Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 4.500

CiteScore 2018: 0.46

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.233
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.337

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 45, Issue 3-4


Beyond edit distances: Comparing linguistic reconstruction systems

Johann-Mattis List
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Kahlaische Straße 10, Jena 07745, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-11-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0016


  • Amigó, E., J. Gonzalo, J. Artiles & F. Verdejo. 2009. A comparison of extrinsic clustering evaluation metrics based on formal constraints. Information Retrieval 12(4). 461–486.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bouchard-Côté, A., D. Hall, T. L. Griffiths & D. Klein. 2013. Automated reconstruction of ancient languages using probabilistic models of sound change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(11). 4224–4229.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Brugmann, K. 1904. Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik Der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Photomechanischer Nachdruck 1970. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar

  • Ciobanu, A. M. & L. P. Dinu. 2018. Simulating language evolution: A tool for historical linguistics. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, 68–72. ACL.Google Scholar

  • de Saussure, F. 1879. Mémoire Sur Le Système Primitif Des Voyelles Dans Les Langues Indo- Européennes. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

  • de Saussure, F. 1916. Cours de Linguistique Générale. C. Bally (ed.) Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar

  • Hall, R. A. 1960. On realism in reconstruction. Language 36(2). 203–206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hauer, B. & G. Kondrak. 2011. Clustering semantically equivalent words into cognate sets in multilingual lists. Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, 865–873. AFNLP.Google Scholar

  • Hill, N. W. 2016. A refutation of Song’s (2014) explanation of the ‘stop coda problem’ in Old Chinese. International Journal of Chinese Linguistic 2(2). 270–281.Google Scholar

  • Hill, N. W. & J.-M. List. 2017. Challenges of annotation and analysis in computer-assisted language comparison: A case study on Burmish languages. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting 3(1). 47–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jacques, G. & J.-M. List. Forthcoming. Save the trees: Why we need tree models in linguistic reconstruction (and when we should apply them). Journal of Historical Linguistics 9(1). 128–167.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Jäger, G. & J.-M. List. 2018. Using ancestral state reconstruction methods for onomasiological reconstruction in multilingual word lists. Language Dynamics and Change 8(1). 22–54.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jäger, G., J.-M. List & P. Sofroniev. 2017. Using support vector machines and state-of-the-art algorithms for phonetic alignment to identify cognates in multi-lingual wordlists. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Long papers, 1204–1215. Valencia: ACL.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, R. 1971. Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics. In Roman Jakobson (ed.), Selected writings, vol. 1, 523–532. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Joseph, B. D. 2006. On projecting variation back into a proto-language. With particular attention to Germanic evidence and some thoughts on “drift”. In T. D. Cravens (ed.), Variation and reconstruction, 103–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lass, R. 2017. Reality in a soft science: The metaphonology of historical reconstruction. Papers in Historical Phonology 2(1). 152–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levenshtein, V. I. 1965. Dvoičnye Kody S Ispravleniem Vypadenij, Vstavok I Zameščenij Simvolov. Doklady Akademij Nauk SSSR 163(4). 845–848.Google Scholar

  • List, J.-M. 2014. Sequence comparison in historical linguistics. Düsseldorf: DUP.Google Scholar

  • List, J.-M. 2018. More on network approaches in historical chinese phonology (音韵学). The 2nd Li Fang-Kuei Society Young Scholars Symposium, 157–174. Taipei: Li Fang-Kuei Society for Chinese Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • List, J.-M. 2019. Automatic inference of sound correspondence patterns across multiple languages. Computational Linguistics 1(45). 137–161.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • List, J.-M., S. Greenhill, T. Tresoldi & R. Forkel. 2018. LingPy. A python library for quantitative tasks in historical linguistics. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. http://lingpy.org.

  • List, J.-M., S. J. Greenhill & R. D. Gray. 2017. The potential of automatic word comparison for historical linguistics. Plos One 12(1). 1–18.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • List, J.-M., J. S. Pathmanathan, P. Lopez & E. Bapteste. 2016. Unity and disunity in evolutionary sciences: Process-based analogies open common research avenues for biology and linguistics. Biology Direct 11(39). 1–17.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Mann, N. W. 1998. A phonological reconstruction of proto Northern Burmic. Arlington: The University of Texas PhD.Google Scholar

  • Meier-Brügger, M. 2002. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, 8th edn. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ross, M. & M. Durie. 1996. Introduction. In M. Durie (ed.), The comparative method reviewed. Regularity and irregularity in language change, 3–38. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Salmons, J. C. 1993. The Glottalic Theory: Survey and Synthesis. Washington: Inst for the Study of Man.Google Scholar

  • Schleicher, A. 1868. Eine Fabel in Indogermanischer Sprache. In A. Kuhn & A. Schleicher (eds.), Beiträge zur Vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Arischen, Celtischen und Slawischen Sprachen, 5. 206–208. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler.Google Scholar

  • Schleicher, A. [1861] 1866. Compendium der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprache, vol 1, 2nd edn. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, J. 1872. Die Verwantschaftsverhältnisse der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar

  • Schrodt, R. 1989. Neue Forschungen zur Germanischen Lautverschiebung – Ein Fall von Paradigmenwechsel? In T. Vennemann (ed.), The new sound of Indo-European: Essays in phonological reconstruction, 137–152. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Serva, M. & F. Petroni. 2008. Indo-European languages tree by Levenshtein Distance. EPL 81(6). 1–5.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-11-30

Published in Print: 2019-12-18

Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 45, Issue 3-4, Pages 247–258, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0016.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in