title: Some structural aspects of language are more stable than others: a comparison of seven methods.
abstract: Understanding the patterns and causes of differential structural stability is an area of major interest for the study of language change and evolution. It is still debated whether structural features have intrinsic stabilities across language families and geographic areas, or if the processes governing their rate of change are completely dependent upon the specific context of a given language or language family. We conducted an extensive literature review and selected seven different approaches to conceptualising and estimating the stability of structural linguistic features, aiming at comparing them using the same dataset, the World Atlas of Language Structures. We found that, despite profound conceptual and empirical differences between these methods, they tend to agree in classifying some structural linguistic features as being more stable than others. This suggests that there are intrinsic properties of such structural features influencing their stability across methods, language families and geographic areas. This finding is a major step towards understanding the nature of structural linguistic features and their interaction with idiosyncratic, lineage- and area-specific factors during language change and evolution.
authors: Language and Genetics Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Dan.Dediu@mpi.nl
authors: Dan
authors: D
authors: Dediu
authors: Michael
authors: M
authors: Cysouw
mesh_terms: D008037:Linguistics / Q000379:methods*; D025341:Principal Component Analysis; D011336:Probability
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Aug 22;277(1693):2443-50
references: 20375050
references: Biol Direct. 2008 Jul 09;3:29
references: 18613974
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Dec 12;365(1559):3807-19
references: 21041206
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2020-5
references: 11842182
references: Nature. 1968 Feb 17;217(5129):624-6
references: 5637732
references: Nature. 2007 Oct 11;449(7163):717-20
references: 17928860
references: Nature. 2002 Aug 22;418(6900):869-72
references: 12192408
references: Nature. 1973 Nov 9;246(5428):96-8
references: 4585855
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Sep;19(9):475-81
references: 16701310
references: Science. 2005 Sep 23;309(5743):2072-5
references: 16179483
references: Cancer Res. 1967 Feb;27(2):209-20
references: 6018555
references: Nature. 2011 May 5;473(7345):79-82
references: 21490599
references: Am J Hum Genet. 2005 May;76(5):717-28
references: 15806441
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Feb;22(2):200-9
references: 15483330
references: Nature. 2000 Jan 20;403(6767):304-9
references: 10659848
references: Cognition. 2012 Mar;122(3):306-29
references: 22208785
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Feb 7;278(1704):474-9
references: 20810441
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 30;109(44):17897-902
references: 23071337
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 26;104(26):10944-9
references: 17537923
references: Nat Rev Genet. 2009 Jun;10(6):405-15
references: 19421237
references: PLoS Genet. 2008 Oct;4(10):e1000239
references: 18974871
references: Bioinformatics. 2003 Aug 12;19(12):1572-4
references: 12912839
references: Science. 2001 Dec 14;294(5550):2310-4
references: 11743192
references: Science. 1995 Mar 24;267(5205):1788-92
references: 7892602
references: Hum Biol. 2011 Apr;83(2):279-96
references: 21615290
references: Nature. 2006 Sep 14;443(7108):167-72
references: 16915236
references: PLoS Genet. 2006 Oct 13;2(10):e168
references: 17040131
references: Nature. 2001 Oct 4;413(6855):519-23
references: 11586359
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45198
references: 23028843