Read the following passage carefully.
For over a century, the comparative method has reigned as the unquestioned gold standard for reconstructing the proto-languages of major families such as Indo-European. Recently, however, a vanguard of historical linguists has adopted computational phylogenetic techniques—mathematical models originally developed by evolutionary biologists to trace genetic lineages—in an ambitious attempt to reconstruct the syntactic structures of Proto-Indo-European (PIE). These quantitative models analyze vast datasets of syntactic parameters across both ancient and modern Indo-European languages, running complex algorithms to calculate the mathematical probability of various ancestral word orders and syntactic hierarchies.
Proponents of this algorithmic turn argue that it successfully eliminates the subjective biases inherent in traditional comparative reconstruction, finally offering a mathematically rigorous, objective timeline of syntactic divergence. They enthusiastically point to the phylogenetic model’s recent success in accurately mapping the chronological divergence of the Romance languages from Vulgar Latin as definitive proof of its broader viability for deeper temporal reconstruction.
Yet, treating syntactic parameters as discrete, vertically inherited traits akin to biological genes fundamentally misrepresents the messy reality of how language actually evolves. Unlike genetic mutations, which are passed directly from parent to offspring, syntactic features are highly susceptible to horizontal transmission—borrowing, structural convergence, and areal diffusion resulting from prolonged contact between neighboring language communities. A computational model that rigidly assumes strictly vertical inheritance will inevitably misinterpret a shared syntactic structure that actually resulted from geographical proximity as spurious evidence of a close genealogical relationship. Furthermore, the rigid binary encoding required by these algorithms (for instance, forcing a categorization that a language either strictly possesses Subject-Object-Verb order or it does not) violently strips away the morphological nuances and pragmatic flexibility that characterize the syntax of highly inflected ancient languages, such as Vedic Sanskrit and Homeric Greek.
This is not to suggest that computational tools have absolutely no place in the future of historical linguistics. When cautiously applied to certain types of lexical data—specifically core vocabulary items that are statistically less prone to undetected horizontal borrowing—phylogenetic models have indeed provided valuable, empirically grounded insights into the approximate timing of the initial Indo-European dispersal. However, extending these rigid biological models to the fluid, horizontally permeable, and culturally contingent domain of syntax requires a methodological leap that the current archaeological and linguistic data simply does not support. Until such algorithms can be sophisticated enough to reliably account for the complexities of language contact and areal diffusion, their application to syntactic reconstruction will remain an intriguing but ultimately deeply flawed enterprise.
Statement: Based on the passage, the author's attitude toward the incorporation of computational phylogenetic models into historical linguistics is one of unequivocal dismissal, grounded in the belief that quantitative biological models cannot accurately map any aspect of human language evolution.
Answer: Answer