Linguistics and the Scientific Method

1
Linguistics and the Scientific Method

• David Eddington
• Brigham Young University

2
How many sociolinguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?
3
How many sociolinguists does it take to change a
lightbulb?

• It varies.

4
How many theoretical linguists does it take to
change a lightbulb?
5
How many theoretical linguists does it take to
change a lightbulb?

• LGAD

6
How many theoretical linguists does it take to
change a lightbulb?

• LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device

7
How many theoretical linguists does it take to
change a lightbulb?

• LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
• Parameter Clockwise in or counterclockwise in

8
How many theoretical linguists does it take to
change a lightbulb?

• LGAD Lightbulb Changing Acquisition Device
• Parameter Clockwise in or counterclockwise in
• Constraints counterclockwise

9
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)?

10
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

11
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)

12
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 gtgt count
• count gtgt clock

13
How many theoretical linguists does it take to
change a lightbulb?
14
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.

15
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.

16
Introduction

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

17
Introduction

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

18
Introduction

• Pseudo-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.

19
Step 1 Observation

• Notice something.

20
Step 2 Hypothesis Formation

• Form a hypothesis by speculating about an
  explanation for the phenomenon.
• A The hypothesis must predict something.

21
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.

22
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

23
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

24
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 gtgt HEAD-R predicts no final stress
• But, words such as chocola have final
  stress?
• In these cases, NON-FIN ltlt HEAD-R

25
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).?

26
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'

27
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.

28
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

29
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

30
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)?

31
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.

32
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)?

33
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)?

34
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)?

35
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)?

36
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)?

37
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)?

38
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)?

39
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.

40
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).

41
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)?

42
Digression What is Linguistics About?

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

43
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)?

44
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.

45
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.

46
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!!

47
Step 3 Experimentation

• Test hypothesis by further observation or
  experimentation.

48
Step 3 Experimentation

• Test hypothesis by further observation or
  experimentation.
• A hypothesis about a phenomenon is not evidence
  for that phenomenon.

49
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).

50
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.

51
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).

52
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.

53
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.

54
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.

55
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

56
Step 4 Analyze the Data

• 1 Science uses statistics.

57
Step 4 Analyze the Data

• 1 Science uses statistics.
• 2 Both confirmed and refuted hypotheses are
  valuable.
• A Cold fusion

58
Step 4 Analyze the Data

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

59
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).

60
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).

61
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).

62
Conclusions

• Why follow the scientific method in linguistics?

63
Conclusions

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

64
Conclusions

• Why follow the scientific method in linguistics?
• A Because making empirical claims without
  following scientific methodology is
  pseudoscience.

65
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

66
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)?

67
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)?

68

• Thank you