Shared structural features in Transeurasianlanguages: borrowed or inherited?

Nataliia Neshcheret

Eurasia3angle,Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History

29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 1 / 26

Introduction

Language sample

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

020

40

60

80

100

EvBEvDEvk

Nan

Neg

OrocOrok

Udi

Olch

Soln

Azer

BashChu

CrimGag

Khak

Khal

Shor

Trk

Tuv

Yak

Tat

TukJap

Ogm

ShuTar

HatIke

Oki

Yon

Yuw

Bon

Halh

Mang

Kalm

Bur

Kor

Ain

Niv

Mar

Fin

TurkicMongolicTungusicJaponicKoreanAinuNivkhUralic

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 2 / 26

Introduction

How are these methods and this kind of data useful?

Q1 How can my research contribute to the debate on the internalstructure of the Transeurasian family?

Q2 Can we define a “Transeurasian” area, based on structuralfeatures, which stands out among other language families inthe area?

Q3 What methods do other disciplines offer for investigation ofquestions from macro-typology and historical linguistics?

Q4 What can structural features tell us about the relationshipsbetween languages in question?

Q5 What is the impact of language contact on the structuralchange of the Transeurasian languages?

Q6 Are there differences in structural features regarding theamount of genealogical signal?

Q7 How does the topology change, if structural features with thelowest phylogenetic signal are excluded from the analysis?

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 3 / 26

Introduction

The challenge: Structural features

I “where the lexical signal has been lost, a faint structuralsignal might still be discernible” (Dunn et al. 2005)

I “the most stable structural features of languages could beuseful for deep historical reconstruction just like the mostconservative portion of the vocabulary” (Dediu and Levinson2012)

I “Structural features necessarily have a more attenuatedhistorical signal than lexical features, since shared structuralfeatures may originate from borrowing and convergentevolution (homoplasy) as well as from inheritance.” (Reesinket al. 2009)

I “[...] on average, most grammatical features actually changefaster than items of basic vocabulary” (Greenhill et al. 2017)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 4 / 26

Material and methods

What and how?

I data:I 38 Transeurasian languages (9,576 data points)I 4 non-Transeurasian languagesI 228 structural features (189 Grambank features, 39 features on

phonology and formal representation)

I sources:I language descriptions,I dictionaries,I native speakers,I language specialists

I methods:I Bayesian tree-sampling,I neighbour-joiningI phylogenetic comparative methods

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 5 / 26

Material and methods

Feature set

I morphosyntactic features:I person, number, possession, interrogation, negation, derivation

patterns, valency operations, numeral systems, comparison,argument marking, deixis)

I phonological featuresI voicing distinction in plosives/fricatives, l/r distinction,

constraints on initial consonants, availability of initialconsonant clusters, vowel harmony, vowel length

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 6 / 26

Material and methods

Coding example

(1) Udehe (Tungusic; Nikolaeva and Tolskaya 2001: 840)

mamasaold.woman

ule:-wemeat-ACC

olokto-inicook-3SG

‘The old woman is cooking meat.’

(2) Khalkha (Mongolic; Janhunen 2012: 246)

noxaidog

mo:r-i:gcat-ACC

barı-ebcatch-TERM

‘The dog caught the cat.’

I Is pragmatically unmarked word order verb-final for transitive clauses? →yes, 1

I Can the A argument be indexed by a suffix/enclitic on the verb in thesimple main clause? → yes for Udihe, 1, → no for Khalkha, 0

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 7 / 26

Material and methods

Raw data

language verb-final word order A argument marked on the verb

Udehe 1 1Khalkha 1 0

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 8 / 26

Transeurasian debate

Q1, Q4: The TEA (=Transeurasian) forest

I lexicostatistics tree (vocabulary)(Starostin et al. 2003)

I classical comparative tree(Robbeets 2015)

I lexicostatistics tree (case suffixes)(Blazek and Schwarz 2014)

I Bayesian tree (Robbeets andBouckaert 2018)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 9 / 26

Transeurasian debate

Q1, Q4: Transeurasian topology based on structuralfeatures

Japono-Koreanic

Tungusic

Turkic

Mongolic

I Japono-Koreanic vs. Altaic branches

I Tungusic splits off first from the Altaic ancestor

I this structure is stable across all tested models, ifneighbouring languages are excluded

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 10 / 26

TEA vs. non-TEA: neighbour-joining

Q1, Q4: Transeurasian topology based on structuralfeatures

Tungusic

TurkicMongolic

Koreanic

Japonic

weight threshold = 0,00568

Splitstree4, Huson and Bryant (2010)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 11 / 26

TEA vs. non-TEA: neighbour-joining

Q2, Q5: How do non-Transeurasian languages relate tothe Transeurasian languages?

Tungusic

Turkic

Mongolic

Uralic

Nivkh Ainu

Koreanic

Japonic

weight threshold = 0,00568Splitstree4, Huson and Bryant (2010)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 12 / 26

TEA vs. non-TEA: neighbour-joining

Q3: What are the languages with the highest conflictingsignal?

MangghuerFinnishYakutBuriat EvenD

KalmykKhakasTuvan MariKhalajNivkh ChuvashSolon

Khalkha UdeheUlchNanaiBaoanAinu Bashkir

OrokEvenB ShorOroch Tatar

GagauzEvenki TurkishAzerbaijaniTurkmen

CrimTatarIkemaHateruma

NegidalKoreanYonaguniTarama

OgamiYuwanJapanese

Shuri

Okinoerabu

0.30

0.33

0.36

0.39Ainu

Japonic

Koreanic

Mongolic

Nivkh

Tungusic

Turkic

Uralic

Language family

De

lta

sc

ore

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 13 / 26

TEA vs. non-TEA: Bayesian

Q1-Q5: Transeurasian vs. neighbours: the best-fittingmodel

Tatar

EvenD

GagauzTurkmen

Khalkha

Chuvash

Buriat

Nanai

Tuvan

Mangghuer

Korean

Baoan

EvenB

Yonaguni

Finnish

Shuri

Solon

Khakas

Kalmyk

CrimTatar

Orok

Bashkir

Ulch

Japanese

Shor

Mari

Khalaj

Yakut

Tarama

Oroch

Ikema

Azerbaijani

Udehe

Hateruma

Okinoerabu

Nivkh

NegidalEvenki

Ainu

Turkish

Yuwan

Ogami

0.57

0.92

0.15

0.4

0.04

0.680.89

0.46

0.96

0.5

0.32

0.14

0.4

0.87

0.53

0.17

0.21

0.13

0.08

0.98

0.1

0.99

0.16

0.17

0.89

0.3

0.22

0.03

0.61

0.41

0.3

0.37

0.51

0.07

0.72

0.16

0.46

0.32

0.12

1

0.09

BEAST2, Bouckaert et al. (2014)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 14 / 26

Phylogenetic signal

Q6: How reliable are structural features in derivingphylogenies?

I is there a phylogenetic signal in structural features?I calculate Fritz and Purvis’ D (Fritz and Purvis 2010):I lower D value indicate a higher phylogenetic signal, higher

values are a sign of overdispersionI a feature with a high signal will have the same state in sister

languagesI how does a phylogeny based on features with a high

phylogenetic signal differ from the one based on all the codedfeatures?I compare the results of distance-based methodsI compare the maximum clade credibility trees

I what are the differences in the phylogenetic signal acrossfeatures? [future research]I compare D values across featuresI compare D values across features on different language

domains

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 15 / 26

Phylogenetic signal

Q6: GB028 Is there an inclusive/exclusive distinction?Estimated D = 0.08

AinuNivkhMariFinnishKoreanJapaneseIkemaTaramaHaterumaYonaguniOgamiOkinoerabuYuwanShuriEvenDEvenBNegidalEvenkiSolonNanaiUlchOrokOrochUdiheBuriatKhalkhaKalmykBaoanMangghuerChuvashKhalajYakutTuvanKhakasShorBashkirTatarCrimTatarTurkishGagauzAzerbaijaniTurkmen

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 16 / 26

Phylogenetic signal

Q6: Phylogenetic signal across structural features: Fritz &Purvis’ D

0

20

40

60

-10 -5 0 5

Estimated D

Fre

qu

en

cy

blue=ideal topology, red=the best-fitting modelfunction phylo.d, package CAPER, Orme et al. (2013)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 17 / 26

Phylogenetic signal

Q6: Are high D values due to feature uniformity?

I if a feature has 41 times a “0” value and 1 time a “1” value,most of the sister branches will have the same value

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

-4 -2 0 2

Estimated D

Un

iform

ity

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 18 / 26

Phylogenetic signal

Q6: Estimated D < 0.5: core Transeurasian

Tungusic

Turkic

Mongolic

Koreanic

Japonic

weight threshold = 0,00568Splitstree4, Huson and Bryant (2010)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 19 / 26

Phylogenetic signal

Q7: Estimated D < 0.5: Neighbours

Uralic

Nivkh

AinuKoreanic

JaponicTungusic

TurkicMongolic

weight threshold = 0,00568

Splitstree4, Huson and Bryant (2010)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 20 / 26

Phylogenetic signal

Q7: Estimated D < 0.5: Neighbours

Yuwan

Tarama

Mangghuer

Bashkir

Turkmen

Turkish

EvenD

CrimTatar

Khalkha

Finnish

Shuri

Ikema

Tuvan

Hateruma

Yonaguni

Khalaj

EvenB

Mari

Azerbaijani

Evenki

Ulch

Japanese

Solon

Udehe

Oroch

Nivkh

KhakasTatar

Negidal

Shor

Okinoerabu

Chuvash

Yakut

Korean

Kalmyk

Orok

Baoan

Buriat

Ogami

Ainu

Gagauz

Nanai

0.58

0.04

0.15

0.47

0.63

0.7

0.1

0.27

0.25

0.03

0.14

0.26

0.13

0.78

1

0.21

0.28

0.4

0.93

0.08

0.230.44

0.6

0.93

0.94

0.15

0.11

0.2

0.05

0.39

0.17

0.52

0.66

0.07

0.18

0.16

0.77

0.06

0.13

0.34

0.34

BEAST 2 Bouckaert et al. (2014)

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 21 / 26

Conclusions

I topology based on structural features = topology based onbasic vocabulary, if neighbours excluded

I “Transeurasian” area not clearly definable due to typologicalsimilarity of the Uralic

I Bayesian and neighbour-joining tree-building methods usefulfor macro-typology

I phylogenetic comparative methods need to be applied withcaution

I the phylogenetic signal can be veiled by contact, if extensive

I exclusion of “unstable” features did not provide a topologysimilar to the one based on basic vocabulary

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 22 / 26

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Simon Greenhill, Annemarie Verkerk and RonHubler for their methodological support.

Thanks to Aleksandr Savelyev and Sofia Oskolskaya for support indata collection.

The research leading to these results has received funding from theEuropean Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’sHorizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grantagreement No 646612) granted to Martine Robbeets.

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 23 / 26

References I

Baele, Guy, Philippe Lemey, Trevor Bedford, Andrew Rambaut, Marc A Suchard, andAlexander V Alekseyenko. 2012. Improving the accuracy of demographic andmolecular clock model comparison while accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty.Molecular biology and evolution 29:2157–2167.

Blazek, Vaclav, and Michal Schwarz. 2014. Jmenna deklinace v altajskych jazycıch.Linguistica Brunensia 62.

Bouckaert, Remco, Joseph Heled, Denise Kuhnert, Tim Vaughan, Chieh-Hsi Wu,Dong Xie, Marc A Suchard, Andrew Rambaut, and Alexei J Drummond. 2014.BEAST 2: a software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoScomputational biology 10:e1003537.

Dediu, Dan, and Stephen C Levinson. 2012. Abstract profiles of structural stabilitypoint to universal tendencies, family-specific factors, and ancient connectionsbetween languages. PloS One 7:e45198.

Dunn, Michael J., Angela Terrill, Ger P. Reesink, Robert A. Foley, and Stephen C.Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancientlanguage history. Science 309:2072 – 2075.

Fritz, Susanne A, and Andy Purvis. 2010. Selectivity in mammalian extinction risk andthreat types: A new measure of phylogenetic signal strength in binary traits.Conservation Biology 24:1042–1051.

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 24 / 26

References II

Greenhill, Simon J, Chieh-Hsi Wu, Xia Hua, Michael Dunn, Stephen C Levinson, andRussell D Gray. 2017. Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences 201700388.

Hammarstrom, Harald, Hedvig Skirgard, Jeremy Collins, Hannah Haynie, AlenaWitzlack, Stephen C. Levinson, Russell Gray, Jakob Lesage, Richard Kowalik,Robert Forkel, Linda Raabe, Suzanne van der Meer, Jana Winkler, Ger Reesink,Tessa Yuditha, Patience Epps, Luise Dorenbusch, Hilario de Sousa, Cheryl AkinyiOluoch, Claire Bowern, Giada Falcone, Eloisa Ruppert, Martin Haspelmath,Nataliia Neshcheret, Karolin Abbas, Jesse Peacock, Hugo de Vos, OlgaKrasnoukhova, Robert Borges, Stephanie Petit, Michael Dunn, Carolina Kipf, JayLatarche, Nancy Bakker, Roberto Herrera, Johanna Nickel, Giulia Barbos, KristinSverredal, Tim Witte, Ruth Singer, Michael Dunn, Janina Klingenberg, SorenDanielsen, Swintha Pieper, and Damian Blasi. 2017. Grambank: A world-widetypological database. Electronic database under development. Max Planck Institutefor the Science of Human History.

Huson, Daniel H., and David Bryant. 2010. Splitstree4.

Janhunen, Juha A. 2012. Mongolian, volume 19. John Benjamins Publishing.

Nikolaeva, Irina, and Maria Tolskaya. 2001. A grammar of Udihe, volume 22. Walterde Gruyter.

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 25 / 26

References III

Orme, David, et al. 2013. The caper package: comparative analysis of phylogeneticsand evolution in r. R package version 5:1–36.

Reesink, Ger, Ruth Singer, and Michael Dunn. 2009. Explaining the linguistic diversityof Sahul using population models. PLoS Biol 7:e1000241.

Robbeets, Martine. 2015. Diachrony of verb morphology: Japanese and theTranseurasian languages, volume 291. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Robbeets, Martine, and Remco Bouckaert. 2018. Bayesian phylolinguistics reveals theinternal structure of the Transeurasian family. Journal of Language Evolution3:145–162.

Starostin, Sergei A, Anna Dybo, Oleg Mudrak, and Ilya Gruntov. 2003. Etymologicaldictionary of the Altaic languages. Brill Leiden.

Nataliia Neshcheret TEA structural features 29 Aug 2018, SLE Tallinn 26 / 26