Search

The weblog Computer-Assisted Language Comparison in Practice, published on the Hypotheses platform for scientific blogging (https://calc.hypotheses.org/), offers tutorials and discussion notes on computer-assisted approaches to the history and diversity of languages. A substantial part of its content is contributed as part of the ERC Starting Grant “Computer-Assisted Language Comparison” (CALC, 715618), funded by the European Research Council. But in the long run, we want to make this blog a platform for everybody willing to share ideas on small or big problems involving data preparation and analysis in computer-assisted or computer-based approaches to language comparison. This document summarizes all contributions from 2022. If you want to cite them, please follow the instructions at the end of each contribution. We express our gratitude to all contributors, who helped to make this an interesting collection of tutorials, algorithms, and initial theories related to the fields of computer-assisted language comparison.

The weblog Computer-Assisted Language Comparison in Practice, published on the Hypotheses platform for scientific blogging, offers tutorials and discussion notes on computer-assisted approaches to the history and diversity of languages. A substantial part of its content is contributed as part of the ERC Starting Grant “Computer-Assisted Language Comparison” (CALC, 715618), funded by the European Research Council. But in the long run, we want to make this blog a platform for everybody willing to share ideas on small or big problems involving data preparation and analysis in computer-assisted or computer-based approaches to language comparison. This document summarizes all contributions from 2021. If you want to cite them, please follow the instructions at the end of each contribution. We express our gratitude to all contributors, who helped to make this an interesting collection of tutorials, algorithms, and initial theories related to the fields of computer-assisted language comparison.

While the amount of digitally available data on the worlds' languages is steadily increasing, with more and more languages being documented, only a small proportion of the language resources produced are sustainable. Data reuse is often difficult due to idiosyncratic formats and a negligence of standards that could help to increase the comparability of linguistic data. The sustainability problem is nicely reflected in the current practice of handling interlinear-glossed text, one of the crucial resources produced in language documentation. Although large collections of glossed texts have been produced so far, the current practice of data handling makes data reuse difficult. In order to address this problem, we propose a first framework for the computer-assisted, sustainable handling of interlinear-glossed text resources. Building on recent standardization proposals for word lists and structural datasets, combined with state-of-the-art methods for automated sequence comparison in historical linguistics, we show how our workflow can be used to lift a collection of interlinear-glossed Qiang texts (an endangered language spoken in Sichuan, China), and how the lifted data can assist linguists in their research.

The weblog Computer-Assisted Language Comparison in Practice, published on the Hypotheses platform for scientific blogging, offers tutorials and discussion notes on computer-assisted approaches to the history and diversity of languages. A substantial part of its content is contributed as part of the ERC Starting Grant “Computer-Assisted Language Comparison” (CALC, 715618), funded by the European Research Council. But on the long run, we want to make this blog a platform for everybody willing to share ideas on small or big problems involving data preparation and analysis in computer-assisted or computer-based approaches to language comparison. This document summarizes all contributions from 2020. If you want to cite them, please follow the instructions at the end of each contribution. I express my gratitude to all contributors, who helped to make this an interesting collection of tutorials, algorithms, and initial theories related to the fields of computer-assisted language comparison.

When comparing the more than 7000 human language varieties spoken today, one encounters a huge diversity in all domains of language, ranging from phonology via morphology up to syntax and pragmatics. In the seminar, we explored how language diversity can be studied empirically. In order to do so, we looked at linguistic approaches to the study of linguistic diversity from multiple perspectives, including classical approaches in historical and areal linguistics and linguistic typology, as well as recent, predominantly quantitative approaches in the field of diversity linguistics. In terms of topics, we focused on the major domains of language, such as phonology, morphology, and structure ("grammar" in a broad sense).

In this paper, we describe our first attempt at building an NLP pipeline that extracts typological features from OCR’ed linguistic descriptions.

A project description of the fields of knowledge to be covered to delineate a phenomenological entity as yet undisclosed or appreciated.

A frequently mentioned if somewhat peripheral figure in the historiography of late nineteenth-century linguistics is the German sinologist and general linguist Georg von der Gabelentz (1840–1893). Today Gabelentz is chiefly remembered for several insights that proved to be productive in the development of subsequent schools and subdisciplines. In this paper, we examine two of these insights, his analytic and synthetic systems of grammar and his foundational work on typology. We show how they were intimately connected within his conception of linguistic research, and how this was in turn embedded in the tradition established by Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), especially as it was further developed by H. Steinthal (1823–1899). This paper goes beyond several previous works with a similar focus by drawing on a wider range of Gabelentz’ writings, including manuscript sources that have only recently been published, and by examining specific textual connections between Gabelentz and his predecessors.

On structural similarities in Azeri of Iran and Gagauz due to contact with Indo-Iranan languages

Section 2 will focus on the case patterns of simple Inuit transitive clauses. Section 3 deals with the Inuit ‘ergative’ agreement system. Section 4 addresses the Inuit phrase structure typology. Section 5 deals with the Inuit case system into more depth.