1. Classification I
Comparative Method

2. Language Change Old English (c. 1000)
Faeder ure thu the eart on heofonum,
si thin nama gehalgod
Contemporary English
Our Father, who is in heaven,
may your name be kept holy

3. Question 1
How do we know that the contemporary English and the old English, which look totally different from each other, are actually related?
Why are they so different?

4. Filling the Gap Middle English (c. 1400)
Oure fadir that art in heuenes
halowid be thi name
Early Modern English (c.1600)
Our father which are in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name

5. Community Breaks Up A B C D
Any new changes in a particular group will not be spread over to the others.
Dialects

6. As Time Goes By A B C D Language Family
More changes in different groups.
Languages

7. Dialect Chain
Languages spoken in two adjoining regions are mutually intelligible, but the mutual intelligibility does not extend to the next region.
A B C D

8. Question 2
What does it mean to say that two languages are “related”? If two languages show some similarities, can we say that they are related?

9. Proto-language
Proto-language A
B C D
Daughter languages

10. Proto-Polynesian
Proto-Polynesian
Tongan Samoan Maori

11. Question 3
What is a subgroup? If two languages show some similarities, can we say that they belong to the same subgroup?

12. Subgroup
B C D
E F G H I A

13. Reconstruction Principle 1:
The existence of systematic similarities too great to be explained by chance, e.g., a set of regular sound correspondences in the vocabulary.

14. Sound Correspondence Māori Tahitian Hawaiian Meaning
ingoa i'oa inoa name
mata mata maka eye
matangi mata'i makani wind
mate mate make dead
ngutu ‘utu nuku mouth
tangata ta'ata kanaka person
tangi ta'i kani weep

15. Sound Correspondence Māori Tahitian Hawaiian i i i o o o a a a e e e
u u u
m m m
ng ' n
t t k

16. Cognates Corresponding words in related languages are called cognates.
ingoa - i'oa - inoa
Each of these cognates is a reflex of the proto-form from which it is descended.
*ingoa

17. Two Kinds of Similarity
Shared retention
A feature F of the Proto language remains unchanged in both languages.
Shared innovation
A feature F of the Proto language has changed into F’ in both languages (i.e., the two languages underwent the same change.

18. Shared Innovations Principle 2:
Within a family, subgroups will show shared innovations from the proto-language.

19. Question 4
Shared retention cannot be used as evidence of a subgroup. Why?

20. Shared Innovations A
B C D
E F G H I
The changes that took place between the breakup of A and the later breakup of B will be reflected in E, F, and G, but not in H or I.

21. Question 5
What can we learn about the history of the speakers by studying a linguistic family?

22. Diversity
Principle 3:
Greater diversity of daughter languages implies a longer period of separation.

23. Shared Innovations Principle 4:
The larger the number of shared innovations in a subgroup, the longer the period of separate development before breakup of the proto-language.

24. Shared Innovations A
B C D E
B and C share a few common innovations, forming a weak subgroup, while D and E share a great many, forming a strong subgroup.

25. Homeland?
Principle 5:
The homeland of a language family was some part of the territory over which its daughter languages are now spoken.

26. Hierarchy
Principle 6:
Assuming that the earliest migrations from the homeland were nearby areas, and that later migrations populated successively more distant areas, the highest order divisions in the family will be represented in the area near the homeland.

27. Lexicostatistics Swadesh List First used in early 1950s.
A list of 200 meanings intended to be, as nearly as possible, universally known and culture independent
e.g., ‘and’, ‘big’, ‘drink’, ‘head’, ‘mother’,
‘skin’, ‘throw’

28. Cognate percentage in core vocabulary
Level of subgrouping
Cognate percentage in core vocabulary
Dialects of a language
81-100%
Languages of a family
36-81%
55-80%
Families of a stock
12-36%
28-54%
Stocks of a microphylum
4-12%
13-27%
Microphyla of a mesophylum
1-4%
5-12%

29. Assumptions
Some parts of the vocabulary of a language are much less subject to change than other parts.
This ‘core’ vocabulary is the same for all languages.
The actual rate of vocabulary replacement in the core vocabulary is the same for all languages at any period of time.
Tested on 13 languages, an average vocabulary retention of 80.5% every thousand years.

30. Glottochronology
Based on the lexicostatistic data and the following formula, the time-depth of a language can be calculated.
t = logC
2logr
where C is the percentage of cognates and r is the retention rate (.805)

31. Cognate percentage in core vocabulary
Time-depth of a Language
Cognate percentage in core vocabulary
Years of separation
66%
1000 (250)
44%
2000 (350)
28%
3000 (400)
18%
4000 (500)
(Pawley 1996)

32. Question 5 How reliable is lexicostatistics?
What kind of problems does it have?

33. How Reliable? Borrowing: e.g., Tongan words in East Uvea (85%)
Name avoidance:
e.g., Tahitian (White 1967)
poo ‘night’ is replaced by ru’i,
mare ‘cough’ by hota
during the reign of Pomare I