Editing Glottochronology (section)

==Discussion==
The concept of language change is old, and its history is reviewed in Hymes (1973) and Wells (1973). In some sense, glottochronology is a reconstruction of history and can often be closely related to archaeology. Many linguistic studies find the success of glottochronology to be found alongside archaeological data.<ref name=":3" /> Glottochronology itself dates back to the mid-20th century.<ref name=swadesh1955/><ref>Swadesh, Morris (1972). What is glottochronology? In M. Swadesh, ''The origin and diversification of languages'' (pp.&nbsp;271–284). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.</ref><ref name=":1">Lees, Robert. (1953). The basis of glottochronology. ''Language'', ''29'' (2), 113–127.</ref> An introduction to the subject is given in Embleton (1986)<ref>Embleton, Sheila M. (1986). ''Statistics in Historical Linguistics'' [Quantitative linguistics, vol. 30]. Bochum: Brockmeyer. {{ISBN|3-88339-537-4}}. – State of the art up to then.
</ref> and in McMahon and McMahon (2005).<ref>McMahon, April and McMahon, Robert (2005) ''Language Classification by Numbers''. Oxford: Oxford University Press (particularly p. 95)</ref>

Glottochronology has been controversial ever since, partly because of issues of accuracy but also because of the question of whether its basis is sound (for example, Bergsland 1958; Bergsland and Vogt 1962; Fodor 1961; Chrétien 1962; Guy 1980). The concerns have been addressed by Dobson et al. (1972), Dyen (1973)<ref name=dyen1973>Dyen, Isidore, ed. (1973). ''Lexicostatistics in genetic linguistics: Proceedings of the Yale conference, April 3–4, 1971''. La Haye: Mouton.</ref> and Kruskal, Dyen and Black (1973).<ref name=kruskal1973>Some Results From the Vocabulary Method of Reconstructing Language Trees, Joseph B. Kruskal, Isidore Dyen and Paul Black, Lexicostatistics in Genetic Linguistics, Isidore Dyen (editor), Mouton, The Hague, 1973, pp. 30–55</ref> The assumption of a single-word replacement rate can distort the divergence-time estimate when borrowed words are included (Thomason and Kaufman 1988).

The presentations vary from "Why linguists don't do dates" to the one by [[Sergei Starostin|Starostin]] discussed below. <ref>{{cite book |last1=Pereltsvaig |first1=Asya |last2=Lewis |first2=Martin W. |title=The Indo-European Controversy Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics |date=5 May 2015 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=159+ |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/indoeuropean-controversy/why-linguists-dont-do-dates-or-do-they/1E25F02F0EC1783AD087ADC527A08DBF |access-date=25 December 2024 |chapter=8 - Why linguists don't do dates? – Or do they? from Part III - Searching for Indo-European origins|doi=10.1017/CBO9781107294332.012 |isbn=978-1-107-05453-0 }}</ref> Since its original inception, glottochronology has been rejected by many linguists, mostly Indo-Europeanists of the school of the traditional [[comparative method]]. Criticisms have been answered in particular around three points of discussion:
* Criticism levelled against the higher stability of lexemes in Swadesh lists alone (Haarmann 1990) misses the point because a certain amount of losses only enables the computations (Sankoff 1970). The non-homogeneity of word lists often leads to lack of understanding between linguists. Linguists also have difficulties finding a completely unbiased list of basic cultural words. it can take a long time for linguists to find a viable word list which can take several test lists to find a usable list.<ref name=":2" />
* Traditional glottochronology presumes that language changes at a stable rate.
:Thus, in Bergsland & Vogt (1962), the authors make an impressive demonstration, on the basis of actual language data verifiable by extralinguistic sources, that the "rate of change" for [[Icelandic language|Icelandic]] constituted around 4% per millennium, but for closely connected [[Riksmal]] (Literary Norwegian), it would amount to as much as 20% (Swadesh's proposed "constant rate" was supposed to be around 14% per millennium).
:That and several other similar examples effectively proved that Swadesh's formula would not work on all available material, which is a serious accusation since evidence that can be used to "calibrate" the meaning of ''L'' (language history recorded during prolonged periods of time) is not overwhelmingly large in the first place.
:It is highly likely that the chance of replacement is different for every word or feature ("each word has its own history", among hundreds of other sources:<ref>Kirk JM, St Anderson, & JDA Widdowson, 1985 Studies in Linguistic Geography: The Dialects of English in Britain and Ireland. London: Croom Helm</ref>).
:That global assumption has been modified and downgraded to single words, even in single languages, in many newer attempts (see below).
:There is a lack of understanding of Swadesh's mathematical/statistical methods. Some linguists reject the methods in full because the statistics lead to 'probabilities' when linguists trust 'certainties' more.<ref name=":2" />
* A serious argument is that language change arises from socio-historical events that are, of course, unforeseeable and, therefore, uncomputable.