Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Are Sounds Sound for Phylogenetic Reconstruction?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.02807 v3 pith:HTLWV3TW submitted 2024-02-05 cs.CL cs.SDeess.AS

classification cs.CLcs.SDeess.AS
keywords soundphylogeneticlanguagephylogeniesreconstructionstudiesapproachescognates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In traditional studies on language evolution, scholars often emphasize the importance of sound laws and sound correspondences for phylogenetic inference of language family trees. However, to date, computational approaches have typically not taken this potential into account. Most computational studies still rely on lexical cognates as major data source for phylogenetic reconstruction in linguistics, although there do exist a few studies in which authors praise the benefits of comparing words at the level of sound sequences. Building on (a) ten diverse datasets from different language families, and (b) state-of-the-art methods for automated cognate and sound correspondence detection, we test, for the first time, the performance of sound-based versus cognate-based approaches to phylogenetic reconstruction. Our results show that phylogenies reconstructed from lexical cognates are topologically closer, by approximately one third with respect to the generalized quartet distance on average, to the gold standard phylogenies than phylogenies reconstructed from sound correspondences.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Cognate Data Bottleneck in Language Phylogenetics

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Automatic extraction of cognate matrices from BabelNet yields sparse, noisy data with GQ distances above 0.39 from the Glottolog gold standard, confirming a data bottleneck for computational historical linguistics.

Pith tools