<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><><><><><><><><><><><><>--This is the Language List--<><><><><><><><><><><><><><BR>
<BR>
I would like to review Kessler's book for the LinguistList.<br>
<br>
Please reply.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">Subject: </th>
<td>Re: Kessler's book</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">Date: </th>
<td>Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:37:02 -0500 (EST)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">From: </th>
<td>Terry Langendoen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:terry@linguistlist.org"><terry@linguistlist.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">To: </th>
<td>"H.M.Hubey" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hubeyh@mail.montclair.edu"><hubeyh@mail.montclair.edu></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="baseline" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">References: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:3E112ADE.10800@mail.montclair.edu"><3E112ADE.10800@mail.montclair.edu></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>Dear Ms/Mr Hubey, If you'd like to comment on either the book or the
review, I suggest you send your comments as a regular email message to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:linguist@linguistlist.org">linguist@linguistlist.org</a>. In the subject line include a reference to the
original positing, e.g. "Comments on Clifton's review of Kessler in issue
13.491". Terry
Terry Langendoen, Linguist List book review editor
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://linguistlist.org/issues/indices/Review2002r.html/">http://linguistlist.org/issues/indices/Review2002r.html/</a>
Co-Principal Investigator, EMELD Project
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://emeld.douglass.arizona.edu/">http://emeld.douglass.arizona.edu/</a> & <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://emeld.org/">http://emeld.org/</a>
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
PO Box 210028, Tucson AZ 85721-0028, USA
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://linguistics.arizona.edu/~langendoen/">http://linguistics.arizona.edu/~langendoen/</a>
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, H.M.Hubey wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> I just read Kessler's book and would like to write a
> review since this one does nit do it justice.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LINGUIST List 13.491
>
>
> Fri Feb 22 2002
>
>
> Review: Kessler, The Significance of Word Lists
>
> Editor for this issue: Terence Langendoen <terry
@linguistlist.org=""> <mailto:terry @linguistlist.org="">>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What follows is another discussion note contributed to our Book
> Discussion Forum. We expect these discussions to be informal and
> interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited
> to join in. If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for
> books announced on LINGUIST as "available for discussion." (This means
> that the publisher has sent us a review copy.) Then contact Simin Karimi
> at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:simin@linguistlist.org">simin@linguistlist.org</a> <mailto:simin @linguistlist.org=""> or Terry
> Langendoen at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:terry@linguistlist.org">terry@linguistlist.org</a> <mailto:terry
@linguistlist.org="">.
> Subscribe to Blackwell's LL+ at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linguistlistplus.com/">http://www.linguistlistplus.com/</a> and
> donate 20% of your subscription to LINGUIST! You get 30% off on
> Blackwells books, and free shipping and postage!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Directory
>
> 1. John & Debbie Clifton, Review of Kessler: The Significance of Word
> Lists <http:>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Message 1: Review of Kessler: The Significance of Word Lists
>
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:59:53 +0400
> From: John & Debbie Clifton <debbie-john_clifton @sil.org=""> <mailto:debbie-john_clifton
@sil.org="">>
> Subject: Review of Kessler: The Significance of Word Lists
>
> Kessler, Brett. 2001. The Significance of Word Lists. CSLI Publications,
> x+277pp, hardback ISBN 1-57586-299-9, paperback ISBN 1-57586-300-6,
> Dissertations in Linguistics.
> Announced at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-790.html#1">http://linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-790.html#1</a>
>
> John M Clifton, Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of North
> Dakota
>
> DESCRIPTION OF THE BOOK
> The two major issues addressed in this book can be characterized in terms of
> two senses of the word 'significance' as used in the title of the book. The
> first issue is how significant word lists are to determining language
> relatedness. The second issue is what is involved in showing that hypotheses
> made on the basis word lists are statistically significant.
>
> In chapter 1, 'Introduction', Kessler (K) addresses the two major positions
> on the first issue. On the one side are those like Greenberg and Ruhlen
> (1992) who feel that the analysis of word lists can be used to demonstrate
> the links between remotely related languages. On the other side are scores
> of more traditional historical linguists who claim that the similarities
> used to establish these putative links are due to chance. K proposes a third
> option: word lists can be used to establish linguistic relationships, but
> only when following a rigid methodology designed to ensure the results will
> be statistically significant.
>
> Chapters 2, 'Statistical Methodology', and 3, 'Significance Testing', are
> the heart of the book. In these chapters K discusses statistical methodology
> in general, and then details the specific methodology proposed for the
> analysis of word lists. K then applies this test to Swadesh 100 word lists
> from eight languages: Latin, French, English, German, Albanian, Hawaiian,
> Navajo, and Turkish. With a few exceptions, the results of the procedure
> indicate that the first five are related, and the others are not. At the
> risk of over-simplifying a complex procedure, I will attempt to summarize
> the contents of the methodology. Feel free to skip the next paragraph if it
> is too obtuse.
>
> The methodology involves constructing a table of correspondences of
> word-initial segments in semantically related words in two languages. This
> table can then be analyzed using the chi-square test for significance. From
> a statistical point of view, the problem is that the number of occurrences
> of specific correspondences is too low for the chi-square test to be
> meaningful. To remedy this, K proposes the use of a Monte Carlo technique.
> Applying this technique, one of the word lists is randomized, a new table is
> constructed, and the chi-square test is applied to the new table. This
> procedure is repeated 10,000 times. Now the value of the original table is
> compared with the values of these 10,000 tables generated by the Monte Carlo
> technique, and a valid level of significance can be attached to the original
> value.
>
> As indicated above, the methodology as proposed does not always correctly
> identify which languages are related. There are both false positives in
> which a relationship is posited between apparently unrelated languages like
> Latin and Navajo, and false negatives in which no relationship is posited
> between related languages like Albanian and German. K points out that false
> positives are unavoidable in statistics; the goal is to minimize them. False
> negatives, on the other hand, should be eliminated. In addition, it would be
> nice if the methodology could distinguish between closer relationships like
> those between English and German, and more distant relationships like those
> between English and Albanian. In chapters 4-10, K discusses various ways in
> which the methodology might be improved.
>
> In chapter 4, 'Tests in Different Environments', K concludes that
> predictions are not improved by comparing features other than the
> word-initial consonant, for example, the first consonant of the second
> syllable, or the first vowel, or some combination of the above. Then in
> chapter 5, 'Size of the Word Lists', K shows that increasing the size of the
> word lists by using the Swadesh 200 word list instead of the Swadesh 100,
> does not improve the predictions.
>
> Chapter 6, 'Precision and Lumping', deals with the implications of two types
> of historical changes. First, phonemes can split or merge so that, for
> example, /t/ in language A may correspond to /t/, /tj/, and /tw/ in language
> B. Second, semantic shifts occur which result in, for example, the lexical
> item for 'skin' in language A being related to the lexical item for 'bark'
> in language B. K rejects attempts to incorporate such factors into the
> procedures on the basis of practical considerations related to the
> methodological requirement that lexical items be chosen without reference to
> their similarity to forms in other languages.
>
> Chapters 7-9 deal with what lexical items may need to be eliminated from the
> analysis. In chapter 7, 'Nonarbitrary Vocabulary', K discusses forms in
> which the phonetic form may be at least partially determined by sound
> symbolism including, but not limited to, onomatopoeia and nursery words.
> Then K discusses loan words in chapter 8, 'Historical Connection vs.
> Relatedness', and language-internally related forms in chapter 9,
> 'Language-Internal Cognates'. Language-internally related forms include such
> phenomena one phonetic form for related meanings (for example, 'skin' and
> 'bark' or 'egg' and 'seed') and derivationally related forms. K argues that
> if the goal of the analysis is determining whether two languages are
> genetically related, the nonarbitrary aspects of such forms needs to be
> eliminated.
>
> Then, in chapter 10, 'Recurrence Metrics', K introduces some statistical
> methods that might be used in place of the chi-square test.
>
> In the final chapter, 'Conclusions', K summarizes the actual procedures
> proposed in the book, and then offers observations on what such procedures
> have to offer the practice of historical linguistics.
>
> The book concludes with an appendix that includes all eight word lists that
> are used to test the methodology presented in the book, references, and an
> index.
>
> CRITICAL EVALUATION
> It should be obvious by now that this book may be hard going for readers who
> have an aversion to mathematics in general or statistics in particular. At
> the same time, I feel K does a good job of presenting the material in a form
> that should be accessible to readers who do not have a strong background in
> statistics. The book is full of examples illustrating the various points.
> And the fact that the same eight word lists are used throughout the book
> makes it easier to follow the arguments related to variations in the
> procedures.
>
> I feel K has demonstrated that it is possible to develop procedures that
> yield statistically significant results (that is, issue two from above). At
> the same time, I do not feel K demonstrates how the procedures will bring
> together the two sides regarding the issue of how significant a role word
> lists should play in determining language relatedness. The problem is that
> most of the discussion regarding this issue deals with languages whose
> relationship is very remote, while the methodology presented here only seems
> to be applicable to languages related at the level of Indo-European. K never
> shows how the methodology could be adapted to test more remote
> relationships.
>
> In addition, I am not sure that K's requirement that the analysis must be
> based on a pre-determined procedure, on word lists that are chosen without
> reference to any of the other languages to be analyzed, will be acceptable
> to those interested in determining remote relationships.
>
> This is not so say, however, that the methodology is without merit. In some
> areas like Papua New Guinea and Africa, relationships have not been firmly
> established even at the level of Indo-European. In addition, the chapters on
> lexical items that should be eliminated from the analysis (7-9) discuss
> issues that are important for anyone involved in the analysis of word lists.
> I have seen many analyses (my own included) that fail to take into
> consideration internal cognates.
>
> A major thrust of the book is that 'more is not necessarily better'. K
> demonstrates the importance of choosing carefully the words to be analyzed.
> It is better to analyze a smaller set of words that have been screened in
> terms of origin than to analyze a large number of words that are of
> questionable status. In other words, K argues that attempts to bolster an
> analysis based on word lists of questionable status by simply adding more
> words actually works against the trustworthiness of the analysis. At the
> same time, this will make the procedure more difficult to apply in
> situations as in Papua New Guinea where it is difficult to gather the
> information necessary to compile trustworthy word lists. Technical
> dictionaries of the caliber used by K simply do not exist in many of the
> languages there.
>
> K also makes it clear that the procedures proposed in this book are not a
> replacement for the more traditional tasks of establishing cognates.
> Instead, the procedures are meant to show which languages are good
> candidates for such a task.
>
> In conclusion, while I am not sure how influential the book will be in the
> debate over the use of word lists for determining remote relationships, I
> feel the book has a lot to offer to those involved in more mundane analysis
> of word lists.
>
> BIBLIOGRAPHY
> Greenberg, Joseph H. and Merritt Ruhlen. 1992. Linguistic origins of
> Native Americans. Scientific American 267:94-99.
>
> ABOUT THE REVIEWER
> John M Clifton has been involved in sociolinguistic research involving,
> among other aspects, language relationships, in Papua New Guinea from 1982
> to 1994. More recently, he has just finished coordinating the work of a team
> of researchers working in language use and attitudes among speakers of
> less-commonly-spoken languages in Azerbaijan.
>
>
</mailto:debbie-john_clifton></debbie-john_clifton></http:></mailto:terry></mailto:simin></mailto:terry></terry></pre>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">--
M. Hubey
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
The only difference between humans and machines is that humans
can be created by unskilled labor. Arthur C. Clarke
/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/ <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey">http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey</a></pre>
---<><><><><><><><><><><><>----Language----<><><><><><><><><><><><><><BR>
Copyrights/"Fair Use": http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html<BR>
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow things<BR>
such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education <BR>
about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's<BR>
important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express<BR>
your own works -- only the ability to express other people's. <BR>
Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are <BR>
important considerations. <BR>
<BR>
You are currently subscribed to language as: language@listserv.linguistlist.org<BR>
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-language-4283Y@csam-lists.montclair.edu
</BODY>
</html>