<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Sorry, I'm confused by two things that have been said. </p>
<p>Michael Cysouw said: </p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap"><font size="2">"Any frequency measured depends on many assumptions, including that the current linguistic situation in the world’s languages might very well be different from any situation in the (far) past or (far) future. Even something like estimates of the stable state from a dynamic model of typological transition probabilities (my favourite kind of numbers) is probably just a reflection of the forces influencing languages over the last few thousand years. That is very interesting (I think), but still just one aspect of human language."</font></span></p>
<p>Isn't "<span style="white-space: pre-wrap">the stable state from a dynamic model of typological transition probabilities" the same as what Omri talked about in terms of "a hypothetical (and unrealistic) set of independent languages"?</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">And isn't this the most important indicator in Greenbergian universalist typology? (Of course, one may also be interested in non-universalist questions and use typological notions and results, but this wouldn't be Greenbergian.)</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">And Östen Dahl said: </span></p>
<p><font size="2"><span lang="EN-US">"The idea of a language without
relatives or neighbours is somewhat reminiscent of “homo
economicus” in economics or closer to our concerns, Chomsky’s
“</span>ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous
speech-community<span lang="EN-US">”. Like those phantoms, the
isolated isolate can at most serve as a useful temporary
construct but can hardly be the final goal of our endeavour."</span></font></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">But nobody has
suggested that the "isolated isolates" fiction should be a "goal
of our endeavor". The goal is to estimate the probability of a
feature appearing in a language regardless of its history. For
example, if we want to argue that high elevation makes ejectives
more likely (see <a
href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245522">Urban
& Moran 2021</a> for recent discussion), we need to look
at multiple independent cases of ejectives in high-elevation
locations. Pointing to a lot of ejectives in the Caucasus is not
convincing because ejectives there could be an areal feature
that is largely due to contact.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">So I don't see any
problems with Omri's "isolated isolates" fiction.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19.11.25 16:36, Michael Cysouw via
Lingtyp wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:67ACE91E-B1FE-40B5-B9FD-C264562860E4@uni-marburg.de">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Dear Omri,
The real question is what you want to report. There is real value in all numbers that you propose, so simply report them all, explaining how you obtained them.
I think that your question arose because of the misconception (in my opinion) that there is something like the “true” frequencies of a typological parameter. They do not exist. Any frequency measured depends on many assumptions, including that the current linguistic situation in the world’s languages might very well be different from any situation in the (far) past or (far) future. Even something like estimates of the stable state from a dynamic model of typological transition probabilities (my favourite kind of numbers) is probably just a reflection of the forces influencing languages over the last few thousand years. That is very interesting (I think), but still just one aspect of human language.
best
Michael
————————
Prof. Dr. Michael Cysouw
Forschungszentrum Deutscher Sprachatlas
Philipps Universität Marburg
Pilgrimstein 16
D-35032 Marburg
Office: +49-6421-28-22488
Secretary: +49-6421-28-22483
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cysouw@uni-marburg.de">cysouw@uni-marburg.de</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.deutscher-sprachatlas.de/mitarbeiter/cysouw/">www.deutscher-sprachatlas.de/mitarbeiter/cysouw/</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.cysouw.de/home/">www.cysouw.de/home/</a>
ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3168-4946
Standort Biegenstrasse, Gebäude B|05
Pilgrimstein 16, Raum 106 (+1/0060)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.uni-marburg.de/kontakt/">http://www.uni-marburg.de/kontakt/</a>
————————
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On 18. Nov 2025, at 10:23, Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to raise the question of how cross-linguistic frequencies of typological features ought to be reported. The issue has been discussed extensively, but I still find some aspects conceptually confusing, so I hope this discussion might be helpful for others as well.
To make this concrete, consider the order of object and verb (OV, VO, no dominant order). Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we have complete data for every language in Glottolog. This would give us theactual proportion of languages that are OV vs. VO in the present-day world. The core problem, however, is that languages are not independent datapoints, so these actual frequencies also reflect genealogical and areal biases.
For that reason, it is common practice to report adjusted frequencies instead, either through non-proportional stratified sampling (Dryer 2018) or through statistical bias controls (Becker & Guzmán Naranjo 2025). As far as I understand, both methods aim to estimate something like: If each language were independent (as if every language were an isolate and had no contact with its neighbors), what proportion would be OV vs. VO? In other words, the population being described is not the set of existing languages but a hypothetical (and unrealistic) set of independent languages.
Now, suppose that the actual frequencies of OV and VO are equal, but the adjusted frequency of OV is higher. In that case, it feels counterintuitive to say that OV is more common cross-linguistically than VO. Perhaps it is clearer to speak in terms of probabilities rather than proportions, given that the population is hypothetical. For instance, we might say: “When genealogical and areal biases are controlled for, the probability of a language being OV is 0.6". This means that the chance that a randomly sampled language isolate with no contact would be OV is 0.6. By contrast, saying “60% of the world’s languages are OV” when referring to an adjusted frequency seems potentially misleading.
I would appreciate hearing what others in the community think about how such statistics should ideally be reported.
Best regards,
Omri
References:
Becker, Laura and Guzmán Naranjo Matías. 2025. Replication and methodological robustness in quantitative typology. Linguistic Typology.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2018. On the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun. Language 94(4), 798-833.
_______________________________________________
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>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
_______________________________________________
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>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>