[Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'

Mon Nov 23 07:01:58 UTC 2020

On 11/23/20 7:16 AM, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> I agree with Martin about grammars being inexhaustible and priceless goldmines, but with Johanna about 'grammar-mining' sounding derogatory. I think that 'data-mining' still has connotations of 'strip-mining' and exploitative practices – though happy to be overruled 

I would see "grammar mining" in the context of "text data mining", which 
is used e.g. in the fields of biology and chemistry for discoverability 
procedures and to establish chain links between different articles. 
Chemical compound A is related to enzyme B in article X; enzyme B is 
related to pathology C in article Y; so there might be a relation 
between A and C which could be investigated further. This link can only 
be discovered automatically since the people reading article X and the 
people reading article Y come from distinct groups and do not read each 
other's literature.

In this sense, "grammar mining" would relate to the *automated* 
extraction of knowledge from grammatical descriptions. This is for 
instance the stated goal of "DReaM: The Dictionary/Grammar Reading 
Machine: Computational Tools for Accessing the World's Linguistic 
Heritage" https://cl.lingfil.uu.se/~harald/dream.html

I would not see "grammar mining" as something which can be done without 
machinery, e.g. in an armchair.

Best wishes
Sebastian

if I am being oversensitive about that. On the other hand for me 
'library' remains very positive (and also allows the possibility of 
thoughtful reading and reflection of the contents of each grammar, 
rather than just sticking them all in some python script)
> Best Nick
> 
> 
> Nicholas (Nick) Evans
> 
> Director, CoEDL (ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language)
> Distinguished Professor of Linguistics
> Coombs Building, Fellows Road
> CHL, CAP, Australian National University
> 
> nicholas.evans at anu.edu.au
> 
> I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people as custodians of the land on which I work, and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. Their custodianship that has never been ceded.
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:00 PM
> To: Johanna Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu>
> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
> 
> Every grammar is an inexhaustible goldmine that deserves to be exploited.
> 
> „Armchair linguistics“ sounds derogatory to me, but what‘s the problem with „grammar mining“?
> 
> In the 20th century, grammar mining studies had to be carried out in libraries. But nowadays all you need is access to the internet and some useful websites.
> 
> Is there an alternative that‘s still better?
> 
> Martin
> 
>> Am 23.11.2020 um 06:42 schrieb Johanna Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu>:
>>
>> I don't know -- to me both "grammar mining" and "armchair linguistics"
>> sound derogatory.  We all want grammar writing to be taken seriously
>> in the linguistics reward system, so use of those grammars is an
>> honorable undertaking and deserves an honorable label.
>>
>> Johanna Nichols
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 9:17 PM Ian Maddieson <ianm at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps the term ‘armchair linguistics’ would have won the poll.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 22, 2020, at 20:15, Bohnemeyer, Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all — Many thanks to everyone who participated in my poll!
>>>
>>> There were 39 responses. Exactly one third, 13, recognized ‘library study’ as an established term. However, nearly half of those who did proposed what they considered better alternatives. Meanwhile, two thirds of respondents did not recognize ‘library study’ as a technical term.
>>>
>>> Of the suggested alternatives, the one that stood out for me is ‘grammar mining’. Setting aside my lack of enthusiasm for ‘grammar’ as a term for language descriptions, ‘grammar mining’ seems to invoke just the right concept and has the edge of pizzaz/sexiness.
>>>
>>> Best — Juergen
>>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2020, at 7:40 PM, Bohnemeyer, Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues — The purpose of this message is not to start another debate on terminology. Rather, I’d simply like to gather data on how this community views a particular terminological choice. I created a survey that people can take anonymously, which should take them all of 60 seconds. I’ll be happy to report the results on this board. Here is the link to the survey:
>>>
>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/G953WP7
>>>
>>> The issue concerns the term ‘library study’, when used to designate any typological research design that draws primarily on existing language descriptions. I have long considered ‘library study’ to be a well-established technical term for this concept, and I’m unaware of equally well-established terminological alternatives.
>>>
>>> Within typology, ‘library studies’ in this sense would contrast with studies based on
>>>
>>> * typological databases such as WALS and AutoTyp;
>>>
>>> * primary data (prevalent in semantic typology; occurs more marginally elsewhere);
>>>
>>> * expert questionnaires (as opposed to questionnaires administered to speakers and designed for primary data collection; e.g. Comrie & Smith 1977, as opposed to Dahl 1985);
>>>
>>> * anything else?
>>>
>>> I’m just trying to find out whether I’m an outlier.
>>>
>>> Note, this is not about whether one finds the label fitting or unfortunate. All I’m trying to determine is whether to an audience of typologists it gets the intended meaning across.
>>>
>>> Thanks! — Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>> University at Buffalo
>>>
>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>
>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically for remote office hours.
>>>
>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>> University at Buffalo
>>>
>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>
>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically for remote office hours.
>>>
>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Maddieson
>>>
>>> Department of Linguistics
>>> University of New Mexico
>>> MSC03-2130
>>> Albuquerque NM 87131-0001
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 