Structure of the presentation

1. The homelands of the world‘s language families: a question ofwater resources and territorialitySøren Wichmann(MPI-EVA & Leiden University)Hans-Jörg Bibiko(MPI-EVA)& The ASJP ConsortiumPresentation, MPI-EVA, Febr. 24, 2009

2. Structure of the presentation • 1. Brief introduction to the ASJP project • 2. Methods • 3. Results • 4. Discussion

3. THE ASJP CONSORTIUM (In the order in which they have joined the project) Cecil Brown Eric W. Holman Søren Wichmann Viveka Velupillai Andre Müller Pamela Brown Dik Bakker Hagen Jung Robert Mailhammer Anthony Grant Dmitry Egorov Kofi Yakpo Oleg Belyaev Matthew Dryer Patience Epps

4. THE ASJP CONSORTIUM (In the order in which they have joined the project + indication of particularly active members, to date) Cecil Brown Eric W. Holman Søren Wichmann Viveka Velupillai Andre Müller Pamela Brown Dik Bakker Hagen Jung Robert Mailhammer Anthony Grant Dmitry Egorov Kofi Yakpo Oleg Belyaev Matthew Dryer Patience Epps

5. The ASJP project „The Automated Similarity Judgment Program“: • Wordlists for different languages are compared to derive a measure of similarity • The measures may used for establishing a classification • Wordlists consist of 40 words referring to the same basic concepts, which are also the most stable across languages • The comparisons are made computationally

6. 3459 fully processed languages and dialects in the ASJP database 6000+ Languages in the world

7. Methods

8. Automating the similarity measure Levenshtein distances: the minimum number of steps—substitutions, insertions or deletions—that it takes to get from one word to another Germ. Zunge  Eng. tongue tsuŋә tuŋә (substitution) tɔŋә (substitution) tɔŋ (deletion) Or tongue  Zunge tɔŋ tɔŋә (insertion) tuŋә (substitution) tsuŋә (substitution) = 3 steps, so LD = 3

9. Weighting Levenshtein distances • Serva & Petroni (2008): divide by the lengths of the strings compared. Takes into account that LD‘s grow with word length • ASJP: • divide LD by the length of the longest string compared to get LDN (takes into account typical word lengths of the languages compared); • then divide LDN by the average of LDN‘s among words in the lists with different meanings to get LDND (takes into account accidental similarity due to similarities in phonological inventories)

10. Identifying homelands The idea (Sapir 1916 in linguistics and Vavilov 1926 in botany): the area of highest diversity/center of gravity will tend to be the homeland. Edward Sapir (1884-1939) Nikolai Vavilov (1887-1943)

11. A quantitative implementation: • For each language in a family, measure the proportion between the linguistic distance L and the geographical distance G to each of the other members of the family, and take the average. This produces a diversity measure D for the location where the given language is spoken. • The language with the highest D sits in the homeland. • Map the results by grouping D‘s into topographic color categories (using an implementation in R by Bibiko).

12. Results

13. HMONG-MIEN

14. URALIC

15. SIOUAN

16. BARBACOAN

17. AUSTRALIAN

18. TUPIAN wichmann@eva.mpg.de Approximate homeland according to Dall‘Igna Rodrigues (1958), based on the presence Of nearly all major subgroups of the family.

19. A word of caution: „Any one criterion is never to be applied to the exclusion of or in opposition to all others. It is a comfortable procedure to attach oneself unreservedly or primarily to a single mode of historical inference and wilfully to neglect all others as of little moment, but the clean-cut constructions of the doctrinaire never coincide with the actualities of history“ (Sapir 1916: 87). (cf. also critique of Vavilov by Harlan 1971)

20. Problematical cases • Extinctions

21. CURRENTLY SPOKEN INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

22. Initial long-distance migration

23. AUSTRONESIAN Austronesian dispersal according to Diamond & Bellwood (2003)

24. AUSTRONESIAN

25. ALGIC Ruhlen (1994): Proto-Algonkian in the southwest of the family's extent F. Siebert: PA in the area of the eastern upper Great Lakes (cited without reference by Ruhlen) Denny (1991): PA around Upper Columbia River in Oregon and Washington

26. The family is dubious as a genealogical unit

27. ALTAIC

28. Contradictions of approaches different from center of gravity Example: The language-farming dispersal hypothesis (Peter Bellwood, Colin Renfrew)

29. SINO-TIBETAN S-T homeland according to Diamond & Bellwood (2003) S-T homeland according to Matisoff

30. UTO-AZTECAN Fowler (1983): New Mexico Hill (2001): Mesoamerica Fowler (1983)

31. But sometimes there are agreements as well

32. TAI-KADAI Tai-Kadai homeland according to Diamond & Bellwood (2003)

33. AUSTRO-ASIATIC Austro-Asiatic homeland according to Diamond & Bellwood (2003)

34. Discussion • Are there general patterns to be detected?

35. THE WORLD (FAMILIES OF THREE OR MORE LANGUAGES)

36. NORTHERN SOUTH AMERICA Arauca Cauca Branco Negro Napa Marañon Madeira Huallaga Xingo Madre de Dios Guaporé Juruena

37. Coastal and riverine adaptation!

38. SOUTHERN SOUTH AMERICA Pilcomayo Paraná Limay/Rio Negro

39. MIDDLE AND CENTRAL AMERICA

40. NORTH AMERICA Missouri Delaware Colorado Flint

41. NORTHERN CIRCUM-PACIFIC

42. NEW GUINEA Mamberano Strickland Fly

43. NORTHERN NEW GUINEA Mamberano

44. + territoriality!

45. SOUTH ASIA Xun Mahanadi

46. Volga Donau

47. AFRICA Benue White Nile The exception That proves The rule

48. A Khoisan diaspora?

49. Thank you for your attention!