Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Computer-Assisted Language Comparison: State of the Art Cover

Computer-Assisted Language Comparison: State of the Art

Open Access
|May 2020

References

  1. List J-M. Computer-assisted language comparison: Reconciling computational and classical approaches in historical linguistics [Internet]. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. 2016. Available from: https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:25045/.
  2. List J-M, Greenhill SJ, Gray RD. The potential of automatic word comparison for historical linguistics. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(1): 118. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170046
  3. Dellert J, Daneyko T, Münch A, Ladygina A, Buch A, Clarius N, Grigorjew I, Balabel M, Boga HI, Baysarova Z, Mühlenbernd R, Wahle J, Jäger G. NorthEuraLex: A wide-coverage lexical database of Northern Eurasia. Language Resources and Evaluation. 2020; 54(1): 273301. DOI: 10.1007/s10579-019-09480-6
  4. Sagart L, Jacques G, Lai Y, Ryder R, Thouzeau V, Greenhill SJ, List JM. Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. 2019; 116(21): 1031710322. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1817972116
  5. Kolipakam V, Jordan FM, Dunn M, Greenhill SJ, Bouckaert R, Gray RD, et al. A Bayesian phylogenetic study of the Dravidian language family. Royal Society Open Science. 2018; 5(171504): 117. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.171504
  6. Barrachina S, Bender O, Casacuberta F, Civera, J. Cubel E, Khadivi S, Lgarda A, Ney H, Tomás J, Vidal E, Vilar J-M. Statistical approaches to computer-assisted translation. Computational Linguistics. 2008; 35(1): 328. DOI: 10.1162/coli.2008.07-055-R2-06-29
  7. List J-M. Automatic inference of sound correspondence patterns across multiple languages. Computational Linguistics. 2019; 1(45): 137161. DOI: 10.1162/coli_a_00344
  8. Chén Q. Miáoyáo yǔwén 苗瑶语文 [Mao and Yao Language]. Běijīng 北京: Zhōngyāng Mínzú Dàxué 中央民族大学出版社 [Central Institute of Minorities]. 2012. Available from: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hmong-Mien_comparative_vocabulary_list.
  9. Cooper D. Data Warehouse, Bronze, Gold, STEC, Software. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on the Use of Computational Methods in the Study of Endangered Languages. 2014; 9199.
  10. Rzymski C, Tresoldi T, Greenhill SJ, Wu M-S, Schweikhard NE, Koptjevskaja-Tamm M, Gast V, Bodt TA, Hantgan A, Kaiping GA, Chang S, Lai Y, Morozova N, Arjava H, Hübler N, Koile E, Pepper S, Proos M, Epps B, Blanco I, Hundt C, Monakhov S, Pianykh K, Ramesh S, Gray RD, Forkel R, List J-M. The Database of Cross-Linguistic Colexifications, reproducible analysis of cross-linguistic polysemies. Scientific Data. 2020; 7(13): 112. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-019-0341-x
  11. Ratliff M. Hmong-Mien Language History. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics; 2010.
  12. Swadesh M. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts: With special book to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1952; 96(4): 452463.
  13. Swadesh M. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics. 1955; 21(2): 121137. DOI: 10.1086/464321
  14. Comrie B, Smith N. Lingua Descriptive Series: Questionnaire. Lingua. 1977; 42: 172. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(77)90063-8
  15. Liú L, Wáng H, Bǎi Y. Xiàndài Hàny ǔ fāngyán héxīncí, tèzhǎng cíjí 现代汉语方言核心词 特征词集 [Collection of basic vocabulary words and characteristic dialect words in modern Chinese dialects]. Nánjīng 南京: Fènghuáng 凤凰. 2007.
  16. So-Hartmann H. Notes on the Southern Chin languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 1988; 11(2): 98119.
  17. Matisoff JA. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman. The “organic” approach to linguistic comparison. Institute for the Study of Human Issues; 1978.
  18. Blust R. Variation in retention rate among Austronesian languages. Unpublished paper presented at the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Bali, January 1981.
  19. Běijīng Dàxué. Hànyǔ fāngyán cíhuì 汉语方言词汇 [Chinese dialect vocabularies]. Běijīng 北京: Wénzì Gǎigé 文字改革. 1964.
  20. Baayen RH, Piepenbrock R, Gulikers L. (eds.). The CELEX Lexical Database. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; Linguistic Data Consortium; CD-ROM; 1995.
  21. PONS.Eu Online-Wörterbuch. Stuttgart: Pons GmbH; [Accessed 2019 October 24].
  22. Moran S, Cysouw M. The Unicode Cookbook for Linguists: Managing writing systems using orthography profiles. Berlin: Language Science Press; 2018. Available from: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/176.
  23. Wickham H, others. Tidy data. Journal of Statistical Book. 2014; 59(10): 123. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v059.i10
  24. Forkel R, List J-M, Greenhill SJ, Rzymski C, Bank S, Cysouw M, Hammarström H, Haspelmath M, Kaiping G, Gray RD. Cross-linguistic data formats, advancing data sharing and re-use in comparative linguistics. Scientific Data. 2018; 5(180205): 110. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2018.205
  25. Broman KW, Woo KH. Data organization in spreadsheets. The American Statistician. 2018; 72(1): 210. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2017.1375989
  26. Hammarström H, Haspelmath M, Forkel R. Glottolog. Version 4.0. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History; 2019. Available from: https://glottolog.org.
  27. List JM, Rzymski C, Greenhill S, Schweikhard N, Pianykh K, Tjuka A, Tjuka A, Wu M-S, Forkel R. Concepticon. A resource for the linking of concept lists (Version 2.3.0) [Internet]. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History; 2020. Available from: https://concepticon.clld.org/.
  28. List J-M, Anderson C, Tresoldi T, Rzymski C, Greenhill S, Forkel R. Cross-linguistic transcription systems (Version 1.3.0). Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History; 2019. Available from https://clts.clld.org/.
  29. List J-M. Beyond cognacy: Historical relations between words and their implication for phylogenetic reconstruction. Journal of Language Evolution. 2016; 1(2): 119136. DOI: 10.1093/jole/lzw006
  30. Matisoff JA. On the uselessness of glottochronology for the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman. In: Renfrew C, McMahon A, Trask L. (eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics. 2000; 333371. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
  31. Hill NW, List J-M. Challenges of annotation and analysis in computer-assisted language comparison: A case study on Burmish languages. Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting. 2017; 3(1): 4776. DOI: 10.1515/yplm-2017-0003
  32. List J-M, Lopez P, Bapteste E. Using sequence similarity networks to identify partial cognates in multilingual wordlists. In: Proceedings of the Association of Computational Linguistics 2016 (Volume 2: Short Papers) [Internet]. Berlin: Association of Computational Linguistics; 2016. 599605. DOI: 10.18653/v1/P16-2097
  33. List J-M. A web-based interactive tool for creating, inspecting, editing, and publishing etymological datasets. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics System Demonstrations [Internet]. Valencia: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2017. 912. Available from: https://digling.org/edictor/. DOI: 10.18653/v1/E17-3003
  34. List J-M, Walworth M, Greenhill SJ, Tresoldi T, Forkel R. Sequence comparison in computational historical linguistics. Journal of Language Evolution. 2018; 3(2): 13044. DOI: 10.1093/jole/lzy006
  35. Wang, WS-Y. Linguistic diversity and language relationships. In: Huang, C-T J. (ed.) New horizons in Chinese linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1996. 235267. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory). DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-1608-1_8
  36. Arnaud AS, Beck D, Kondrak G. Identifying cognate sets across dictionaries of related languages. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2017; 25092518. Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: 10.18653/v1/D17-1267
  37. Wahle J. An approach to cross-concept cognacy identification. In: Bentz C, Jäger G, Yanovich, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the Leiden Workshop on Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms for Linguistics. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls University; 2016. DOI: 10.15496/publikation-10060
  38. Wang F. Miáoyǔ gǔyīn gòunǐ 苗语古音构拟 [Reconstruction of the sound system of Proto-Miao]. Tokayo: Institute for the Study of languages; Cultures of Asia; Africa; 1994.
  39. Bodt TA, List J-M. Testing the predictive strength of the comparative method: An ongoing experiment on unattested words in Western Kho-Bwa languages. Papers in Historical Phonology. 2019; 4(1): 2244. DOI: 10.2218/pihph.4.2019.3037
  40. Hoenigswald HM. Phonetic similarity in internal reconstruction. Language. 1960; 36(2): 191192. DOI: 10.2307/410982
  41. Kay M. The logic of cognate recognition in historical linguistics. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation; 1964.
  42. Ratliff M. Against a regular epenthesis rule for Hmong-Mien. Papers in Historical Phonology. 2018 Dec; 3. DOI: 10.2218/pihph.3.2018.2877
  43. Ostapirat W. Issues in the reconstruction and affiliation of Proto-Miao-Yao. Language and Linguistics. 2016; 17(1): 133145. DOI: 10.1177/1606822X15614522
  44. List J-M. Beyond edit distances: Comparing linguistic reconstruction systems. Theoretical Linguistics. 2019; 45(3–4): 110. DOI: 10.1515/tl-2019-0016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/johd.12 | Journal eISSN: 2059-481X
Language: English
Published on: May 22, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2020 Mei-Shin Wu, Nathanael E. Schweikhard, Timotheus A. Bodt, Nathan W. Hill, Johann-Mattis List, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.