Historical Linguistics: Numerical Methods

Sheila M Embleton, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Numerical methods in historical linguistics strive to determine how closely two languages are related. Pairwise, this can be
used to reconstruct a tree for a language family (lexicostatistics). More ambitious methods assign dates to splits within trees
(glottochronology). The methods have been extended to distant relationships, often to try to answer whether the languages
involved are related at all. All methods, no matter how sophisticated, rest on the simplest observation: since languages change
over time, originally related languages gradually become less similar. This enables inferences about diachrony from
synchronic information only, attractive when little is known about history. Methodological difficulties come in quantifying
rates of change, measuring difference, and accounting for factors interfering with normal change processes (e.g., mutual
influence between languages). The attractions of numerical methods are the same as in any humanities discipline: speed,
objectivity, replicability, and ability to handle large volumes of data efficiently.

Introduction the degree of linguistic differentiation within a stock the greater

The main goal of numerical methods in historical linguistics
has always been to answer the question of how closely two
languages are related. Applied pairwise to languages, this can
be used to reconstruct a tree for a whole language family
(lexicostatistics). More ambitious methods have additionally
assigned dates to the splits within those trees (glottochro-
nology). The questions and methods have been extended to
involve distant (hence controversial) relationships between
languages, so the basic question becomes not just how closely
two languages are related, but whether they are related at all. All
methods in this area, no matter how sophisticated, rest on the
simplest of observations: since languages change over time, two
originally related languages gradually become less similar over
time. This enables the linguist to infer something about
diachrony from synchronic information only, particularly
attractive in situations where little is known about the history.
The methodological difficulties come in quantifying rates of
change, measuring difference, and accounting for the myriad of
factors that can interfere with the so-called normal change
processes (e.g., mutual influence between languages). The
attractions of numerical methods in historical linguistics are
the same as those attributed to quantitative methods in almost
any discipline in the humanities or social sciences: speed,
objectivity, replicability, and ability to handle large volumes of
data efficiently.
Early Methods
The earliest precursor to a numerical method in historical
linguistics is a statement made by Robert Gordon Latham
(1850: p. 565, see also Hewes in Hymes, 1960: p. 338): “the
average rate at which languages change is capable of being
approximated” and “the maximum difference, at a given
period, between two or more languages is also capable of being
approximated”. He never pursued this, and the next milestone
in the development of numerical methods in historical
linguistics was a statement by Sapir (1916: p. 76): “The greater
is the period of time that must be assumed for the development
of such differentiation”. Sapir’s influence on later linguists was
great, so even though he himself never followed this statement
up by taking the basic steps of quantifying linguistic differen-
tiation or rate of change, this can be seen as the genesis of the
most widely known numerical method in historical linguistics,
that of Swadesh (1950, and see below).
The first explicit numerical treatment of genetic proximity of
languages was that of Kroeber and Chrétien (1937), following
a method created by two anthropologists, Jan Czekanowski
(1928) and Stanislaw Klimek (1935), for use in physical
anthropology and ethnography. For each pair of languages, on
a list of N features, calculate a (number of features shared by
both languages), b (number of features in the first language but
not in the second), c (number of features in the second
language but not in the first), and d (number of features in
neither language). This produces a 2
2 contingency table,
a well-studied mathematical entity enabling various forms
of analysis. p particular, the quantity Nr2, where
Inffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r ¼ ðad  bcÞ= ða þ bÞðc þ dÞða þ cÞðb þ dÞ, is c2 (one degree
of freedom), enabling one to test the statistical significance of
the relationship between the two languages. The values of r for
all pairs of languages under consideration can become the
input to various methods (e.g., hierarchical cluster analysis) for
family tree reconstruction. The method is simple but not
unproblematic (e.g., construction of the feature list, difficulties
with nonindependence of features, interpretation of correla-
tions especially if negative) (for complete treatment and
commentary, see Embleton, 1986).
The second numerical method in historical linguistics is
Ross’s root-retention model (1950). For N features and m
languages, construct an N
m table in which a cell has a cross if
that language exhibits that feature. The question of relationship
of languages can then be recast as whether or not the crosses are
distributed randomly in the table. For each pair of languages,
calculate n1 (number of features found in the first language, the
number of crosses in the first column), n2 (number of features
found in the second language, the number of crosses in the
second column), and r (number of features shared by both

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 11 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.52012-1 23
24 Historical Linguistics: Numerical Methods
languages, the number of rows with a cross in both columns).
Then the probability for that pair of languages of obtaining the
shared number of crosses or more is
 n1  Nn1 
X N R n2  R
¼ n1  
N
R¼r n2
for which a normal approximation exists. These probabilities
can be tested for significance, and could become the input
for various family tree reconstruction methods. Interestingly,
Ross’s method can be shown to be mathematically equivalent
under certain conditions to that of Kroeber and Chrétien, and
thus subject to the same problems (for complete treatment and
commentary on this and the method in general, see Embleton,
1986). Although certain elements of these models recur today,
both have largely been abandoned, although the problems
encountered and lessons learned remain relevant.
Historically, the next method to evolve was Swadesh’s, but
given its centrality to the field and ongoing relevance, the
author deals with that in a separate section. A final numerical
method to consider is that of counterindications originated by
Gleason (1959), later rediscovered by others. All topologically
possible family trees for the languages in question are con-
structed, each is evaluated for how well it fits against a fixed
list of features (every time the tree does not fit the distribution
of that feature, a counterindication is recorded), and the tree
with the best score (even if not perfect) is chosen. This method
is difficult to implement for two reasons. Even with modern
high-speed computing and sophisticated algorithms, the
number of topologically possible trees for even a moderately
sized language family quickly becomes unworkably large.
The method is also highly vulnerable to the effect of bor-
rowing across languages. A variant of Gleason’s method,
relying on hierarchical clustering and attempting to estimate
branch lengths (i.e., used glottochronologically), is shown in
Embleton (1986), along with a complete discussion of the
method itself. Taylor et al. (2000), using recent advances and
sophisticated techniques from computer science and biolog-
ical cladistics, are developing a character-based (rather than
distance-based) method for family tree reconstruction with
some similarities to Gleason’s method. Despite difficulties
with dealing with borrowing in realistic amounts, such
methods are promising partly because they closely parallel the
cognitive processes of skilled practitioners of traditional
comparative historical reconstruction techniques, while being
more objective and simultaneously handling vast amounts
of data.
Swadesh
By far the best known numerical method in historical
linguistics is that introduced by Swadesh (e.g., 1950), actual-
izing Sapir’s statement by regarding lexical replacement as
analogous to radioactive decay. As with carbon-14 dating,
dates could then be provided for branching points in the tree
(glottochronology). Take a list of N meanings of supposed
basic core vocabulary, found universally in all cultures,
expressing basic noncultural concepts, expected to be more
resistant to change and borrowing than other vocabulary
items. Such a list, now known as a Swadesh list, contains such
items as lower numerals, simple kinship terms, body parts,
topographical terms, widespread flora and fauna, pronouns
(personal, demonstrative, and interrogative), verbs denoting
basic actions, and naturally occurring noncultural pheno-
mena. Assuming a constant rate of replacement, R, for words
representing meanings on this list, one can calculate the time
elapsed (time depth) since any pair of languages split using the
formula
1 nco
¼ In
2R N
where c is the number of cognates on the Swadesh list between
the two languages compared. By calculating time depths for all
pairs of languages under consideration, we can construct
a family tree with dates.
Swadesh’s method was greeted with widespread enthusiasm
and widely applied in the late 1950s, the 1960s, and the early
1970s, almost with a sense of euphoria about finally having an
exact tool for obtaining insights into hitherto unknowable
linguistic prehistory. The debate over Swadesh’s method
quickly became emotional, but regardless of the researcher’s
subjectivity, a common core of problems can be identified,
sometimes with potential solutions.
Difficulties with particular meanings on the Swadesh list
include the following:
1. Some meanings cannot be translated into the target
language. This is fairly rare, and best treated as missing data,
reducing N accordingly.
2. Sometimes there are multiple possible translations in
the target language for a meaning on the list. Different
researchers might make different but equally valid choices
from the range of possibilities (‘multiple synonymy’).
Solutions include always counting only the most frequent
possible translation, choosing at random, always choosing
to maximize the cognate count, always choosing to mini-
mize the cognate count, or various fractional scoring
systems.
Difficulties with cognacy judgments (remember that one is
not necessarily dealing with languages where the history and
hence cognacy are well known) are as follows:
1. Due to accumulated sound change, cognates may not be
recognizable, causing us to overestimate time depth.
2. Chance similarities may be wrongly interpreted as cognates,
causing us to underestimate time depth. In practice, one
might hope that this and the preceding cancel out.
3. Sometimes only one part of a word is cognate to a word in
another language (‘partial cognation’); how should one
score this? Solutions include always counting this as posi-
tive, always counting this as negative, or various fractional
scoring systems.
Problems with the universality of R, which was shown to
vary over time, between languages, and according to meaning.
R had been estimated from languages with written historical
records as about 14% per millennium for the standard
100-word Swadesh list and about 19% per millennium for the

standard 200-word Swadesh list. Not only might the very fact
that these languages are written bias the rate (one might expect
less replacement in a language with a lengthy written history),
but 11 of the 13 pairs used to establish the rate were Indo-
European (representing only three of its branches).
Problems with the family tree (Stammbaum) model, gen-
erally centered on the splits not being clean (thus giving any
precise date is artificial and meaningless). Languages are often
in close physical proximity even after they split, mutually
influencing one another; tendencies in the two languages pre-
dating the split may come to fruition only afterward. Both these
interfere with the model, but are more properly problems with
the family tree model, and Swadesh’s adoption of it, rather
than problems with Swadesh’s method itself.
Borrowings between languages (related or unrelated) can
alter replacement rates quite substantially. For some languages,
even the Swadesh list contains a high amount of borrowed
vocabulary.
For various reasons (see Embleton, 1986, and elsewhere),
the use of Swadesh-style lexicostatistics and glottochronology
waned by the mid-1970s, although applications lingered on in
several language areas, and the methods continued to be
refined by applied mathematicians.
Sankoff
Most refinements introduced by applied mathematicians
involved adding further parameters to the basic Swadesh
model. For example, parameters were added to account for drift
and for ‘chance recurrent cognation’ (i.e., when a word was
replaced twice, such that the original word was restored),
replacement rates were allowed to vary from meaning to
meaning, a very crude allowance was made for borrowing, and
there was talk of allowing the rates to vary from language to
language and from time to time (further details, along with
some models, can be found in Embleton, 1986). Some of these
are useful refinements (e.g., allowing replacement and bor-
rowing rates to vary over time, between languages, and between
meanings), but these are very much a mathematician’s way of
solving the problem, producing quite elegant solutions. But in
the real world in which the linguist works, all those parameters
have to be estimated – and this is surprisingly difficult even for
well-studied languages for which we actually have both long
and extensive written records. It is also the case that an ex-
traordinary amount of data is required to estimate so many
parameters, and this is most often simply impossible. So these
elegant theoretical solutions have very little practical import.
However, the single most important development was the
incorporation of a geographical dimension into the family tree,
thus allowing for borrowing to be largely dealt with. The basic
insight here is due to Sankoff (1972), with correction and
further refinement by Embleton (see 1986 for the most
comprehensive treatment). The resulting set of differential
equations required to reconstruct the tree and estimate the
branch lengths is complicated, reflecting the increased power of
the method (equations are given in Embleton, 1986, and
elsewhere). The parameters required all have some reasonable
chance of being estimated, even for lesser studied families;
these are a similarity measure for each language pair,
Historical Linguistics: Numerical Methods 25
replacement rates for each language, borrowing rates between
each language pair (not necessarily symmetric), and knowledge
of which languages are in contact with one another.
Starostin
Largely independently of the work described above, research on
numerical methods in historical linguistics was proceeding in
the Soviet Union (later Russia or ‘in diaspora’). Unlike the
impetus for Swadesh’s work, which was largely to aid in
providing histories and trees for relatively little studied
language families (e.g., Amerindian), much of this work gained
its impetus from questions of more distant linguistic relation-
ship. This had its effect on the development of the methods,
because it was crucial that the methods be able to produce
useful results even at much greater time depths, where
Swadesh’s method typically has difficulty distinguishing the
signal (cognacy, true genetic relationship) from the noise
(chance resemblance, contact relationship).
Historically, the first advance here was due to Dolgopolsky
(1986), who capitalized on the fact that different meanings
change at different rates. He compiled a list of the 15 most stable
meanings, based on examination of 140 languages. One can
then calculate the probability of fortuitous coincidence of the
words representing those 15 most stable meanings for any
language pair; if the probability is significantly less than that
expected by mere chance, this can be taken as evidence of rela-
tionship. This method is most striking in its extreme simplicity,
but can also be related to some more complex and ongoing
work, largely carried out in Eastern Europe, founded on the
observation that several characteristics of a word (e.g., length,
number of meanings, age) are intercorrelated with its frequency.
Words of more recent origin tend to be less frequent, longer, and
have fewer meanings, whereas older words tend to be more
frequent, shorter, and have more meanings. The age–frequency
relationship in particular is being extensively researched, seeking
a small hard core of ancient short vocabulary that may reveal
distant relationships, and may even be able to be harnessed into
a lexicostatistical or even glottochronological method.
Another advance has been made by Sergei Starostin, with
work first published in the 1980s and continuing until his death
in 2005, known as root glottochronology or etymostatistics (see
Starostin, 1999). Compared to standard Swadesh-style glotto-
chronology, the main innovation is the observation that while
glottochronology regards any change (however small) in a
word’s meaning as a loss of that word from that meaning, root
glottochronology does not. Thus, while standard glottochro-
nology sees English dog and German Hund in the meaning ‘dog’
as noncognate, root glottochronology notices the existence of
the English word hound; this more conservative approach to the
maintenance of a language’s root stock enables one to work
better at greater time depths. Starostin’s method also gives more
accurate results for known cases where the time depths are more
shallow (standard glottochronology tends to give dates that are
too recent). Root glottochronology takes a text, containing
a given set of words in the parent language, and then measures
the number of these words still extant (in any derivative, with
any semantic shift) in the daughter language. It proceeds only
with detailed comparative historical and etymological analysis
26 Historical Linguistics: Numerical Methods
(eliminating look-alikes and loans), and can also be repeated
for more than one text (hence a different set of words), giving
greater precision and potentially some estimate of error (see
Starostin, 1999, for formulas and more detailed explanation).
Ringe
Various linguists have used probabilistic methods to assess
similarity between vocabularies of two different languages,
usually focusing on phonological similarities (an early example
is Ross, 1950). The basic question is whether the observed
degree of similarity between the two vocabularies is greater
than what could be expected based on chance. Although the
problem is conceptually simple, it quickly becomes mathe-
matically intractable even between just two languages, as one
has to wrestle with different phoneme distributions, different
phoneme frequencies, how to measure phonetic distance
between different phone(me)s, different phonotactic struc-
tures, and lengths of roots, quite apart from the questions
(familiar from glottochronology) of how much semantic lati-
tude to allow between the words compared. The most recent
and sophisticated treatment of this problem is by Ringe (e.g.,
1998 and references therein; McMahon and McMahon, 2005:
pp. 50–68), who attempts to account for many of the above
issues, albeit with simplifying assumptions. This research
remains active, yet without consensus as to its utility, partly
because of the degree of the simplifying assumptions, and also
partly because it has mostly been applied in the realm of long-
distance relationships, where the emotions over the results can
sometimes cloud the objectivity with which the method is
viewed.
Current Work and Future Directions
Research in numerical methods in historical linguistics has
reentered the mainstream after several decades on the side-
lines. Several recent collections, published in mainstream
venues, demonstrate the diversity and debates within the
field; see in particular two special issues of journals
(McMahon, 2005; Wichmann and Grant, 2010), as well as
Holman et al. (2011), Eska and Ringe (2004), and Levinson
and Gray (2012). The most active areas of current research
are improvements to the basic Swadesh model; exploration
of the age–frequency relationship; root glottochronology;
computer-implemented tree reconstruction using methods
borrowed from biological cladistics, due to the conceptual
parallels between language change and biological evolution
(computational cladistics, computational phylogenetics); and
Ringe’s probabilistic methods. The degree of mathematical,
statistical, and computational expertise required is extremely
high, which prevents the majority of historical linguists from
ever mastering the methods, and consequently renders them
unable to do more than use results produced by others
or participate in research teams where others control the
methods. There is a growing realization, however, that
numerical methods while not providing any magic solutions
to any long-standing problems, make a useful contribution as
one of the tools that we use to explore our linguistic history
and prehistory.
See also: Language Families, Archaeology and History of;
Lexicology and Lexicography.
Bibliography
Czekanowski, Jan, 1928. Na marginesie recenzji P.K. Moszyn-skiego o Ksia˛ zce: Wste˛ p
do Historji Slowian. Lud 7 (Series II). Reprint Lwow.
Dolgopolsky, Aaron, 1986. A probabilistic hypothesis concerning the oldest relationships
among the language families in northern Eurasia. In: Shevoroshkin, Vitaliy,
Markey, Thomas (Eds.), Typology, Relationship and Time: A Collection of Papers on
Language Change and Relationship. Karoma, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 28–50.
Embleton, Sheila M., 1986. Statistics in Historical Linguistics. In: Quantitative
Linguistics, vol. 30. Brockmeyer, Bochum, Germany.
Eska, Joseph F., Ringe, Donald, 2004. Recent work in computational linguistic
phylogeny. Language 80, 569–582.
Gleason Jr., Henry A., 1959. Counting and calculating for historical reconstruction.
Anthropological Linguistics 1, 22–32.
Holman, Eric W., Brown, Cecil H., Wichmann, Søren, et al., 2011. Automated dating
of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology
52 (6), 841–875.
Hymes, Dell H., 1960. Lexicostatistics so far. Current Anthropology 1, 3–44,
338–345.
Klimek, Stanislaw, 1935. The structure of California Indian culture, culture element
distributions. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology 37 (1), 1–70.
Kroeber, Alfred L., Chrétien, Charles, D., 1937. Quantitative classification of Indo-
European languages. Language 13, 83–103.
Latham, Robert G., 1850. The Natural History of the Varieties of Man. Van Voorst,
London.
Levinson, Stephen C., Gray, Russell D., 2012. Tools from evolutionary biology shed
new light on the diversification of languages. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16,
167–173.
McMahon, April, 2005. Introduction. Transactions of the Philological Society 103 (2),
113–119.
McMahon, April, McMahon, Robert, 2005. Language Classification by Numbers.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ringe Jr., Donald R., 1998. Probabilistic evidence for Indo-Uralic. In: Salmons, Joseph
C., Joseph, Brian D. (Eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence. Benjamins, Amsterdam,
pp. 153–197.
Ross, Alan S.C., 1950. Philological probability problems. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society B 12, 19–59.
Sankoff, David, 1972. Reconstructing the history and geography of an evolutionary
tree. American Mathematical Monthly 79, 596–603.
Sapir, Edward, 1916. Time Perspective in Aboriginal American Culture. In: Memoir
90, Anthropological Series, vol. 13. Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa,
Canada, pp. 389–462.
Starostin, Sergei, 1999. Comparative-historical linguistics and lexicostatistics. In:
Renfrew, Colin, McMahon, April, Trask, Larry (Eds.), Time Depth in Historical
Linguistics, vol. 2. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK,
pp. 377–413.
Swadesh, Morris, 1950. Salish internal relationships. International Journal of American
Linguistics 16, 157–167.
Taylor, Ann, Warnow, Tandy, Ringe, Donald, 2000. Character-based reconstruction of
a linguistic cladogram. In: Smith, John Charles, Bentley, Delia (Eds.), Historical
Linguistics 1995. Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, General Issues and Non-
Germanic Languages, vol. 1. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 393–408.
Wichmann, Søren, Grant, Anthony, P. (Eds.), 2010. Quantitative approaches to
Linguistic Diversity. Diachronica 27(2), 168 pp. (pp. 341–358).