A Bayesian phylogenetic study of the Dravidian language family

TLDR

The Dravidian language family comprises roughly 80 varieties spoken by 220 million people across southern and central India and neighboring regions, yet its geographic origin, dispersal history, and influence on Indo‑Aryan and Munda languages remain largely unknown. This study aims to determine the subgrouping of Dravidian languages and date major diversification events. We applied Bayesian phylogenetic inference to cognate‑coded lexical data collected directly from native speakers. The results suggest the family is about 4,500 years old, recover the four principal branches (North, Central, South I, South II) with some differing placements from earlier classifications, and indicate substantial uncertainty regarding the relationships among these branches.

Abstract

The Dravidian language family consists of about 80 varieties (Hammarström H. 2016 Glottolog 2.7) spoken by 220 million people across southern and central India and surrounding countries (Steever SB. 1998 In The Dravidian languages (ed. SB Steever), pp. 1-39: 1). Neither the geographical origin of the Dravidian language homeland nor its exact dispersal through time are known. The history of these languages is crucial for understanding prehistory in Eurasia, because despite their current restricted range, these languages played a significant role in influencing other language groups including Indo-Aryan (Indo-European) and Munda (Austroasiatic) speakers. Here, we report the results of a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of cognate-coded lexical data, elicited first hand from native speakers, to investigate the subgrouping of the Dravidian language family, and provide dates for the major points of diversification. Our results indicate that the Dravidian language family is approximately 4500 years old, a finding that corresponds well with earlier linguistic and archaeological studies. The main branches of the Dravidian language family (North, Central, South I, South II) are recovered, although the placement of languages within these main branches diverges from previous classifications. We find considerable uncertainty with regard to the relationships between the main branches.