<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=acharris@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
href="mailto:acharris@notes.cc.sunysb.edu">acharris@notes.cc.sunysb.edu</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paoram@UNIPV.IT
href="mailto:paoram@UNIPV.IT">Paolo Ramat</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 30, 2004 8:47
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Call for Debate:
Reproducibility in Typology</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Alice,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>many thanks for your thoughtful
comments!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Below I insert some interlinear comment in your
text (in <EM>CAPITAL LETTERS</EM>)</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Best,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Paolo</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>My understanding of reproducibility is
somewhat different from Paolo's. I don't think the intention is to
reproduce historical events, such as p > f, or even the discovery of this
sound change. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Biologists, for example, do not try to
reproduce diachronic events, such as the evolution of fish or zebras.
Economists and historians don't conduct experiments (and therefore can't
reproduce them), but linguists do. As Paolo pointed out, scientists do
reproduce or try to reproduce experiments. Their aim, clearly, is not to
publish the results; it is to verify the results. Often reproducing an
experiment is the first step in going on to a further experiment. The
need for reproducibility is the reason that scientists devote so much space in
an article to describing the exact conditions under which they conduct each
part of an experiment. </FONT> <EM><FONT face=Arial size=2>I FULLY
AGREE</FONT><BR><BR></EM><FONT face=Arial size=2>In typology, in most cases
the equivalent of describing the exact conditions is listing the languages in
the data set, the sources of information, and the essential criteria for
identifying the items studied. For example, if one were doing a study of
the order of articles and nouns as related to the order of adjectives and
nouns, it would be necessary to define the concepts of "article", "noun", and
"adjective", or to provide criteria by which the investigators decided to
include some items and exclude others. <EM>THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE ,
BUT THE POINT STILL REMAINS: YOU DO NOT 'REPRODUCE' IN A LAB THE
LINGUISTIC SITUATION YOU OBSERVE VIA YOUR FINE GRAINED DATA
COLLECTION. ANOTHER LINGUIST MAY MAKE USE OF OTHER
CRITERIA IN EVALUATING THE DATA; BUT THE DATA WILL REMAIN THE SAME,
WHEREAS THE OUTPUT OF A LAB EXPERIMENT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM THE OUTPUT OF
THE FIRST EXPERIMENT</EM> <EM>.(THINK,E.G., OF DIFFERENT CLONES IN
EXACTLY PARALLEL BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS). WHAT MIGHT CHANGE IN THE EYES OF THE
SECOND TYPOLOGIST IS THE <U>EVALUATION</U> OF THE LINGUISTIC SITUATION
ACCORDING TO THE NEW PARAMETERS HE/SHE HAS INTRODUCED. WHAT I'M
TRYING TO SAY IS THAT LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY DOES NOT <U>REPRODUCE</U> 'OBJECTS',
BUT SIMPLY (MAY) PRODUCE(S) --NOT RE-PRODUCE-- DIFFERENT STATEMENTS OR
VIEWPOINTS. IMPLICITLY IT IS WHAT YOU SAY IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH:
"DEFINING THE CONDITIONS ALLOWS OTHERS TO <U>EVALUATE</U> THE RESULTS" (MY
EMPHASIS).</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Another linguist should, then, be able to
reproduce the results using this same set of sources on the same languages
with the same criteria. But the point is not only that someone should be
able literally to reproduce the results, but also that defining the conditions
exactly allows others to evaluate the results. If, in my example, the
investigator defined "adjective" in such a way that it excluded participles,
another investigator might think the results would be interestingly different
(perhaps more significant) if participles were included. The second
investigator might then repeat the experiment with that condition changed. The
idea of reproducibility as I understand it is similar to "full
disclosure".</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Alice</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR>Alice C. Harris<BR>Professor
<BR>Department of Linguistics<BR>SUNY Stony Brook<BR>Stony Brook, NY
11794-4376<BR>Phone: 631-632-7758, 631-632-7777<BR>Fax:
631-632-9789<BR>e-mail:
alice.harris@stonybrook.edu</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>