Types of Trees and Networks
An output of a quantitative historical linguistic analysis is normally a tree or a network diagram. This allows summary visualisation of the output data but is not the complete result. A tree is a connected acyclic graph, consisting of a set of vertices (also known as "nodes") and a set of edges ("branches") each of which connects a pair of vertices. An internal node represents a linguistic ancestor in a phylogenic tree or network. Each language is represented by a path, the paths showing the different states as it evolves. There is only one path between every pair of vertices. Unrooted trees plot the relationship between the input data without assumptions regarding their descent. A rooted tree explicitly identifies a common ancestor, often by specifying a direction of evolution or by including an "outgroup" that is known to be only distantly related to the set of languages being classified. Most trees are binary, that is a parent has two children. A tree can always be produced even though it is not always appropriate. A different sort of tree is that only based on language similarities / differences. In this case the internal nodes of the graph do not represent ancestors but are introduced to represent the conflict between the different splits ("bipartitions") in the data analysis. The "phenetic distance" is the sum of the weights (often represented as lengths) along the path between languages. Sometimes an additional assumption is made that these internal nodes do represent ancestors.
When languages converge, usually with word adoption ("borrowing"), a network model is more appropriate. There will be additional edges to reflect the dual parentage of a language. These edges will be bidirectional if both languages borrow from one another. A tree is thus a simple network, however there are many other types of network. A phylogentic network is one where the taxa are represented by nodes and their evolutionary relationships are represented by branches. Another type is that based on splits, and is a combinatorial generalisation of the split tree. A given set of splits can have more than one representation thus internal nodes may not be ancestors and are only an "implicit" representation of evolutionary history as distinct from the "explicit" representation of phylogenetic networks. In a splits network the phrenetic distance is that of the shortest path between two languages. A further type is the reticular network which shows incompatibilities (due to for example to contact) as reticulations and its internal nodes do represent ancestors. A network may also be constructed by adding contact edges to a tree. The last main type is the consensus network formed from trees. These trees may be as a result of bootstrap analysis or samples from a posterior distribution.
Read more about this topic: Quantitative Comparative Linguistics
Famous quotes containing the words types of, types, trees and/or networks:
“... there are two types of happiness and I have chosen that of the murderers. For I am happy. There was a time when I thought I had reached the limit of distress. Beyond that limit, there is a sterile and magnificent happiness.”
—Albert Camus (1913–1960)
“The American man is a very simple and cheap mechanism. The American woman I find a complicated and expensive one. Contrasts of feminine types are possible. I am not absolutely sure that there is more than one American man.”
—Henry Brooks Adams (1838–1918)
“It was a tangled and perplexing thicket, through which we stumbled and threaded our way, and when we had finished a mile of it, our starting-point seemed far away. We were glad that we had not got to walk to Bangor along the banks of this river, which would be a journey of more than a hundred miles. Think of the denseness of the forest, the fallen trees and rocks, the windings of the river, the streams emptying in, and the frequent swamps to be crossed. It made you shudder.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“To be perfectly, brutally honest, those of us who are still carrying diaper everywhere we go are not at our most scintillating time of life....We need to remember that at one time in our lives, we all had senses of humor and knew things that were going on in the world. And if we just keep our social networks open, there will be people ready to listen when we once again have intelligent things to say.”
—Louise Lague (20th century)