Paper

The Added Value of a Comparative Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Indo-European and Beyond

---

Abstract

The most fundamental use of phylogenetic methods is to infer a cladistic tree structure. Besides the use of different methods for the phylogenetic inference (parsimony, likelihood), contemporary phylogenetic research also discusses on which linguistic features an inference should be based. What happens if we substitute (or complement) the basic vocabulary data with other data types, such as sound changes or morphosyntactic features? By a comparative phylogenetic reconstruction model, i.e., a reconstruction of the transition rates and probability of presence at the root and hidden nodes of features in a phylogenetic tree, we may reconstruct the probability of the presence of different features back to a proto-language, and using a world tree even further back, to Early language. However, how reliable is this reconstruction? How does this reconstruction relate to other types of reconstruction, using, e.g., the comparative method or diachronic typology? Alternatively, is there any other information that can be extracted from a comparative phylogenetic reconstruction?

This paper introduces and outlines comparative phylogenetic reconstruction: the advantages, the constraints, and the ways in which these models support or contradict earlier attempts towards reconstruction. Further, this paper indicates how comparative phylogenetic reconstruction can be used to scale up questions about the origin of morphosyntactic categories, general evolutionary trends, as well as aspects of lineage and areality in the diffusion of morphosyntax.

Keywords: phylogenetic, cladistic, reconstruction, Comparative, model, Morphosyntax, diffusion, evolution

How to Cite:

Carling, G., (2026) “The Added Value of a Comparative Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Indo-European and Beyond”, Proceedings of the Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference 35(1): 1, 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.5070/J5.62156