At the boundaries of syntactic prehistory

Abstract

Can language relatedness be established without cognate words? This question has remained unresolved since the nineteenth century, leaving language prehistory beyond etymologically established families largely undefined. We address this problem through a theory of universal syntactic characters. We show that not only does syntax allow for comparison across distinct traditional language families, but that the probability of deeper historical relatedness between such families can be statistically tested through a dedicated algorithm which implements the concept of ‘possible languages’ suggested by a formal syntactic theory. Controversial clusters such as e.g. Altaic and Uralo-Altaic are significantly supported by our test, while other possible macro-groupings, e.g. Indo-Uralic or Basque-(Northeast) Caucasian, prove to be indistinguishable from a randomly generated distribution of language distances. These results suggest that syntactic diversity, modelled through a generative biolinguistic framework, can be used to provide a proof of historical relationship between different families irrespectively of the presence of a common lexicon from which regular sound correspondences can be determined; therefore, we argue that syntax may expand the time limits imposed by the classical comparative method. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Reconstructing prehistoric languages’.

Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza and the history of human languages: A linguist’s point of view

“…Furthermore, such parametric phylogenies were shown to be able to readily take the next step and suggest novel historical insights: they lend themselves to statistical analyses that can test which proposed super-families in Eurasia represent probable language clusters. Indeed, some superfamilies pass this test while others fail it [31].…”

Reconstructing prehistoric languages

“…[7] advocate using the framework of Construction Grammar to understand how new constructions can arise from prelinguistic systems, as this framework considers a continuum of constructions, ranging from single words to sentences, and from concrete to highly abstract, also positing continuity between the lexicon and the grammar. On the other hand, Ceolin et al [14] used an algorithm based on a formal syntactic theory and proposed that this method can be used to provide a proof of historical relations between different families, even in the absence of a common lexicon from which to draw sound correspondences. According to the authors, this method, based on formal syntactic theory, can significantly expand the time limits imposed by the classical comparative method (see Introduction…”

“…These include Hartman & Pleyer's [7] reliance on the framework of Construction Grammar; Ceolin et al . 's [14] reliance on a formal syntactic framework; Schreyer & Adger's [15] insights from languages constructed for popular culture media; and Wichmann & Rama's [16] statistical modelling of geographical homelands of language families. Hartman & Pleyer [7] advocate using the framework of Construction Grammar to understand how new constructions can arise from prelinguistic systems, as this framework considers a continuum of constructions, ranging from single words to sentences, and from concrete to highly abstract, also positing continuity between the lexicon and the grammar.…”

“…On the other hand, Ceolin et al . [14] used an algorithm based on a formal syntactic theory and proposed that this method can be used to provide a proof of historical relations between different families, even in the absence of a common lexicon from which to draw sound correspondences. According to the authors, this method, based on formal syntactic theory, can significantly expand the time limits imposed by the classical comparative method (see Introduction).…”

Geography and language divergence: The case of Andic languages

“…This list is constantly expanding with the most recent studies e.g. incorporating an assessment of probabilities of certain paths of semantic evolution [ 6 ] or systematic comparison of syntactic features [ 7 ].…”