Cladistic Parsimony, Historical Linguistics and Cultural Phylogenetics

Abstract

Here, I consider the recent application of phylogenetic methods in historical linguistics. After a preliminary survey of one such method, i.e. cladistic parsimony, I respond to two common criticisms of cultural phylogenies: (1) that cultural artifacts cannot be modeled as tree-like because of borrowing across lineages, and (2) that the mechanism of cultural change differs radically from that of biological evolution. I argue that while perhaps (1) remains true for certain cultural artifacts, the nature of language may be such as to side-step this objection. Moreover, I explore the possibility that cladistic parsimony can be justified even if (2) is true by appealing to the inference pattern known among philosophers as 'Inference to the Best Explanation' (IBE).

Phylogenetic reconstruction of the cultural evolution of electronic music via dynamic community detection (1975-1999)

“…Traditional phylogenetic methods, which assume the tree-like structure typical of genetic evolution, have yielded critical insights, particularly in linguistics [1][2][3]. However, researchers have debated whether cultural phylogenies are fundamentally tree-like, or whether high levels of horizontal transmission lead to a more reticulated structure [4][5][6][7][8]. For example, biologist Stephen Jay Gould [9] wrote that: "Biological evolution is a bad analogue for cultural change [...] Biological evolution is a system of constant divergence without subsequent joining of branches.…”

“…That being said, there is significant variation in reticulation across cultural domains [6,8], and depending on the conditions (e.g. co-inheritance of traits) horizontal transmission may or may not interfere with traditional phylogenetic reconstruction [14][15][16].…”