Brill Online
jaeger-list-appendices.pdf (201.19 kB)

Appendices to 'Using ancestral state reconstruction methods for onomasiological reconstruction in multilingual word lists'.

Download (201.19 kB)
posted on 2018-06-18, 12:24 authored by Gerhard Jäger, Johann-Mattis List

The appendices contain a list of all age constraints for Indo-European that were used in our phylogenetic reconstruction study (Appendix A) as well as a detailed, qualitative analysis of all differences between the automatic and the gold standard assessments in IElex (Appendix B1) and BCD (Appendix B2).

Current efforts in computational historical linguistics are predominantly concerned with phylogenetic inference. Methods for ancestral state reconstruction have only been applied sporadically. In contrast to phylogenetic algorithms, automatic reconstruction methods presuppose phylogenetic information in order to explain what has evolved when and where. Here we report a pilot study exploring how well automatic methods for ancestral state reconstruction perform in the task of onomasiological reconstruction in multilingual word lists, where algorithms are used to infer how the words evolved along a given phylogeny, and reconstruct which cognate classes were used to express a given meaning in the ancestral languages. Comparing three different methods, Maximum Parsimony, Minimal Lateral Networks, and Maximum Likelihood on three different test sets (Indo-European, Austronesian, Chinese) using binary and multi-state coding of the data as well as single and sampled phylogenies, we find that Maximum Likelihood largely outperforms the other methods. At the same time, however, the general performance was disappointingly low, ranging between 0.66 (Chinese) and 0.79 (Austronesian) for the F-Scores. A closer linguistic evaluation of the reconstructions proposed by the best method and the reconstructions given in the gold standards revealed that the majority of the cases where the algorithms failed can be attributed to problems of independent semantic shift (homoplasy), to morphological processes in lexical change, and to wrong reconstructions in the independently created test sets that we employed.