linguistics and the scientific method david eddington brigham young university

Linguistics and the Scientific Method

David EddingtonBrigham Young University

How many sociolinguists does it take to change a lightbulb?

It varies.

How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a

lightbulb?

LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device

lightbulb?

Parameter: Clockwise in or counterclockwise in

lightbulb?

Constraints: *counterclockwise

lightbulb?

Constraints: *counterclockwise (*count)

lightbulb?

Constraints: *counterclockwise (*count)*clockwise

lightbulb?

Constraints: *counterclockwise (*count)*clockwise (*clock)

lightbulb?

Constraints: *counterclockwise (*count)*clockwise (*clock)

Constrain Rankings: *clock >> *count*count >> *clock

lightbulb?

Introduction

Empirical or scientific studies follow the scientific method.

Observe a phenomenon. Formulate a hypothesis to explain it. Carry out an experiment or collect other observations to test the hypothesis. Analyze the results to determine whether they confirm or refute the hypothesis.

Introduction

Empirical or scientific studies follow the scientific method.

Observe a phenomenon. Formulate a hypothesis to explain it. Carry out an experiment or collect other observations to test the hypothesis. Analyze the results to determine whether they confirm or refute the hypothesis.

Non-scientific studies don't follow the scientific method nor make scientific claims.

Introduction

Pseudo-science makes scientific sounding claims without following the scientific method.

Introduction

Pseudo-science makes scientific sounding claims without following the scientific method.

IntroductionPseudo-sciencies often display these characteristics:

They ignore contradictory evidence. Their proponents often react in a hostile manner when their orthodoxy is challenged. They use an inordinate amount of technical jargon. The correctness of their ideas is supported by argumentation, reasoning, intuition,

introspection, and reference to authority figures rather than tangible evidence. Very little new real-world knowledge is produced. It is impossible to subject their theories to scrutiny. Explanations are vague and often involve scientific terms used out of context.

Step 1: Observation

Notice something.

Step 2: Hypothesis Formation

Form a hypothesis by speculating about an explanation for the phenomenon.

A The hypothesis must predict something.

B The hypothesis must be potentially falsifiable.

Examples of unfalsifiable hypotheses

1 Bloodletting and yellow fever

2 Flapping rule in American English (Kahn 1976)

Flaps occur after [-cons] segments: city, sorted vs. aptitude

Flaps vary after 'l' (faculty, altar) so 'l' is either [+cons] or [-cons]

2 Flapping rule in American English (Kahn 1976)

Flaps occur after [-consonantal] segments: city, sorted vs. aptitude

Flaps vary after [l] (faculty, altar) so [l] is either [+cons] or [-cons]

3 Dutch stress (Oostendorp 1997)

HEAD-R: Primary stress falls on the right edge of a word.

NON-FIN: Primary stress may not fall on the final syllable of a word.

NON-FIN >> HEAD-R predicts no final stress

But, words such as chocola have final stress?

In these cases, NON-FIN << HEAD-R

Examples of linguistic hypotheses that ARE falsifiable

1 Reflexives and pronouns cannot have the same referent (Chomsky

1981).

Examples of linguistic hypotheses that ARE falsifiable

1 Reflexives and pronouns cannot have the same referent (Chomsky 1981).

2 Word-final deletion of 't' and 'd' occurs more in high frequency words

(Bybee 2000).

just is pronounced jus' more than pest is pronounced pes'

C The hypothesis must deal with spatiotemporal events.

Non-spatiotemporal linguistic entities

1 Ideal speaker-hearer

Ideal Actual

2 Competence

“Suppose we find some child who is quite adept at basic arithmetic. One possible hypothesis about the 'competence' thought to underlie this skill might be to attribute the child, not with something so mundane as a learned, laborious, step‑by‑step procedure for carrying out simple arithmetic operations, but rather with knowledge of number theory. And what if experimental results are found that seem to fly in the face of this hypothesis? Just chalk them up as 'performance errors' and the well‑formed theory remains inviolate.” (Derwing 1983)

Non-spatiotemporal entities in physics

Strings

1 They are one dimensional objects.

2 Exist in space containing 10-24 dimensions.

3 Appear as protons or electons, etc. depending of frequency of vibration.

“And it turns out that the best and the brightest young theorists, instead of being concerned about the experimental enterprise, are going off among themselves and doing their thing with the doors closed. Because no one else is interested in coming, they're all making these secret signs to one another and putting incomprehensible formulas together that to them are, of course, central and simple and predictive and whatnot but to us are a little bit irrelevant.

They're answering a bunch of questions, but their questions lie completely within string theory, which has nothing to do with experiment.

What the string theorists do is arguably physics. It deals with the physical world. They're attempting to make a consistent theory that explains the interactions we see among particles and gravity as well. That's certainly physics, but it's a kind of physics that is not yet testable. It does not make predictions that have anything to do with experiments that can be done in the laboratory or with observations that could be made in space or from telescopes.

That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?” (Glashow 2003)

Digression: What is Linguistics About?

1 According to some, linguistics is not empirical.

A Its goal is to find “all and only intuitively valid formulae.” (Itkonen1976)

1 According to some, linguistics is not empirical.

A Its goal is to find “all and only intuitively valid formulae.” (Itkonen1976)

B Linguistics deals with axioms about linguistic structure which “make it possible

to deduce all true statements about the system from a small set of prior assumptions

about its nature.” (Kac 44)

1 According to some linguistics is not empirical.

A Its goal is to “all and only intuitively valid formulae.” (Itkonen1976)

B Linguistics deals with axioms about linguistic structure which “make it possible to

deduce all true statements about the system from a small set of prior assumptions about

its nature.” (Kac 44)

C “Grammars do not (and moreover, are not intended to) dictate the ways in which

the computation of speaking and listening proceed.” (Bradley 1980)

2 According to others, linguistics deal with real-world entities.

A “Do speakers really retrieve morphemes from their memory, invoke rules, go

through all these labours when speaking? We think they do.” (Bromberg and Halle

2 According to others, linguistics deal with real-world entities.

A “Do speakers really retrieve morphemes from their memory, invoke rules, go through all

these labours when speaking? We think they do” (Bromberg and Halle 2000).

B “The categories and operations of generative grammar are hypotheses about the

representations and computations in the minds and brains of speakers.” (Marantz

2 Others espouse both empirical and non-empirical views at the same time.

A “Explaining the actual processing of linguistic knowledge by the human mind is

not the goal of the formal theory of grammar . . . a grammatical model should not be

equated with its computational implementation.” (Kager 1999)

A “Explaining the actual processing of linguistic knowledge by the human mind is not

the goal of the formal theory of grammar . . . a grammatical model should not be equated

with its computational implementation.” (Kager 1999)

Several pages later Kager discusses how his theory relates to language

acquisition.

with its computational implementation” (Kager 1999).

Several pages later Kager discusses how OT relates to language acquisition.

B Linguisitics is “a branch of cognitive psychology.” (Chomsky 1972)

Linguistic rules are psychologically real (Chomsky 1980).

with its computational implementation” (Kager 1999).

Several pages later Kager discusses how OT relates to language acquisition.

B Linguisitics is “a branch of cognitive psychology.” (Chomsky 1972)

Linguistic rules are psychologically real (Chomsky 1980).

“Although we may describe the grammar G as a system of processes and rules that apply in a certain order to relate sound and meaning, we are not entitled to take this as a description of the successive acts of a performance model.” (Chomsky 1972)

Is it any wonder people are confused about the scientific status of linguistics?

The problem consists of confusing empirical and non-empirical approaches.

“No one confuses psychological theories of how people make inferences with the logical

theories of implication, or psychological theories of how people perform arithmetical

calculations with mathematical theories of numbers. Yet, in the exact parallel case of

linguistics, conceptualists do not make the distinction, conflating a psychological

theory of how people speak and understand speech with a theory of the language

itself.” (Katz 1985)

linguistics, conceptualists do not make the distinction, conflating a psychological theory of

how people speak and understand speech with a theory of the language itself.” (Katz 1985)

Psycholinguistic evidence doesn't relate to the most elegant, concise, intuitive analysis.

The most elegant, concise, intuitive analysis isn't necessarily part of actual cognitive

processing.

linguistics, conceptualists do not make the distinction, conflating a psychological theory of

how people speak and understand speech with a theory of the language itself.” (Katz 1985)

Psycholinguistic evidence doesn't relate to most elegant, concise, intuitive analysis.

Most elegant, concise, intuitive analysis isn't necessarily used in actual cognitive processing.

An analysis is pseudoscientific when it makes claims about the real world without

following scientific methodology.

So, choose either an empirical or non-empirical approach and

then limit your conclusions to your own domain. Don't make

claims that belong to the domain of the other approach!!

Step 3: Experimentation

Test hypothesis by further observation or experimentation.

A hypothesis about a phenomenon is not evidence for that phenomenon.

Examples of how hypothesis and evidence are conflated:

1 Hypotheis: Perform may not be followed by a mass noun: perform a trick, *perform labor (Chomsky 1962).

Evidence: “I am a native speaker of English.” (Chomsky 1962)In other words, his hypothesis about perform is it's own evidence.

2 Hypothesis: Spanish speakers have a constraint against stress as in *te.lé.fos.no (antepenultimate with a closed penultimate, Harris 1983).

Evidence: No words of this sort in Spanish. The observation in the lexicon is also the evidence for psychological reality of the observation.

Examples of how hypothesis and evidence are conflated

Evidence: No words of this sort in Spanish. The observation in the lexicon is also the evidence for the observation.

Alvord (2003) shows Spanish speakers don't reject words like *te.lé.fos.no.

Data must be publically available. This allows replication.

Examples of studies that are not publically available:

A Anything based on personal introspection.

Data must be publically available. This allows replication.

Examples of studies that are not publically available:

A Anything based on personal introspection.B Lozonov's Suggestopedia

Step 4: Analyze the Data

1 Science uses statistics.

2 Both confirmed and refuted hypotheses are valuable.

A Cold fusion

C Refuted hypotheses should be abandoned, or modified and further tested.

D It is tempting to ignore counter evidence:

1 In linguistics it is often deemed “uninteresting” or “peripherial” to the core of

the theory (Schütze, 1996).

D It is tempting to ignore counter evidence:

the theory (Schütze 1996).

2 The counter evidence “violates more the letter than the spirit of the projection

principle.” (Burzio 1986).

D It is tempting to ignore counter evidence.

the theory (Schütze 1996).

2 The counter evidence “violates more the letter than the spirit of the projection

principle.” (Burzio 1986).

3 Chosmky cited A-over-A principle years after his own student refuted it

(Haley and Lunsford 1994).

Conclusions

Why follow the scientific method in linguistics?

Conclusions

No nya nya. Both empirical and non-empirical are worthy pursuits.

Conclusions

A Because making empirical claims without following scientific methodology is

pseudoscience.

Conclusions

A Because empirical claims without following scientific methodology is pseudoscience.

We don't want linguistics to be thought of as:

Conclusions

A Because empirical claims without following scientific methodology is pseudoscience.

B Lack of progress and stagnation will occur.

“The explanations they [Freudian psychologists] provided created only the illusion of understanding. By attempting to explain everything after the fact, they barred the door to any advance. Progress occurs only when a theory does not predict everything but instead makes specific predictions that tell us --in advance-- something specific about the world.” (Stanovich 1996)

Conclusions

The scientific method isn't perfect, but it's the best we have.

"The scientific method is the only reliable way to seek out the truth of natural events. Yes, experiments can fail spectacularly, interpretation of experiments can be misguided, and science can make mistakes. The nature of science is self-correcting. No major fallacy can long persist in the face of a progressive increase in knowledge.” (Collins 2006)

Thank you

linguistics and the scientific method david eddington brigham young university

counterclockwise slide

count slide

clock slide

acquisition device slide

lgad slide

theoretical linguists

scientific claims

acquisition device parameter

Documents

the eddington transport study - uk government web...

eddington inspired born-infeld...

eddington-einstein eclipse 1919

graduate student handbook · 2020-04-15 · graduate...

a high eddington-ratio, true seyfert 2 galaxy candidate...

lecture 9 stellar structure equations. review: the eddington...

reluctant pioneer of nuclear astrophysics: eddington and

the two-level atom milne-eddington model curve of … · 8....

arthur stanley eddington: a centennial tribute - department...

disambiguating spanish change of state verbs1 david...

linguistics at otago · analysis, neurolinguistics,...

disser t a ÇÃ o de mestrado eddington

radiation hydrodynamic simulations of super-eddington...

radiation hydrodynamic simulations of super-eddington...

digitzed by sophie brigham young university · digitzed by...

getting to eddington and beyond in agn and binaries!

1st eddington workshop. córdoba, june 14th, 2001 j. miguel...

curriculum vitae royal skousen - byu humanities · 1969 ba...

bending space–time: a commentary on dyson, eddington and

david eddington - department of linguistics and english...