Advertisement

Trees, Languages and Genes: A Historical Path

  • Federica Da MilanoEmail author
  • Nicoletta Puddu
Chapter

Abstract

The “tree metaphor” has been used in linguistics since the nineteenth century. The first to use it was Schleicher (Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: Böhlau, 1873) who, with his Stammbaumtheorie, supposed that we can build a family tree for languages for which we have exact knowledge as Darwin did for plants and animals. Schmidt (Die verwantschaftsverhaltnisse der Indogermanische sprachen. Weimar: Herman Bohlau, 1872), a Schleicher’s student, opposed the Stammbaum model and proposed a “wave model” of language change: he supposed that language change spread in waves emanating from some epicenter. This model bears an obvious resemblance to the demic diffusion model used more recently in biology (Menozzi et al. Science, 201, 786–792, 1978). Phylogenetic trees, where taxa separate only on a cladistic basis, have been put into discussion both in linguistics and in biology and a “web model” has been proposed instead (Heggarty et al. Diachronica, 27(2), 301–324, 2010). In a landmark paper published in 1988, Cavalli Sforza et al. reported a figure directly comparing a human genetic and linguistic tree based on Greenberg (Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987). Although extremely controversial, this paper highlighted the similarities between processes of historical inference in population genetics and linguistics, as well as the potential importance of linguistic data for inferences about human population history. While biologists have embraced computational phylogenetic methods, quantitative approaches in linguistics, such as Swadesh’s (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96(4), 453–463, 1952) “lexicostatistics” or Greenberg’s “mass comparison”, were heavily criticized (cfr. Campbell. Historical linguistics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004). Quantitative approaches have been recently reconsidered. Today, researchers using computational methods in evolutionary biology and historical linguistics (such as Network and Neighbornet) aim to answer similar questions and hence face similar challenges.

Keywords

Languages Genes Trees Phylogenies Language transmission 

Notes

Authors’ Note

The structure of the paper has been developed by both authors. Federica Da Milano is responsible for Sects. 18.1 and 18.2, Nicoletta Puddu for Sect. 18.3; both authors for the conclusions. We would like to thank Carla Calò, Antonietta Marra and two anonymous reviewers helpful comments and suggestions. All mistakes are our own.

References

  1. Albano Leoni, F. (2013). Genetica, linguistica e fonologia. In E. Banfi (Ed.), Sull’origine del linguaggio e delle lingue storico-naturali. Un confronto fra linguisti e non linguisti (pp. 49–68). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, Q. D. (2011). Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from africa. Science, 332(6027), 346–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, Q. D., & Gray, R. D. (2005). Curious parallels and curious connections-phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Systematic Biology, 54(4), 513–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, P. K., & Sallabank, J. (Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barbujani, G. (1997). DNA variation and language affinities. American Journal of Human Genetics, 61, 1011–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbujani, G., & Sokal, R. R. (1990). Zones of sharp genetic change in Europe are also linguistic boundaries. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, 87(5), 1816–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belle, E. M. S., & Barbujani, G. (2007). Worldwide analysis of multiple microsatellites: Language diversity has a detectable influence on DNA diversity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 133, 1137–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowern, C. (2011). Out of Africa? The logic of phoneme inventories and founder effects. Linguistic Typology, 15(2), 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bybee, J. (Ed.). (2011). The vanishing phonemes debate, apropos of Atkinson 2011. Linguistic Typology, 15(2) (Special Issue), 147–534.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, L. (2004). Historical linguistics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cavalli Sforza, L. L. (1994). Geni, popoli e lingue. Milano: Adelphi.Google Scholar
  12. Cavalli Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Cavalli-Sforza, F. (2013). Chi siamo. La storia della diversità umana. Torino: Codice Edizioni.Google Scholar
  14. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P., & Mountain, J. (1988). Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 85, 6002–6006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Christiansen, M. H. (2013). Modelling cultural evolution. Language acquisition as multiple-cue integration. In C. Lefebvre, B. Comrie, & H. Cohen (Eds.), New perspectives on the origins of language (pp. 487–504). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, H. (2013). Historical, Darwinian and current perspectives on the origin(s) of language. In C. Lefebvre, B. Comrie, & H. Cohen (Eds.), New perspectives on the origins of language (pp. 3–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Comrie, B. (2006, September 8–10). Languages and genes. Position paper for the conference language and genes. University of California Santa Barbara. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/Languages-and-Genes/position.html
  19. Consani, C. (2010). Scienze umane e scienze della natura nel dibattito scientifico del XIX secolo: l’apporto della linguistica. In F. Stoppa & R. Veraldi (Eds.), Darwin tra storia e scienza (pp. 281–292). Roma: Edizioni Universitarie Romane.Google Scholar
  20. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Cysouw, M., Dediu, D., & Moran, S. (2012). Comment on “Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa”. Science, 335, 657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species (1st ed.). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  23. Di Giovine, P. (2009). Identità linguistica e identità etnica: una falsa equazione. Geotema, 37, 29–32.Google Scholar
  24. Donohue, M., & Nichols, J. (2011). Does phoneme inventory size correlate with population size? Linguistic Typology, 15, 161–170.Google Scholar
  25. Dunn, M. R., Terrill, A., Reesnik, G. P., Foley, R. R., & Levinson, S. C. (2005). Structural phylogenies and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science, 309, 2072–2075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gnerre, M. (2011). L’inafferrabile ‘diversità’ delle lingue. In N. Grandi (Ed.), Dialoghi sulle lingue e sul linguaggio (pp. 115–136). Bologna: Patron.Google Scholar
  27. Grandi, N. (2011). Lingue e linguaggio nell’equilibrio instabile tra natura e cultura. In N. Grandi (Ed.), Dialoghi sulle lingue e sul linguaggio (pp. 11–25). Bologna: Patron.Google Scholar
  28. Gray, R. D., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2003). Language tree divergences support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature, 426, 435–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenberg, J. (1957). Essays in linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Greenberg, J. (1987). Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (Eds.). (2005). World atlas of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hay, J., & Bauer, L. (2007). Phoneme inventory size and population size. Language, 83, 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heggarty, P. (2010). Beyond lexicostatiscs. How to get more out of ‘word list’ comparisons. Diachronica, 27(2), 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heggarty, P., Maguire, W., & McMahon, R. (2005). From phonetic similarity to dialect classification: A principled approach. In N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera, & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on variation (pp. 43–91). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  35. Heggarty, P., Maguire, W., & McMahon, A. M. S. (2010). Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(Special issue on Cultural and Linguistic Diversity, Eds. J. Steele, P. Jordan, & E. Cochrane), 3829–3843.Google Scholar
  36. Hey, J. (2001). Genes, categories and species. The evolutionary and cognitive causes of the species problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Holman, E. W., Wichmann, S., Brown, C. H., Velupillai, V., Muller, A., & Bakker, D. (2008). Explorations in automated language comparison. Folia Linguistica, 42, 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holman, E. W., Brown, C. H., Wichmann, S., Müller, A., Velupillai, V., Hammarström, H., Sauppe, S., Jung, H., Bakker, D., Brown, P., Belyaev, O., Urban, M., Mailhammer, R., List, J.-M., & Egorov, D. (2011). Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology, 52(6), 841–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaeger, T. F., Pontillo, D., & Graff, P. (2012). Comment on “Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa”. Science, 335, 1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Janda, R. D., & Janda, B. D. (2003). On language, change, and language change – or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In R. Janda & B. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 3–180). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Koerner, K. (Ed.). (1983). Preface. In A. Schleicher, Die sprachen Europaas in systematischer ubersicht. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  42. Kondrashov, F. A., & Kondrashov, A. S. (2010). Measurements of spontaneous rates of mutations in the recent past and the near future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 1169–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lamarck, J.B. (1809). Philosophie zoologique. English edition: Lamarck, J.B. (1984). Zoological philosophy: An exposition with regard to the natural history of animals (trans: Elliot, H.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lass, R. (1990). How to do things with junks: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics, 26, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Longobardi, G., & Guardiano, C. (2009). Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua, 119, 1679–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Longobardi, G., Guardiano, C., Silvestri, G., Boattini, A., & Ceolin, A. (2013). Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 3(1), 122–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mancini, M. (2013). Il paradosso darwiniano: Convergenze e divergenze di paradigma. In E. Banfi (Ed.), Sull’origine del linguaggio e delle lingue storico-naturali. Un confronto fra linguisti e non linguisti (pp. 105–142). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
  48. McMahon, A., Heggarty, P., McMahon, R., & Slaska, N. (2005). Swadesh sublist and the benefits of borrowing: An Andean case study. Transaction of the Philological Society, 103(2), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McMahon, A., et al. (2007). The sound patterns of English: Representing phonetic similarity. English Language and Linguistics, 11, 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Menozzi, P., Piazza, A., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1978). Synthetic maps of human gene frequencies in Europeans. Science, 201, 786–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morpurgo Davies, A. (1994). La linguistica dell’Ottocento. In G. Lepschy (Ed.), Storia della linguistica (Vol. 3, pp. 11–399). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  52. Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nichols, J., & Warnow, T. (2008). Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 760–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., Mesoudi, A., & VanPool, T. L. (2010). Cultural traits as units of analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 3797–3806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pievani, T. (2011). Evoluzione delle specie, evoluzione delle lingue: affinità, interazioni e cautele. In N. Grandi (Ed.), Dialoghi sulle lingue e sul linguaggio (pp. 57–74). Bologna: Patron.Google Scholar
  57. Pievani, T. (2013). L’evoluzione del linguaggio e la “grande espansione umana”: nuovi intrecci fra genetica e linguistica. In E. Banfi (Ed.), Sull’origine del linguaggio e delle lingue storico-naturali. Un confronto fra linguisti e non linguisti (pp. 153–168). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
  58. Ramat, P. (2009). Uno sguardo d’insieme. In P. Cotticelli Kurras & G. Graffi (Eds.), Lingue, ethnos e popolazioni: evidenze linguistiche, biologiche e culturali. Atti del XXXII Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia (pp. 11–31). Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
  59. Ringe, D. A., Warnow, T., & Taylor, A. (2002). Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society, 100, 59–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robledo, R., Corrias, L., Bachis, V., Puddu, N., Mameli, A., Vona, G., & Calò, C. M. (2012). Analysis of a genetic isolate: The case of Carloforte (Italy). Human Biology, 84, 735–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruhlen, M. (1987). A guide to the world’s languages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sapir, E. (1921). Language. An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  63. Schleicher, A. (1863). Die darwinsche theorie und die sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: Hermann Bohlau.Google Scholar
  64. Schleicher, A. (1873). Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  65. Schmidt, J. (1872). Die verwantschaftsverhaltnisse der Indogermanische sprachen. Weimar: Herman Bohlau.Google Scholar
  66. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sims Williams, P. (1998). Genetics, linguistics and prehistory: Thinking big and thinking straight. Antiquity, 72, 505–527.Google Scholar
  68. Sims Williams, P. (2012). Bronze and Iron-age Celtic speakers: What don’t we know, what can’t we know, and what could we know? Language, genetics and archaeology in the twenty-first century. The Antiquaries Journal, 92, 427–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sokal, R. R., Oden, N. L., Legendre, P., Fortin, M.-J., Kim, J., Thomson, B. A., Vaudor, A., Harding, R. M., & Barbujani, G. (1990). Genetics and language in European population. The American Naturalist, 135(2), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Swadesh, M. (1950). Salish internal relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics, 16, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swadesh, M. (1952). Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96(4), 453–463.Google Scholar
  72. Swadesh, M. (2006 [1971]). The origin and diversification of language. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Tadmor, U. (2009). Loanwords in the world’s languages: Finding and results. In M. Haspelmath & U. Tadmor (Eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages. A comparative handbook (pp. 55–75). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  74. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  75. Winter-Froemel, E. (2008). Towards a comprehensive view of language change. Three recent evolutionary approaches. In U. Detges & R. Waltereit (Eds.), The paradox of grammatical change. Perspectives from romance (pp. 215–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.“Riccardo Massa” Department of Educational Human SciencesUniversity of Milano - BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.University of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations