<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
Let me add my two cents to this discussion.<br>
<br>
The fact that Dunn et al. 2011 sparked the discussion in the special
issue of LT back then, and still inspires discussions and research
today, proves quite convincingly, I believe, that it was an
important contribution.<br>
<br>
Martin, you write, "Greenberg's (1963) claims were based on his
knowledge of hundreds of languages (and on earlier research by W.
Schmidt), not only on his very small and very skewed 30-language
sample, but the fact that most of his universals stood the test of
time (despite his very imperfect methods) seems to show that what
mattered primarily was the novel (universalistic and quantitative)
perspective that he took, not so much the methods."<br>
I am sure you are right, but what were these hundreds of languages,
and what did Greenberg know about them? This touches on the issue of
<b>replicability</b>. When I embarked on the research culminating in
Jäger & Wahle (2021), I tried to replicate Dunn et al. I wrote
my own code, and I use different phylogenies, and I got got almost
precisely the same results as the ones they reported.<br>
<br>
Let me emphasize - I only used the description of methods in Dunn et
al. (2011), not the original code, but replication worked without
problems. This is more than what can be said of a substantial
portion of scientific papers. It demonstrates the robustness of the
results. One may legitimately disagree on the conclusions the
authors drew, but the reported results per se are rock solid.<br>
<br>
I want to conclude with an observation I was told by a classical
archaeologist. According to him, when carbon dating started in the
1950s, the results were often in stark contrast to received
archaeological insights. Still, those clueless physicists got there
papers published in Nature, to the dismay of the archaeologists.
Over time, the problems of the naive use of carbon dating were
ironed out, and carbon dating is now an indispensable part of the
archaeologist's toolkit.<br>
<br>
Best, Gerhard<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/4/23 07:24, Martin Haspelmath
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88bee407-faea-4f8e-ac1c-94f7f6aa8de2@eva.mpg.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Many thanks, Simon, for offering your author's perspective on
this old paper! <br>
</p>
<p>You are certainly right that "the scientific process" can
sometimes be slow, and it may take a while for wrong conclusions
to be corrected. We should of course not be discouraged from
trying out novel methods just because they may initially yield
strange results.</p>
<p>However, I found your 2011 paper very confusing because it was
published in such a prominent place, seemingly betraying very
high confidence in the results. It was only recently that I
heard from a good source that the authors now agree with the
earlier criticism that the sample size was too small in 2011,
and two of them are now coauthors of the new forthcoming paper
(with MUCH more data) that Annemarie Verkerk reported on
recently. So that's a good developement.<br>
</p>
<p>Maybe that new paper will come out in <i>Nature</i>, too, and
then all will be well, as the 2011 paper will fall into
oblivion. (But since the new paper mostly confirms older
Greenbergian perspectives, <i>Nature</i> may not find the
results novel enough...)<br>
</p>
<p>But I'm still confused about the three points you make:</p>
<p>First, your paper *didn't* show that Matthew Dryer's (1992)
correlation method was "overly simplistic" – on the contrary,
while some of the claims made in the 1970s were overly
simplistic, Dryer showed that the Greenbergian correlations
hold, but in a more limited way than had been thought (he
rejected the head-dependent theory in favour of the
branching-direction theory).</p>
<p>Second, the "need to understand language systems in a
diachronic manner" *didn't* need to be lighlighted, because it
was something that linguists had routinely done since the 19th
century, and the idea was made very prominent again by Greenberg
himself (e.g. Greenberg 1969; 1978; see also Croft's well-known
work).</p>
<p>Third, linguists knew that "<span style="white-space: pre-wrap">different routes can be taken in different families at different times", so this was *not* a contribution of your paper either. </span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">I don't know about "rigorous" reviewing in high-profile journals (they certainly have a high rejection rate), but I think it is clear that their influence is not always justified by the validity of their research results. Publishing a paper in <i>Nature</i> can have a chilling effect on the rest of the discipline, in that other approaches or views may not be seen as legitimate anymore. (We saw the bad effects of the outsize political influence of high-profile journals in recent years, when some of them declared the lab-leak theory and certain alternative approaches to public health as wrong, quite prematurely, and with devastating effects on the public discussion.)</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">So one of my reasons for raising the problems with the 2011 paper here is to point out that while the correlated-evolution method may have its advantages, it requires a huge amount of data (and very unrealistic worldwide trees, as is particularly clear with Jäger & Wahle's ASJP-based tree, but also with the Bouckaert et al. tree: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/f8tr6/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/f8tr6/</a>). For most other purposes in typology, the traditional sampling methods (discussed in our subfield since 1978) is all we have.</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">In their target authors' response article in <i>Linguistic T</i>ypology (2011, 509-534), Levinson et al. start out by noting the problem of spatial and genealogical autocorrelation (which used to be called "Galton's Problem", after the originator of eugenics), but they make it sound as if stratified sampling has a deep fundamental problem and that the correlated-evolution method is always better. But they seem to be exaggerating the problems with sampling, e.g. when they say:
</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap"></span><span
style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><font size="2">"Many typologists may assume that the dangers of covert phylogenetic dependence are remote. But given the apparent genetic bottlenecks at the beginning of the modern human diaspora out of Africa (Amos & Hoffman 2009), something close to language monogenesis seems a reasonable assumption, rendering Galton’s problem insurmountable." </font></span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Admittedly, this conceivable problem had not occurred to typologists at the time of Greenberg and Dryer, and it becomes important in the discussion only after Maslova (2000) (it is also mentioned by Cysouw 2011 in LT, and by Jäger & Wahle 2021). This is why I wrote a blogpost a few years ago asking how realistic it is to suspect that current typological distributions might in part reflect Proto-World (<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2376" moz-do-not-send="true">https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2376</a>). Now recently, Russell Gray told me that he never thought that </span><span
style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Proto-World retention was an important problem for sampling.</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">If so, then I'm even more happy to recommend continuing with stratified sampling (among other methods, of course), as it is a much cheaper method – and still fully legitimate, despite the claims made by Levinson and colleagues. Greenberg's (1963) claims were based on his knowledge of hundreds of languages (and on earlier research by W. Schmidt), not only on his very small and very skewed 30-language sample, but the fact that most of his universals stood the test of time (despite his very imperfect methods) seems to show that what mattered primarily was the novel (universalistic and quantitative) perspective that he took, not so much the methods.</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Best wishes, and thanks again to all for the discussions,</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Martin
</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">P.S. The earlier LINGTYP thread can be seen here: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/</a>
</span></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04.11.23 02:22, Simon Greenhill
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51F688E1-019E-4442-875B-44F49E2E5A0E@simon.net.nz">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Colleagues, Martin, everyone else
Thank you for sharing your perspectives on our 2011 paper. It's nice to see this still be discussed more than a decade later. However, I would like to express my concerns and disagreements with some of the points you've raised.
I'm very proud of the Dunn et al. paper for a number of reasons. I'll name three.
First, the paper showed that the overly simplistic correlation methods that had been used to make sweeping global claims were problematic. We need better tools to tackle these questions, and the tools we applied were one part of a better toolkit.
Second, it highlighted the need to understand language systems in a diachronic manner. We cannot decouple language typology from language history, instead we need to understand how these are entangled.
Third, it emphasised the way that particular configurations of languages can be arrived at via different routes in different families at different times. This enables a much richer understanding of how these particular generalisations have arisen.
Have Jäger and Wähle disproved any of that? no. Maybe these were not completely novel insights (Maslova’s work has been mentioned which touches on a few of these issues too, for example), but these ideas did appear to crystallise in this paper.
While it's certainly important to revisit and reevaluate research findings to ensure accuracy, it is crucial to approach these discussions with an understanding of the scientific process. Scientific paradigms evolve over time, and different studies may yield varying results due to changes in methodologies, data sources, and sample sizes. This doesn't necessarily imply that the initial research was flawed or that the authors were neglectful. In particular, the tools, the data, and our understanding of how languages change are substantially further advanced than they were a decade ago (or, I know that *my* understanding of these things is more advanced now, at least). And these other papers that you mention -- and many other studies -- have built upon the work we did in 2011.
Furthermore, I would like to caution against drawing overly broad conclusions about the quality of research published in high-prestige journals. The peer-review process in such journals is rigorous, and while they may occasionally feature sensationalist claims, this doesn't diminish the overall value they contribute to the scientific community. For the record, of the handful of papers I've had in these journals *all* have been reviewed by people I would infer to be linguists based on the comments and issues they raised. We did not send these papers to these journals to avoid linguistic reviewers but, frankly, I've had better reviews at these journals than at prominent linguistics journals (and by "better" I mean more rigorous, more thorough, and more critical).
Finally, linguistic typology is an ongoing and evolving field trying to tackle very difficult problems. We need all the tools and approaches we can get to solve these problems across all the levels that languages operate on (from detailed language internal analyses to high-level global analyses). Rather than looking back and gate-keeping what is 'real’ typology published in ‘real’ linguistics journals, we should shift our focus forward. Typology can be a welcoming and diverse community that embraces a wide range of approaches, analyses, and styles. Let's look outward to foster connections with other fields and disciplines.
After all, why shouldn't linguistic typology work be everywhere in science? it's certainly interesting enough.
Simon
Dr. Simon J. Greenhill
Associate Professor
Te Kura Mātauranga Koiora | School of Biological Sciences
Te Whare Wānanga o Tāmaki Makaurau | University of Auckland
Abteilung für Sprach- und Kulturevolution | Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie | Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jäger
Universität Tübingen
Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft
Tel.: +49-7071-29-77302
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/">http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>