<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Dear Jürgen and all,</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Thanks a lot for starting this important discussion. My thoughts about Jürgen's query were very much along the lines of Volker's reply, although his formulation was a lot better than mine would have been..</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Probably just stating the obvious, but of course Volker's levels 2 and 3 of behavioural data each involve two processes that introduce further uncertainty into the analysis: the language data a researcher actually manages to record and the language descriptions
that become influential enough to make it into typological samples. I'd say that that results in (at least) five layers at which typological data is 'behavioural' and each of these is shaped by a psychosocial context and (imagined) communities:</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<ol start="1" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; list-style-type: decimal;" data-editing-info="{"orderedStyleType":1,"unorderedStyleType":1}" data-listchain="__List_Chain_493">
<li style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div class="elementToProof">What speakers happen to say or do</div>
</li><li style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div class="elementToProof">What the researcher happens to record (i.e. what speakers happen to say or do when the researcher is observing)</div>
</li><li style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div class="elementToProof">What happens to make it into the descriptive analysis (and how)</div>
</li><li style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div class="elementToProof">What happens to make it into the typological sample</div>
</li><li style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div class="elementToProof">What happens to make it into the typological analysis (and how)</div>
</li></ol>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Obviously much of the methodological work in Linguistic Typology is exactly about constraining these levels of uncertainty, but I, for one, am skeptical about whether they can be eliminated in any meaningful way. The best we can hope for most of the time is
to make the choices operating at each of these levels as explicit and motivated as possible (only to gloss over them for ultimate generalisations).</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
The best argument for why a typologist should at least once do a little bit of fieldwork is because it immediately confronts you with the reality that your recorded language is not the same as the language spoken in the community and that your description,
even for the most basic phenomena, is a collection of editorial and authorial choices.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Best,</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Stef</div>
<div id="Signature" class="elementToProof"></div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>From:</b> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Volker Gast via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, September 29, 2024 10:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] Areal and phylogenetic *researcher* biases</span>
<div> </div>
</div>
<p>Dear Jürgen and others,</p>
<p>I think this is one of the major methodological problems of linguistic typology (which, if I remember correctly, has been discussed on this list before). There's no single 'correct' way of analysing a language. Two linguists working on the same language
will often provide very different analyses, and both may be right in their own ways. It starts with phonology, where you have a lot of degrees of freedom in, for instance, minimizing or maximizing phoneme inventories (e.g. by [not] introducing phonological
domains and features operating on these domains), and it gets worse in morphology, specifically if there is distributed exponence and other complexities of this type. At the level of syntax the impact of the specific theoretical background can be seen, for
instance, in publications using the UD corpora. These corpora were annotated with a specific version of dependency grammar, I think essentially for pragmatic reasons (dependency grammar was very popular among computational linguists for a while). The theorerical
assumptions of the annotation model obviously have an impact on the results (just think of the very old discussion of what a 'subject' is, represented as the 'nsubj' relation in the UD annotations).</p>
<p>For many languages we only have one description, and the linguist describing it comes from a specific background or 'school' (and these schools are often associated with particular areas and particular phylogenetic groupings, introducing further biases of
the type you mention). Again, the effects are visible at the level of phonology already. For example, the Papuan language Idi could be described as having just three vowels, or as having nine vowels (perhaps even more), depending on your assumptions about
phonotactics etc. (There's a published analysis of that language, by D. Schokkin, N. Evans, C. Döhler and me, but the analysis really reflects some kind of compromise between the authors, and it leaves a few non-trivial questions open.)</p>
<p>The specific linguist and their school or background is a source of statistical non-independence. Even relying on exactly one description per language, and having the data coded by several researchers, often leads to low inter-annotator agreement in my experience.</p>
<p>I think we need to be aware that typological data is behavioural data at three layers: (i) language is a behavioural activity, (ii) describing a language is a behavioural activity, and (iii) extracting information from descriptions is another behavioural
activity. Variance occurs at all levels and is multiplied in the process from (i) to (iii).</p>
<p>Approximately determining the amount of variance of that type would be a major project. For instance, we could have five undocumented (unstandardized) languages described by five linguists each, using data from five different speakers per language. Many
will think that this would be a waste of resources, given the number of (varieties) of languages that still await description.</p>
<p>What follows from all this, in my view, is that we need to be careful in applying statistical analyses "blindly". Linguistics is not a natural science. Given the large amount of inherent variance in typological data we linguists should remain in the driver's
seat and use quantitative typological evidence as an assistance system, being aware of its limits and possibilities, rather than take a back seat and let the autopilot drive.</p>
<p>Best,<br>
Volker</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>Am 28.09.2024 um 20:17 schrieb Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp:</div>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dear all – I’m wondering whether anybody has attempted to estimate the size of the following putative effect on descriptive and
typological research:</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Suppose there is a particular phenomenon in Language L, the known properties of which are equally compatible with an analysis
in terms of construction types (comparative concepts) A and B.</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Suppose furthermore that L belongs to a language family and/or linguistic area such that A has much more commonly been invoked
in descriptions of languages of that family/area than B.</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Then to the extent that a researcher attempting to adjudicate between A and B wrt. L (whether in a description of L, in a typological
study, or in coding for an evolving typological database) is aware of the prevalence of A-coding/analyses for languages of the family/area in question, that might make them more likely to code/analyze L as exhibiting A as well.</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So for example, a researcher who assumes languages of the family/area of L to be typically tenseless may be influenced by this
assumption and as a result become (however slightly) more likely to treat L as tenseless as well. In contrast, if she assumes languages of the family/area of L to be typically tensed, that might make her ever so slightly more likely to analyze L also as tensed.</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;">It seems to me that this is a cognitive bias related to, and possibly a case of, essentialism. (And just as in the case of (other
forms of) essentialism, the actual cognitive causes/mechanisms of the bias may vary.)</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But regardless, my question is, again, has anybody tried to guestimate to what extent the results of current typological studies
may be warped by this kind of researcher bias? (Note that the bias may be affecting both authors of descriptive work and typologists using descriptive work as data, so there is a possible double-whammy effect.)</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Thanks! – Juergen</span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "CMU Serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9pt; 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-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(0, 120, 212);"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" id="OWAa4ee2374-dcb7-5659-7393-76a1ef39b1f1" class="OWAAutoLink" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" style="color: rgb(0, 120, 212); margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">jb77@buffalo.edu</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9pt; color: black;"><br>
Web: </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(5, 99, 193);"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" id="OWAc25f8958-5808-5eee-c26e-9d0e7805308a" class="OWAAutoLink" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" style="color: rgb(5, 99, 193); margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;" data-auth="NotApplicable">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9pt; color: black;"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: "Calibri", sans-serif; 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-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9pt; color: black;"><br>
<br>
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br>
(Leonard Cohen) </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", sans-serif;">-- </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: "Aptos", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> </p>
<br>
<fieldset class="x_moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre><div>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" id="OWAe11e59f6-5616-1f5c-6837-a21ef10afc9c" class="x_moz-txt-link-abbreviated OWAAutoLink">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" id="OWA0d3ac848-752e-95bd-e55e-0af568b35cd4" class="x_moz-txt-link-freetext OWAAutoLink" data-auth="NotApplicable">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>