Word Similarity Metrics and Multilateral Comparison

Proceedings of 9th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Morphology and Phonology, SIGMORPHON 2007 - Held in conjunction with the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, ACL 2007

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 6-14

  Kessler, Brett ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENETIC RELATIONS; MULTILATERALS; PERMUTATION TESTS; PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS; SIMILARITY METRICS; WORD SIMILARITY;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 65349133103     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. William Baxter and Alexis Manaster Ramer. 2000. Beyond lumping and splitting: probabilistic issues in historical linguistics. In Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, eds. C. Renfrew, A. McMahon., and L. Trask. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, England. 167-188.
2. Allan R. Bomhard. 1996. Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. SIGNUM Desktop Publishing, Charleston, SC.
3. Lyle Campbell. 1988. Review of Greenberg (1987). Language 64:591-615.
4. Aaron B. Dolgopolsky. 1986. A probabilistic hypothesis concerning the oldest relationships among the language families of northern Eurasia. In Typology, Relationship, and Time: A Collection of Papers on Language Change and Relationship by Soviet Linguists, eds. V. V. Shevoroshkin and T. L. Markey. Karoma, Ann Arbor, MI. 27-50.
5. Joseph H. Greenberg. 1993. Observations concerning Ringe's Calculating the Factor of Chance in Language Comparison. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 137, 79-89.
6. Joseph H. Greenberg. 2000. Indo-European and its Closest Relatives: the Eurasiatic Language Family: Grammar. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
7. Brett Kessler. 2001. The Significance of Word Lists. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA.
8. Brett Kessler. 2005. Phonetic comparison algorithms. Transactions of the Philological Society 103:243-260.
9. Brett Kessler and Annukka Lehtonen. 2006. Multilateral comparison and significance testing of the Indo-Uralic question. Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages, eds. P. Forster and C. Renfrew. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, England. 33-42.
10. Frederik Kortlandt. 2002. The Indo-Uralic verb. In Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts. Shaker, Maastricht, 217-227.
11. James A. Matisoff. 1990. On megalocomparison. Language 66:106-120.
12. Robert L. Oswalt. 1998. A probabilistic evaluation of North Eurasiatic Nostratic. In Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence., eds. J. C. Salmons and B.D. Joseph. Benjamins, Amsterdam. 199-216.
13. William J. Poser and Lyle Campbell. 1992. Indo-European practice and historical methodology. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, eds. L. A. Buszard-Welcher, L. Wee, and W. Weigel. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA. 214-236.
14. Donald A. Ringe. 1996. The mathematics of 'Amerind'. Diachronica 13:135-154.
15. Joseph Salmons. 1992. A look at the data for a global etymology: *Tik 'finger'. In Explanation in Historical Linguistics, eds. G.W. Davis and G.K. Iverson. Benjamins, Amsterdam, 207-228.
16. Morris Swadesh. 1952. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96:452-463.