tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1300680252997007251.post7889026366640466173..comments2024-03-01T18:56:18.314+11:00Comments on Humans Who Read Grammars: If you are not a linguist...Hedvig Skirgårdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03689179680848604827noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1300680252997007251.post-76452812267390557662015-08-11T01:35:21.156+10:002015-08-11T01:35:21.156+10:00Thanks for your comments Asya and Simazhi. Simazhi...Thanks for your comments Asya and Simazhi. Simazhi, thanks for posting that link, you are right that McVeigh has more posts on this topic. You both comment that non-linguists should work together with linguists, if they are to be involved at all. I would just like to point out that two out of three of the studies listed by Asya as excluding linguists, Dodds et al. (2015) and Bouckaert et al. (2012), actually include a linguist among the authors, and the third study (Chen 2013) has just been overhauled last month by a collaboration between Chen and two linguists (Roberts et al. 2015). <br /> <br />(This of course leaving aside the question what actually constitutes a 'linguist', see here for some ideas: http://specgram.com/CLXXIII.4/08.slater.real.html ) <br /> <br />I think we can all agree that linguists as well as any other scientists may disagree about what is the correct approach regarding a particular question (see responses to Edge's annual question of 2014, 'What scientific idea is ready for retirement?', especially the contributions by Nick Enfield, John McWorther, and Dan Everett https://edge.org/contributors/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement ). So, while I agree with Asya's recommended course of action for non-linguists, I don't believe that the authors of papers such as the three mentioned by Asya haven't followed these recommendations. After all, educating oneself doesn't necessary discourage one to investigate contested topics such as the link between tense marking and saving (Chen 2013). Just taking that last example, there is a well-established tradition in linguistics that investigates the link between language and cognition, and although there are many spurious correlations to be found (Roberts and Winters 2013), this shouldn't stop anybody trying to investigate potential interactions. Both linguists and non-linguists will have different approaches and I stand by my point that we should embrace this diversity rather than actively try to bar outsiders from the discipline (as if we could!). <br /><br />Bouckaert et al. (2012), "Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family" (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/957.full)<br /> <br />Chen (2013), "The Effect of Language on Economic Behavior: Evidence from Savings Rates, Health Behaviors, and Retirement Assets" (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.2.690)<br /> <br />Dodds et al. (2015), "Human language reveals a universal positivity bias" (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/8/2389)<br /> <br />Roberts et al. (2015), "Future Tense and Economic Decisions: Controlling for Cultural Evolution" (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132145)<br /><br />Roberts and Winters (2013), "Linguistic Diversity and Traffic Accidents: Lessons from Statistical Studies of Cultural Traits"<br />(http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070902)Annemarie Verkerkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14747297526182358435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1300680252997007251.post-69660924500276781032015-07-24T06:41:25.549+10:002015-07-24T06:41:25.549+10:00Hi, I had a few thoughts of my own reading this.
...Hi, I had a few thoughts of my own reading this.<br /><br />I think you failed to include a related post by McVeigh: http://andreadallover.com/2015/04/12/my-corpus-brings-all-the-boys-to-the-yard/.<br /><br />And while I do think you make a valid point: don't discard other disciplines for they may have useful ideas, I also think this should ONLY happen in collaboration with linguists, so as to avoid the trap these quantitative statisticians fell into in their article. I am sincerely stupefied by the title of the first article: to say something about language in general while only using a sample of some 10 (mostly Indo-European) languages, that's just bad research, no matter how much statistics you invoke. And as statisticians, they should have realized this way before calling their article the way they did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1300680252997007251.post-91183781380878577032015-07-22T03:54:52.036+10:002015-07-22T03:54:52.036+10:00Here is my response -- too long to be posted in it...Here is my response -- too long to be posted in its entirety as a comment: <br />http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/if-you-are-not-a-linguist-learn-some-linguistics-first.htmlAsya Pereltsvaighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06111831062274618509noreply@blogger.com