Pro Yearly is on sale from $80 to $50! »

Investigating the impact of sample size on cognate detection

Investigating the impact of sample size on cognate detection

Talk held at the conference Comparative-Historical Linguistics Of the XXIst Century: Issues and Perspectives, March 20-22, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow.

E01961dd2fbd219a30044ffe27c9fb70?s=128

Johann-Mattis List

March 21, 2013
Tweet

Transcript

  1. . . . . . . . Investigating the Impact

    of Sample Size on Cognate Detection Johann-Mattis List Research Unit Quantitative Language Comparison Philipps-University Marburg March 17, 2013 1 / 30
  2. Sanscruta and Italian Sono scritte le loro scienze tutte in

    una lingua, che diman- dano Sanscruta, che vuol dire bene articolata. [...] et ha la lingua d’oggi molte cose comuni con quella, nella quale sono molti de’ nostri nomi, e particularmente de’ numeri il 6, 7, 8 e 9, Dio, serpe, et altri assai.(Sassetti 1855: 415) Translation: Everything that is related to science is written in a language which they call “Sanscruta”, meaning as much as “well-articulated”. Our language has much in common with it, among others many of our words, especially the numbers 6, 7 , 8, and 9, “God”, “snake”, and many more. 2 / 30
  3. The Comparative Method 3 / 30

  4. The Comparative Method Working Procedure Working Procedure proof of relationship

    identification of cognates identification of sound correspondences reconstruction of proto-forms internal classification 4 / 30
  5. The Comparative Method Working Procedure Working Procedure proof of relationship

    identification of cognates identification of sound correspondences reconstruction of proto-forms internal classification 4 / 30
  6. The Comparative Method Cognate Detection Cognate Detection 5 / 30

  7. The Comparative Method Cognate Detection Cognate Detection Cognate List Alignment

    Correspondence List German dünn d ʏ n GER ENG Frequ. d θ 3 x d d 1 x n n 1 x m m 1 x ŋ ŋ 1 x English thin θ ɪ n German Ding d ɪ ŋ English thing θ ɪ ŋ German dumm d ʊ m English dumb d ʌ m German Dorn d ɔɐ n English thorn d ɔː n 5 / 30
  8. The Comparative Method Cognate Detection Cognate Detection Cognate List Alignment

    Correspondence List German dünn d ʏ n GER ENG Frequ. d θ 3 x d d 1 x n n 1 x m m 1 x ŋ ŋ 1 x English thin θ ɪ n German Ding d ɪ ŋ English thing θ ɪ ŋ German dumm d ʊ m English dumb d ʌ m German Dorn d ɔɐ n English thorn d ɔː n 5 / 30
  9. The Comparative Method Cognate Detection Cognate Detection Cognate List Alignment

    Correspondence List German dünn d ʏ n GER ENG Frequ. d θ 2 x d d 1 x n n 1 x m m 1 x ŋ ŋ 1 x English thin θ ɪ n German Ding d ɪ ŋ English thing θ ɪ ŋ German dumm d ʊ m English dumb d ʌ m German Dorn d ɔɐ n English thorn d ɔː n 5 / 30
  10. The Comparative Method Cognate Detection Cognate Detection Cognate List Alignment

    Correspondence List German dünn d ʏ n GER ENG Frequ. d θ 2 x d d 1 x n n 1 x m m 1 x ŋ ŋ 1 x English thin θ ɪ n German Ding d ɪ ŋ English thing θ ɪ ŋ German dumm d ʊ m English dumb d ʌ m German Dorn d ɔɐ n English thorn θ ɔː n 5 / 30
  11. The Comparative Method Cognate Detection Cognate Detection Cognate List Alignment

    Correspondence List German dünn d ʏ n GER ENG Frequ. d θ 3 x d d 1 x ? n n 2 x m m 1 x ŋ ŋ 1 x English thin θ ɪ n German Ding d ɪ ŋ English thing θ ɪ ŋ German dumm d ʊ m English dumb d ʌ m German Dorn d ɔɐ n English thorn θ ɔː n 5 / 30
  12. The Comparative Method Cognate Detection Cognate Detection Cognate List Alignment

    Correspondence List German dünn d ʏ n GER ENG Frequ. d θ 3 x d d 1 x n n 2 x m m 1 x ŋ ŋ 1 x English thin θ ɪ n German Ding d ɪ ŋ English thing θ ɪ ŋ German dumm d ʊ m English dumb d ʌ m German Dorn d ɔɐ n English thorn θ ɔː n 5 / 30
  13. The Comparative Method Cognate Detection Cognate Detection Cognate List Alignment

    Correspondence List German dünn d ʏ n GER ENG Frequ. d θ 3 x n n 2 x ŋ ŋ 1 x English thin θ ɪ n German Ding d ɪ ŋ English thing θ ɪ ŋ German Dorn d ɔɐ n English thorn θ ɔː n German dumm d ʊ m English dumb d ʌ m 5 / 30
  14. The Comparative Method Summary Summary . Important Aspects . .

    . . . . . . language-specific notion of word similarity regular sound correspondences iterative character . Unspecified Parameters . . . . . . . . number of languages semantic similarity of the words size of the word lists 6 / 30
  15. The Comparative Method Summary Summary . The Problem of the

    Sample Size . . . . . . . . Albanian English French German Albanian 0.07 0.10 0.10 English 14 0.23 0.56 French 20 46 0.23 German 20 111 46 . Numbers and proportions of shared cognates in the Swadesh-200 list (Swadesh 1952), taken from Kessler (2001). 7 / 30
  16. Automatic Cognate Detection 8 / 30

  17. Automatic Cognate Detection Similarity Two Types of Similarity . “Phenotypic”

    Similarity (Lass 1997) . . . . . . . . based on surface resemblances of phonetic segments only depends on the words under comparison . “Genotypic” Similarity (ibid.) . . . . . . . . based on sound-correspondences depends on the words and the languages under comparison 9 / 30
  18. Automatic Cognate Detection Similarity Two Types of Similarity German Mund

    [mʊnt] English mouth [mauθ] 10 / 30
  19. Automatic Cognate Detection Similarity Two Types of Similarity German Mund

    [mʊnt] English mouth [mauθ] German English Milch [ mɪlç] m m [ mɪlk] milk rund [ rʊnt] ʊ au [ raund] round anders [ andərs] n - [ ʌ(-)θər] other südlich [ sytlɪç] t θ [ sʌθərn] southern 10 / 30
  20. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Independent Approaches Language-Independent Approaches . Normalized Edit

    Distance . . . . . . . . align two words and calculate their hamming distance normalize by dividing by the length of the longer word assume cognacy for distances beyond a certain threshold . Turchin et al. (2010) . . . . . . . . convert two (or more) words to Dolgopolsky (1966) consonant classes assume cognacy if the first two classes match 11 / 30
  21. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Independent Approaches Language-Independent Approaches German Mund [mʊnt]

    English mouth [mauθ] 12 / 30
  22. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Independent Approaches Language-Independent Approaches German Mund [mʊnt]

    English mouth [mauθ] Turchin NED mʊnt → M N T m ʊ n t mauθ → M T m au - θ Matches: x 0 1 1 1 1 match => not cognate 3/4 = 0.75 => not cognate 12 / 30
  23. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches Language-Specific Approaches . LexStat (List

    2012a) . . . . . . . . represent words as tuples of sound classes and prosodic strings use the SCA approach (List 2012b) to guess initial correspondences use a Monte-Carlo permutation test to derive language-specific similarity scores use the language-specific scores to calculate distance between words cluster words into cognate sets using a flat cluster algorithm 13 / 30
  24. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat 14 / 30

  25. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Sound Classes .

    . . . . . . . Sounds which frequently occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be divided in classes (types). It is thereby assumed that “phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgoposky 1986[1966]: 35). 14 / 30
  26. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Sound Classes .

    . . . . . . . Sounds which frequently occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be divided in classes (types). It is thereby assumed that “phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgoposky 1986[1966]: 35). k g p b ʧ ʤ f v t d ʃ ʒ θ ð s z 1 14 / 30
  27. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Sound Classes .

    . . . . . . . Sounds which frequently occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be divided in classes (types). It is thereby assumed that “phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgoposky 1986[1966]: 35). k g p b ʧ ʤ f v t d ʃ ʒ θ ð s z 1 14 / 30
  28. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Sound Classes .

    . . . . . . . Sounds which frequently occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be divided in classes (types). It is thereby assumed that “phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgoposky 1986[1966]: 35). k g p b ʧ ʤ f v t d ʃ ʒ θ ð s z 1 14 / 30
  29. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Sound Classes .

    . . . . . . . Sounds which frequently occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be divided in classes (types). It is thereby assumed that “phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgoposky 1986[1966]: 35). K T P S 1 14 / 30
  30. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat 15 / 30

  31. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Prosodic Strings .

    . . . . . . . Sound change occurs more frequently in weak positions of sound sequences (Geisler 1992). Based on a sonority profile of sound sequences, one can distinguish sound positions according to their prosodic contexts. Prosodic context can be modeled as prosodic string in which different contexts are coded by different symbols. 15 / 30
  32. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Prosodic Strings .

    . . . . . . . Sound change occurs more frequently in weak positions of sound sequences (Geisler 1992). Based on a sonority profile of sound sequences, one can distinguish sound positions according to their prosodic contexts. Prosodic context can be modeled as prosodic string in which different contexts are coded by different symbols. j a b ə l k a 15 / 30
  33. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Prosodic Strings .

    . . . . . . . Sound change occurs more frequently in weak positions of sound sequences (Geisler 1992). Based on a sonority profile of sound sequences, one can distinguish sound positions according to their prosodic contexts. Prosodic context can be modeled as prosodic string in which different contexts are coded by different symbols. j a b ə l k a ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ o strong weak 15 / 30
  34. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Prosodic Strings .

    . . . . . . . Sound change occurs more frequently in weak positions of sound sequences (Geisler 1992). Based on a sonority profile of sound sequences, one can distinguish sound positions according to their prosodic contexts. Prosodic context can be modeled as prosodic string in which different contexts are coded by different symbols. j a b ə l k a ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ascending maximum ↓ descending 15 / 30
  35. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Prosodic Strings .

    . . . . . . . Sound change occurs more frequently in weak positions of sound sequences (Geisler 1992). Based on a sonority profile of sound sequences, one can distinguish sound positions according to their prosodic contexts. Prosodic context can be modeled as prosodic string in which different contexts are coded by different symbols. sonority increases j a b ə l k a 15 / 30
  36. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat . Prosodic Strings .

    . . . . . . . Sound change occurs more frequently in weak positions of sound sequences (Geisler 1992). Based on a sonority profile of sound sequences, one can distinguish sound positions according to their prosodic contexts. Prosodic context can be modeled as prosodic string in which different contexts are coded by different symbols. j a b ə l k a # v C v c C > 15 / 30
  37. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat 16 / 30

  38. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat External Representation IPA j

    a b ə l k a Internal Representation Sound-Class String J A P E L K A Prosodic String # V C V c C > 16 / 30
  39. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat 17 / 30

  40. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat Cognate List Alignment Correspondence

    List German Zunge ʦ ʊ ŋ ə GER ENG Frequ. ʦ t 2 x s t 2 x h h 1 x f f 1 x n - 1 x … … … English tongue t ʌ ŋ - German Zahn ʦ aː n - English tooth t ʊː - θ German heiß h ai s English hot h ɔ t German Fuß f u ː s English foot f ʊ t 17 / 30
  41. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat Cognate List Alignment Correspondence

    List German Zunge ʦ ʊ ŋ ə GER ENG Frequ. ʦ t 2 x s t 2 x h h 1 x f f 1 x n - 1 x … … … English tongue t ʌ ŋ - German Zahn ʦ aː n - English tooth t ʊː - θ German heiß h ai s English hot h ɔ t German Fuß f u ː s English foot f ʊ t 17 / 30
  42. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat Cognate List Alignment Correspondence

    List German Zunge C U N E GER ENG Frequ. C/# T/# 2 x S/$ T/$ 2 x H/$ H/# 1 x B/$ B/# 1 x N/c - 1 x … … … English tongue T A N - German Zahn C A N - English tooth T U - T German heiß H A S English hot H O T German Fuß B U S English foot B U T 17 / 30
  43. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat Dataset of Kessler (2001)

    “to dig” (30) Turchin NED LexStat. Albanisch gërmon gərmo 1 1 1 Englisch digs dɪg 2 2 2 Französisch creuse krøze 1 3 3 Deutsch gräbt graːb 1 1 4 Hawaii ‘eli ʔeli 5 5 5 Navajo hahashgééd hahageːd 6 6 6 Türkisch kazıyor kaz 7 3 7 18 / 30
  44. Automatic Cognate Detection Language-Specific Approaches LexStat Dataset of Kessler (2001)

    “mouth” (104) Turchin NED LexStat. Albanisch gojë goj 1 1 1 Englisch mouth mauθ 2 2 2 Französisch bouche buʃ 3 3 3 Deutsch Mund mund 4 4 2 Hawaii waha waha 5 5 5 Navajo ’azéé’ zeːʔ 6 6 6 Türkisch ağız aɣz 7 7 7 19 / 30
  45. Testing the Impact of Sample Size on Cognate Detection 20

    / 30
  46. Testing the Impact of Sample Size on Cognate Detection Materials

    Gold Standard . IDS-Testset . . . . . . . . 4 languages (German, English, Dutch, French) 550 items (glosses) translations taken from the IDS (Key & Comrie 2009) orthographic entries converted into IPA transcriptions cognate judgments follow traditional literature 21 / 30
  47. Testing the Impact of Sample Size on Cognate Detection Materials

    Subsets of Varying Samplesize . Creating the Subsets . . . . . . . . Starting from the basic dataset, subsets of the data were created by randomly deleting 5, 10, 15, etc. items from the original dataset, and taking 5 different samples for each distinct number of deletions. This process yielded 550 datasets, covering the whole range of possible sample sizes between 5 and 550 in steps of 5. 22 / 30
  48. Testing the Impact of Sample Size on Cognate Detection Methods

    Automatic Cognate Detection . Methods for Cognate Detection . . . . . . . . Normalized Edit Distance (NED) Turchin et al. (2010, Turchin) SCA Distance (List 2012b) LexStat (List 2012a) . Implementation . . . . . . . . All methods are implemented as part of LingPy-1.0 (see http://lingpy.org), a Python library for quantitative tasks in historical linguistics. 23 / 30
  49. Testing the Impact of Sample Size on Cognate Detection Methods

    Evaluation Measures . B-Cubed Precision and Recall (Amigó et al. 2009) . . . . . . . . Given a test (result of an analysis) and a reference (the gold standard), precision is the proportion of items in the test that also occur in the reference, and recall is the proportion of items in the reference that also occur in the test. Low precision is equivalent to high rates of false positives, low recall is equivalent to high rates of false negatives (missed cognates). 24 / 30
  50. Results 25 / 30

  51. Results Results Items B-Cubed Recall Turchin NED SCA LexStat 50

    86.10 85.55 92.44 90.88 100 86.55 85.77 92.20 93.89 200 86.88 86.61 92.68 95.02 300 87.13 86.64 92.90 95.05 400 87.14 86.81 92.89 94.94 500 87.07 86.77 92.75 94.90 26 / 30
  52. Results 100 200 300 400 500 84 86 88 90

    92 94 96 Turchin 100 200 300 400 500 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 NED 100 200 300 400 500 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 SCA 100 200 300 400 500 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 LexStat 27 / 30
  53. Discussion 28 / 30

  54. Discussion Discussion . Are 200 words enough? . . .

    . . . . . Although the representativity of the data is limited, and the number of languages investigated is small, the test shows that sample size has a definite impact on the results of language-specific methods, and using 200 words is surely better than using 100 words. 29 / 30
  55. 30 / 30

  56. Sanscruta sarpá- s a r p a Italienisch serpe s

    ɛ r p ə Sanscruta devá- d e v a Italienisch Dio d i - o Sanscruta saptá- s a p t a Italienisch sette s ɛ - tː ə 30 / 30
  57. Спасибо за Ваше Внимание! 30 / 30