<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear colleagues,<br>
</p>
<p>We are planning to submit a workshop proposal for the next ALT
conference from 8-10 November, 2024 in Zhuhai, China. The title of
the workshop will be "<b>Replication & reproducibility in
quantitative typology</b>". For a brief description, see below.
<br>
<br>
To submit the proposal, we would like to include a list of
potential participants. At this point, you would only express your
interest, it is not a commitment to participate in the workshop.
If you are interested, please send an email with your <b>name</b>
and <b>affiliation</b> to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:laura.becker@linguistik.uni-freiburg.de">laura.becker@linguistik.uni-freiburg.de</a>
by <b>November 18, 2023</b>. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Laura Becker<br>
Frederik Hartmann<br>
Matías Guzmán Naranjo<br>
</p>
<p><br>
--------------------------------<br>
<br>
<b>Workshop description</b><br>
<br>
Reproducibility, especially comparing methods rather than new
samples, has played a relatively minor role in quantitative
typology so far. While some of the more high-profile studies (e.g.
Atkinson 2011, Chen 2013, Everett 2017, Maddieson 2018) have
received further attention, including methodological discussions
(Hartmann 2022, Cysouw, Michael, Dan Dediu & Steven Moran
2012, Roberts, Winters & Chen 2015), many typological studies
are never replicated. Additionally, our field still lacks common
standards for replication and testing reproducibility, and most
replication studies use different data as well as methods compared
to the original studies. Similarly, there is no consensus and
little discussion on how we should generally think about studies
which fail to (partially) replicate with other datasets, methods,
or both.<br>
<br>
In this workshop, we want to promote the discussion on new
developments and challenges related to replication and
reproducibility of typological studies.<br>
<br>
Potential topics include, but are not limited to:<br>
<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Replication studies using identical methods as the original
study, but a different dataset</li>
<li>Replication studies using an identical dataset as the original
study, but different methods</li>
<li>Discussions on how to deal with studies which fail to
replicate</li>
<li>Discussions relating to the robustness of result and
uncertainty in typological studies</li>
<li>Replication of low-profile or low-stakes typological studies</li>
<li>Current challenges for replicability and reproducibility of
linguistic results, including data transparency <br>
</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>References:<br>
<br>
Atkinson, Quentin D. 2011. Phonemic diversity supports a serial
founder effect model of language expansion from Africa. Science
332. 346–349.<br>
<br>
Chen, Keith. 2013. The effect of language on economic behavior:
Evidence from savings rates, health behaviors, and retirement
assets. American Economic Review 103(2). 690–731.<br>
<br>
Cysouw, Michael, Dan Dediu & Steven Moran. 2012. Comment on
“Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of
language expansion from Africa”. Science 335(6069). 657–657.<br>
<br>
Everett, Caleb. 2017. Languages in drier climates use fewer
vowels. Frontiers in Psychology 8. 1285.<br>
<br>
Hartmann, Frederik. 2022. Methodological problems in quantitative
research on environmental effects in phonology. Journal of
Language Evolution 7(1). 95–119.<br>
<br>
Maddieson, Ian. 2018. Language adapts to environment: Sonority and
temperature. Frontiers in Communication 3.<br>
<br>
Roberts, Seán, James Winters & Keith Chen. 2015. Future tense
and economic decisions: Controlling for cultural evolution. PLOS
ONE 10(7). e0132145.<br>
<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>