Call for Debate: Reproducibility in Typology

[Paolo Ramat]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: acharris at notes.cc.sunysb.edu 
  To: Paolo Ramat 
  Cc: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG 
  Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:47 PM
  Subject: Re: Call for Debate: Reproducibility in Typology


  Dear Alice,
  many thanks for your thoughtful comments!
  Below I insert some interlinear comment in your text (in CAPITAL LETTERS)
  Best,
  Paolo


  My understanding of reproducibility is somewhat different from Paolo's.  I don't think the intention is to reproduce historical events, such as p > f, or even the discovery of this sound change.  
  Biologists, for example, do not try to reproduce diachronic events, such as the evolution of fish or zebras.  Economists and historians don't conduct experiments (and therefore can't reproduce them), but linguists do.  As Paolo pointed out, scientists do reproduce or try to reproduce experiments.  Their aim, clearly, is not to publish the results; it is to verify the results.  Often reproducing an experiment is the first step in going on to a further experiment.  The need for reproducibility is the reason that scientists devote so much space in an article to describing the exact conditions under which they conduct each part of an experiment.   I FULLY AGREE

  In typology, in most cases the equivalent of describing the exact conditions is listing the languages in the data set, the sources of information, and the essential criteria for identifying the items studied.  For example, if one were doing a study of the order of articles and nouns as related to the order of adjectives and nouns, it would be necessary to define the concepts of "article", "noun", and "adjective", or to provide criteria by which the investigators decided to include some items and exclude others.  THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE , BUT THE POINT STILL REMAINS: YOU DO NOT 'REPRODUCE' IN A LAB THE LINGUISTIC SITUATION YOU OBSERVE VIA YOUR FINE GRAINED DATA COLLECTION.  ANOTHER LINGUIST  MAY MAKE USE OF OTHER CRITERIA IN EVALUATING THE DATA; BUT THE DATA WILL REMAIN THE SAME, WHEREAS THE OUTPUT OF A LAB EXPERIMENT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM THE OUTPUT OF THE FIRST EXPERIMENT .(THINK,E.G., OF DIFFERENT CLONES IN EXACTLY PARALLEL BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS). WHAT MIGHT CHANGE IN THE EYES OF THE SECOND TYPOLOGIST IS THE EVALUATION OF THE LINGUISTIC SITUATION ACCORDING TO THE NEW PARAMETERS HE/SHE HAS INTRODUCED.   WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY DOES NOT REPRODUCE 'OBJECTS', BUT SIMPLY (MAY) PRODUCE(S) --NOT RE-PRODUCE-- DIFFERENT STATEMENTS OR VIEWPOINTS. IMPLICITLY IT IS WHAT YOU SAY IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH: "DEFINING THE CONDITIONS ALLOWS OTHERS TO EVALUATE THE RESULTS" (MY EMPHASIS).

  Another linguist should, then, be able to reproduce the results using this same set of sources on the same languages with the same criteria.  But the point is not only that someone should be able literally to reproduce the results, but also that defining the conditions exactly allows others to evaluate the results.  If, in my example, the investigator defined "adjective" in such a way that it excluded participles, another investigator might think the results would be interestingly different (perhaps more significant) if participles were included.  The second investigator might then repeat the experiment with that condition changed. The idea of reproducibility as I understand it is similar to "full disclosure". 

  Alice 

  Alice C. Harris
  Professor 
  Department of Linguistics
  SUNY Stony Brook
  Stony Brook, NY  11794-4376
  Phone: 631-632-7758, 631-632-7777
  Fax: 631-632-9789
  e-mail: alice.harris at stonybrook.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20040831/d862b067/attachment.htm>