linguistics and the scientific method david eddington brigham young university
TRANSCRIPT
Linguistics and the Scientific Method
David EddingtonBrigham Young University
How many sociolinguists does it take to change a lightbulb?
How many sociolinguists does it take to change a lightbulb?
It varies.
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
LGAD
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
Parameter: Clockwise in or counterclockwise in
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
Parameter: Clockwise in or counterclockwise in
Constraints: *counterclockwise
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
Parameter: Clockwise in or counterclockwise in
Constraints: *counterclockwise (*count)
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
Parameter: Clockwise in or counterclockwise in
Constraints: *counterclockwise (*count)*clockwise
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
Parameter: Clockwise in or counterclockwise in
Constraints: *counterclockwise (*count)*clockwise (*clock)
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
Parameter: Clockwise in or counterclockwise in
Constraints: *counterclockwise (*count)*clockwise (*clock)
Constrain Rankings: *clock >> *count*count >> *clock
How many theoretical linguists does it take to change a
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.
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.
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
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]
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 [-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
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 linguistic hypotheses that ARE falsifiable
1 Reflexives and pronouns cannot have the same referent (Chomsky
1981).
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 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'
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.
C The hypothesis must deal with spatiotemporal events.
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.
C The hypothesis must deal with spatiotemporal events.
Non-spatiotemporal linguistic entities
1 Ideal speaker-hearer
Ideal Actual
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.
C The hypothesis must deal with spatiotemporal events.
Non-spatiotemporal linguistic entities
1 Ideal speaker-hearer
2 Competence
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.
C The hypothesis must deal with spatiotemporal events.
Non-spatiotemporal linguistic entities
1 Ideal speaker-hearer
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)
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.
C The hypothesis must deal with spatiotemporal events.
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.
Step 2: Hypothesis Formation
“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)
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)
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)
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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)
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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)
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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
2005)
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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)
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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)
Several pages later Kager discusses how his theory relates to language
acquisition.
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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).
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).
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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).
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)
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
Is it any wonder people are confused about the scientific status of linguistics?
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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)
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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)
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.
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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)
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.
Digression: What is Linguistics About?
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.
Step 3: Experimentation
Test hypothesis by further observation or experimentation.
A hypothesis about a phenomenon is not evidence for that phenomenon.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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 the observation.
Alvord (2003) shows Spanish speakers don't reject words like *te.lé.fos.no.
Step 3: Experimentation
Data must be publically available. This allows replication.
Examples of studies that are not publically available:
A Anything based on personal introspection.
Step 3: Experimentation
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.
Step 4: Analyze the Data
1 Science uses statistics.
2 Both confirmed and refuted hypotheses are valuable.
A Cold fusion
Step 4: Analyze the Data
C Refuted hypotheses should be abandoned, or modified and further tested.
Step 4: Analyze the Data
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).
Step 4: Analyze the Data
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).
2 The counter evidence “violates more the letter than the spirit of the projection
principle.” (Burzio 1986).
Step 4: Analyze the Data
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).
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
Why follow the scientific method in linguistics?
A Because making empirical claims without following scientific methodology is
pseudoscience.
Conclusions
Why follow the scientific method in linguistics?
A Because empirical claims without following scientific methodology is pseudoscience.
We don't want linguistics to be thought of as:
Conclusions
Why follow the scientific method in linguistics?
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