Table Of ContentLanguage Classification by Numbers
This page intentionally left blank
Language Classification by
Numbers
April McMahon
and
Robert McMahon
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxfordox26dp
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
OxfordNewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
WithoYcesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
(cid:1)AprilMcMahonandRobertMcMahon2005
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2005
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
TypesetbySPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
AshfordColourPress,Gosport,Hampshire
ISBN0-19-927901-2 978-0-19-927901-2
ISBN0-19-927902-0(pbk.) 978-0-19-927902-9(pbk.)
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
For our sisters
Rob Jenny Irene April
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
The title of this book should really be expanded in good eighteenth-
century fashion, with an added coda ‘in which the authors suggest that
using quantitative methods to test hypotheses and represent results may
be a useful addition to comparative historical linguistics’. Our editor
would gently and tactfully suggest that this might be a bit long to Wt on
the cover, but it is worth noting here that the force of that extra long
would-betitleholdsfortheentirecontentofthisbook.Whatwearenot
doinginourdiscussionsandproposalsbelowistryingtoreplacecurrent
historical-linguistic methodology with computer programs, or careful,
nuanced and linguistically aware analysis of data by facile counting and
enumeration.Wearenotproposingshortcuts;wearenotentirelysurewe
believe in them. What we are suggesting is that it would be good for
historical linguists, and even better for relations between historical lin-
guists and other historical disciplines like genetics and archaeology, to
incorporatesometesting,simulation,andcomputationalmodel-building
in their work, in a way which has proved productive and interesting in
corpuslinguisticsandsociolinguistics.
Themethodsandmodelswewillbediscussingarenotallnew;theyare
certainlynotallours;andtheyarebynomeansthewholestory.Wewill
stress throughout that these techniques are an addition to the historical
linguist’s tool kit, not a replacement for the historical linguist. Our
suggestion that this is ‘language classiWcation by numbers’ might, in
fact,beimprovedbyachangeinthepreposition:wearereallyadvocating
language classiWcation with numbers, that is with quantitative methods
and some statistical testing, among other approaches. The ‘by numbers’
parthere,however,isintendedtobeslightlyreminiscentofthosepainting
kitsthoseofuswhoarenotveryartistic(fortherecord,that’sApriland
notRob)usedtobegivenforChristmasinthehopethatitmighttrigger
some latent talent (it didn’t). The point of those kits is that they are
precisely a starting point: they provide a framework, and some explicit
guidance, but when they are completed they still do not give a full,
completed, and satisfactory picture. Further work needs to be done,
melding the colours into one another, and interpreting the result. In
exactlythe sameway, ourquantitative approachesare meant toprovide
viii preface
an outline, a suggested classiWcation, which then requires interpretation
andWllingoutusinglinguisticexpertise.Buttheframeworkitself,ifitcan
be agreed and used, provides a helpful starting point for addressing
historical-linguistic questions which have been notoriously recalcitrant;
and, as we shall see, we can also use quantitative techniques to support
hypotheseswhichhistoricallinguistshaveformulatedalready,toaidtheir
presentationtoandacceptancebycolleaguesinother,morenumerically
mindeddisciplines.
Theinvolvementoftwoauthorsinabookseemstoatleastdoublethe
number of people who have to be thanked; but this task is a pleasure.
First, we gratefully acknowledge the Wnancial support of the Arts and
Humanities ResearchBoard forthe ‘Quantitative Methods in Language
ClassiWcation’ projectunderlying the book (grant AN6720/APN 12536).
Our co-workers on the project, Paul Heggarty and Natalia Slaska, have
been deeply involved in the research reported here, and have given their
time freely to discuss issues and read drafts of this book; we are enor-
mously grateful for their input, expertise, and collegiality. We thank the
Department of English Language and Linguistics at the University of
SheYeld, which hosted the project from 2001 to 2004, and in particular
AndrewLinn,JoanBeal,RichardSteadman-Jones,JayneCarroll,Claire
Cowie, Emma Bradley, and Jackie Elkington, who provided help, sup-
port, and ears at crucial moments. Also in SheYeld, Rob thanks all the
members of the North Trent Molecular Genetics Laboratory, and espe-
cially Ann Dalton, Steve Evans, and Richard Kirk, who took a friendly
interest in what he was doing with the other 50% of his time. Sheila
Embleton, Don Ringe, Tandy Warnow, Patrick Sims-Williams, Russell
Gray, Quentin Atkinson, Hans-Ju¨rgen Bandelt, Peter Forster, Colin
Renfrew, and David Bryant have participated in many discussions of
ourworkandtheirsatconferencesandelectronically,andhavecheerfully
provideddata,programs,pre-publicationpapers,ideas,andhelpfulcriti-
cism,muchimprovingtheproposalsmadehere,andleavingusoptimistic
that there can be a real community of scholars addressing the vital
questions of population histories. We also thank the various audiences
atmeetingsandinvitedtalkswhohavelistenedtoourideasandprovided
suggestions and encouragement; and in particular, though it would be
invidioustopickoutanyindividuals,wearegratefultocolleaguesoutside
historical linguistics who have strengthened our own conviction that
thereisaplaceforquantitativeworkinlanguageclassiWcation,andthat
preface ix
geneticists,archaeologists,computermodellers,andothercolleaguesare
interested in its outcomes and potential. We also thank our OUP editor
John Davey for his patience and enthusiasm (not necessarily in that
order);andourchildren,Aidan,Fergus,andFlora,fortheirforbearance
and generally good-humoured tolerance of our periodic preoccupation
with what the computer was doing rather than what they were. Finally,
wededicatethisbooktooursisters,IreneandJenny,withloveandinthe
recognition that family trees also have some real-world relevance and
value.
AprilMcMahon
RobMcMahon
