<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
Thanks to Juegen Bohnemeyer for this thoughtful contribution. <br>
<br>
A couple of remarks.<br>
<br>
About the phylogenies we used in Jäger & Wahle 2021: We actually
did not use the world tree. The reason for this choice was the fact
that branch lengths are an important aspect of the phylogenetic
comparative method. Branch lengths above the family level in the
world tree (the one from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018189">https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018189</a>) are so obviously too
short that this seriously undermines the method. (Btw, the
phylogenetic comparative method is fairly robust regarding errors in
the topology of the phylogenies, but branch lengths are important).
<br>
<br>
Instead of using the world tree, we inferred a posterior sample of
phylogenies for each Glottolog family. So like Dunn et al., we used
separate trees for different families. The main technical innovation
- besides the fact that we used dozens of families instead of four -
was that we tested using the same Markov Chain parameters across
families, where Dunn et al. fitted a separate model for each family.
Our's is effectively an implementation of Maslova's ideas.<br>
<br>
In the extreme case where each family contains just one language in
a sample, the Jäger & Wahle method is actually equivalent to
stratified sampling where one language is sampled from each family.
So our method is not so much an alternative to stratified sampling
but an extension that allows to use all languages for which you have
data.<br>
<br>
Regarding the phylogenies derived from ASJP: Juergen, you say,
"Notably, Jäger’s method takes into account systematic sound
correspondences, so to my uninitiated eye, it looks like an
unassailable computational implementation of the
historic-comparative method." I am afraid you are doing me too much
honor here. My method takes recurring sound correspondences into
account, but it is still a far cry from a full implementation of the
historic-comparative method. However, in Jäger 2018
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018189">https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018189</a>), I ran a lot of tests
demonstrating that the quality of the phylogenies obtained this way
is fairly adequate (using Glottolog as gold standard) despite the
method's conceptual shortcomings.<br>
<br>
I agree with Juergen that there is no consensus approach for the
phylogenetic comparative method. I am not sure though that such a
consensus is possible or even desirable. A linguistic result - say,
the universal correlation between adposition-noun order and
verb-object order - is trustworthy if several different methods
confirm it. These methods may include stratified sampling with
different sampling protocols, family bias estimation, phylogenetic
comparative methods with different trees and different priors,
perhaps others. If some approaches confirm it and others do not,
that is a reason to dig deeper.<br>
<br>
Best, Gerhard<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/6/23 00:22, Juergen Bohnemeyer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR15MB46966D0B2BE32910582F1528DDA4A@SJ0PR15MB4696.namprd15.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"CMU Serif";
panose-1:2 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"CMU Serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Dear
all – Two points:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">First,
this thread has served to alleviate somewhat my concerns
about the review processes used by the generic science
journals – mostly through offline one-on-one communications
I’ve received. Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Secondly,
I’d like to, maybe gently push back, or may be just
elaborate, on the contrast Simon Greenhill draws between
phylogenetic inference and the “overly simplistic
correlation methods”, as he calls them. In the process, I’d
like to try to clarify what in my mind are the strengths and
weaknesses of each (type of) method. And I’ll pose a couple
of challenge questions to the detractors of
phylogenetic/coevolutionary testing and one for their
proponents, and I hope all of these questions won’t go
unanswered </span>
<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Apple Color Emoji"">😊</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Before
I do that, let me flag my interest in this: I’m currently in
Leipzig spending a sabbatical with Russell Gray’s Department
of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution (</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN">≈
</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">the
Grambank team), with the principal objective of figuring out
how to capitalize the most on Grambank for my project. The
project tracks the typological distribution of functional
expressions and attempts to account for it (the
distribution) in terms of an evolutionary process that makes
grammaticalization sensitive to functional pressures. Since
coming here, I’ve been struggling with the question whether
I should adopt stratified sampling, a phylogenetic method
(I’m not going to use the term ‘co-evolution’ here, because
I’m at this stage of the project just looking at the
emergence of individual functional expressions), or both. So
I’m airing my thoughts very much in hopes of eliciting
feedback.</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">So.
Let’s start with a very basic reminder: We cannot observe
causality, we can only infer it, as David Hume taught us
(i.e., humanity) nearly three centuries ago. The difference
between the methods at issue is one between synchronic
inference and diachronic inference.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Now,
before I go any further, a big disclaimer: I think I
understand at the most abstract level the ideas underlying
phylogenetic inference. But I don’t understand the
statistical “sausage making” involved. Meaning I have many
basic questions about the algorithms used for phylogenetic
inference.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">With
that said: Imagine an ideal world in which we had perfect
and reliable knowledge about the complete phylogeny of every
extant human language and every language that ever existed.
It seems indisputable to me that in this world, we would
test hypotheses about causal relations between two
linguistic features not merely by looking at their
synchronic distributions, but also by looking at whether the
two features tend to co-evolve across phylogenies or whether
they appear to have merely accidentally “travelled together”
through time in a few families.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">So
this would be my first question to the detractors of
phylogenetic/dynamic (Maslova’s term)/co-evolutionary tests
for typological generalizations: do you disagree that if we
had that perfect knowledge, we would as a matter of course
take into account the phylogenetic perspective?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Now,
in the real world, our knowledge of phylogenies is itself
largely inferred from synchronic distributions. Crucially,
though, these inferences are based on data that may overlap
with the typological patterns of interest, but is largely
independent of it. To make this more concrete:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Jäger
& Wahle (2021) use the world tree inferred from
<a href="https://asjp.clld.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">ASJP</a>
cognate data presented in Jäger (2018). Notably, Jäger’s
method takes into account systematic sound
correspondences, so to my uninitiated eye, it looks like
an unassailable computational implementation of the
historic-comparative method. Of course, the data the
analysis is based on is another matter.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Verkerk
et al. (ms.), which Martin cites in the post that started
the thread, rely on Glottolog, which Jäger & Wahle
also used to validate their inferred world tree. In my
understanding, Glottolog is sourced by a compilation of
the best available evidence for phylogenetic relations,
principally curated by its lead author, Harald
Hammarström.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Two
more points to keep in mind here:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Stratified
sampling of course also takes into account phylogenetic
and areal information. So the two types of approaches have
really more in common than Simon gives them credit for in
his reply, I think. However, stratified sampling uses
phylogenetic and areal information in first approximation
only “negatively”, as it were: by systematically removing
observations from the analysis that are suspected to be
“tainted” by areal or genealogical dependencies. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">The
distance of our real world from that ideal world in which
we have perfect knowledge of phylogenetic and areal
relations is in my (again, uninitiated, in the sense that
I’m not a historical linguist) mind pretty darn great.
However, the phylogenetic statistics algorithms use
“forests” of alternative phylogenetic trees weighted for
the confidence the field (or the analysts) has/have in
them, factored into the tests as Bayesian priors. In this
sense, the use of phylogenetic information is more
sophisticated in the dynamic tests than in anything based
on stratified sampling that I have seen.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">So
with all this assembled, here’s my semi-informed take on the
pros and cons of each approach:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Stratified
sampling (I’m going to start with the method that has been
practiced the longest)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Pro<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Technologically
and conceptually simple, easy to implement by anybody
with the most basic level of training in inferential
statistics, and transparent for the analyst to track
and understand the effects of their decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Statistically
conservative, in the specific sense that it minimizes
the odds of false positives, i.e., of support for
generalizations for which the evidence isn’t really
there. (One might think that Dunn et al. 2011 present
counterevidence to this. But the apparent false
positives pointed out by Dunn et al. turn out to be
true positives after all, now that Jäger & Wahle
and Verkerk et al. have replicated their analysis with
a larger sample.)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Validity of
testing depends only on one key assumption – the big
one: independence of observations. (Detractors of
stratified sampling might however argue that it is
impossible to ensure that this assumption is warranted
in any decent-sized sample.)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Con<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">There has
never been a consensus on an optimal sampling
algorithm that balances minimization of areal and
genealogical biases with retaining enough statistical
power to detect the patterns of interest. With such a
consensus absent after 45 years of some of the
smartest minds in the field applying themselves to the
problem, maybe there is no optimal solution to be had?<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Based on
information reduction (exclusion of observations);
does not take into account phylogenetic information to
the fullest measure of what can be concluded from it.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Dynamic/phylogenetic/co-evolutionary
inference<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Pro<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Utilizes the
best available phylogenetic information “for all it’s
worth”, directly examining whether features tend to
coevolve across lineages or only in particular
lineages. (The same cannot currently be said about
areal information. However, Verkerk et al. (ms.) use
mixed models regression – which is feasible based on
Grambank thanks to its relatively low percentage of
missing observations – to factor in possible areal
effects.)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Does not
depend on the assumption of independence of
observation.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Con<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Very steep
training demands both on the conceptual and on the
technological side. Currently only a handful of
specialists are able to perform such analyses. In
addition, the computational complexities are so
demanding as to render the analyses effectively opaque
for all but those specialists, raising questions about
the validation of such tests. (Gerhard Jäger’s
comparison to carbon dating in archeology is apt here
as well, I think: while phylogenetic analysis will
likely become more standard in the future, it may be
the case that typologists will always have to rely on
specialists for actually performing such tests, just
like archeologists rely on physicists or lab
technicians for performing carbon dating. I think </span>
<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Apple Color Emoji"">😉</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Reliability
of phylogenetic inference seems to depend on the size
of the phylogenies involved: the smaller the family,
the higher the uncertainty in the absence of actual
historic data.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">As with
stratified sampling, there does not yet appear to be a
consensus approach.
</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"" lang="DE">Jäger
& Wahle (2021) and Verkerk et al.
</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">(ms.) use
different algorithms (implemented in different
software packages), make different assumptions, and
their tests are conceptually quite distinct.
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Outcomes
depend on many assumptions which are surrounded by
varying degrees of uncertainty.
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">So
at long last, here are my three challenge questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">For
the detractors of phylogenetic inference:
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">(Repeated
from above to make sure this doesn’t get lost) Do you
(dis)agree that if we had complete and robust knowledge
of the phylogenies of the extant languages, we would
perform phylogenetic tests as a matter of course when
attempting to validate typological generalizations?<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Do you
dispute that since phylogenetic testing of typological
generalizations has become possible, typology as a field
cannot simply ignore it and move on without it? <o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">For
the proponents of phylogenetic inference:
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Do you
dispute that stratified sampling is statistically
conservative and has the advantage of transparency and
robustness vis-à-vis the underlying assumptions, so it
is likely not a method that typology will simply move
beyond and disregard in the future?<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">And
there it. Apologies for the overlong post! – Cheers –
Juergen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Juergen
Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br>
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>
University at Buffalo <br>
<br>
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br>
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br>
Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br>
Fax: (716) 645 3825<br>
Email: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><a
href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"
title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#0078D4">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
Web: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><a
href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"
title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#0563C1">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Office
hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom
(Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
<br>
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light
Gets In <br>
(Leonard Cohen) </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""
lang="DE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""
lang="DE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Lingtyp
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org></a> on
behalf of Simon Greenhill <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:simon@simon.net.nz"><simon@simon.net.nz></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 13:39<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Dunn Michael
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:michael.dunn@lingfil.uu.se"><michael.dunn@lingfil.uu.se></a>, Russell Gray
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:russell_gray@eva.mpg.de"><russell_gray@eva.mpg.de></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Lingtyp] Greenbergian word order
universals: confirmed after all<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Colleagues, Martin, everyone
else<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I'm very proud of the Dunn et al. paper for a number
of reasons. I'll name three.<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
After all, why shouldn't linguistic typology work be
everywhere in science? it's certainly interesting
enough.
<br>
<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
Dr. Simon J. Greenhill<br>
<br>
Associate Professor <br>
<br>
Te Kura Mātauranga Koiora | School of Biological
Sciences<br>
Te Whare Wānanga o Tāmaki Makaurau | University of
Auckland<br>
<br>
Abteilung für Sprach- und Kulturevolution | Department
of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<br>
Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie |
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7Cbe1181a9879e434ccc0308dbdd3319c4%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638346983806627973%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OgjDO%2FGow%2FfFmxOIvmrWNNq1nwcsZaLzI5OMnoGjBXg%3D&reserved=0</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<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>