The obtained consensus tree agrees with the traditional expert classification as well as some of the previously proposed formal classifications of this linguistic group. Contrary to theoretical expectations, the UMP method has suggested the least plausible tree of all. In the case of the phonetic similarity-based input matrix, the distance-based methods (StarlingNJ, NJ, UPGMA) have produced the trees that are rather close to the consensus etymology-based tree and the traditional expert classification, whereas the character-based methods (Bayesian MCMC, UMP) have yielded less likely topologies.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

References

2022The World Atlas of Language Structures Online 2003Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin 2008Language Classification: History and Method 2004Time Depth in Historical Linguistics 1-2 2008Language Classification 2005A comparison of phylogenetic reconstruction methods on an Indo-European dataset 2010The Swadesh wordlist. An attempt at semantic specification 2001The Udi Gospels : annotated text, etymological index, lemmatized concordance

Cited by

2022Phylogeny of the Turkic Languages Inferred from Basic Vocabulary: Limitations of the Lexicostatistical Methods in an Intensive Contact Situation 2017Linguistic homoplasy and phylogeny reconstruction. The cases of Lezgian and Tsezic languages (North Caucasus)2015Proto-Indo-European-Uralic Comparison from the Probabilistic Point of View 2016Morphological fusion without syntactic fusion: The case of the “verificative” in Agul 2021Languages and Sociolinguistics of the Caucasus

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.