Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories

Linguists have traditionally represented patterns of divergence within a language family in terms of either a ‘splits’ model, corresponding to a branching family tree structure, or the wave model, resulting in a (dialect) continuum. Recent phylogenetic analyses, however, have tended to assume the former as a viable idealization also for the latter. But the contrast matters, for it typically reflects different processes in the real world: speaker populations either separated by migrations, or expanding over continuous territory. Since history often leaves a complex of both patterns within the same language family, ideally we need a single model to capture both, and tease apart the respective contributions of each. The ‘network’ type of phylogenetic method offers this, so we review recent applications to language data. Most have used lexical data, encoded as binary or multi-state characters. We look instead at continuous distance measures of divergence in phonetics. Our output networks combine branch- and continuum-like signals in ways that correspond well to known histories (illustrated for Germanic, and particularly English). We thus challenge the traditional insistence on shared innovations, setting out a new, principled explanation for why complex language histories can emerge correctly from distance measures, despite shared retentions and parallel innovations.

[1]  T. Warnow,et al.  Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Natural Languages , 2005 .

[2]  Russell D. Gray,et al.  Rapid radiation, borrowing and dialect continua in the Bantu languages , 2006 .

[3]  April M. S. McMahon,et al.  Language classification by numbers , 2005 .

[4]  Raimo Anttila,et al.  Historical and comparative linguistics , 1989 .

[5]  V. Moulton,et al.  Neighbor-net: an agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[6]  M. Pagel,et al.  Estimating rates of lexical replacement on phylogenetic trees of languages , 2006 .

[7]  Simon J. Greenhill,et al.  On the shape and fabric of human history , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  H. Bandelt,et al.  Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. , 1999, Molecular biology and evolution.

[9]  H. Bandelt,et al.  Mitochondrial portraits of human populations using median networks. , 1995, Genetics.

[10]  Vincent Moulton,et al.  Consensus Networks: A Method for Visualising Incompatibilities in Collections of Trees , 2003, WABI.

[11]  Warren Maguire,et al.  The sound patterns of Englishes: representing phonetic similarity , 2007, English Language and Linguistics.

[12]  P. Forster,et al.  Toward a phylogenetic chronology of ancient Gaulish, Celtic, and Indo-European , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  P. Forster,et al.  Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages , 2006 .

[14]  R. Gray,et al.  Untangling our past : languages, trees, splits and networks , 2005 .

[15]  P. Heggarty Interdisciplinary Indiscipline? Can Phylogenetic Methods Meaningfully Be Applied to Language Data — and to Dating Language? , 2006 .

[16]  Rodolfo Cerrón Palomino,et al.  Enigmas en el origen de las lenguas andinas: aplicando nuevas técnicas alas incógnitas por resolver , 2005 .

[17]  Alice B. Kehoe Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins , 1989, American Antiquity.

[18]  R. McMahon,et al.  From phonetic similarity to dialect classification: A principled approach , 2005 .

[19]  D. Huson,et al.  Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[20]  J. Kruskal,et al.  An Indoeuropean classification : a lexicostatistical experiment , 1992 .

[21]  April McMahon,et al.  Swadesh sublists and the benefits of borrowing: An Andean case study , 2005 .

[22]  G. Nicholls,et al.  FROM WORDS TO DATES: WATER INTO WINE, MATHEMAGIC OR PHYLOGENETIC INFERENCE? , 2005 .

[23]  R. Gray,et al.  Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin , 2003, Nature.

[24]  Hans-Jürgen Bandelt,et al.  Evolutionary Network Analysis of Word Lists: Visualising the Relationships between Alpine Romance Languages , 1998, J. Quant. Linguistics.

[25]  C. Renfrew,et al.  Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins , 1988, American Antiquity.

[26]  Tandy Warnow,et al.  Indo‐European and Computational Cladistics , 2002 .

[27]  Dan Dediu,et al.  The past, present, and future of English dialects: Quantifying convergence, divergence, and dynamic equilibrium , 2010, Language Variation and Change.

[28]  A. Dress,et al.  Split decomposition: a new and useful approach to phylogenetic analysis of distance data. , 1992, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.