[Lingtyp] Greenbergian word order universals: confirmed after all
Matías Guzmán Naranjo
mguzmann89 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 6 09:14:49 UTC 2023
Dear Jürgen,
I know I'm not impartial in this discussion, but:
So this would be my first question to the detractors of
> phylogenetic/dynamic (Maslova’s term)/co-evolutionary tests for typological
> generalizations: do you disagree that if we had that perfect knowledge, we
> would as a matter of course take into account the phylogenetic perspective?
>
I do, for several reasons, but mostly I think there are more
interesting/useful methods that are neither phylogenetic inference or
stratified sampling.
I mostly agree with Gerhard on one point he makes, though, which is that
just one result is not enough.
We need to see similar results emerge from different methods.
Focusing on the results from one or two techniques seems a bit misguided to
me.
Best,
El lun, 6 de nov de 2023, 8:27 a. m., Gerhard Jäger <
gerhard.jaeger at uni-tuebingen.de> escribió:
> P.S. Juergen mentioned the steep learning curve for the phylognetic
> comparative method. I am of course always happy to collaborate on specific
> projects - just drop me an email.
>
> G.
>
> On 11/6/23 08:23, Gerhard Jäger wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks to Juegen Bohnemeyer for this thoughtful contribution.
>
> A couple of remarks.
>
> About the phylogenies we used in Jäger & Wahle 2021: We actually did not
> use the world tree. The reason for this choice was the fact that branch
> lengths are an important aspect of the phylogenetic comparative method.
> Branch lengths above the family level in the world tree (the one from
> https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018189) are so obviously too short
> that this seriously undermines the method. (Btw, the phylogenetic
> comparative method is fairly robust regarding errors in the topology of the
> phylogenies, but branch lengths are important).
>
> Instead of using the world tree, we inferred a posterior sample of
> phylogenies for each Glottolog family. So like Dunn et al., we used
> separate trees for different families. The main technical innovation -
> besides the fact that we used dozens of families instead of four - was that
> we tested using the same Markov Chain parameters across families, where
> Dunn et al. fitted a separate model for each family. Our's is effectively
> an implementation of Maslova's ideas.
>
> In the extreme case where each family contains just one language in a
> sample, the Jäger & Wahle method is actually equivalent to stratified
> sampling where one language is sampled from each family. So our method is
> not so much an alternative to stratified sampling but an extension that
> allows to use all languages for which you have data.
>
> Regarding the phylogenies derived from ASJP: Juergen, you say, "Notably,
> Jäger’s method takes into account systematic sound correspondences, so to
> my uninitiated eye, it looks like an unassailable computational
> implementation of the historic-comparative method." I am afraid you are
> doing me too much honor here. My method takes recurring sound
> correspondences into account, but it is still a far cry from a full
> implementation of the historic-comparative method. However, in Jäger 2018 (
> https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018189), I ran a lot of tests
> demonstrating that the quality of the phylogenies obtained this way is
> fairly adequate (using Glottolog as gold standard) despite the method's
> conceptual shortcomings.
>
> I agree with Juergen that there is no consensus approach for the
> phylogenetic comparative method. I am not sure though that such a consensus
> is possible or even desirable. A linguistic result - say, the universal
> correlation between adposition-noun order and verb-object order - is
> trustworthy if several different methods confirm it. These methods may
> include stratified sampling with different sampling protocols, family bias
> estimation, phylogenetic comparative methods with different trees and
> different priors, perhaps others. If some approaches confirm it and others
> do not, that is a reason to dig deeper.
>
> Best, Gerhard
>
>
>
> On 11/6/23 00:22, Juergen Bohnemeyer wrote:
>
> Dear all – Two points:
>
>
>
> First, this thread has served to alleviate somewhat my concerns about the
> review processes used by the generic science journals – mostly through
> offline one-on-one communications I’ve received. Thanks!
>
>
>
> Secondly, I’d like to, maybe gently push back, or may be just elaborate,
> on the contrast Simon Greenhill draws between phylogenetic inference and
> the “overly simplistic correlation methods”, as he calls them. In the
> process, I’d like to try to clarify what in my mind are the strengths and
> weaknesses of each (type of) method. And I’ll pose a couple of challenge
> questions to the detractors of phylogenetic/coevolutionary testing and one
> for their proponents, and I hope all of these questions won’t go unanswered
> 😊
>
>
>
> Before I do that, let me flag my interest in this: I’m currently in
> Leipzig spending a sabbatical with Russell Gray’s Department of Linguistic
> and Cultural Evolution (≈ the Grambank team), with the principal
> objective of figuring out how to capitalize the most on Grambank for my
> project. The project tracks the typological distribution of functional
> expressions and attempts to account for it (the distribution) in terms of
> an evolutionary process that makes grammaticalization sensitive to
> functional pressures. Since coming here, I’ve been struggling with the
> question whether I should adopt stratified sampling, a phylogenetic method
> (I’m not going to use the term ‘co-evolution’ here, because I’m at this
> stage of the project just looking at the emergence of individual functional
> expressions), or both. So I’m airing my thoughts very much in hopes of
> eliciting feedback.
>
>
>
> So. Let’s start with a very basic reminder: We cannot observe causality,
> we can only infer it, as David Hume taught us (i.e., humanity) nearly three
> centuries ago. The difference between the methods at issue is one between
> synchronic inference and diachronic inference.
>
>
>
> Now, before I go any further, a big disclaimer: I think I understand at
> the most abstract level the ideas underlying phylogenetic inference. But I
> don’t understand the statistical “sausage making” involved. Meaning I have
> many basic questions about the algorithms used for phylogenetic inference.
>
>
>
> With that said: Imagine an ideal world in which we had perfect and
> reliable knowledge about the complete phylogeny of every extant human
> language and every language that ever existed. It seems indisputable to me
> that in this world, we would test hypotheses about causal relations between
> two linguistic features not merely by looking at their synchronic
> distributions, but also by looking at whether the two features tend to
> co-evolve across phylogenies or whether they appear to have merely
> accidentally “travelled together” through time in a few families.
>
>
>
> So this would be my first question to the detractors of
> phylogenetic/dynamic (Maslova’s term)/co-evolutionary tests for typological
> generalizations: do you disagree that if we had that perfect knowledge, we
> would as a matter of course take into account the phylogenetic perspective?
>
>
>
> Now, in the real world, our knowledge of phylogenies is itself largely
> inferred from synchronic distributions. Crucially, though, these inferences
> are based on data that may overlap with the typological patterns of
> interest, but is largely independent of it. To make this more concrete:
>
>
>
> - Jäger & Wahle (2021) use the world tree inferred from ASJP
> <https://asjp.clld.org/> cognate data presented in Jäger (2018).
> Notably, Jäger’s method takes into account systematic sound
> correspondences, so to my uninitiated eye, it looks like an unassailable
> computational implementation of the historic-comparative method. Of course,
> the data the analysis is based on is another matter.
>
>
>
> - Verkerk et al. (ms.), which Martin cites in the post that started
> the thread, rely on Glottolog, which Jäger & Wahle also used to validate
> their inferred world tree. In my understanding, Glottolog is sourced by a
> compilation of the best available evidence for phylogenetic relations,
> principally curated by its lead author, Harald Hammarström.
>
>
>
> Two more points to keep in mind here:
>
>
>
> - Stratified sampling of course also takes into account phylogenetic
> and areal information. So the two types of approaches have really more in
> common than Simon gives them credit for in his reply, I think. However,
> stratified sampling uses phylogenetic and areal information in first
> approximation only “negatively”, as it were: by systematically removing
> observations from the analysis that are suspected to be “tainted” by areal
> or genealogical dependencies.
>
>
>
> - The distance of our real world from that ideal world in which we
> have perfect knowledge of phylogenetic and areal relations is in my (again,
> uninitiated, in the sense that I’m not a historical linguist) mind pretty
> darn great. However, the phylogenetic statistics algorithms use “forests”
> of alternative phylogenetic trees weighted for the confidence the field (or
> the analysts) has/have in them, factored into the tests as Bayesian priors.
> In this sense, the use of phylogenetic information is more sophisticated in
> the dynamic tests than in anything based on stratified sampling that I have
> seen.
>
>
>
> So with all this assembled, here’s my semi-informed take on the pros and
> cons of each approach:
>
>
>
> - Stratified sampling (I’m going to start with the method that has
> been practiced the longest)
>
>
>
> - Pro
> - Technologically and conceptually simple, easy to implement by
> anybody with the most basic level of training in inferential statistics,
> and transparent for the analyst to track and understand the effects of
> their decisions.
> - Statistically conservative, in the specific sense that it
> minimizes the odds of false positives, i.e., of support for generalizations
> for which the evidence isn’t really there. (One might think that Dunn et
> al. 2011 present counterevidence to this. But the apparent false positives
> pointed out by Dunn et al. turn out to be true positives after all, now
> that Jäger & Wahle and Verkerk et al. have replicated their analysis with a
> larger sample.)
> - Validity of testing depends only on one key assumption – the
> big one: independence of observations. (Detractors of stratified sampling
> might however argue that it is impossible to ensure that this assumption is
> warranted in any decent-sized sample.)
> - Con
> - There has never been a consensus on an optimal sampling
> algorithm that balances minimization of areal and genealogical biases with
> retaining enough statistical power to detect the patterns of interest. With
> such a consensus absent after 45 years of some of the smartest minds in the
> field applying themselves to the problem, maybe there is no optimal
> solution to be had?
> - Based on information reduction (exclusion of observations);
> does not take into account phylogenetic information to the fullest measure
> of what can be concluded from it.
>
>
>
> - Dynamic/phylogenetic/co-evolutionary inference
>
>
>
> - Pro
> - Utilizes the best available phylogenetic information “for all
> it’s worth”, directly examining whether features tend to coevolve across
> lineages or only in particular lineages. (The same cannot currently be said
> about areal information. However, Verkerk et al. (ms.) use mixed models
> regression – which is feasible based on Grambank thanks to its relatively
> low percentage of missing observations – to factor in possible areal
> effects.)
> - Does not depend on the assumption of independence of
> observation.
>
>
>
> - Con
> - Very steep training demands both on the conceptual and on the
> technological side. Currently only a handful of specialists are able to
> perform such analyses. In addition, the computational complexities are so
> demanding as to render the analyses effectively opaque for all but those
> specialists, raising questions about the validation of such tests. (Gerhard
> Jäger’s comparison to carbon dating in archeology is apt here as well, I
> think: while phylogenetic analysis will likely become more standard in the
> future, it may be the case that typologists will always have to rely on
> specialists for actually performing such tests, just like archeologists
> rely on physicists or lab technicians for performing carbon dating. I think
> 😉)
> - Reliability of phylogenetic inference seems to depend on the
> size of the phylogenies involved: the smaller the family, the higher the
> uncertainty in the absence of actual historic data.
> - As with stratified sampling, there does not yet appear to be a
> consensus approach. Jäger & Wahle (2021) and Verkerk et al. (ms.)
> use different algorithms (implemented in different software packages), make
> different assumptions, and their tests are conceptually quite distinct.
> - Outcomes depend on many assumptions which are surrounded by
> varying degrees of uncertainty.
>
>
>
> So at long last, here are my three challenge questions:
>
>
>
> - For the detractors of phylogenetic inference:
> - (Repeated from above to make sure this doesn’t get lost) Do you
> (dis)agree that if we had complete and robust knowledge of the phylogenies
> of the extant languages, we would perform phylogenetic tests as a matter of
> course when attempting to validate typological generalizations?
> - Do you dispute that since phylogenetic testing of typological
> generalizations has become possible, typology as a field cannot simply
> ignore it and move on without it?
> - For the proponents of phylogenetic inference:
> - Do you dispute that stratified sampling is statistically
> conservative and has the advantage of transparency and robustness vis-à-vis
> the underlying assumptions, so it is likely not a method that typology will
> simply move beyond and disregard in the future?
>
>
>
> And there it. Apologies for the overlong post! – Cheers – 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 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>
> <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Simon Greenhill
> <simon at simon.net.nz> <simon at simon.net.nz>
> *Date: *Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 13:39
> *To: *lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Cc: *Dunn Michael <michael.dunn at lingfil.uu.se>
> <michael.dunn at lingfil.uu.se>, Russell Gray <russell_gray at eva.mpg.de>
> <russell_gray at eva.mpg.de>
> *Subject: *[Lingtyp] Greenbergian word order universals: confirmed after
> all
>
> Colleagues, Martin, everyone else
>
> Thank you for sharing your perspectives on our 2011 paper. It's nice to
> see this still be discussed more than a decade later. However, I would like
> to express my concerns and disagreements with some of the points you've
> raised.
>
> I'm very proud of the Dunn et al. paper for a number of reasons. I'll name
> three.
>
> First, the paper showed that the overly simplistic correlation methods
> that had been used to make sweeping global claims were problematic. We need
> better tools to tackle these questions, and the tools we applied were one
> part of a better toolkit.
>
> Second, it highlighted the need to understand language systems in a
> diachronic manner. We cannot decouple language typology from language
> history, instead we need to understand how these are entangled.
>
> Third, it emphasised the way that particular configurations of languages
> can be arrived at via different routes in different families at different
> times. This enables a much richer understanding of how these particular
> generalisations have arisen.
>
> Have Jäger and Wähle disproved any of that? no. Maybe these were not
> completely novel insights (Maslova’s work has been mentioned which touches
> on a few of these issues too, for example), but these ideas did appear to
> crystallise in this paper.
>
> While it's certainly important to revisit and reevaluate research findings
> to ensure accuracy, it is crucial to approach these discussions with an
> understanding of the scientific process. Scientific paradigms evolve over
> time, and different studies may yield varying results due to changes in
> methodologies, data sources, and sample sizes. This doesn't necessarily
> imply that the initial research was flawed or that the authors were
> neglectful. In particular, the tools, the data, and our understanding of
> how languages change are substantially further advanced than they were a
> decade ago (or, I know that *my* understanding of these things is more
> advanced now, at least). And these other papers that you mention -- and
> many other studies -- have built upon the work we did in 2011.
>
> Furthermore, I would like to caution against drawing overly broad
> conclusions about the quality of research published in high-prestige
> journals. The peer-review process in such journals is rigorous, and while
> they may occasionally feature sensationalist claims, this doesn't diminish
> the overall value they contribute to the scientific community. For the
> record, of the handful of papers I've had in these journals *all* have been
> reviewed by people I would infer to be linguists based on the comments and
> issues they raised. We did not send these papers to these journals to avoid
> linguistic reviewers but, frankly, I've had better reviews at these
> journals than at prominent linguistics journals (and by "better" I mean
> more rigorous, more thorough, and more critical).
>
> Finally, linguistic typology is an ongoing and evolving field trying to
> tackle very difficult problems. We need all the tools and approaches we can
> get to solve these problems across all the levels that languages operate on
> (from detailed language internal analyses to high-level global analyses).
> Rather than looking back and gate-keeping what is 'real’ typology published
> in ‘real’ linguistics journals, we should shift our focus forward. Typology
> can be a welcoming and diverse community that embraces a wide range of
> approaches, analyses, and styles. Let's look outward to foster connections
> with other fields and disciplines.
>
> After all, why shouldn't linguistic typology work be everywhere in
> science? it's certainly interesting enough.
>
> Simon
>
> Dr. Simon J. Greenhill
>
> Associate Professor
>
> Te Kura Mātauranga Koiora | School of Biological Sciences
> Te Whare Wānanga o Tāmaki Makaurau | University of Auckland
>
> Abteilung für Sprach- und Kulturevolution | Department of Linguistic and
> Cultural Evolution
> Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie | Max Planck Institute
> for Evolutionary Anthropology
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7Cbe1181a9879e434ccc0308dbdd3319c4%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638346983806627973%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OgjDO%2FGow%2FfFmxOIvmrWNNq1nwcsZaLzI5OMnoGjBXg%3D&reserved=0
> <https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttps://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> --
> Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jäger
> Universität Tübingen
> Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft
> Tel.: +49-7071-29-77302http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/
>
>
> --
> Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jäger
> Universität Tübingen
> Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft
> Tel.: +49-7071-29-77302http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231106/a1bc8ce4/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list