[Lingtyp] spectrograms in linguistic description and for language comparison
Jorge Rosés Labrada
jrosesla at ualberta.ca
Thu Dec 8 04:30:54 UTC 2022
Hi everyone,
This has been a really interesting discussion; thank you Adam for starting
it.
The role of examples (but perhaps not the role of spectrograms and other
representations of sound (e.g. palatographs, etc.)) has received some
attention in the general literature on grammar writing. The three
book-length sources on grammar writing I'm familiar with (i.e., Ameka et
al. 2006, Payne and Weber 2007 (based on an earlier special issue in
Studies in Language) and Nakayama & Rice 2014) all include some discussion
of examples in the various chapters in one way or another as do
chapter-length works such as Nikolaeva (2015), Camp et al. (2018), etc.
If I can recommend three particular chapters within this literature that
may prove relevant to the present discussion of examples (beyond Lehman's
article suggested above) and of sounds, I'd suggest Weber (2007), Mithun
(2014) and Rice (2014). Rice (2014) in particular surveys the treatment of
sounds in grammar writing and she in fact suggests that: "One way of
representing sounds more directly than transcription is through the use of
spectrograms, pitch tracks, and the like." (p. 80) — although she admits
that these are "a representation of sound rather than sound itself." (p.
80).
My own understanding has always been that the examples we provide are
illustrative and not necessarily probatory but that one should try to give
representative examples in as much as possible (for example, by giving
multiple examples of the same morpheme in different contexts). When it
comes to the use of spectrograms, I'd say that the same rule applies but
what I usually see—rather than multiple example spectrograms of the same
sound—is some statement along the lines of "this is a typical realization
of X".
In all cases, we have to take the author(s) at their word, though. However,
if we turn to some of the descriptive phonetic literature (e.g. Ladefoged &
Maddieson 1996 or the many illustrations of the IPA in JIPA and a number of
descriptions of the sound systems of Native American languages in IJAL), it
seems to me that spectrograms are used in much the same way as they are
used in grammars. One important difference may be that these (not all but
at least L&M 1996 and the JIPA illustrations) provide accompanying sound
(sometimes only one repetition or item per sound but luckily not always) so
that the reader can listen to these and inspect them themselves.
I think that perhaps that's where one could argue that things could change
in grammar writing or descriptive writing more generally (that is, we
should include the audio files that spectrograms are derived from or that
the transcribed examples come from). But luckily for us, it seems (at least
to me) that the field is moving in that direction as shown by the recent
work on "reproducibility" and the emphasis to archive materials and to cite
the source of the examples in a way that they are resolvable to the corpus
(see for example Berez-Kroeker et al. 2017, Andreasson et al. 2019).
Best,
Jorge
*References:*
- Ameka, Felix K., Alan Charles Dench, and Nicholas Evans, eds.
2006. *Catching
Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing*. *Catching Language*.
Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM] 167. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197693.
- Andreassen, Helene N., Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Lauren Collister,
Philipp Conzett, Christopher Cox, Koenraad De Smedt, Bradley McDonnell, and
Research Data Alliance Linguistic Data Interest Group. 2019. “Tromsø
Recommendations for Citation of Research Data in Linguistics.” Helene N.
Andreassen, Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Lauren Collister, Philipp Conzett,
Christopher Cox, Koenraad De Smedt, Bradley McDonnell, and the.
https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00040.
- Berez-Kroeker, Andrea L., Helene N. Andreassen, Lauren Gawne, Gary
Holton, Susan Smythe Kung, Peter Pulsifer, Lauren Collister, The Data
Citation and Attribution in Linguistics Group, and The Linguistics Data
Interest Group. 2017. “The Austin Principles of Data Citation in
Linguistics.”
https://site.uit.no/linguisticsdatacitation/austinprinciples/.
- Camp, Amber, Lyle Campbell, Victoria Chen, Nala H. Lee, Matt Magnuson,
and Samantha Rarrick. 2018. “Writing Grammars of Endangered
Languages.” In *The
Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages*, edited by Kenneth L. Rehg and
Lyle Campbell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://www.doi.org/0.1093/oxfordhb/9780190610029.013.15.
- Ladefoged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. *The Sounds of the World’s
Languages*. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Mithun, Marianne. 2014. “The Data and the Examples: Comprehensiveness,
Accuracy, and Sensitivity.” In *The Art and Practice of Grammar Writing*,
edited by Toshihide Nakayama and Keren Rice, 25–52. Language Documentation
& Conservation Special Publications 8. Hawai’i: University of Hawai‘i
Press. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/sp08-art-practice-grammar-writing/.
- Nakayama, Toshihide, and Keren Rice, eds. 2014. *The Art and Practice
of Grammar Writing*. Language Documentation & Conservation Special
Publications 8. Hawai’i: University of Hawai‘i Press.
https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/sp08-art-practice-grammar-writing/.
- Nikolaeva, Irina. 2015. “Reference Grammars.” In *Syntax - Theory and
Analysis*, edited by Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou, 3:2036–63.
Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of
Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 42. Berlin; New York: Mouton De
Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/view/serial/428493.
- Payne, Thomas Edward, and David Weber. 2007. *Perspectives on Grammar
Writing* . Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
- Rice, Keren. 2014. “Sounds in Grammar Writing.” In *The Art and
Practice of Grammar Writing*, edited by Toshihide Nakayama and Keren
Rice, 69–90. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publications 8.
Hawai’i: University of Hawai‘i Press.
https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/sp08-art-practice-grammar-writing/.
- Weber, David J. 2006. “The Linguistic Example.” *Studies in Language*
30: 445–60. (later reprinted in Payne & Weber 2007)
-------------
Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada (He, him, his
<https://www.su.ualberta.ca/services/thelanding/learn/pronouns/>)
Associate Professor, Indigenous Language Sustainability
4-22 Assiniboia Hall
Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta
Tel: (+1) 780-492-5698
Email: jrosesla at ualberta.ca
*The University of Alberta acknowledges that we are located on Treaty 6
territory, **and respects the history, languages, and cultures of the First
Nations, Métis, Inuit, *
*and all First Peoples of Canada, whose presence continues to enrich our
institution.*
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 4:50 AM Lidia Federica Mazzitelli <
lfmazzitelli at gmail.com> wrote:
> I also think that the discussion is really interesting, and have read (and
> wish to read more) everything with great interest!
> I am also working on the grammar of a previously undescribed and
> relatively endangered language, and the selection of examples from the
> corpus, as well as the balancing of elicitation Vs natural discourse data
> (especially in terms of negative evidence), is not as straightforward as I
> may have thought before.
> Thank you!
>
> Best, Lidia
>
> Il mer 7 dic 2022, 22:39 Cat Butz <Cat.Butz at hhu.de> ha scritto:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221207/1c1e59fa/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list