[Lingtyp] Areal and phylogenetic *researcher* biases

[Mark Donohue]

A phonological example is clear in the distribution of descriptions of tone
and/or breathy voiced consonants.

There is a remarkable drop-off in the number of breathy voiced consonant
reported outside South Asia compared to within, and a similar drop-off in
the number of tonal languages as you enter South Asia.

Numerous other examples could be raised: 'secondary' palatalisation
in/outside Russia, front rounded vowels in numerous countries, vowel
systems with more than 5 contrasts in Indonesia…

-Mark

On Sun, 29 Sept 2024 at 04:17, Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp <
lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:

> Dear all – I’m wondering whether anybody has attempted to estimate the
> size of the following putative effect on descriptive and typological
> research:
>
>
>
> Suppose there is a particular phenomenon in Language L, the known
> properties of which are equally compatible with an analysis in terms of
> construction types (comparative concepts) A and B.
>
>
>
> Suppose furthermore that L belongs to a language family and/or linguistic
> area such that A has much more commonly been invoked in descriptions of
> languages of that family/area than B.
>
>
>
> Then to the extent that a researcher attempting to adjudicate between A
> and B wrt. L (whether in a description of L, in a typological study, or in
> coding for an evolving typological database) is aware of the prevalence of
> A-coding/analyses for languages of the family/area in question, that might
> make them more likely to code/analyze L as exhibiting A as well.
>
>
>
> So for example, a researcher who assumes languages of the family/area of L
> to be typically tenseless may be influenced by this assumption and as a
> result become (however slightly) more likely to treat L as tenseless as
> well. In contrast, if she assumes languages of the family/area of L to be
> typically tensed, that might make her ever so slightly more likely to
> analyze L also as tensed.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that this is a cognitive bias related to, and possibly a
> case of, essentialism. (And just as in the case of (other forms of)
> essentialism, the actual cognitive causes/mechanisms of the bias may vary.)
>
>
>
> But regardless, my question is, again, has anybody tried to guestimate to
> what extent the results of current typological studies may be warped by
> this kind of researcher bias? (Note that the bias may be affecting both
> authors of descriptive work and typologists using descriptive work as data,
> so there is a possible double-whammy effect.)
>
>
>
> 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 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)
>
> --
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240929/af1840aa/attachment.htm>