Language evolution and human history: what a difference a date makes
- 12 April 2011
- journal article
- review article
- Published by The Royal Society in Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences
- Vol. 366 (1567) , 1090-1100
- https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0378
Abstract
Historical inference is at its most powerful when independent lines of evidence can be integrated into a coherent account. Dating linguistic and cultural lineages can potentially play a vital role in the integration of evidence from linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and genetics. Unfortunately, although the comparative method in historical linguistics can provide a relative chronology, it cannot provide absolute date estimates and an alternative approach, called glottochronology, is fundamentally flawed. In this paper we outline how computational phylogenetic methods can reliably estimate language divergence dates and thus help resolve long-standing debates about human prehistory ranging from the origin of the Indo-European language family to the peopling of the Pacific.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Archaeogenetics — Towards a ‘New Synthesis’?Current Biology, 2010
- Language ClassificationPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,2008
- The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database: From Bioinformatics to LexomicsEvolutionary Bioinformatics, 2008
- Molecular clocks: when timesare a-changin'Trends in Genetics, 2006
- Bayesian Inference of Phylogeny and Its Impact on Evolutionary BiologyScience, 2001
- Hawaiki, Ancestral PolynesiaPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,2001
- Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolutionNature, 1999
- Molecules as documents of evolutionary historyJournal of Theoretical Biology, 1965
- On the Validity of GlottochronologyCurrent Anthropology, 1962
- Towards Greater Accuracy in Lexicostatistic DatingInternational Journal of American Linguistics, 1955