Genealogical relations and lexical distances within the Tupian linguistic family

Abstract

Carmen reis. Genealogical relations and lexical distances within the tupí linguistic family: a lexicostatistical and phylogenetic approach. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, v. 10, n. 2, p. 229-274, maioago. 2015 Abstract: in this paper we present the first results of the application of computational methods, inspired by the ideas in McMahon & McMahon (2005), to a dataset collected from languages of every branch of the tupian family (including all living non-tupí-Guaraní languages) in order to produce a classification of the family based on lexical distance. We used both a swadesh list (with historically stabler terms) and a list of animal and plant names for results comparison. in addition, we also selected more (HiHi) and less (LoLo) stable terms from the swadesh list to form sublists for indepedent treatment. We compared the resulting neighbornet networks and neighbor-joining cladograms and drew conclusions about their significance for the current understanding of the classification of tupian languages. one important result is the lack of support for the currently discussed idea of an Eastern-Western division within tupí.Keywords: tupian family. distance-based methods. Historical linguistics. internal classification. Lexical sublists.Resumo: neste trabalho, apresentamos os primeiros resultados da aplicação de métodos comparativos computacionais, inspirados nas ideias de McMahon & McMahon (2005), a um conjunto de dados de línguas de todos os ramos da família tupí (incluindo-se todas as línguas não-tupí-Guaraní ainda vivas), com o intuito de produzir uma classificação da família com base em distância lexical. Usamos uma lista de swadesh (composta por termos historicamente mais estáveis) e uma lista de nomes de plantas e animais para comparação de resultados. Além disso, também selecionamos os termos mais (HiHi) e menos (LoLo) estáveis da lista de swadesh para formar sublistas para tratamento independente. Comparamos as redes neighbornet e os cladogramas neighbor-joining resultantes, derivando conclusões sobre o seu impacto na compreensão atual da classificação das línguas tupí. Um importante resultado é a falta de apoio para a ideia, atualmente em discussão, da existência de uma divisão leste-oeste dentro da família.Palavras-chave: família tupí. Métodos de distância. Linguística histórica. Classificação interna. sublistas lexicais.

Computational phylogenetics and the classification of South American languages

“…The ASJP classification also identifies Karo as forming a clade with the Tuparí group, and the Juruna-Xipaya and Mundurukú-Kuruaya clades as forming a subgroup, none of which is not supported by either the expert classification or Galucio et al (2015). <Figure 9> Figure 9: Expert classification of the Tupí family from Galucio et al (2015) Thus, while both the ASJP classification and the Galucio et al (2015) classifications are distancebased classifications, and suffer from the weaknesses inherent to such methods, the latter, based on a longer concept list and expert cognacy judgments, produces a classification more in line with expert classifications and character-based classifications than the ASJP method. Note also that Walker et al (2012) roots Tupian using Cariban as an outgroup.…”

“…There is no reason to believe that the absence of the pre-nasalized stops in these languages is a shared innovation, however, and both character-based and expert classifications agree in grouping Kayabí with Parintinin, and not with Kamayurá. It is also instructive to compare the ASJP classification with Galucio et al's (2015) classification of Tupían, a distance-based classification that relies on a 100-item concept list and cognacy judgments of Tupían experts. Galucio et al coincides with phylogenetic ( Fig.…”

Automated methods for the investigation of language contact, with a focus on lexical borrowing

“…Here, A. McMahon and McMahon () and McMahon, Heggarty, McMahon, and Slaska () reinvented Yakhontov's sublist principle a third time, but while Yakhontov and Chén had divided one list into two, McMahon et al derived two very small lists from a big one, a stable list, labeled as “hihi,” and an unstable list, labeled as “lolo.” By computing Neighbor‐Nets from the lexical distances derived from the sublists, they tried to identify borrowings comparing the networks. Unfortunately, the procedure is not further formalized, and while it offers a visualization of differences between sublists, the real use of this procedure compared to the sublist approaches by Yakhontov and Chén is questionable, and the method was only sporadically followed up (Galucio et al, ).…”

“…By computing Neighbor-Nets from the lexical distances derived from the sublists, they tried to identify borrowings comparing the networks. Unfortunately, the procedure is not further formalized, and while it offers a visualization of differences between sublists, the real use of this procedure compared to the sublist approaches by Yakhontov and Chén is questionable, and the method was only sporadically followed up (Galucio et al, 2015).…”

Predicação na língua Wayoro (Tupi): propriedades de finitude

“…Há itens dessa lista que apresentam cognatos em várias línguas Tupi, por exemplo 'quente', 'frio', 'pequeno', 'seco', cf Galucio et al (2015)…”