<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<b>*** 2nd Call for papers ***</b>
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
ALT Workshop on <b>Replication & reproducibility in
quantitative typology<br>
</b>Convenors: Laura Becker, Frederik Hartmann, Matías Guzmán
Naranjo<br>
<br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
date: <span
style="background-color: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; text-transform: inherit; word-spacing: normal; white-space: inherit"><b>December
4-6</b>, 2024</span><br>
venue: Nanyang Technological University Singapore<br>
website: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ntu.edu.sg/soh/news-events/events/alt-2024"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ntu.edu.sg/soh/news-events/events/alt-2024</a>
<br>
abstract submission deadline: <b>April 15, 2024</b><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<b>Workshop description</b><br>
<br>
Replication has played a rather minor role in typology so far,
with most of the discussion being concerned with different types
of language samples and sampling methods. Sparked by a discussion
in Corbett (2005) on data and annotation transparency in typology,
replication in typology became an explicit topic of debate in a
2006 thematic issue of Linguistic Typology. Despite a few case
studies, the 2006 discussion mainly remained theoretical, dealing
mostly with different levels of data collection and annotation at
which replication is useful and desirable in typology.<br>
<br>
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 (Cysouw, Dediu
& Moran 2012; Hartmann 2022; Hartmann, Roberts, Valdes &
Grollemund 2024; 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. In this workshop, we want
to promote the discussion on new developments and challenges
related to replication and reproducibility of typological studies.<br>
<br>
<br>
Potential topics include, but are not limited to:<br>
<ul>
<li>replication case studies, e.g.</li>
<ul>
<li>using identical methods as the original study, but a
different dataset</li>
<li>using an identical dataset as the original study, but
different methods</li>
<li>replicating low-profile or low-stakes typological studies</li>
</ul>
<li>current challenges for replication and reproducibility in
typology, e.g.</li>
<ul>
<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>discussions on data and annotation transparency in
typological studies</li>
<li>discussions on how robust data classification and
annotations are (e.g. testing for inter-rater agreement)</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br>
<b>Abstract submission</b><br>
<br>
Abstracts should be submitted through Easy Abs (<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://easyabs.linguistlist.org/conference/ALT_XV/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://easyabs.linguistlist.org/conference/ALT_XV/</a>)
by <b>April 15</b>, 2024.<br>
<br>
More details about the abstract submission can be found on the
conference website: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ntu.edu.sg/soh/news-events/events/alt-2024/call-for-papers"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ntu.edu.sg/soh/news-events/events/alt-2024/call-for-papers</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>References<br>
</b><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>
Corbett, Greville G. 2005. Suppletion in personal pronouns: Theory
versus practice, and the place of reproducibility in typology: De
Gruyter Mouton 9(1). 1–23.<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>
Hartmann, Frederik, Seán Roberts, Paul Valdes & Rebecca
Grollemund. 2024. Investigating environmental effects on phonology
using diachronic models. Evolutionary Human Sciences 6. e8.<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. </div>
</body>
</html>