Summary: Google Scholar is great, but its inclusiveness and mix of automatically updated and hand-curated profiles means you should never take any of its numbers at face value. Case in point: the power couple Prof. Et Al and Dr. A. Author, whose profiles I created following Scholar’s recommended settings (and a bit of manual embellishment). If you have a Scholar profile, make sure you don’t let Scholar update the publication list automatically. If you’re looking at somebody else’s profile, take it with a big pinch of salt, especially when they have a reasonably common name or when messy entries or weird citation distributions indicate that it is being automatically updated.
Just out in Trends in Cognitive Sciences: a review paper by yours truly with Damián Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten Christiansen and Padraic Monaghan. It is titled “Arbitrariness, iconicity and systematicity in language”. You can download it here (PDF). Here is a simple summary:
An important principle in linguistics is that words show no predictable relation between their form and their meaning (arbitrariness). Yet this principle does not have exclusive reign. Some words have forms that suggest aspects of their meaning (iconicity). Some groups of words have subtle statistical properties that give away something about their grammatical function (systematicity). To fully explain how words work, we need to recognise that the principle of arbitrariness is not the whole story, and that words can additionally show degrees of iconicity and systematicity.
Here is are six take-away points:
- Often, arbitrariness is thought to be not just necessary but also sufficient to explain how words work. We show this is not the case: non-arbitrary patterns in language are more common than assumed, and they have implications for how we learn, process and use language.
- Often, arbitrariness and iconicity are pitted against each other. We show this is an oversimplification: iconic words have a degree of arbitrariness and the two do not exclude each other.
- Often, the role of iconicity in language is thought to be minimal. We show that it can differ dramatically across languages and also varies as a function of meaning and modality (e.g. signed or spoken).
- Sometimes, iconicity and systematicity have been confused. We show that distinguishing them helps us to better understand vocabulary structure, by showing why we may expect iconicity to show certain universal patterns while systematicity allows more language-specific patterns.
- Sometimes, we may forget that words are not abstract ideas but tools that have their own history. We argue that the way words are learned and used influences their form, and that this may help explain how arbitrariness, iconicity and systematicity pattern the way they do.
- Sometimes, language scientists make far-reaching claims based on studying a small portion of the vocabulary, or a small number of (typically Western) languages. We argue that we can get a better picture of language by looking at a wider range of evidence.
New paper out: Folk definitions in linguistic fieldwork. In which I discuss a procedure that is part of many field work routines, but seldomly appreciated as a method of its own. Abstract:
Informal paraphrases by native speaker consultants are crucial tools in linguistic fieldwork. When recorded, archived, and analysed, they offer rich data that can be mined for many purposes, from lexicography to semantic typology and from ethnography to the investigation of gesture and speech. This paper describes a procedure for the collection and analysis of folk definitions that are native (in the language under study rather than the language of analysis), informal (spoken rather than written), and multi-modal (preserving the integrity of gesture-speech composite utterances). The value of folk definitions is demonstrated using the case of ideophones, words that are notoriously hard to study using traditional elicitation methods. Three explanatory strategies used in a set of folk definitions of ideophones are examined: the offering of everyday contexts of use, the use of depictive gestures, and the use of sense relations as semantic anchoring points. Folk definitions help elucidate word meanings that are hard to capture, bring to light cultural background knowledge that often remains implicit, and take seriously the crucial involvement of native speaker consultants in linguistic fieldwork. They provide useful data for language documentation and are an essential element of any toolkit for linguistic and ethnographic field research.
Jerome Bruner (who turns 100 today!) writes in his 1983 autobiography (emphasis in original):
“How puzzling that there should be so much emphasis … on the underlying genetic program that makes language acquisition possible and so little on the ways in which the culture, the parents and more “expert” speakers (including other, older children) help the genetic program to find expression in actual language use. The educational level of parents deeply affects how well, richly and abstractly their children will talk (and listen). It is not just the grammar of sentences that is at issue, but discourse, dialogue, the capacity to interpret spoken and written language.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that the need to use language fully as an instrument for participating in a complex culture (just as the infant uses it to enter the simple culture of his surround) is what provides the engine for language acquisition. The genetic ‘program’ for language is only half the story. The support system is the other half.”
Three decades later, proposals for the other half, what Bruner calls “the engine of language acquisition”, have become increasingly well-articulated and supported by rich empirical data (cf., for instance, all the research reviewed in Tomasello’s (2008) Constructing a language). But the two halves (genetic underpinnings and cultural scaffolding) are still not regularly talking to each other. Indeed they’re frequently pretending that the other half has no story at all… Why?
Bruner, Jerome S. 1983. In Search of Mind: Essays in Autobiography. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Series. New York u.a: Harper [and] Row.
Together with Giovanni Rossi I’ve organised an invited panel at the 14th International Pragmatic Conference in Antwerp, July 2015. Contributors include Jörg Zinken & Arnulf Deppermann; Sandy Thompson & Yoshi Ono; Stef Spronck; Giovanni Rossi, Simeon Floyd, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Mark Dingemanse, Kobin Kendrick & N.J. Enfield; Ilana Mushin; and Mark Dingemanse. More information here.
— rolsi journal (@rolsi_journal) July 27, 2015
Charles F. Hockett (1916-2000) is well-known for his work on the design features of language. Many linguists will know his 1960 article in Scientific American1 in which thirteen design features are nicely illustrated (though Hockett himself preferred the more developed 1968 version co-authored with Altmann).
Hockett worked in many areas of linguistics, from phonology to morphology and from linguistic anthropology to semantics. One of his later books — which I came across while doing research for our new book series Conceptual Foundations of Language Science — has the intriguing, slightly cumbersome title “Refurbishing our Foundations: Elementary Linguistics from an Advanced Point of View”.
In this book, written towards the end of a long career, Hockett takes a birds’ eye view of the field of linguistics and presents his own perspective, which is often sensible, sometimes a bit idiosyncratic, and always interesting. The introduction is pleasantly constructive, in contrast to some other approaches (Hornstein, “Against open-mindedness” comes to mind). Hockett’s observations on the “eclipsing stance” are as relevant today as they were three decades ago. So here is Hockett on open-mindedness:
No one in any culture known to us denies the importance of language. Partly because it is important, partly just because, like Mount Everest, it is there, we should like to know how it works. To that end, people from time immemorial have examined it or speculated about it, trying to come up with cogent commentary.
What one sees of language, as of anything, depends on the angle of view, and different explorers approach from different directions. Unfortunately, sometimes they become so enamored of their particular approach that they incline to scoff at any other, so that instead of everybody being the richer for the variety, everybody loses. That attitude has been called the “eclipsing stance.”
The early followers of Noam Chomsky adopted this stance, but they were by no means the first: some of us post-Bloomfieldians came close to it in the 1940s (though Leonard Bloomfield himself never did), and so, apparently, did the Junggrammatiker in the late 1870s. But it is a wrong position to take, even toward those who have themselves assumed it. It is obviously impossible to see all of anything from a single vantage point. So it is never inappropriate to seek new perspectives, and always unseemly to derogate those favored by others. Or, to use a different figure: the blind man touching the tail has reason to say an elephant is like a rope, but no right to claim an elephant is not also like a wall or a tree-trunk or a snake.
I don’t mean we shouldn’t be critical. I do mean we should try to be most wary just of those propositions that we ourselves hold, or have held, closest to our hearts — above all, those we come to realize we have been taking for granted. Scientific hypotheses are formulated not to be protected but to be attacked. The good hypothesis defends itself, needing no help from enthusiastic partisans.
- Hockett, Charles F. “The Origin of Speech.” Scientific American 203, no. 3 (1960): 89–96.
- Hockett, Charles F., and Stuart A. Altmann. “A Note on Design Features.” In Animal Communication: Techniques of Study and Results of Research, edited by Thomas Sebeok, 61–72. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968.
- Hockett, 1987, Refurbishing our Foundations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Two months ago we started a new book series with the innovative open access publisher Language Science Press: Conceptual Foundations of Language Science. We’re proud to announce that the series published its first book this week. The book, Natural causes of language is introduced here by Nick Enfield:
About the series
Conceptual Foundations of Language Science publishes short and accessible books that explore well-defined topics in the conceptual foundations of language science. The series provides a venue for conceptual arguments and explorations that do not require the traditional book-length treatment, yet that demand more space than a typical journal article allows. Books in the series are peer-reviewed, ensuring high scholarly quality; and they are open access, ensuring universal availability.
The editorial board of the series spans the full diversity of the language sciences, from phonology to syntax and semantics, from grammar to discourse, and from generative to functional and typological approaches to language: Balthasar Bickel (University of Zürich), Claire Bowern (Yale University), Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (University of Helsinki), William Croft (University of New Mexico), Rose-Marie Déchaine (University of British Columbia), William A. Foley (University of Sydney), William F. Hanks (University of California at Berkeley), Paul Kockelman (Yale University), Keren Rice (University of Toronto), Sharon Rose (University of California at San Diego), Frederick J. Newmeyer (University of Washington), Wendy Sandler (University of Haifa), and Dan Sperber (Central European University, Budapest).
Two basic ideas underlie the series. The first is that in times of empirical advances and methodological innovations, it is especially important to be clear and explicit about conceptual foundations. As we write in the series blurb, “In language science, our concepts about language underlie our thinking and organize our work. They determine our assumptions, direct our attention, and guide our hypotheses and our reasoning. Only with clarity about conceptual foundations can we pose coherent research questions, design critical experiments, and collect crucial data.”
The second idea is to take advantage of the affordances of open access publishing and step in a market gap left by commercial publishers. As we explain: “Traditional publishers tend not to publish very short books. The reasons are economic. With open-access, the problem does not arise. One benefit of the short format is that the book is accessible and quickly readable. Another is that authors will find writing such a book attractive because it is manageable, given the usual time constraints, especially for more senior authors.”
Do you have an idea for a book, or do you have a manuscript which would fit the goals of the series? Consider submitting it to Conceptual Foundations of Language Science. You’ll find further information on the website. Also check out Language Science Press, the visionary open access publishing house that hosts our series as well as a dozen others.
Today, Nature published a news feature by Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch) in which I am quoted about some problems with Editorial Manager (EM). This post provides the background to what I say there. Disclaimer: I am not a security expert, though the basic problems should be obvious to anyone caring about security and privacy on the web.
Editorial Manager (EM), the submission and reviewing software used by thousands of academic journals, routinely throws around passwords in plaintext. If you publish with any of the journals using EM, you’ll get emails with your password in plain text, even if you didn’t ask for it. Some configurations of EM even display the password in plain view on the user account page. This means that Editorial Manager does not safely encrypt passwords, which presents a massive security risk. Aries Systems, the firm behind Editorial Manager, defends itself by saying that (1) journal editors want these options and (2) they don’t collect financial information anyway. Those replies skirt the real issue: Editorial Manager, trusted by millions of academic authors and reviewers, fails to implement some of the most basic rules for the secure and responsible handling of passwords and user accounts.
Every academic will run into Editorial Manager and its kin sooner or later. This is a piece of web-based software that helps the editors of academic journals to manage the submission and review procedure. Literally thousands of journals across all disciplines use it, from well-known interdisciplinary ones like PLOS ONE to niche journals like Policy and Society and Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology. Elsevier has its own branded version (EES) of what is essentially the same software.
EM requires authors, reviewers and editors to register an account. With such an account, users can submit and review manuscripts. The registration procedure asks for the usual username / email / password combination — nothing very special so far. Until you start using the system a bit more and you discover that it handles your password in, shall we say, a very casual way.
Take PLOS ONE (though note that any other journal using EM is vulnerable in the same ways). Say you submit a paper, or get a request to review one. You’ll get an email notification — with your password. You didn’t ask for this. In fact, even if you did, it shouldn’t be able to give it to you; at most it should offer you to set or reset it. Many of us haven’t seen plaintext password since the early 2000s; in the last decade, better and safer methods have been introduced everywhere, except at Editorial Manager.1
Packet sniffing and password reuse
I shouldn’t really have to explain why this is seriously problematic in multiple ways. Indeed why this is so is written all over the internet (1 2 3 4 5). The fact that some system sends you your password by email means that your password could be intercepted by any old packet sniffer on a network that you’re using (think free wifi). It also means, obviously, that your password can be retrieved by anyone who manages to get access to your email — either by looking over your shoulder, by rummaging in your inbox while you’re away from your computer, or by more sophisticated means.
Worse, the fact that the system can send out passwords means that passwords are stored in plaintext form, or using easily reversible encryption (which, experts say, comes down to the same). As plaintextoffenders puts it, the password is there on the server, waiting for someone to come and take it. And not only your password is there. It’s the passwords of the millions of users of the thousands of academic journals using this centrally hosted service. That, coupled with the knowledge that about 60% of users reuse passwords across different web services, means a security risk of massive proportions. Check out this XKCD comic for the basics on password reuse.
So EM freely shares passwords in emails. It also displays passwords on profile pages, offering further proof of the lack of encryption (or the use of reversible encryption). Thousands of academic journals crucially depend on this same system, making their hundreds of thousands of peer reviewers and authors sign up for it. You would think that with “periodic third party security and infrastructure audits” (according to Aries’ hosting checklist), Aries Systems would at least have ensured that the most basic lessons in user account security are taken care of. Apparently not.
Aries Systems: ‘It’s optional, so don’t worry’
While preparing a report on this matter in May 2013, I communicated my findings to the Editorial Manager team, because I thought it would be reasonable to give them the chance to respond to the issue. After a first email went unanswered, a reminder email led to an email exchange with Jennifer Fleet, Director of Client Services at Aries Systems, the company behind EM. Here are the most crucial excerpts from what she wrote to me (she gracefully gave me permission to cite this):
Our software (Editorial Manager) has a variety of configuration options that are made available to our publishing customers. The inclusion of credentials in emails is an optional configuration choice. The configuration option to include log-in credentials in emails is desired by some publishers because of the high convenience factor it provides to end users who infrequently access the system. However, inclusion of credentials in emails can also be entirely suppressed and many publishers in fact do not include credentials in emails. We have a wide variety of publishing customers and each is empowered by the administrative capabilities in the system to make their own choices concerning this type of policy.
While honest, this reply suggests that Aries Systems doesn’t realise how important it is to handle user information in a responsible way. The defense is basically: our clients want it, so we do it. But clients should never dictate security design. As a common principle in web development states, your responsibility goes beyond your application.
Modern, safe, and user-friendly ways of handling user account security (involving hashed+salted storage of passwords with tokenised ways of resetting (but never retrieving!) them) have been available for at least five years now. People have thought long and hard about this problem. Repeated breaches have shown how dangerous it is to use anything less than secure encryption and robust ways of resetting passwords. It is remarkable to see such a blatant disregard of industry-standard security measures.
Aries Systems continues by saying, “We do encrypt all passwords.” Here is a simple technical fact: any system that offers the possibility to switch on bizarre options like sending out or displaying plaintext passwords has to store its passwords in such a way that they can be easily fetched and decrypted. No matter how creatively you define “encryption”, you can’t get around that as long as you offer this ‘service’ to your customers.2
Aries Systems: ‘We don’t collect financial information’
Aries Systems: “Also, Editorial Manager does not collect or store any financial information.
I would be happy to discuss this with you further by telephone or email, and I hope you will understand the dynamics and trade-offs under consideration.”
The final defense is that Editorial Manager doesn’t store financial information. This sounds like, “You haven’t given us your creditcard, so we’ll just handle your user accounts in an irresponsible way.” This disregards the fundamental principle, mentioned above, that your responsibility goes beyond your application. Additionally, it is of course only apparently a mitigating circumstance. It is widely known that about 60% of users reuse passwords across websites.
If malicious hackers were to get access to an EM server, how many of the emails and passwords would match with accounts on other services that do allow financial transactions? The userbase of EM consists of highly educated people in academia. They have creditcards, Amazon accounts, Paypal wallets, iTunes IDs, et cetera. A significant chunk of them may use the same password for some of those services. Put these things together and suddenly Editorial Manager becomes a very interesting hacking target. (I would not say this out loud here if I had not communicated all this to Aries Systems well over a year ago.)
It’s not just about financial information
The problem is not just about credit cards and such, but about the security of the very process of scholarly publishing. Editorial Manager is easily one of the weakest links in the chain of peer review. What if you could easily get access to someone’s account — pass yourself off as a peer reviewer, say, or get access to an editor’s account to invite your own friends (or yourself) to peer review your own papers?
This is not mere conjecture. It’s happened already, as documented by RetractionWatch: Elsevier’s editorial system (a branded version of EM) was hacked, leading to a peer review scandal and ultimately to a couple of retractions. The details of the case aren’t known, but with a link in the chain that is as weak as EM’s lighthearted handling of password security, I wouldn’t be surprised if some form of password hacking played a role; with the lax security of Editorial Manager, getting access to passwords is child’s play.
Let me end on a positive note. The journal Language recently transitioned to the open source Open Journal Systems, which, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, handles passwords and account information in a much more secure and modern way. Such is the power of open source. Of course, this doesn’t really help us end users: we are unlikely to choose a publication venue on the basis of the manuscript management software they force us to use. But it does show that there are good models out there. Let’s hope that the dust kicked up by the Nature news story will bring some change for the better. Meanwhile, if you’re forced to use Editorial Manager, use disposable passwords and write to the editor to tell them of the risks of the system.
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
- To be clear, this is not about sending the user a password upon first registration. Although even this is frowned upon by security experts, some websites do this while still storing the password in a secure way. Editorial Manager, however, sends users their password in plaintext when they’re already registered, without them asking for it — and it does so routinely, for instance when sending out notifications of submissions awaiting approval. [↩]
- In a follow-up email exchange, Fleet refused to answer my more detailed questions about their security design, “due to the potential exposure to which that may lead”. Even without that information it is already clear that passwords are not being hashed and salted. If they were, the system wouldn’t be able to give me my password. [↩]
Charles Hockett had interesting views on the relation between iconicity and arbitrariness. Here is a key quote:
The difference of dimensionality means that signages1 can be iconic to an extent to which languages cannot; and they are, even though, as Frishberg (1975) tells us, the trend in Ameslan for over a century has been towards more and more conventionalization.
Now, while arbitrariness has its points (see, e.g., Hockett 1960a, p. 212), it also has drawbacks (Hewes, ANYAS, p. 495), so that it is perhaps more revealing to put the difference the other way around, as a limitation of spoken languages.
Indeed, the dimensionality of signing is that of life itself, and it would be stupid not to resort to picturing, pantomiming, or pointing whenever convenient. (Even when speaking we do this: for example, we utter a demonstrative such as there, which indicates relative distance but not direction, and supplement it by a pointing gesture that indicates direction but not distance.)
But when a representation of some fourdimensional hunk of life has to be compressed into the single dimension of speech, most iconicity is necessarily squeezed out. In one-dimensional projection, an elephant is indistinguishable from a woodshed. Speech perforce is largely arbitrary; if we speakers take pride in that, it is because in 50,000 years or so of talking we have learned to make a virtue of necessity (cf. Hill 1972, pp. 313-15).
Linearity means that single devices must serve multiple functions, whereupon structural ambiguity becomes par for the course (see C. R. Peters, Origins, pp. 83-102). We hear Carbon fourteen, Strontium ninety; out of context, we do not know whether this is mention of two radioactive isotopes, or a roadside marker giving the distance to two towns on the road ahead, or the final score in the game between Carbon Free Academy and Strontium Senior High.
It is such ambiguities, forced by limited dimensionality if by nothing else, that have given rise to the- notion of “surface versus deep structure,” which Stokoe evokes for the remark of which the present paragraph is an expanded paraphrase-his trenchant observation (ANYAS, p. 510) that in sign, as over against speech, “surface and depth more nearly coincide.” (pp. 264-5)
Hockett, C. F. 1978. “In Search of Jove’s Brow.” American Speech 53 (4): 243–313. doi:10.2307/455140.
- This could be what Hockett means to use; the term appears again further on. But given the context it also could be a typo for “sign language”. [↩]
African ideophones and their contribution to linguistics
Africa’s linguistic diversity has impacted the study of language in many ways. The articulatory phonetics of the Khoi and San languages prompted methodological innovations in phonetics, the tonal systems of West-African languages spurred the development of autosegmental phonology, and the ornate morphology of Bantu prompted syntacticians to reconsider the balance between transformational rules and lexical elaboration. In this workshop we consider how the study of ideophones can contribute to theory and methods in linguistics.
Ideophones (also known as mimetics or expressives) are marked words that depict sensory imagery. A major word class in many African languages, they are somewhat of an inconvenient truth for the dogma that spoken languages rarely feature iconicity in the lexicon. Their phonology is marked in a way that bears a clear relation to the broader phonological system of the language, providing for a unique window into phonological structure. Their prosody and morphosyntax set them apart as special words, yet they are more deeply integrated in linguistic subsystems than is often assumed, raising interesting questions about what is in and outside grammar. Their meanings are rich and imagistic, providing unparalleled ways to talk about sensory perceptions. All of these properties represent areas where ideophones can shed light on the design features of language, the iconic affordances of speech, and the nature of human communicative competence.
This workshop gathers international experts to present recent research on ideophones and to put recent developments into theoretical context. Submissions are expected to focus on the connection between ideophone research and foundational issues in linguistics, from phonology to prosody and from syntax to meaning. We encourage papers that show how new approaches can shed light on old questions, and how the systematic study of ideophones can contribute new insights to our understanding of the structure of language and languages. One and a half centuries after the earliest descriptions of ideophones in African languages, the 8th World Congress of African Linguistics in Kyoto offers a unique chance to take stock of what we have learned so far from ideophones, and to explore ways to integrate this knowledge into the broader language sciences.
Deadline for abstract submission: October 31, 2014
Notification of acceptance: December 1, 21014
Conference: August 21-24, Kyoto
Abstracts should follow the general guidelines established for the submission of abstracts for WOCAL 8, which can be found here: is.gd/wocal8abstracts