Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:46:41.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Historical Glottometry to Subgroup the Early Germanic Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2021

Joshua R. Agee
Joshua R. Agee*
Affiliation:
San Jose State University
*
600 Marathon Dr. Apt. 4 Campbell, CA 95008 USA [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historical Glottometry, introduced by Kalyan & François (2018), is a wave-based quantitative approach to language subgrouping used to calculate the overall strength of a linguistic subgroup using metrics that capture the contributions of linguistic innovations of various scopes to language diversification, in consideration of the reality of their distributions. This approach primarily achieves this by acknowledging the contribution of postsplit areal diffusion to language diversification, which has traditionally been overlooked in cladistic (tree-based) models. In this paper, the development of the Germanic language family, from the breakup of Proto-Germanic to the latest period of the early attested daughter languages (namely, Old English, Old Frisian, Gothic, Old High German, Old Low Franconian, Old Norse, and Old Saxon) is accounted for using Historical Glottometry. It is shown that this approach succeeds in accounting for several smaller, nontraditional subgroups of Germanic by accommodating the linguistic evidence unproblematically where a cladistic approach would fail.

Keywords

Historical GlottometryProto-GermanicsubgroupingWest GermanicNorthwest Germanic
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 319 - 357
Check for updates
Copyright
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adamus, Marian. 1962. Mutual relations between Nordic and other Germanic Dialects. Germanica Wratislaviensia 7. 115–58.Google Scholar
Agee, Joshua R. 2018. A glottometric subgrouping of the Early Germanic languages. San José, CA: San José State University MA thesis. Available at https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4926.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 2009. Divergence, convergence, contact. Challenges for the genealogical classification of languages. Convergence and divergence in language contact situations, ed. by Braunmüller, Kurt and House, Juliane, 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, & Ebbinghaus, Ernst A.. 1973. Gotische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, & Ingo, Reiffenstein. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I. Laut- und Formenlehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1884. Zur Frage nach den Verwandtschaftsverhältnissen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Internationale Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 1. 226–256.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore, Kruskal, Joseph B., & Black, Paul. 1992. An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82. 1–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2014. Trees, waves and linkages. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Bowern, Claire & Evans, Bethwyn, 161–189. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldstein, David. 2020. Indo-European phylogenetics with R: A tutorial introduction. Indo-European Linguistics 8,1. Available at https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/8/1/article-p110_3.xml?language=en, accessed on July 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Gray, Russell D., David, Bryant, & Greenhill, Simon J.. 2010. On the shape and fabric of human history. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, B 365. 3923–3933.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. How hopeless is genealogical linguistics, and how advanced is areal linguistics? Studies in Language 28. 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Tania, Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highlander, Michael-Christopher Todd. 2014. The grouping of the Germanic languages: A critical review. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina MA thesis.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtzmann, Adolf. 1870. Altdeutsche Grammatik. Leipzig: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Kalyan, Siva, & François, Alexandre. 2018. Freeing the comparative method from the tree model: A framework for historical glottometry. Let’s talk about trees: Genetic relationships of languages and their phylogenic representation, ed. by Kikusawa, Ritsuko & Lawrence, A. Reid, 59–90. Ōsaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Krahe, Hans, & Wolfgang, Meid. 1969. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft: Einleitung und Lautlehre I–II. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang. 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen. 3rd edn. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Hans. 1955. Zur Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für Deutsches Alterum und Deutsche Literatur 63. 4–13.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Hans Frede. 1989. The Germanic languages: Origins and early dialectal interrelations. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Altnordische Grammatik. Band I. Altisländische und Altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre). Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Rask, Rasmus. 1818. Underögelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald A., Tandy, Warnow, & Ann, Taylor. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100. 50–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald A., & Taylor, Ann A.. 2014. The development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Orrin W. 1992. Old English and its closest relatives: A survey of the earliest Germanic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Hans-Friedrich. 1954. Zur sprachlichen Gliederung des Germanichen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 8. 365–389.Google Scholar
Schleicher, August. 1860. Die Deutsche Sprache. Stuttgart: G. Cottaschen Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes. 1872. Die Verwantschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar.Google Scholar
Schrader, Otto. 1883. Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte: linguistisch-historische Beiträge zur Erforschung des indogermanischen Altertums. Jena: Hermann Costenoble.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Ernst. 1951. Goten, Nordgermanen, Angelsachsen: Studien zur Ausgliederung der germanischen Sprachen. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Southworth, Franklin C. 1964. Family-tree diagrams. Language 40. 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, Patrick V. 2013. The Pan-West Germanic isoglosses and the sub-relationships of West Germanic to other branches. NOWELE 66. 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 21. 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, Malcolm. 1992. The early Germans. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Voyles, Joseph B., & Barrack, Charles M.. 2009. An introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Early Indo-European languages. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Wrede, Ferdinand. 1919. Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der deutschen Mundartenforschung. Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1888. An Old High-German primer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar