In a recent paper published in the Journal of Language Evolution, Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzad005, KEW) challenge the results presented in one of my papers (Koplenig, Royal Society Open Science, 6, 181274 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181274), in which I tried to show through a series of statistical analyses that large numbers of L2 (second language) speakers do not seem to affect the (grammatical or statistical) complexity of a language. To this end, I focus on the way in which the Ethnologue assesses language status: a language is characterised as vehicular if, in addition to being used by L1 (first language) speakers, it should also have a significant number of L2 users. KEW criticise both the use of vehicularity as a (binary) indicator of whether a language has a significant number of L2 users and the idea of imputing a zero proportion of L2 speakers to non-vehicular languages whenever a direct estimate of that proportion is unavailable. While I recognise the importance of post-publication commentary on published research, I show in this rejoinder that both points of criticism are explicitly mentioned and analysed in my paper. In addition, I also comment on other points raised by KEW and demonstrate that both alternative analyses offered by KEW do not stand up to closer scrutiny.
翻译:仍然没有证据表明非母语使用者比例对语言复杂性有影响--对Kauhanen、Einhaus和Walkden(2023)的回应
摘要:
这篇文章是一篇关于语言演化的论文。在最近一篇发表于《语言演化杂志》的论文中,Kauhanen、Einhaus和Walkden(https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzad005,KEW)挑战了我的一篇论文(Koplenig,Royal Society Open Science,6,181274(2019),https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181274)中提出的结果,并通过一系列的统计分析试图证明大量的第二语言(L2)使用者似乎不会影响语言的(语法或统计)复杂性。为此,我关注了Ethnologue如何评估语言状态:如果一种语言除了被L1(第一语言)使用者使用外,还有大量的L2使用者,则该语言被认为是载体语言(vehicular)。KEW批评了将载体性作为是否有大量L2使用者的(二进制)指标以及在直接估计该比例的情况下将零L2使用者比例归零于非载体语言的想法。尽管我认识到已经发表研究的发表后意见很重要,但我在这篇答辩书中表明,两点批评都在我的论文中明确提到和分析。此外,我还对KEW提出的其他观点进行了评论,并证明了KEW提供的两种替代分析都经不起更加严密的审查。