<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">Dear Jürgen,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>I know I'm not impartial in this discussion, but:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><span style="font-size:12pt;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?</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I do, for several reasons, but mostly I think there are more interesting/useful methods that are neither phylogenetic inference or stratified sampling.</div><div><span lang="en"><span><br></span></span></div><div><span lang="en"><span>I mostly agree with Gerhard on one point he makes, though, which is that just one result is not enough.</span></span></div><div><span lang="en"><span>We need to see similar results emerge from different methods.</span></span></div><div>Focusing on the results from one or two techniques seems a bit misguided to me.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El lun, 6 de nov de 2023, 8:27 a. m., Gerhard Jäger <<a href="mailto:gerhard.jaeger@uni-tuebingen.de" target="_blank">gerhard.jaeger@uni-tuebingen.de</a>> escribió:<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.S. Juergen mentioned the steep learning curve for the phylognetic
comparative method. I am of course always happy to collaborate on
specific projects - just drop me an email.<br>
<br>
G.<br>
<br>
<div>On 11/6/23 08:23, Gerhard Jäger wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
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 href="https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018189" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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 href="https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018189" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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>On 11/6/23 00:22, Juergen Bohnemeyer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Dear
all – Two points:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;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!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;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:12pt;font-family:"Apple Color Emoji"">😊</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;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:12pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">≈
</span><span style="font-size:12pt;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:12pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Jäger &
Wahle (2021) use the world tree inferred from <a href="https://asjp.clld.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Two
more points to keep in mind here:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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. <u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">So
with all this assembled, here’s my semi-informed take on
the pros and cons of each approach:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Stratified
sampling (I’m going to start with the method that has
been practiced the longest)<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Pro<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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.)<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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.)<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Con<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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?<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Dynamic/phylogenetic/co-evolutionary
inference<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Pro<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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.)<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Does not
depend on the assumption of independence of
observation.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Con<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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:12pt;font-family:"Apple Color Emoji"">😉</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">)<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">As with
stratified sampling, there does not yet appear to be
a consensus approach. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"" lang="DE">Jäger
& Wahle (2021) and Verkerk et al. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">(ms.) use
different algorithms (implemented in different
software packages), make different assumptions, and
their tests are conceptually quite distinct. <u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">Outcomes
depend on many assumptions which are surrounded by
varying degrees of uncertainty. <u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">So
at long last, here are my three challenge questions:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">For the
detractors of phylogenetic inference: <u></u><u></u></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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?<u></u><u></u></span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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?
<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">For the
proponents of phylogenetic inference: <u></u><u></u></span></li>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt;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?<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"">And
there it. Apologies for the overlong post! – Cheers –
Juergen<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;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:11pt"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,120,212)">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
Web: </span><span style="font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(5,99,193)">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;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:9pt;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:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">-- <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"" lang="DE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"CMU Serif"" lang="DE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div id="m_4239347325858143926m_3930030446765713548m_5158336169782912737mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Lingtyp <a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org></a>
on behalf of Simon Greenhill <a href="mailto:simon@simon.net.nz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><simon@simon.net.nz></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 13:39<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Dunn Michael <a href="mailto:michael.dunn@lingfil.uu.se" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><michael.dunn@lingfil.uu.se></a>,
Russell Gray <a href="mailto:russell_gray@eva.mpg.de" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><russell_gray@eva.mpg.de></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Lingtyp] Greenbergian word order
universals: confirmed after all<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:11pt">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 href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<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>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jäger
Universität Tübingen
Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft
Tel.: +49-7071-29-77302
<a href="http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jäger
Universität Tübingen
Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft
Tel.: +49-7071-29-77302
<a href="http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>