Relative choronology

Three methods of reconstruction

Bibliographic Data

ID10141386
AuthorsMatthew Y Chen (University of California San Diego, corresponding author)
Year1976
Volume12
Issue2
Pages209-258
Publication date1976-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Linguistics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-2267 • E-ISSN: 1469-7742
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0022226700004977
OpenAlexW2015525331
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited18

In reconstructing protoforms and linguistic histories, many methods can and have been employed with varying degrees of effectiveness (cf. Bonfante, 1945, for a general discussion). For the specific purpose of establishing the time sequence of phonological changes according to which sound systems have evolved, traditionally two procedures have been most frequently followed: one is to sift the historical records for clues to the dates of linguistic innovations, and the other is to infer from the systematic correspondences between protoforms and their modern reflexes the internally motivated order of diachronic rules

Biology · Comparative method · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Phonology · Sequence (biology · Sound change · Computer Science · History · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Philosophy · Phonetics and Phonology Research · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation