DOCSLIB.ORG

A Bayesian Investigation of the Origin Hypotheses of the Dravidian Family

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Bayesian Investigation of the Origin Hypotheses of the Dravidian Family A Bayesian investigation of the origin hypotheses of the Dravidian family Dravidian language family has about 81 languages according to Glottolog1. The Dravid- ian languages are well-studied [Krishnamurti, 2003] from a historical linguistics viewpoint. Re- cently, phylogenetic methods originating from bioinformatics have been applied to infer absolute chronologies of language trees for range of language families such as Indo-European [Rama, 2018, Chang et al., 2015], Pama-Nyungan [Bowern and Atkinson, 2012], and Dravidian [Kolipakam et al., 2018] based on lexical cognate data. The recent study by Kolipakam et al. [2018] infers a time depth of 4500 years for the root age of the Dravidian family (for 20 languages) based on calibration points such as the antiquity of Old Tamil (2100 Before Present [B.P]) and the first attestation of Telugu inscriptions dating to 1300 years B.P. The inferred tree does not group South-Dravidian I and II groups together under a single node. Although, the authors infer an age that matches with the age proposed by Krishnamurti [2003], the location of Proto-Dravidian has not been inferred through phylogeography techniques. Apart from assigning an age, Krishnamurti [2003] links Proto- Dravidian to Indus Valley Civilization. On the other hand, based on linguistic innovations and archaeological record Southworth [2004], associates Proto-Dravidian to be spoken in Lower Godavari Basin. We test the statistical support for both the origin hypotheses by applying phylogeography techniques to the lexical cognate dataset under different assumptions. The results of the first set of dating experiment where the phylogenetic tree is topologically constrained according to the findings of the comparative method is given in table 1. The inferred ages do agree with the ages posited based on linguistic and archaeological evidence. Constraint Southworth [2004] Median Inferred age Root 4500{4000 4284 PSD 4000{3000 3205 PSDI 2600 (latest) 2515 PSDII { 2407 CD { 2141 ND { 3063 Table 1: Comparison of inferred ages of major subgroups with expansion dates from linguistic and archaeological evidence. Missing ages are shown by `{'. As the next step, we infer the possible homelands for the internal nodes of the chronologically dated tree using a random walk model. The result shows that the Dravidian homeland would be located in peninsular India as postulated by Southworth and not . The migration of Brahui is a debated topic [Elfenbein, 1987] and is generally believed to have migrated from central India [Elfenbein, 1998] as opposed to be a remnant from original migration into India. The random walk model supports migration from central India hypothesis as shown in the figure 1. The 1https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/drav1251. Accessed on 12-14-2019 1 next steps would consist of joint inference of phylogeny and geography and expansion of the lexical word lists to include more number of languages. Figure 1: Geographical spread of Dravidian family. Blue lines/dots show the dispersal of synchronic languages and red lines/dots show reconstructed nodes. References Claire Bowern and Quentin Atkinson. Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama- Nyungan. Language, 88(4):817{845, 2012. Will Chang, Chundra Cathcart, David Hall, and Andrew Garrett. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language, 91(1):194{244, 2015. Josef Elfenbein. A periplus of the `Brahui Problem'. Studia Iranica, 16(2):215{233, 1987. Josef Elfenbein. Brahui. In Sanford B. Steever, editor, The Dravidian languages. Routledge, London, 1998. Vishnupriya Kolipakam, Fiona M Jordan, Michael Dunn, Simon J Greenhill, Remco Bouckaert, Russell D Gray, and Annemarie Verkerk. A Bayesian phylogenetic study of the Dravidian language family. Royal Society open science, 5(3):171504, 2018. Bhadriraju Krishnamurti. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Taraka Rama. Three tree priors and five datasets: A study of Indo-European phylogenetics. Language Dynamics and Change, 8(2):182{218, 2018. Franklin Southworth. Linguistic archaeology of South Asia. Routledge, 2004. 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grammatical Gender in Hindukush Languages
    Grammatical gender in Hindukush languages An areal-typological study Julia Lautin Department of Linguistics Independent Project for the Degree of Bachelor 15 HEC General linguistics Bachelor's programme in Linguistics Spring term 2016 Supervisor: Henrik Liljegren Examinator: Bernhard Wälchli Expert reviewer: Emil Perder Project affiliation: “Language contact and relatedness in the Hindukush Region,” a research project supported by the Swedish Research Council (421-2014-631) Grammatical gender in Hindukush languages An areal-typological study Julia Lautin Abstract In the mountainous area of the Greater Hindukush in northern Pakistan, north-western Afghanistan and Kashmir, some fifty languages from six different genera are spoken. The languages are at the same time innovative and archaic, and are of great interest for areal-typological research. This study investigates grammatical gender in a 12-language sample in the area from an areal-typological perspective. The results show some intriguing features, including unexpected loss of gender, languages that have developed a gender system based on the semantic category of animacy, and languages where this animacy distinction is present parallel to the inherited gender system based on a masculine/feminine distinction found in many Indo-Aryan languages. Keywords Grammatical gender, areal-typology, Hindukush, animacy, nominal categories Grammatiskt genus i Hindukush-språk En areal-typologisk studie Julia Lautin Sammanfattning I den här studien undersöks grammatiskt genus i ett antal språk som talas i ett bergsområde beläget i norra Pakistan, nordvästra Afghanistan och Kashmir. I området, här kallat Greater Hindukush, talas omkring 50 olika språk från sex olika språkfamiljer. Det stora antalet språk tillsammans med den otillgängliga terrängen har gjort att språken är arkaiska i vissa hänseenden och innovativa i andra, vilket gör det till ett intressant område för arealtypologisk forskning.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages Author(S
    A comparative phonetic study of the Circassian languages Author(s): Ayla Applebaum and Matthew Gordon Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus (2013), pp. 3-17 Editors: Chundra Cathcart, Shinae Kang, and Clare S. Sandy Please contact BLS regarding any further use of this work. BLS retains copyright for both print and screen forms of the publication. BLS may be contacted via http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society is published online via eLanguage, the Linguistic Society of America's digital publishing platform. A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages1 AYLA APPLEBAUM and MATTHEW GORDON University of California, Santa Barbara Introduction This paper presents results of a phonetic study of Circassian languages. Three phonetic properties were targeted for investigation: voice-onset time for stop consonants, spectral properties of the coronal fricatives, and formant values for vowels. Circassian is a branch of the Northwest Caucasian language family, which also includes Abhaz-Abaza and Ubykh. Circassian is divided into two dialectal subgroups: West Circassian (commonly known as Adyghe), and East Circassian (also known as Kabardian). The West Circassian subgroup includes Temirgoy, Abzekh, Hatkoy, Shapsugh, and Bzhedugh. East Circassian comprises Kabardian and Besleney. The Circassian languages are indigenous to the area between the Caspian and Black Seas but, since the Russian invasion of the Caucasus region in the middle of the 19th century, the majority of Circassians now live in diaspora communities, most prevalently in Turkey but also in smaller outposts throughout the Middle East and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D
    THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D. Joseph, The Ohio State University 0. Introduction A stunning result of linguistic research in the 19th century was the recognition that some languages show correspondences of form that cannot be due to chance convergences, to borrowing among the languages involved, or to universal characteristics of human language, and that such correspondences therefore can only be the result of the languages in question having sprung from a common source language in the past. Such languages are said to be “related” (more specifically, “genetically related”, though “genetic” here does not have any connection to the term referring to a biological genetic relationship) and to belong to a “language family”. It can therefore be convenient to model such linguistic genetic relationships via a “family tree”, showing the genealogy of the languages claimed to be related. For example, in the model below, all the languages B through I in the tree are related as members of the same family; if they were not related, they would not all descend from the same original language A. In such a schema, A is the “proto-language”, the starting point for the family, and B, C, and D are “offspring” (often referred to as “daughter languages”); B, C, and D are thus “siblings” (often referred to as “sister languages”), and each represents a separate “branch” of the family tree. B and C, in turn, are starting points for other offspring languages, E, F, and G, and H and I, respectively. Thus B stands in the same relationship to E, F, and G as A does to B, C, and D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dravidian Languages
    THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES BHADRIRAJU KRISHNAMURTI The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011–4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarc´on 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Bhadriraju Krishnamurti 2003 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2003 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Times New Roman 9/13 pt System LATEX2ε [TB] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0521 77111 0hardback CONTENTS List of illustrations page xi List of tables xii Preface xv Acknowledgements xviii Note on transliteration and symbols xx List of abbreviations xxiii 1 Introduction 1.1 The name Dravidian 1 1.2 Dravidians: prehistory and culture 2 1.3 The Dravidian languages as a family 16 1.4 Names of languages, geographical distribution and demographic details 19 1.5 Typological features of the Dravidian languages 27 1.6 Dravidian studies, past and present 30 1.7 Dravidian and Indo-Aryan 35 1.8 Affinity between Dravidian and languages outside India 43 2 Phonology: descriptive 2.1 Introduction 48 2.2 Vowels 49 2.3 Consonants 52 2.4 Suprasegmental features 58 2.5 Sandhi or morphophonemics 60 Appendix. Phonemic inventories of individual languages 61 3 The writing systems of the major literary languages 3.1 Origins 78 3.2 Telugu–Kannada.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkic Languages 161
    Turkic Languages 161 seriously endangered by the UNESCO red book on See also: Arabic; Armenian; Azerbaijanian; Caucasian endangered languages: Gagauz (Moldovan), Crim- Languages; Endangered Languages; Greek, Modern; ean Tatar, Noghay (Nogai), and West-Siberian Tatar Kurdish; Sign Language: Interpreting; Turkic Languages; . Caucasian: Laz (a few hundred thousand speakers), Turkish. Georgian (30 000 speakers), Abkhaz (10 000 speakers), Chechen-Ingush, Avar, Lak, Lezghian (it is unclear whether this is still spoken) Bibliography . Indo-European: Bulgarian, Domari, Albanian, French (a few thousand speakers each), Ossetian Andrews P A & Benninghaus R (1989). Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert (a few hundred speakers), German (a few dozen Verlag. speakers), Polish (a few dozen speakers), Ukranian Aydın Z (2002). ‘Lozan Antlas¸masında azınlık statu¨ su¨; (it is unclear whether this is still spoken), and Farklı ko¨kenlilere tanınan haklar.’ In Kabog˘lu I˙ O¨ (ed.) these languages designated as seriously endangered Azınlık hakları (Minority rights). (Minority status in the by the UNESCO red book on endangered lan- Treaty of Lausanne; Rights granted to people of different guages: Romani (20 000–30 000 speakers) and Yid- origin). I˙stanbul: Publication of the Human Rights Com- dish (a few dozen speakers) mission of the I˙stanbul Bar. 209–217. Neo-Aramaic (Afroasiatic): Tu¯ ro¯ yo and Su¯ rit (a C¸ag˘aptay S (2002). ‘Otuzlarda Tu¨ rk milliyetc¸ilig˘inde ırk, dil few thousand speakers each) ve etnisite’ (Race, language and ethnicity in the Turkish . Languages spoken by recent immigrants, refugees, nationalism of the thirties). In Bora T (ed.) Milliyetc¸ilik ˙ ˙ and asylum seekers: Afroasiatic languages: (Nationalism).
    [Show full text]
  • LING 185 the Syntax of Austronesian Languages Preliminary Syllabus
    LING 185 The Syntax of Austronesian Languages Preliminary syllabus The goal of this class is to provide an introduction into comparative Austronesian syntax by discussing the most pertinent issues of Austronesian languages that have posed challenge to current syntactic theory and suggesting further readings and topics for discussion. The choice of the Austronesian language family as the focus of this class is not accidental. The Austronesian language family—roughly 1,200 genetically related languages dispersed over an area encompassing Madagascar, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and islands of the Pacific—is often called the largest language family in the world. But it has been relatively little studied. Sophisticated research on the grammar of Austronesian languages did not really begin until the 1930’s and 1940’s (fueled, in part, by military interest in the Pacific region). Although there was a surge of interest in Austronesian in the 1970’s and—even more dramatically—in the 1990’s, the number of theoretical linguists working on these languages has remained small. Nonetheless, Austronesian languages have a significant contribution to make to linguistic theory, given the number of typologically unusual properties they exhibit (including the less common and poorly understood verb‐first word order, ergativity, and wh‐ agreement). If these languages were as well‐understood as, say, the Romance languages are today, syntactic theory could well be dramatically different. The following list illustrates just some of the intriguing features whose theoretical significance—already evident—will surely deepen when they are investigated from a comparative perspective: • Many Austronesian languages exhibit the uncommon word orders verb‐subject‐object (VSO) or verb‐object‐subject (VOS).
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic History and Language Diversity in India: Views and Counterviews
    J Biosci (2019) 44:62 Indian Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1007/s12038-019-9879-1 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) Linguistic history and language diversity in India: Views and counterviews SONAL KULKARNI-JOSHI Deccan College, Pune, India (Email, [email protected]) This paper addresses the theme of the seminar from the perspective of historical linguistics. It introduces the construct of ‘language family’ and then proceeds to a discussion of contact and the dynamics of linguistic exchange among the main language families of India over several millennia. Some prevalent hypotheses to explain the creation of India as a linguistic area are presented. The ‘substratum view’ is critically assessed. Evidence from historical linguistics in support of two dominant hypotheses –‘the Aryan migration view’ and ‘the out-of-India hypothesis’–is presented and briefly assessed. In conclusion, it is observed that the current understanding in historical linguistics favours the Aryan migration view though the ‘substratum view’ is questionable. Keywords. Aryan migration; historical linguistics; language family; Out-of-India hypothesis; substratum 1. Introduction the basis of social, political and cultural criteria more than linguistic criteria. The aim of this paper is to lend a linguistic perspective on This vast number of languages is classified into four (or the issue of human diversity and ancestry in India to the non- six) language families or genealogical types: Austro-Asiatic linguists at this seminar. The paper is an overview of the (Munda), Dravidian, Indo-Aryan (IA) and Tibeto-Burman; major views and evidences gleaned from the available more recently, two other language families have been literature.
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of Language Contact Between Jarawa and Aka-Bea: the Languages of South Andaman1
    Acta Orientalia 2011: 72, 1–40. Copyright © 2011 Printed in India – all rights reserved ACTA ORIENTALIA ISSN 0001-6483 In search of language contact between Jarawa and Aka-Bea: The languages of South Andaman1 Anvita Abbi and Pramod Kumar Cairns Institute, Cairns, Australia & Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Abstract The paper brings forth a preliminary report on the comparative data available on the extinct language Aka-Bea (Man 1923) and the endangered language Jarawa spoken in the south and the central parts of the Andaman Islands. Speakers of Aka-Bea, a South Andaman language of the Great Andamanese family and the speakers of Jarawa, the language of a distinct language family (Abbi 2006, 2009, Blevins 2008) lived adjacent to each other, i.e. in the southern region of the Great Andaman Islands in the past. Both had been hunter-gatherers and never had any contact with each other (Portman 1899, 1990). The Jarawas have been known for living in isolation for thousands of years, coming in contact with the outside world only recently in 1998. It is, then surprising to discover traces of some language-contact in the past between the two communities. Not a large database, but a few examples of lexical similarities between Aka-Bea and Jarawa are 1 The initial version of this paper was presented in The First Conference on ASJP and Language Prehistory (ALP-I), on 18 September 2010, Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. We thank Alexandra Aikhnevald for helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper. 2 Anvita Abbi & Pramod Kumar investigated here.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Position of Philippine Languages in the Austronesian Family
    The Br Andrew Gonzalez FSC (BAG) Distinguished Professorial Chair Lecture, 2017 De La Salle University Revisiting the Position of Philippine Languages in the Austronesian Family Lawrence A. Reid University of Hawai`i National Museum of the Philippines Abstract With recent claims from non-linguists that there is no such thing as an Austronesian language family, and that Philippine languages could have a different origin from one that all comparative linguists claim, it is appropriate to revisit the claims that have been made over the last few hundred years. Each has been popular in its day, and each has been based on evidence that under scrutiny has been shown to have problems, leading to new claims. This presentation will examine the range of views from early Spanish ideas about the relationship of Philippine languages, to modern Bayesian phylogenetic views, outlining the data upon which the claims have been made and pointing out the problems that each has. 1. Introduction Sometime in 1915 (or early 1916) (UP 1916), when Otto Scheerer was an assistant professor of German at the University of the Philippines, he gave a lecture to students in which he outlined three positions that had been held in the Philippines since the early 1600’s about the internal and external relations of Philippine languages. He wrote the following: 1. As early as 1604, the principal Philippine languages were recognized as constituting a linguistic unit. 2. Since an equally early time the belief was sustained that these languages were born of the Malay language as spoken on the Peninsula of Malacca.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Caucasian Languages and Hattic
    Kafkasya Calışmaları - Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / Journal of Caucasian Studies Kasım 2020 / November 2020, Yıl / Vol. 6, № 11 ISSN 2149–9527 E-ISSN 2149-9101 Northwest Caucasian Languages and Hattic Ayla Bozkurt Applebaum* Abstract The relationships among five Northwest Caucasian languages and Hattic were investigated. A list of 193 core vocabulary words was constructed and examined to find look-alike words. Data for Abhkaz, Abaza, Kabardian (East Circassian), Adyghe (West Circassian) and Ubykh drew on the work of Starostin, Chirikba and Kuipers. A sub-set list of 15 look-alike words for Hattic was constructed from Soysal (2003). These lists were formulated as character data for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of the languages. The phylogenetic relationships of these languages were investigated by a well-known method, Neighbor Joining, as implemented in PAUP* 4.0. Supporting and dissenting evidence from human genetic population studies and archeological evidence were discussed. This project has produced a provisional set of character data for the Northwest Caucasian languages and, to a limited extent, Hattic. Phylogenetic trees have been generated and displayed to show their general character and the types of differences obtained by alternate methods. This research is a basis for further inquiries into the development of the Caucasian languages. Moreover, it presents an example of the method for contrast queries application in studying the evolution of language families. Keywords: Northwest Caucasian Languages, Hattic, Historical Linguistics, Circassian, Adyghe, Kabardian * Ayla Bozkurt Applebaum, ORCID 0000-0003-4866-4407, E-mail: [email protected] (Received/Gönderim: 15.10.2020; Accepted/Kabul: 28.11.2020) 63 Ayla Bozkurt Applebaum Kuzeybatı Kafkas Dilleri ve Hattice Özet Bu araştırma beş Kuzeybatı Kafkas Dilleri ve Hatik arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir.
    [Show full text]
  • The Indo-European Languages the Indo-European Linguistic Family
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Indo-European Languages Anna Giacalone Ramat, Paolo Ramat The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 Bernard Comrie Published online on: 20 Nov 1997 How to cite :- Bernard Comrie. 20 Nov 1997, The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives from: The Indo-European Languages Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives Bernard Comrie Introduction: Genetic and Areal Affiliations The other chapters in this book are essentially inward-looking in terms of their Indo-European perspective, examining reasons for positing the genetic unity of the Indo-European languages and ways of accounting for their differ­ entiation from a single ancestor language.
    [Show full text]
  • Caucasian Languages [B.] George Hewitt FBA, Professor of Caucasian Languages, NME Dept., SOAS, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK
    Caucasian Languages [B.] George Hewitt FBA, Professor of Caucasian Languages, NME Dept., SOAS, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK. Around 38 languages are deemed to be indigenous to the Caucasus; often difficult demarcation between language and dialect explains the uncertainty. The ancestral homelands are currently divided between: Russia's north Caucasian provinces (Circassian, Abaza, Ingush, Chechen, Avaro- Ando-Tsezic, Lako-Dargic, northern Lezgic) de facto independent Abkhazia (Abkhaz, Mingrelian, Svan, Georgian, Laz) Georgia (Georgian, Mingrelian, Svan, Laz, Bats, Chechen, Avar, Udi) Azerbaijan (Lezgi, Budukh, Kryts’, Khinalugh, Rutul, Ts’akhur, Avar, Udi) Turkey (Laz, Georgian) Diaspora-communities of north (especially north-west) Caucasians can be found across former Ottoman territories, particularly Turkey, where the majority Circassian and Abkhazian populations reside and where the term 'Cherkess' often indiscriminately applies to any north Caucasian. Circassians are found in Syria, Israel and Jordan, home also to a significant Chechen population. Speaker-numbers range from 500 (Hinukh) to 3-4 million (Georgian). Many of the languages are endangered. Three families are usually recognised: A. South Caucasian (Kartvelian) Georgian Svan Mingrelian (Megrelian) Laz (Ch’an) [Scholars in Georgia regard Mingrelian and Laz as co-dialects of Zan] B. North West Caucasian Abkhaz Abaza Ubykh (extinct from 1992) West Circassian (Adyghe) East Circassian (Kabardian) C. Nakh-Daghestanian (a) Nakh (North Central Caucasian) Chechen Ingush Bats (Ts’ova Tush) (b) Daghestanian (North East Caucasian) 1. Avaro-Ando-Tsezic(/Didoic): Avaric: Avar Andic: Andi, Botlikh, Godoberi, K’arat’a, Akhvakh, Bagvalal, T’indi, Ch’amalal Tsezic: Tsez (Dido), Khvarshi, Hinukh, Bezht’a (K’ap’uch’a), Hunzib (these last two are sometimes regarded as co-dialects) 2.
    [Show full text]