<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Martin, Thank you for bringing attention to the new work by Jaeger & Wahle (2021) that confirms many of the findings of</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Greenberg's typological universals, against the opposite findings of the previous study published in <i>Nature</i> by Dunn et al (2011), which</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">attracted much attention.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">You ask "What went wrong in 2011" and express "pessimism" about publications based on advanced quantitative methods and about</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">the reliability of "big journals" (e.g. <i>Nature, Science</i>,<i> PNAS</i>). Many responses to your post also express pessimism and negative reflections</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">on the state of science and academia.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">As an outsider to typology, I wish to suggest an opposite question. What went right? First, Jaeger and Wahle (2021)<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">adopted a theoretical approach originally published in <i>Linguistic Typology</i> well before the 2011 Dunn et all paper but previously not widely used. They (Jaeger and Wahle) write, <i> </i>"In a seminal paper, Maslova (2000) proposes an entirely different conceptual take on the problems of typological generalizations and typological sampling...." <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Second, Jaeger and Wahle's source of data was Grambank, a new open access data bank of typological variation in the world's languages, fostering</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">major empirical advances in the study of language evolution---this new finding is one such advance. Third, Jaeger and Wahle's methods are themselves open access: their code is</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">available online and their results can be replicated at <a href="https://github.com/gerhardJaeger/phylogeneticTypology">https://github.com/gerhardJaeger/phylogeneticTypology</a>.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Such open access, reproducible work is the gold standard of contemporary science. The fact that it has confirmed so much of previous</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Greenbergian work on typology is remarkable and should be celebrated.</div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">In my view, the appropriate response is to submit these new findings to <i>Nature</i> and/or other "big journals" to inform the scientific public and correct the previous record.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Your posting is one step in this direction.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Thank you!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Joan<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br><div class="gmail-page" title="Page 2"><div class="gmail-layoutArea"><div class="gmail-column">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><i> </i><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 7:22 AM Martin Haspelmath <<a href="mailto:martin_haspelmath@eva.mpg.de" target="_blank">martin_haspelmath@eva.mpg.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<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 href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13049700" target="_blank">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 href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lity.2011.023/html" target="_blank">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 href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09923" target="_blank">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 href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682132/full" target="_blank">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 href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/events/2023-grambank-workshop/" target="_blank">https://www.eva.mpg.de/de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/events/2023-grambank-workshop/</a>, available on YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSqqgRcaL9yl8FNW_wb8tDIzz9R78t8Uk" target="_blank">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 href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full" target="_blank">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 href="https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2368" target="_blank">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 href="https://elevanth.org/blog/2023/06/13/science-and-the-dumpster-fire/" target="_blank">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 cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/" target="_blank">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Joan Bresnan<br>Stanford University <br><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~bresnan/" target="_blank">http://www.stanford.edu/~bresnan/</a><br></div>