LexStat: Automatic detection of cognates in multilingual wordlists

Talk held at the Joint Workshop of LINGVIS and UNCLH, April 23-24, Avignon.

Transcript

1. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation . . . . . . . LexStat: Automatic Detection of Cognates in Multilingual Wordlists Johann-Mattis List∗ ∗Institute for Romance Languages and Literature Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf April 24, 2012 1 / 28
2. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Structure of the Talk . . . 1 Keys to the Past . . . 2 Identification of Cognates . . . 3 LexStat . . . 4 Evaluation 2 / 28
3. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Keys to the Past 3 / 28
4. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Charles Lyell on Languages 4 / 28
5. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Charles Lyell on Languages The Geological Evidences of The Antiquity of Man with Remarks on Theories of The Origin of Species by Variation By Sir Charles Lyell London John Murray, Albemarle Street 1863 4 / 28
6. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Charles Lyell on Languages If we new not- hing of the existence of Latin, - if all historical documents previous to the fin- teenth century had been lost, - if tra- dition even was si- lent as to the former existance of a Ro- man empire, a me- re comparison of the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Wallachian, and Rhaetian dialects would enable us to say that at some time there must ha- ve been a language, from which these six modern dialects derive their origin in common. 4 / 28
7. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Uniformitarianism and Abduction 5 / 28
8. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Uniformitarianism and Abduction . Uniformitarianism . . . . . . . . 5 / 28
9. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Uniformitarianism and Abduction . Uniformitarianism . . . . . . . . “Universality of Change” – Change is independent of time and space 5 / 28
10. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Uniformitarianism and Abduction . Uniformitarianism . . . . . . . . “Universality of Change” – Change is independent of time and space “Graduality of Change” – Change is neither abrupt nor chaotic 5 / 28
11. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Uniformitarianism and Abduction . Uniformitarianism . . . . . . . . “Universality of Change” – Change is independent of time and space “Graduality of Change” – Change is neither abrupt nor chaotic “Uniformity of Change” – Change is not heterogeneous 5 / 28
12. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Uniformitarianism and Abduction . Uniformitarianism . . . . . . . . “Universality of Change” – Change is independent of time and space “Graduality of Change” – Change is neither abrupt nor chaotic “Uniformity of Change” – Change is not heterogeneous . Abduction . . . . . . . . 5 / 28
13. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Uniformitarianism and Abduction . Uniformitarianism . . . . . . . . “Universality of Change” – Change is independent of time and space “Graduality of Change” – Change is neither abrupt nor chaotic “Uniformity of Change” – Change is not heterogeneous . Abduction . . . . . . . . Present Events or Patterns + Known Laws => Abduction of Historical Facts 5 / 28
14. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Uniformitarianism and Abduction . Uniformitarianism . . . . . . . . “Universality of Change” – Change is independent of time and space “Graduality of Change” – Change is neither abrupt nor chaotic “Uniformity of Change” – Change is not heterogeneous . Abduction . . . . . . . . Present Events or Patterns + Known Laws => Abduction of Historical Facts Similarities Between Languages + Language Change => Inference of Proto-Languages 5 / 28
15. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation h j - ä r t a - h - e - r z - - h - e a r t - - c - - o r d i s hjärta herz heart cordis Identification of Cognates 6 / 28
16. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Basic Procedure . . . . . . . . 7 / 28
17. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Basic Procedure . . . . . . . . Compile an initial list of putative cognate sets. 7 / 28
18. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Basic Procedure . . . . . . . . Compile an initial list of putative cognate sets. Extract an initial list of putative sets of sound correspondences from the initial cognate list. 7 / 28
19. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Basic Procedure . . . . . . . . Compile an initial list of putative cognate sets. Extract an initial list of putative sets of sound correspondences from the initial cognate list. Refine the cognate list and the correspondence list by 7 / 28
20. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Basic Procedure . . . . . . . . Compile an initial list of putative cognate sets. Extract an initial list of putative sets of sound correspondences from the initial cognate list. Refine the cognate list and the correspondence list by adding and deleting cognate sets from the cognate list, depending on whether they are consistent with the correspondence list or not, and 7 / 28
21. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Basic Procedure . . . . . . . . Compile an initial list of putative cognate sets. Extract an initial list of putative sets of sound correspondences from the initial cognate list. Refine the cognate list and the correspondence list by adding and deleting cognate sets from the cognate list, depending on whether they are consistent with the correspondence list or not, and adding and deleting correspondence sets from the correspondence list, depending on whether they are consistent with the cognate list or not. 7 / 28
22. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Basic Procedure . . . . . . . . Compile an initial list of putative cognate sets. Extract an initial list of putative sets of sound correspondences from the initial cognate list. Refine the cognate list and the correspondence list by adding and deleting cognate sets from the cognate list, depending on whether they are consistent with the correspondence list or not, and adding and deleting correspondence sets from the correspondence list, depending on whether they are consistent with the cognate list or not. Finish when the results are satisfying enough. 7 / 28
23. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Language-Specific Similarity Measure . . . . . . . . 8 / 28
24. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Language-Specific Similarity Measure . . . . . . . . Sequence similarity is determined on the basis of systematic sound correspondences as opposed to similarity based on surface resemblances of phonetic segments. 8 / 28
25. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Language-Specific Similarity Measure . . . . . . . . Sequence similarity is determined on the basis of systematic sound correspondences as opposed to similarity based on surface resemblances of phonetic segments. Lass (1997) calls this notion of similarity phenotypic as opposed to a genotypic notion of similarity. 8 / 28
26. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Language-Specific Similarity Measure . . . . . . . . Sequence similarity is determined on the basis of systematic sound correspondences as opposed to similarity based on surface resemblances of phonetic segments. Lass (1997) calls this notion of similarity phenotypic as opposed to a genotypic notion of similarity. The most crucial aspect of correspondence-based similarity is that it is language-specific: Genotypic similarity is never defined in general terms but always with respect to the language systems which are being compared. bla German [ʦaːn] “tooth” Dutch tand [tɑnt] English [tʊːθ] “tooth” German [ʦeːn] “ten” Dutch tien [tiːn] English [tɛn] “ten” German [ʦʊŋə] “tongue” Dutch tong [tɔŋ] English [tʌŋ] “tongue” 8 / 28
27. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Language-Specific Similarity Measure . . . . . . . . Sequence similarity is determined on the basis of systematic sound correspondences as opposed to similarity based on surface resemblances of phonetic segments. Lass (1997) calls this notion of similarity phenotypic as opposed to a genotypic notion of similarity. The most crucial aspect of correspondence-based similarity is that it is language-specific: Genotypic similarity is never defined in general terms but always with respect to the language systems which are being compared. Meaning German Dutch English “tooth” Zahn [ ʦ aːn] tand [ t ɑnt] tooth [ t ʊːθ] “ten” zehn [ ʦ eːn] tien [ t iːn] ten [ t ɛn] “tongue” Zunge [ ʦ ʊŋə] tong [ t ɔŋ] tongue [ t ʌŋ] 8 / 28
28. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation The Comparative Method . Language-Specific Similarity Measure . . . . . . . . Sequence similarity is determined on the basis of systematic sound correspondences as opposed to similarity based on surface resemblances of phonetic segments. Lass (1997) calls this notion of similarity phenotypic as opposed to a genotypic notion of similarity. The most crucial aspect of correspondence-based similarity is that it is language-specific: Genotypic similarity is never defined in general terms but always with respect to the language systems which are being compared. Meaning Shanghai Beijing Guangzhou “nine” [ ʨ iɤ³⁵] Beijing [ ʨ iou²¹⁴] [ k ɐu³⁵] “today” [ ʨ iŋ⁵⁵ʦɔ²¹] Beijing [ ʨ iɚ⁵⁵] [ k ɐm⁵³jɐt²] “rooster” [koŋ⁵⁵ ʨ i²¹] Beijing[kuŋ⁵⁵ ʨ i⁵⁵] [ k ɐi⁵⁵koŋ⁵⁵] 8 / 28
29. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches 9 / 28
30. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Alignment Analyses . . . . . . . . 9 / 28
31. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Alignment Analyses . . . . . . . . In alignment analyses, sequences are arranged in a matrix in such a way that corresponding elements occur in the same column, while empty cells resulting from non-corresponding elements are filled with gap symbols. 9 / 28
32. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Alignment Analyses . . . . . . . . In alignment analyses, sequences are arranged in a matrix in such a way that corresponding elements occur in the same column, while empty cells resulting from non-corresponding elements are filled with gap symbols. t ɔ x t ə r d ɔː t ə r 9 / 28
33. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Alignment Analyses . . . . . . . . In alignment analyses, sequences are arranged in a matrix in such a way that corresponding elements occur in the same column, while empty cells resulting from non-corresponding elements are filled with gap symbols. t ɔ x t ə r d ɔː t ə r 9 / 28
34. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Alignment Analyses . . . . . . . . In alignment analyses, sequences are arranged in a matrix in such a way that corresponding elements occur in the same column, while empty cells resulting from non-corresponding elements are filled with gap symbols. t ɔ x t ə r d ɔː - t ə r 9 / 28
35. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Alignment Analyses . . . . . . . . In alignment analyses, sequences are arranged in a matrix in such a way that corresponding elements occur in the same column, while empty cells resulting from non-corresponding elements are filled with gap symbols. t ɔ x t ə r d ɔː - t ə r C ognate identification isusuallybased on a sim - ilarity or distance score (e.g., edit-distance) cal- culated from the num ber of m atches and m is- m atches in the alignm ent. 9 / 28
36. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound Classes . . . . . . . . 10 / 28
37. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound Classes . . . . . . . . Sounds which often occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be clustered into classes (types). It is assumed “that phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgopolsky 1986: 35). 10 / 28
38. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound Classes . . . . . . . . Sounds which often occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be clustered into classes (types). It is assumed “that phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgopolsky 1986: 35). k g p b ʧ ʤ f v t d ʃ ʒ θ ð s z 1 10 / 28
39. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound Classes . . . . . . . . Sounds which often occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be clustered into classes (types). It is assumed “that phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgopolsky 1986: 35). k g p b ʧ ʤ f v t d ʃ ʒ θ ð s z 1 10 / 28
40. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound Classes . . . . . . . . Sounds which often occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be clustered into classes (types). It is assumed “that phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgopolsky 1986: 35). k g p b ʧ ʤ f v t d ʃ ʒ θ ð s z 1 10 / 28
41. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound Classes . . . . . . . . Sounds which often occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be clustered into classes (types). It is assumed “that phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgopolsky 1986: 35). K T P S 1 10 / 28
42. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound Classes . . . . . . . . Sounds which often occur in correspondence relations in genetically related languages can be clustered into classes (types). It is assumed “that phonetic correspondences inside a ‘type’ are more regular than those between different ‘types’” (Dolgopolsky 1986: 35). K T P S 1 C ognate identification is usually based on com - paring the first two consonants of two words: If they m atch regarding their sound classes, the words are judged to be cognate, otherw ise not. 10 / 28
43. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound-Class-Based Alignment (SCA) . . . . . . . . 11 / 28
44. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound-Class-Based Alignment (SCA) . . . . . . . . Sound classes and alignment analyses can be easily combined by representing phonetic sequences internally as sound classes and comparing the sound classes with traditional alignment algorithms. 11 / 28
45. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound-Class-Based Alignment (SCA) . . . . . . . . Sound classes and alignment analyses can be easily combined by representing phonetic sequences internally as sound classes and comparing the sound classes with traditional alignment algorithms. INPUT tɔxtər dɔːtər TOKENIZATION t, ɔ, x, t, ə, r d, ɔː, t, ə, r CONVERSION t ɔ x … → T O G … d ɔː t … → T O T … ALIGNMENT T O G T E R T O - T E R CONVERSION T O G … → t ɔ x … T O - … → d oː - … OUTPUT t ɔ x t ə r d ɔː x t ə r 1 11 / 28
46. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Automatic Approaches . Sound-Class-Based Alignment (SCA) . . . . . . . . Sound classes and alignment analyses can be easily combined by representing phonetic sequences internally as sound classes and comparing the sound classes with traditional alignment algorithms. INPUT tɔxtər dɔːtər TOKENIZATION t, ɔ, x, t, ə, r d, ɔː, t, ə, r CONVERSION t ɔ x … → T O G … d ɔː t … → T O T … ALIGNMENT T O G T E R T O - T E R CONVERSION T O G … → t ɔ x … T O - … → d oː - … OUTPUT t ɔ x t ə r d ɔː x t ə r 1 C ognate identification m ay be based on a cer- tain threshold and distance scores derived from the sim ilarity scores yielded by the alignm ent al- gorithm . 11 / 28
47. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Traditional vs. Automatic Approaches 12 / 28
48. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Traditional vs. Automatic Approaches . Similarity . . . . . . . . 12 / 28
49. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Traditional vs. Automatic Approaches . Similarity . . . . . . . . Almost all current automatic approaches are based on a language-independent similarity measure, while the comparative method applies a language-specific one. All automatic approaches will therefore yield the same scores for phenotypically identical sequences, regardless of the language systems they belong to. 12 / 28
50. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation LexStat 13 / 28
51. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Working Procedure 14 / 28
52. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Working Procedure Sequence Input sequences are read from specifically for- matted input files 14 / 28
53. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Working Procedure Sequence Input sequences are read from specifically for- matted input files 1 Sequence Conversion sequences are converted to sound classes and prosodic profiles 14 / 28
54. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Working Procedure Sequence Input sequences are read from specifically for- matted input files 1 Sequence Conversion sequences are converted to sound classes and prosodic profiles 2 Scoring-Scheme Creation using a permutation method, language- specific scoring schemes are determined 14 / 28
55. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Working Procedure Sequence Input sequences are read from specifically for- matted input files 1 Sequence Conversion sequences are converted to sound classes and prosodic profiles 2 Scoring-Scheme Creation using a permutation method, language- specific scoring schemes are determined 3 Distance Calculation based on the language-specific scoring- scheme, pairwise distances between se- quences are calculated 14 / 28
56. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Working Procedure Sequence Input sequences are read from specifically for- matted input files 1 Sequence Conversion sequences are converted to sound classes and prosodic profiles 2 Scoring-Scheme Creation using a permutation method, language- specific scoring schemes are determined 3 Distance Calculation based on the language-specific scoring- scheme, pairwise distances between se- quences are calculated 4 Sequence Clustering sequences are clustered into cognate sets whose average distance is beyond a certain threshold 14 / 28
57. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Working Procedure Sequence Input sequences are read from specifically for- matted input files 1 Sequence Conversion sequences are converted to sound classes and prosodic profiles 2 Scoring-Scheme Creation using a permutation method, language- specific scoring schemes are determined 3 Distance Calculation based on the language-specific scoring- scheme, pairwise distances between se- quences are calculated 4 Sequence Clustering sequences are clustered into cognate sets whose average distance is beyond a certain threshold Sequence Output information regarding sequence cluster- ing is written to file using a specific format 14 / 28
58. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Implementation 15 / 28
59. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Implementation LexStat ist implemented as part of the LingPy Python library (see http://lingulist.de/lingpy) for automatic tasks in historical linguistics. 15 / 28
60. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Implementation LexStat ist implemented as part of the LingPy Python library (see http://lingulist.de/lingpy) for automatic tasks in historical linguistics. The current release of LingPy (lingpy-1.0) provides methods for pairwise and multiple sequence alignment (SCA), automatic cognate detection (LexStat), and plotting routines (see the online documentation for details). 15 / 28
61. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Implementation LexStat ist implemented as part of the LingPy Python library (see http://lingulist.de/lingpy) for automatic tasks in historical linguistics. The current release of LingPy (lingpy-1.0) provides methods for pairwise and multiple sequence alignment (SCA), automatic cognate detection (LexStat), and plotting routines (see the online documentation for details). LexStat can be invoked from the Python shell or inside Python scripts (examples are given in the online documentation). 15 / 28
62. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Input and Output ID Items German English Swedish 1 hand hant hænd hand 2 woman fraʊ wʊmən kvina 3 know kɛnən nəʊ çɛna 3 know vɪsən - veːta … … … … … 16 / 28
63. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Input and Output ID Items German COG English COG Swedish COG 1 hand hant 1 hænd 1 hand 1 2 woman fraʊ 2 wʊmən 3 kvina 4 3 know kɛnən 5 nəʊ 5 çɛna 5 3 know vɪsən 6 - 0 veːta 6 … … … … … … … … 16 / 28
64. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Input and Output 16 / 28
65. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Internal Representation of Sequences 17 / 28
66. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Internal Representation of Sequences . Sound Classes and Prosodic Context . . . . . . . . 17 / 28
67. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Internal Representation of Sequences . Sound Classes and Prosodic Context . . . . . . . . All sequences are internally represented as sound classes, the default model being the one proposed in List (forthcoming). 17 / 28
68. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Internal Representation of Sequences . Sound Classes and Prosodic Context . . . . . . . . All sequences are internally represented as sound classes, the default model being the one proposed in List (forthcoming). All sequences are also represented by prosodic strings which indicate the prosodic environment (initial, ascending, maximum, descending, final) of each phonetic segment (List 2012). 17 / 28
69. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Internal Representation of Sequences . Sound Classes and Prosodic Context . . . . . . . . All sequences are internally represented as sound classes, the default model being the one proposed in List (forthcoming). All sequences are also represented by prosodic strings which indicate the prosodic environment (initial, ascending, maximum, descending, final) of each phonetic segment (List 2012). The information regarding sound classes and prosodic context is combined, and each input sequence is further represented as a sequence of tuples, consisting of the sound class and the prosodic environment of the respective phonetic segment. 17 / 28
70. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation 18 / 28
71. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation . Attested Distribution . . . . . . . . 18 / 28
72. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation . Attested Distribution . . . . . . . . carry out global and pairwise alignment analyses of all sequence pairs occuring in the same semantic slot store all corresponding segments that occur in sequences whose distance is beyond a certain threshold 18 / 28
73. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation . Attested Distribution . . . . . . . . carry out global and pairwise alignment analyses of all sequence pairs occuring in the same semantic slot store all corresponding segments that occur in sequences whose distance is beyond a certain threshold . Creation of the Expected Distribution . . . . . . . . 18 / 28
74. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation . Attested Distribution . . . . . . . . carry out global and pairwise alignment analyses of all sequence pairs occuring in the same semantic slot store all corresponding segments that occur in sequences whose distance is beyond a certain threshold . Creation of the Expected Distribution . . . . . . . . shuffle the wordlists repeatedly and carry out global and pairwise alignment analyses of all sequence pairs in the randomly shuffled wordlists store all corresponding segments average the results 18 / 28
75. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation . Attested Distribution . . . . . . . . carry out global and pairwise alignment analyses of all sequence pairs occuring in the same semantic slot store all corresponding segments that occur in sequences whose distance is beyond a certain threshold . Creation of the Expected Distribution . . . . . . . . shuffle the wordlists repeatedly and carry out global and pairwise alignment analyses of all sequence pairs in the randomly shuffled wordlists store all corresponding segments average the results . Calculation of Similarity Scores . . . . . . . . 18 / 28
76. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation . Attested Distribution . . . . . . . . carry out global and pairwise alignment analyses of all sequence pairs occuring in the same semantic slot store all corresponding segments that occur in sequences whose distance is beyond a certain threshold . Creation of the Expected Distribution . . . . . . . . shuffle the wordlists repeatedly and carry out global and pairwise alignment analyses of all sequence pairs in the randomly shuffled wordlists store all corresponding segments average the results . Calculation of Similarity Scores . . . . . . . . Calculation of log-odds scores from the distributions. 18 / 28
77. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation English German Att. Exp. Score #[t,d] #[t,d] 3.0 1.24 6.3 #[t,d] #[ʦ] 3.0 0.38 6.0 #[t,d] #[ʃ,s,z] 1.0 1.99 -1.5 #[θ,ð] #[t,d] 7.0 0.72 6.3 #[θ,ð] #[ʦ] 0.0 0.25 -1.5 #[θ,ð] #[s,z] 0.0 1.33 0.5 [t,d]$ [t,d]$ 21.0 8.86 6.3 [t,d]$ [ʦ]$ 3.0 1.62 3.9 [t,d]$ [ʃ,s]$ 6.0 5.30 1.5 [θ,ð]$ [t,d]$ 4.0 1.14 4.8 [θ,ð]$ [ʦ]$ 0.0 0.20 -1.5 [θ,ð]$ [ʃ,s]$ 0.0 0.80 0.5 19 / 28
78. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation English German Att. Exp. Score #[t,d] #[t,d] 3.0 1.24 6.3 #[t,d] #[ʦ] 3.0 0.38 6.0 #[t,d] #[ʃ,s,z] 1.0 1.99 -1.5 #[θ,ð] #[t,d] 7.0 0.72 6.3 #[θ,ð] #[ʦ] 0.0 0.25 -1.5 #[θ,ð] #[s,z] 0.0 1.33 0.5 [t,d]$ [t,d]$ 21.0 8.86 6.3 [t,d]$ [ʦ]$ 3.0 1.62 3.9 [t,d]$ [ʃ,s]$ 6.0 5.30 1.5 [θ,ð]$ [t,d]$ 4.0 1.14 4.8 [θ,ð]$ [ʦ]$ 0.0 0.20 -1.5 [θ,ð]$ [ʃ,s]$ 0.0 0.80 0.5 19 / 28
79. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Scoring-Scheme Creation Initial Final English town [taʊn] hot [hɔt] German Zaun [ʦaun] heiß [haɪs] English thorn [θɔːn] mouth [maʊθ] German Dorn [dɔrn] Mund [mʊnt] English dale [deɪl] head [hɛd] German Tal [taːl] Hut [huːt] 19 / 28
80. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Sequence Clustering Ger. Eng. Dan. Swe. Dut. Nor. Ger. [frau] 0.00 0.95 0.81 0.70 0.34 1.00 Eng. [wʊmən] 0.95 0.00 0.78 0.90 0.80 0.80 Dan. [kvenə] 0.81 0.78 0.00 0.17 0.96 0.13 Swe. [kvinːa] 0.70 0.90 0.17 0.00 0.86 0.10 Dut. [vrɑuʋ] 0.34 0.80 0.96 0.86 0.00 0.89 Nor. [kʋinə] 1.00 0.80 0.13 0.10 0.89 0.00 20 / 28
81. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Sequence Clustering Ger. Eng. Dan. Swe. Dut. Nor. Ger. [frau] 0.00 0.95 0.81 0.70 0.34 1.00 Eng. [wʊmən] 0.95 0.00 0.78 0.90 0.80 0.80 Dan. [kvenə] 0.81 0.78 0.00 0.17 0.96 0.13 Swe. [kvinːa] 0.70 0.90 0.17 0.00 0.86 0.10 Dut. [vrɑuʋ] 0.34 0.80 0.96 0.86 0.00 0.89 Nor. [kʋinə] 1.00 0.80 0.13 0.10 0.89 0.00 Clusters 1 2 3 3 1 3 20 / 28
82. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation * * * * * * * * * * * * * v o l - d e m o r t v - l a d i m i r - v a l - d e m a r - Evaluation 21 / 28
83. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Gold Standard 22 / 28
84. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Gold Standard File Family Lng. Itm. Entr. Source GER Germanic 7 110 814 Starostin (2008) ROM Romance 5 110 589 Starostin (2008) SLV Slavic 4 110 454 Starostin (2008) PIE Indo-Eur. 18 110 2057 Starostin (2008) OUG Uralic 21 110 2055 Starostin (2008) BAI Bai 9 110 1028 Wang (2006) SIN Sinitic 9 180 1614 Hóu (2004) KSL varia 8 200 1600 Kessler (2001) JAP Japonic 10 200 1986 Shirō (1973) 22 / 28
85. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Evaluation Measures 23 / 28
86. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Evaluation Measures . Set Comparison . . . . . . . . 23 / 28
87. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Evaluation Measures . Set Comparison . . . . . . . . Precision, Recall, and F-Score are calculated by comparing the cognate sets proposed by the method with the cognate sets in the gold standard (see Bergsma & Kondrak 2007). 23 / 28
88. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Evaluation Measures . Set Comparison . . . . . . . . Precision, Recall, and F-Score are calculated by comparing the cognate sets proposed by the method with the cognate sets in the gold standard (see Bergsma & Kondrak 2007). . Pair Comparison . . . . . . . . 23 / 28
89. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Evaluation Measures . Set Comparison . . . . . . . . Precision, Recall, and F-Score are calculated by comparing the cognate sets proposed by the method with the cognate sets in the gold standard (see Bergsma & Kondrak 2007). . Pair Comparison . . . . . . . . Pair comparison is based on a pairwise comparison of all decisions present in testset and goldstandard. 23 / 28
90. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Tests 24 / 28
91. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Tests Sound Classes – matching sound classes without alignment (based on Turchin et al. 2010) 24 / 28
92. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Tests Sound Classes – matching sound classes without alignment (based on Turchin et al. 2010) Simple Alignment – normalized edit-distance (Levenshtein 1966) 24 / 28
93. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Tests Sound Classes – matching sound classes without alignment (based on Turchin et al. 2010) Simple Alignment – normalized edit-distance (Levenshtein 1966) SCA – language-independent distance scores derived from sound-class-based alignment analyses (List 2012) 24 / 28
94. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Tests Sound Classes – matching sound classes without alignment (based on Turchin et al. 2010) Simple Alignment – normalized edit-distance (Levenshtein 1966) SCA – language-independent distance scores derived from sound-class-based alignment analyses (List 2012) LexStat – language-specific distance scores 24 / 28
95. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation General Results 25 / 28
96. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation General Results Score LexStat SCA Simple Alm. Sound Cl. Identical Pairs 0.85 0.82 0.76 0.74 Precision 0.59 0.51 0.39 0.39 Recall 0.68 0.57 0.47 0.55 F-Score 0.63 0.55 0.42 0.46 25 / 28
97. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation General Results SLV KSL GER BAI SIN PIE ROM JAP OUG 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 LexStat SCA NED Turchin 25 / 28
98. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Specific Results 26 / 28
99. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Specific Results Pairwise decisions were extracted from the KSL dataset and compared with the Gold Standard. 26 / 28
100. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Specific Results Pairwise decisions were extracted from the KSL dataset and compared with the Gold Standard. 72 borrowings were explicitly marked along with their source by Kessler (2001). 26 / 28
101. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Specific Results Pairwise decisions were extracted from the KSL dataset and compared with the Gold Standard. 72 borrowings were explicitly marked along with their source by Kessler (2001). 83 chance resemblances were determined automatically by taking non-cognate word pairs with an NED score less than 0.6. 26 / 28
102. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Specific Results Pairwise decisions were extracted from the KSL dataset and compared with the Gold Standard. 72 borrowings were explicitly marked along with their source by Kessler (2001). 83 chance resemblances were determined automatically by taking non-cognate word pairs with an NED score less than 0.6. LexStat SCA Simple Alm. Sound Cl. Borrowings 50% 61% 49% 53% Chance Resemblances 17% 42% 89% 31% 26 / 28
103. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation *deh3 - ? What’s next? 27 / 28
104. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation Special thanks to: • The German Federal Mi- nistry of Education and Research (BMBF) for funding our research project. • Hans Geisler for his hel- pful, critical, and inspi- ring support. • James Kilbury for all the time he spent on helping me to refine the manu- script. 28 / 28
105. . . Keys to the Past . . . . . . Identification of Cognates . . . . . . . LexStat . . . . . Evaluation THANK YOU 1 FOR LISTENING! 28 / 28