Karşılaştırmalı Evrimsel Analiz ve Kültürel Evrimleşme İlişkisi: Filogenetigin Dilbilim Alanına Uygulanışı

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 532 - 544, 29.04.2024

Hasan Basri Kartal , Asiye Nisa Kartal

https://doi.org/10.29110/soylemdergi.1416638

Öz

Filogenetik; biyoloji, genetik, kültürel arkeoloji, antropoloji ve dilbilim gibi alanlarda sıkça kullanılan, çeşitli organizma grupları arasındaki evrimsel ilişkiyi sınıflandırma yaparak sorgulayan etkili bir yöntemdir. Filogenetik, bireylerin veya grupların organizma evrimi ve çeşitliliğinin, ortak tarih ve ataları aracılığıyla birbirlerine nasıl ilişkilendirilebileceğini anlamak adına kullanılır. Evrimsel arka planı açısından, kültür fenomenin gelişimini inceleyen çalışmalar, Antik Dönem’e kadar geri götürülebilmektedir. Filogenetik yöntem kullanılarak, Darwin’in evrim kuramının etkisiyle kültür fenomeninin evrimleşmesini araştıran çalışmalar ise on dokuzuncu yüzyıl sonrasına aittir. Kültürel evrimleşme, doğası gereği kültürel etmenleri dikkate alarak anlaşılabilecek bir olgudur. Bu makalede ‘filogenetik’ yöntemin kuramsal altyapısı tartışılmış, bu yaklaşımın kültür alanına uygulanışını ‘dilbilim’ ile ilişkili olabilecek şekilde ele alan örnekler tartışılmıştır. Makale, Avustronezya ve Sahra altı Afrika’daki yerel dillerin evrimleşmesi ve maddi kültürleri arasındaki ilişkiyi filogenetik yöntem kullanarak tartışmaya açan örneklemleri ele alan ilk Türkçe çalışmadır. Makale, dilbilim alanında mevcut Türkçe literatüre nitelikli katkılar sunmaktadır. Makalede ele alınan, dil ailelerinin evrimleşme biçimleri hususundaki çıkarımlar Türkçe literatür için özgündür. Kültürel melezleşme, akrabalık tipolojileri-terminolojileri ve sayma sistemleri ile ilişkili olarak, Avustronezya ve Sahra altı Afrika’daki yerel dillerin evrimleşmesine dair çıkarımlar dilbilim ötesinde birçok disiplin için faydalı olabilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Filogenetik, Kültürel evrimleşme, Dilbilim, Avustronezya ve Sahra altı Afrika yerel dilleri

The Relationship between Comparative Evolutionary Analysis and Cultural Evolution: Application of Phylogenetics to the Field of Linguistics

Öz

Phylogenetics is an effective method that is frequently used in fields such as biology, genetics, cultural archaeology, anthropology and linguistics, and questions the evolutionary relationships between various groups of organisms by classifying them. Phylogenetics is used to understand how organismal evolution and diversity of individuals or groups can be related to each other through their common history and ancestors. In terms of its evolutionary background, studies examining the development of cultural phenomena can be traced back to the Ancient Period. Studies investigating the evolution of cultural phenomena under the influence of Darwin's theory of evolution using the phylogenetic method belong to the post-nineteenth century. Cultural evolution is a phenomenon that can be understood by considering inherently cultural factors. In this article, the theoretical background of the 'phylogenetic' method was discussed, and examples that addressed the application of this approach to the field of culture in a way that may be related to 'linguistics' were discussed. The article is the first Turkish study to discuss samples that examine the relationship between the evolution of local languages and their material cultures in Austronesia and Sub-Saharan Africa using the phylogenetic method. The article makes qualified contributions to the existing Turkish literature in the field of linguistics. The inferences discussed in the article about the evolution of language families are unique to Turkish literature. The arguments about the evolution of indigenous languages in Austronesia and sub-Saharan Africa, concerning cultural hybridization, kinship typologies-terminologies, and counting systems, may be useful for many disciplines beyond linguistics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Phylogenetics, Cultural evolution, Linguistics, Austronesian and sub-Saharan African local languages

Kaynakça

• Allmon, W. D. (2017). Species, lineages, splitting, anddivergence: whywestillneed ‘anagenesis’ and ‘cladogenesis’. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 120(2), 474-479.
• Barraclough, T. G., & Nee, S. (2001). Phylogenetics and speciation. Trends in ecology & evolution, 16(7), 391-399.
• Blute, M., & Jordan, F. M. (2018). The evolutionary approach to history: Sociocultural phylogenetics.
• Bowden, M. (1991). Pitt Rivers: The Life and Archaeological Work of Lieutenant-General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers. Cambridge University Press.
• Burkhardt Jr, R. W. (2013). Lamarck, evolution, and the inheritance of acquired characters. Genetics, 194(4), 793-805.
• Cecchi, C., Vargas, A., Villagra, C., Villagra, C., & Mpodozis, J. (2004). Answering Cuvier: Notes on the systemic/historic nature of living beings. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 11(4), 11-19.
• Coleman, W. (1964). Georges Cuvier, zoologist: A study in the history of evolution theory. Harvard University Press.
• Currie, T. E. (2013). Cultural evolution branches out: The phylogenetic approach in cross-cultural research. Cross-CulturalResearch, 47(2), 102-130.
• Currie, T. E., Meade, A., Guillon, M., & Mace, R. (2013). Cultural phylogeography of the Bantu Languages of sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1762), 20130695.
• Dayrat, B. (2003). The roots of phylogeny: how did Haeckel build his trees?. Systematic Biology, 52(4), 515-527.
• Dean, B. (1926). The Reubell Collection of Court Swords and Early Daggers. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 21(10), 228-233.
• De Filippo, C., Bostoen, K., Stoneking, M., & Pakendorf, B. (2012). Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1741), 3256-3263.
• Diamond, J. M. (1988). Express train to Polynesia. Nature, 336, 307-308.
• Drower, M. S. (1995). Flinders Petrie: a life in archaeology. Univ of Wisconsin Press.
• Dunn, M. (2015). Language phylogenies. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 190-211.
• Ember, C. R., Ember, M., & Peregrine, N. (1998). Cross-cultural research. Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology, 647-687.
• Evans, C. L., Greenhill, S. J., Watts, J., List, J. M., Botero, C. A., Gray, R. D., & Kirby, K. R. (2021). The uses and abuses of tree thinking in cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1828), 20200056.
• Ford, J. A. (1999). Measuring the flow of time: the works of James A. Ford, 1935-1941. University of Alabama Press.
• Green, R. C. (2003). The Lapita horizon and traditions–Signature for one set of oceanic migrations. Pacific archaeology: assessments and prospects, 15, 95-120.
• Greenhill, S. (2015). Evolution and language: phylogenetic analyses. International Encyclopedia of the Social&Behavioral Sciences, 370-377.
• Greenhill, S. J., & Gray, R. D. (2005). Testing population dispersal hypotheses: Pacific settlement, phylogenetic trees and Austronesian languages. The evolution of cultural diversity: A phylogenetic approach, 31-52.
• Greenhill, S. J., & Gray, R. D. (2009). Austronesian language phylogenies: Myths and misconceptions about Bayesian computational methods. Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a festschriftfor Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 375-397.
• Guillon, M., & Mace, R. (2016). A phylogenetic comparative study of Bantu kinship terminology finds limited support for its co-evolution with social organisation. PLoS One, 11(3), e0147920.
• Hennig, W. (1999). Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press.
• Hurles, M. E., Nicholson, J., Bosch, E., Renfrew, C., Sykes, B. C., & Jobling, M. A. (2002). Y chromosomal evidence for the origins of Oceanic-speaking peoples. Genetics, 160(1), 289-303.
• Jordan, F. M. (2011). A phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of Austronesian sibling terminologies. Human biology, 83(2), 297-321.
• Kidder, A. V. (2000). An introduction to the study of Southwestern archaeology. Yale University Press.
• Kidder, A. V. (2003). The artifacts of Pecos. Eliot Werner Publications/Percheron Press.
• Ko, A. M. S., Chen, C. Y., Fu, Q., Delfin, F., Li, M., Chiu, H. L., ... & Ko, Y. C. (2014). Early Austronesians: into and out of Taiwan. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 94(3), 426-436.
• Lipo, C. P. (Ed.). (2017). Mapping our ancestors: Phylogenetic approaches in anthropology and prehistory. Transaction Publishers.
• Mace, R., Pagel, M., Bowen, J. R., Gupta, B. K. D., Otterbein, K. F., Ridley, M., ... & Voland, E. (1994). The comparative method in anthropology [and comments and reply]. Current anthropology, 35(5), 549-564.
• Mesoudi, A. (2016). Cultural evolution: a review of theory, findings and controversies. Evolutionary biology, 43, 481-497.
• Opie, C., Shultz, S., Atkinson, Q. D., Currie, T., & Mace, R. (2014). Phylogenetic reconstruction of Bantu kinship challenges Main Sequence Theory of human social evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(49), 17414-17419.
• Oppenheimer, S. J., & Richards, M. (2001). Slow boat to Melanesia?. Nature, 410(6825), 166-167.
• Semple, C., & Steel, M. (2003). Phylogenetics (Vol. 24). Oxford University Press on Demand.
• Sereno, P. C. (2005). The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 54(4), 595-619.
• Soltis, D. E., & Soltis, P. S. (2003). The role of phylogenetics in comparative genetics. Plant physiology, 132(4), 1790-1800.
• Straffon, L. M. (Ed.). (2016). Cultural phylogenetics: concepts and applications in archaeology (Vol. 4). Springer.
• Sullivan, J., & Joyce, P. (2005). Model selection in phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 36, 445-466.
• Tëmkin, I., &Eldredge, N. (2007). Phylogenetics and material cultural evolution. Current anthropology, 48(1), 146-154.
• Van Keuren, D. K. (1984). Museums and ideology: Augustus Pitt-Rivers, anthropological museums, and social change in later Victorian Britain. Victorian Studies, 28(1), 171-189.
• Wiley, E. O., & Lieberman, B. S. (2011). Phylogenetics: theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. John Wiley & Sons.
• Zhou, K., & Bowern, C. (2015). Quantifying uncertainty in the phylogenetics of Australian numeral systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1815), 20151278.