[Lingtyp] spectrograms in linguistic description and for language comparison

Wed Dec 7 11:39:57 UTC 2022

Am 2022-12-05 09:48, schrieb Christian Lehmann:
> I am not sure how many members of this list would wish to continue
> this discussion.

I, for one, am currently writing a grammar for my dissertation and am 
reading everything in this discussion with great interest. Thanks to 
everyone participating in this discussion for pointing out all those 
things.

Best,
---
Cat Butz (she)
HHU Düsseldorf, general linguistics

Cat Butz (sie)
HHU Düsseldorf, allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft

> For something to count as proof in a science means that it corresponds
> to a certain pattern of argumentation by the methodological standards
> on which scientists have agreed. These patterns are different for
> logical and for empirical sciences. I feel reminded of
> 
> Kamlah, Wilhelm & Lorenzen, Paul 1967, _Logische Propädeutik.
> Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens._ Mannheim: Bibliographisches
> Institut (B.I.-Hochschultaschenbücher).
> 
> translated as:
> _Logical Propaedeutic: Pre-school of Reasonable Discourse._ Lanham,
> Maryland: University Press of America, 1984.
> 
> It is true that things are more complicated in empirical disciplines
> because we have indeed to agree upon standards of validity. And to the
> extent that it is impractical to counter-check everything that a
> proponent assures his audience of, there is a portion of trust
> involved in scientific discourse of an empirical discipline.
> 
> Things work the Kamlah-Lorenzen way if a scientific claim is a simple
> general statement of the kind 'in German, the definite article
> precedes (rather than follows) the nominal group'. To prove it,
> according to established standards of our discipline, it suffices for
> me to produce a (probatory) example of a certain kind. If you do not
> accept it, you may either operationalize my claim in such a way that
> what I produced does not count as an example or to produce a
> counter-example (of a postnominal definite article).
> 
> The claim about the affix that you use as an example is more complex
> since the issue appears to be what the correct analysis of a certain
> occurrence is. This would have to be broken down into a set of simpler
> statements in order to be tractable by Kamlah & Lorenzen.
> 
> Best,
> Christian
> 
> Am 04.12.22 um 05:26 schrieb Juergen Bohnemeyer:
> 
>> Dear Christian – I stand corrected! Thanks for the link, I think
>> it’s great that you’ve looked into this issue. I sincerely wish
>> more people had.
>> 
>> And I think I agree with the policy you propose. But allow me to
>> elaborate just a little.
>> 
>> Now, at the risk of splitting hairs, I’m afraid from where I look
>> at things, ‘probatory example’ is an oxymoron.
>> 
>> There’s nothing an example could prove. In fact, there’s no such
>> thing as proof in science. Proof only exists in math, including in
>> logic.
>> 
>> The closest equivalent to proof in science is hypothesis testing.
>> 
>> Can an example ever be said to serve as a test of a hypothesis?
>> 
>> Let’s say the author is aiming to adjudicate between two competing
>> analyses. One predicts that a certain affix will appear in a certain
>> environment, while the competing analysis predicts that it won’t.
>> Then the author produces an example that instantiates the relevant
>> context, and features or doesn’t feature the affix, thereby
>> confirming one prediction or the other.
>> 
>> Under such conditions, the example in question can assume a role
>> similar to that of hypothesis testing in experimental science.
>> 
>> But then immediately validity concerns analogous to those in
>> experimentation will present themselves. Such as:
>> 
>> * Internal validity: Was the example correctly analyzed and coded?
>> Is the occurrence of the affix in question actually conditioned
>> solely by the factors the competing hypotheses assume, or could it
>> also be conditioned by other factors?
>> * External validity: Is the example reproducible with other
>> members of the speech community? Assuming there are any left!
>> * Ecological validity: Does the example actually reflect the
>> everyday linguistic behavior of speakers of the language
>> (/doculect)? Assuming there still is everyday use by the members of
>> the community!
>> 
>> As I see it, the recommendations your webpage makes for documenting
>> the conditions under which a ‘probatory’ example was recorded go
>> some way toward addressing concerns with external and ecological
>> validity.
>> 
>> But the biggest challenge for addressing such concerns is in my view
>> that we haven’t developed standards for assessing and reporting
>> the empirical basis for our descriptions – the speakers we collect
>> the data from, and how well they/it represent(s) the speech
>> community, or which speech community it represents.
>> 
>> Best -- 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/ [1]
>> 
>> Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID
>> 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)
>> 
>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>> (Leonard Cohen)
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf
>> of Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>
>> Date: Friday, December 2, 2022 at 10:18 AM
>> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] spectrograms in linguistic description and
>> for language comparison
>> 
>> Dear Jürgen,
>> 
>> to mitigate a bit your pessimist opinion of the methodological
>> situation of our discipline, let me mention, as a contribution to
>> the discussion you are requiring, my web page
>> 
> https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_description/representations/?open=example.inc
>> [2]
>> which advocates a distinction between
>> 
>> * a probatory example (which is data used as scientific evidence)
>> * and an illustrative example (or pedagogical example, which is
>> only meant to render a descriptive statement more concrete and,
>> thus, to help understanding).
>> 
>> Methodological standards for these two kinds of examples are
>> completely different. On #1, I may recommend:
>> 
>> Lehmann, Christian 2004, “Data in linguistics.” _The Linguistic
>> Review_ 21(3/4):275-310. [3]
>> 
>> Best,
>> Christian
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
>> Rudolfstr. 4
>> 99092 Erfurt
>> Deutschland
>> 
>> Tel.:
>> 
>> +49/361/2113417
>> 
>> E-Post:
>> 
>> christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>> 
>> Web:
>> 
>> https://www.christianlehmann.eu [4]
> 
> --
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
> 
>  		Tel.:
>  		+49/361/2113417
> 
>  		E-Post:
>  		christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
> 
>  		Web:
>  		https://www.christianlehmann.eu
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
> [2] 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianlehmann.eu%2Fling%2Fling_meth%2Fling_description%2Frepresentations%2F%3Fopen%3Dexample.inc&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C7fe4ba1414394757470008dad4783cd7%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638055911006309971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VXi3oaBXPpkSUjObO9z%2Bg0ZPyvILV%2FkhMGG441T56L8%3D&reserved=0
> [3] 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F249931781_Data_in_linguistics&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C7fe4ba1414394757470008dad4783cd7%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638055911006309971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UI%2BLyj4NP2pzzyidgM3Z5nh72VJP%2FHCQl1UjmMWsRRI%3D&reserved=0
> [4] 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianlehmann.eu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C7fe4ba1414394757470008dad4783cd7%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638055911006309971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HAeLu5NMoRkuDSO7t0wiYIxRVXp7%2FCh1yAPK8ixnqR0%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp