Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27544206›Full record

ReviewBiology direct2016

Unity and disunity in evolutionary sciences: process-based analogies open common research avenues for biology and linguistics.

Johann-Mattis List, Jananan Sylvestre Pathmanathan, Philippe Lopez, Eric Bapteste

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology direct, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The uses and abuses of tree thinking in cultural evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Grammar of protein domain architectures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Johann-Mattis ListCRLAO/EHESS, 2 rue de Lille, Paris, 75007, France. mattis.list@lingpy.org.ORCID 0000-0003-2133-8919
Jananan Sylvestre PathmanathanEquipe AIRE, UMR 7138, Laboratoire Evolution Paris-Seine, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 7 quai St Bernard, Paris, 75005, France.
Philippe LopezEquipe AIRE, UMR 7138, Laboratoire Evolution Paris-Seine, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 7 quai St Bernard, Paris, 75005, France.
Eric BaptesteEquipe AIRE, UMR 7138, Laboratoire Evolution Paris-Seine, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 7 quai St Bernard, Paris, 75005, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor a long time biologists and linguists have been noticing surprising similarities between the evolution of life forms and languages. Most of the proposed analogies have been rejected. Some, however, have persisted, and some even turned out to be fruitful, inspiring the transfer of methods and models between biology and linguistics up to today. Most proposed analogies were based on a comparison of the research objects rather than the processes that shaped their evolution. Focusing on process-based analogies, however, has the advantage of minimizing the risk of overstating similarities, while at the same time reflecting the common strategy to use processes to explain the evolution of complexity in both fields.

resultsWe compared important evolutionary processes in biology and linguistics and identified processes specific to only one of the two disciplines as well as processes which seem to be analogous, potentially reflecting core evolutionary processes. These new process-based analogies support novel methodological transfer, expanding the application range of biological methods to the field of historical linguistics. We illustrate this by showing (i) how methods dealing with incomplete lineage sorting offer an introgression-free framework to analyze highly mosaic word distributions across languages; (ii) how sequence similarity networks can be used to identify composite and borrowed words across different languages; (iii) how research on partial homology can inspire new methods and models in both fields; and (iv) how constructive neutral evolution provides an original framework for analyzing convergent evolution in languages resulting from common descent (Sapir's drift).

conclusionsApart from new analogies between evolutionary processes, we also identified processes which are specific to either biology or linguistics. This shows that general evolution cannot be studied from within one discipline alone. In order to get a full picture of evolution, biologists and linguists need to complement their studies, trying to identify cross-disciplinary and discipline-specific evolutionary processes. The fact that we found many process-based analogies favoring transfer from biology to linguistics further shows that certain biological methods and models have a broader scope than previously recognized. This opens fruitful paths for collaboration between the two disciplines. REVIEWERS: This article was reviewed by W. Ford Doolittle and Eugene V. Koonin.

Indexed as

BiologyLinguisticsResearch DesignBiological EvolutionHumansLanguageModels, TheoreticalConstructive neutral evolutionIncomplete lineage sortingLanguage evolutionLateral transferProcess-based analogiesProtein assemblySimilarity networksWord formation

Identifiers

PMID27544206
PMCPMC4992195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.