<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Dear Martin,<div><br></div><div>Another recent example of a controversial linguistic paper making it into Nature was Robbeets et al’s (2021) Transeurasian (Altaic) paper.</div><div>The single paper made a claim based on data from three disciplines and - while I cannot speak for the genetics and archaeology - the linguistic data was available only as an online appendix rather than being scrutinized within the article. And it did not, as argued by Tian et al. (2022), meet the scholarly standards a typical linguistic journal would expect. Despite these problems, being published in Nature itself gave it wide media coverage all over the world.</div><div>So I wholly agree that a paper should prove its quality in the journal of its own discipline and not in a general science journal. Only after having passed that step can it present itself to the wider audience of scientists from all fields.</div><div><br></div><div>From Japan,</div><div>Ian</div><div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div>
<meta charset="UTF-8"><div>- - - - -<br>JOO, IAN 朱易安<br>Lecturer 助教<br>Faculty of International Studies 国際学部<br>Nagoya University of Commerce and Business 名古屋商科大学<br>Nisshin, Aichi, Japan 愛知県日進市<br>https://ianjoo.github.io<br>- - - - -</div>
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>2/11/2023 오후 11:21, Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath@eva.mpg.de> 작성:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Dear all,
</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Twelve years ago, for the first (and so far last) time, typology made it into <i>Nature</i>, and <i>BBC Online</i> reported at the time: “A long-standing idea that human languages share universal features that are dictated by human brain structure has been cast into doubt.” (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13049700">https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13049700</a>). Our journal <i>Linguistic Typology</i> took this as an opportunity to publish a “Universals Debate” taking up 200 pages (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lity.2011.023/html">https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lity.2011.023/html</a>). Younger LINGTYP readers may not remember all this, but a lot of stir was caused at the time by the paper by Dunn et al. (2011), which claimed that "systematic linkages of traits are likely to be the rare exception rather than the rule. Linguistic diversity does not seem to be tightly constrained by universal cognitive factors“ (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09923">https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09923</a>). Their paper argued not only against Chomskyan UG (universal grammar), but also against the Greenbergian word order universals (Dryer 1992).</span><br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">In the meantime, however, it has become clear that those surprising claims about word order universals are not supported – the sample size (four language families) used in their paper was much too small.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Much less prominently, Jäger & Wahle (2021) reexamined those claims (using similar methods, but many more language families and all relevant <i>WALS</i> data), finding “statistical evidence for 13 word order features, which largely confirm the findings of traditional typological research” (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682132/full">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682132/full</a>).</span><br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Similarly, Annemarie Verkerk and colleagues (including Russell Gray) have recently reexamined a substantial number of claimed universals on the basis of the much larger Grambank database and found that especially Greenberg’s word order universals hold up quite well (see Verkerk’s talk at the recent Grambank workshop at MPI-EVA: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/events/2023-grambank-workshop/">https://www.eva.mpg.de/de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/events/2023-grambank-workshop/</a>, available on YouTube: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSqqgRcaL9yl8FNW_wb8tDIzz9R78t8Uk">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSqqgRcaL9yl8FNW_wb8tDIzz9R78t8Uk</a>).</span><br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">So what went wrong in 2011? We are used to paying a lot of attention to the “big journals” (<i>Nature, Science, PNAS, Cell</i>), but they often focus on sensationalist claims, and they typically publish less reliable results than average journals (see Brembs 2018: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full</a>).</span><br>
</p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">So maybe we should be extra skeptical when a paper is published in a high-prestige journal. But another question that I have is: Why didn’t the authors see that their 2011 results were unlikely to be true, and that their sample size was much too small? Why didn't they notice that most of the word order changes in their four families were contact-induced? Were they so convinced that their new mathematical method (adopted from computational biology) would yield correct results that they neglected to pay sufficient attention to the data? Would it have helped if they had submitted their paper to a linguistics journal?</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps I’m too pessimistic (see also this blogpost: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2368">https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2368</a>), but in any event, I think that this intriguing episode (and sobering experience) should be discussed among typologists, and we should learn from it, in one way or another. Advanced quantitative methods are now everywhere in science, and it seems that they are often misapplied or misunderstood (see also this recent blogpost by Richard McElreath: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://elevanth.org/blog/2023/06/13/science-and-the-dumpster-fire/">https://elevanth.org/blog/2023/06/13/science-and-the-dumpster-fire/</a>).</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Martin
</span></p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Lingtyp mailing list<br>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>