Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-22T03:43:24.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting population size vs. phoneme inventory size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Steven Moran ,
Daniel McCloy  and
Richard Wright
Steven Moran*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Daniel McCloy*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Richard Wright*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
[stiv@uw.edu]
[drmccloy@uw.edu]
[rawright@uw.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this discussion note we argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer 2007, which show a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size. We argue that the positive correlation is an artifact of the authors’ statistical technique and biased data set. Using a hierarchical mixed model to account for genealogical relatedness of languages, and a much larger and more diverse sample of the world’s languages, we find little support for population size as an explanatory predictor of phoneme inventory size once the genealogical relatedness of languages is accounted for.

Keywords

typologyphoneme inventoriespopulation sizesamplingmixed models

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 88 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 877 - 893
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The development of PHOIBLE was partially funded by the University of Washington’s Royalty Research Fund. We would also like to thank contributors to the project: Morgana Davids, Scott Drellishak, David Ellison, Richard John Harvey, Kelley Kilanski, Michael McAuliffe, Kevin Pittman, Brandon Plasters, Cameron Rule, Daniel Smith, and Daniel Veja, as well as Marilyn Vihman for providing the Stanford Phonology Archive data. Tristan Purvis and Christopher Green were integral in curating many of the phoneme inventories from African languages. We would also like to thank Paul Sampson, Theresa Smith, and Donghun Kim for statistical consultation, and the editor of Language and two anonymous referees for helpful comments. Any remaining errors are of course our own.

References

Atkinson, Quentin. 2011. Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa. Science 332. 346–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, D. J.; and Bates, Douglas. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390–412. ‘CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Dik. 2010. Language sampling. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Song, Jae Jung, 100–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 2004. Phoneme inventories, language contact, and grammatical complexity: A critique of Trudgill. Linguistic Typology 8. 368–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2007. The linguistics students handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chanard, Christian. 2006. Systèmes alphabétiques des langues africaines. Online: http://sumale.vjf.cnrs.fr/phono/.Google Scholar
Crothers, John, Lorentz, James, Sherman, Donald; and Vihman, Marilyn. 1979. Handbook of phonological data from a sample of the world's languages: A report of the Stanford Phonology Archive. Palo Alto, CA: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2005. Quantitative methods in typology. Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 27), ed. by Köhler, Reinhard, Altmann, Gabriel, and Piotrovskii, Rajmond Genrikhovich, 554–78. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, Dediu, Dan; and Moran, Steven. 2012. Comment on Atkinson 2011. Science 335.657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark, and Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Does phoneme inventory size correlate with population size? Linguistic Typology 15. 161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1989. Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13. 257–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew, and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2011. The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Online: http://wals.info/.Google Scholar
Fought, John, Munroe, Robert, Fought, Carmen; and Good, Erin. 2004. Sonority and climate in a world sample of languages: Findings and prospects. Cross-Cultural Research 38. 27–51.10.1177/1069397103259439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Raymond G. (ed.) 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 15th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Online: http://www.ethnologue.com/.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald. 2007. Handbook of descriptive language knowledge: A full-scale reference guide for typologists. (LINCOM handbooks in linguistics 22.) Munich: LIN- COM Europa.Google Scholar
Hartell, Rhonda. 1993. Alphabets des langues africaines. Dakar: UNESCO, Bureau Régional de Dakar.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David; and Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, André. 1961. Richesse en phonèmes et richesse en locuteurs. L ’Homme 1.510.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, and Bauer, Laurie. 2007. Phoneme inventory size and population size. Language 83.388^400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.) 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 16th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Online: http://www.ethnologue.com/.Google Scholar
Lupyan, Gary, and Dale, Rick. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5.e8559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. (Cambridge studies in speech science and communication.) New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2011a. Consonant inventories. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 1.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2011b. Vowel quality inventories. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 2.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2011c. Tone. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 13.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian, and Precoda, Kristin. 1990. Updating UPSID. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 74. 104–11.Google Scholar
Moran, Steven. 2012. Phonetics information base and lexicon. Seattle: University of Washington dissertation.Google Scholar
Moran, Steven, and Wright, Richard. 2009. Phonetics information base and lexicon (PHOIBLE). Seattle, WA. Online: http://phoible.org/. …Google Scholar
Multitree. 2009. Multitree: A digital library of language relationships. Ypsilanti: Institute for Language Information and Technology (LINGUIST List), Eastern Michigan University. Online: http://multitree.org/.Google Scholar
Munroe, Robert, Fought, John; and Macaulay, Ronald. 2009. Warm climates and sonority classes: Not simply more vowels and fewer consonants. Cross-Cultural Research 43. 123–33.10.1177/1069397109331485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, Daniel. 1996. Language diversity in West Africa: An ecological approach. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15. 403–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, Daniel. 1999a. Linguistic diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, Daniel. 1999b. Is the rate of linguistic change constant? Lingua 108. 119–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, Daniel. 1999c. Using social impact theory to simulate language change. Lingua 108. 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2011. Can one language be ‘more complex’ than another? Lecture presented at the University of Washington colloquium series, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Nordhoff, Sebastian, Hammarström, Harald; and Haspelmath, Martin. 2012. Glot- tolog/Langdoc. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Online: http://glottolog.livingsources.org.Google Scholar
Nowak, Andrzej, Szamrej, Jacek; and Latané, Bibb. 1990. From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review 97. 362–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pericliev, Vladimir. 2004. There is no correlation between the size of a community speaking a language and the size of the phonological inventory of that language. Linguistic Typology 8. 376–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, Revere. 1992. Deixis, grammar, and culture. (Typological studies in language 24.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan, and Bakker, Dik. 1998. Language sampling. Linguistic Typology 2. 263–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1912. Language and environment. American Anthropologist 14. 226–42.10.1525/aa.1912.14.2.02a00020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, Tom, and Bosker, Roel. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 2011. Phonemic diversity and the out-of-Africa theory. Linguistic Typology 15 A99-206.10.1515/lity.2011.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, James. 1986. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language in Society 3. 215–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1989. Interlanguage, interdialect and typological change. Variation in second language acquisition: Psycholinguistic issues, ed. by Gass, Susan M., Madden, Carolyn, Preston, Dennis R., and Selinker, Larry, 243–53. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1996. Dialect typology: Isolation, social network and phonological structure. Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov. Vol. 1: Variation and change in language and society, ed. by Guy, Gregory R., Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah, and Baugh, John, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1997. Typology and sociolinguistics: Linguistic structure, social structure and explanatory comparative dialectology. Folia Linguistica 31. 349–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2002. Linguistic and social typology. The handbook of language variation and change, ed. by Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie, 707–28. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2004a. Linguistic and social typology: The Austronesian migrations and phoneme inventories. Linguistic Typology 8. 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2004b. On the complexity of simplification. Linguistic Typology 8.38488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Social structure and phoneme inventories. Linguistic Typology 15. 155–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Laan, Mark, and Rose, Sherri. 2010. Statistics ready for a revolution. Amstat News, September 1, 2010. Online: http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2010/09/01 /statrevolution/.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren, and Holman, Eric. 2009. Population size and rates of language change. Human Biology 81. 259–74.10.1353/hub.2009.a362937CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wichmann, Søren, Rama, Tarara; and Holman, Eric. 2011. Phonological diversity, word length, and population sizes across languages: The ASJP evidence. Linguistic Typology 15. 177–97.10.1515/lity.2011.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren, Stauffer, Dietrich, Schulze, Christian; and Holman, Eric. 2008. Do language change rates depend on population size? Advances in Complex Systems 11.357.10.1142/S0219525908001684CrossRefGoogle Scholar