morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Morphosemantics,constructions,algorithmictypologyandparalleltextsBernhardWä[email protected](CH),September20,2012BernerZirkelfürSprachwissenschaftUniversitätBern,InstitutfürSprachwissenschaft
![Page 2: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
AbstractUnlikemorphology(theinternalformalstructureofwords)andsemantics(thestudyofthemeaningofwordsandsentences),morphosemanticsisconcernedwiththelinkbetweenmarkerandmeaning.Traditionalapproachestomorphosemanticssuchassemioticsandconstructiongrammararguethattherelationshipbetweenimageacoustiqueandconceptissymbolic.Thisworkswellifthelinksareknown(inthe“proficiencymode”).InthistalkIarguethatthereisastatisticalalternativewhichisparticularlyusefulifthelinksarenotknown(inthe“discoverymode”).Meaningsandmarkersformcollocationsintextswhichcanbemeasuredbymeansofcollocationmeasures.However,thereisaconsiderablenon‐isomorphismbetweenmarkerandmeaning.Asiswellknownamarkercanhavemanydifferentmeanings(polysemy).Somewhatlesswellknownisthatameaningisoftenexpressedbymanydifferentmarkers,bothparadigmaticallyandsyntagmatically(polymorphy). Tomakemeaningsandmarkerscommensurable,theymustbeconvertedintounitsofthesamekind.Thissamekindisthesetofcontextsinatextorcorpuswhereamarkerormeaningoccurs.Ifthedistributionofameaninginacorpusisknown,itscorrespondingmarkercomplexcanbedeterminedwhichconsistsofaparadigmaticallyandsyntagmaticallyorderedsetofsimplemarkers.Themarkersconsideredherearesurfacemarkersoftwotypes:wordformsandmorphs
![Page 3: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
(continuouscharacterstringswithinwordforms).Moreabstractmarkertypessuchaslexemes,grammaticalcategoriesandwordclassesmightoftenbebettermarkersthansurfacemarkers,buttheyarenotavailableinthediscoverymode. Markercomplexesareasimpleconstructiontype.Aproceduralapproachtoconstructiongrammarisadoptedwheremarkercomplexesareviewedasanintermediatestageinaprocessingchainofincreasinglymorecomplexconstructiontypesfromsimplemarkersviamarkercomplexestosyntacticconstructions.Markercomplexeshavetheadvantagethattheycanbeextractedautomaticallyfrommassivelyparalleltexts,i.e.translationsofthesametextintomanylanguages,suchastheNewTestamentusedhere.Inparalleltextsthesamemeanings(withcertainrestrictions)areexpressedacrossdifferentlanguages.Thismeansthatafunctionaldomaincanbedefinedasasetofcontextswhereacertainmeaningoccurs. Thesameprocedureisappliedtocross‐linguisticallysimilarmaterialandtheprocedureappliedtocross‐linguisticdataisfullyexplicitandthereforereplicable.Itcanbeimplementedinacomputerprogramandrunwithouttheinterventionofatypologist(algorithmictypology).Theunderlyingideaisthattheprocedureofextractionisinvariant(proceduraluniversal)whereastheextractedstructurescanbehighlyvariabledependingonthetextsandlanguagestowhichtheyareapplied.
![Page 4: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Thetalkconsiderstowhatextentsurfacemarkersaresufficientasinputfortheidentificationofconstructionsinarangeofgrammaticalandlexicaldomainsinaworld‐wideconveniencesampleofsomewhatmorethan50languages.Oneofthedomainsconsideredinmoredetailiscomparisonofinequality.Comparisonofinequalityisexpressedinmostlanguagesofthesamplebyanatleastbipartitemarkercomplexconsistingofthepartsstandardmarker(‘than’)andpredicateintensifier(‘more’,‘‐er’).Itwillbearguedherethatbothofthemareintrinsicpartsofthecomparativeconstruction.ThesefindingsarenotfullyinaccordancewithLeonStassen’stypologyofcomparison–aclassicalstudyinfunctionaldomaintypology–whichisbasedexclusivelyontheencodingofthestandardNP.Otherdomainsconsideredinthetalkincludenegation,‘want’,future,andpredicativepossession.
![Page 5: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
TraditionalapproachestomorphosemanticsDeSaussure:Semiotics Croft:RadicalConstructionGrammar
Morphology theinternalformalstructureofwordsSemantics thestudyofthemeaningofwordsandsentencesMorphosemantics thelinkbetweenmarkerandmeaning
CONSTRUCTION
Imageacoustique
syntacticpropertiesmorphologicalpropertiesphonologicalproperties
semanticpropertiespragmaticproperties
discourse‐functionalproperties
Concept FORMsymboliccorrespondence(link)
(CONVENTIONAL)MEANING
![Page 6: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Analternativetosymboliclinks:collocations“[a]collocationisanexpressionconsistingoftwoormorewordsthatcorrespondtosomeconventionalwayofsayingthings”(Manning&Schütze1999:151)
strongtea powerfuldrugMeaningandmarkersaredifferentkindsofthings.However,intextstheybothmanifestthemselvesasdistributions.Distributionisthemediuminwhichmeaningcanbeturnedintomarkerandviceversa.MeaningsandmarkerscollocateCollocationmeasures,e.g.,t‐score
na
n
ny
nx
na
BAprobn
BprobAprobBAprobT
1),(1)()(),(
![Page 7: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Naturalandnon‐naturalmeaning(Grice1957,written1948)Naturalmeaning Non‐naturalmeaning
“Thosespotsmeanmeasles” “Thelightedsignontheroofmeansthat
thecabisfree”Canberestatedas“Thefactthathehasthosespotsmeansthathehasmeasles”xmeansthatpentailsp
Iscompatiblewith“Butitisn’tinfactfree–thedriverhasmadeamistake”.xdoesnotmeanthatpentailsp
Collocationsarenaturalmeaning
![Page 8: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
ConstructionsinConstructionGrammarGoldberg(2006:5)“[A]LLLEVELSOFGRAMMATICALANALYSISINVOLVECONSTRUCTIONS:LEARNEDPAIRINGSOFFORMWITHSEMANTICORDISCOURSEFUNCTION,includingmorphemesorwords,idioms,partlylexicallyfilledandfullygeneralphrasalpatterns”(emphasisremoved,BW)morpheme: e.g.pre‐,ingword e.g.avocado,anaconda,andidiom(partlyfilled) e.g.jog<someone’s>memory,send<someone>tothecleanersDitransitive SubjVObj1Obj2(e.g.hegaveherafishtaco,hebakedheramuffin)Passive SubjauxVPpp(PPby)(e.g.thearmadillowashitbyacar)
Adynamicapproachtoconstructions Marker Markercomplex SyntacticconstructionProcessingchainofincreasinglymorecomplexconstructions
![Page 9: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Anonomasiologicalapproach Meaning FormOnomasiological given wantedSemasiological wanted given
Intypology:functionaldomainAccordingtoMiestamo(2005:293)afunctionaldomainis“anydomainofrelated(semanticorpragmatic)functionsthat(oneormore)language(s)encodewiththeformalmeanstheypossess”
Non‐isomorphismofmarkersandmeanings:PolysemyandPolymorphy ameaningisoftenexpressedbymanydifferentmarkers
Spanishquererhasmorethanonemeaning‘want’,‘love/desire’
Negation(informalsemanticssimply)inFrenchhasmorethanonemarker:ne,pas,point,non,rien,sansetc.Syntagmaticandparadigmaticpolymorphy
![Page 10: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Markercomplex:paradigmaticallyandsyntagmaticallyorderedsetofsimplemarkers
Basicconventions
readbottom‐upleft‐to‐right
Slots:columns,lefttorightAmplitude:verticalextensionDedication:horizontalextensionWordform:greenMorph:yellow,#iswordboundary
Wordorder:doesnotfigureSyntax:doesnotfigureLexemes,grams:donotfigure0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - French
ne
n'
nonsans
pas
point
rienpersonne
niaucun
plus
mais
![Page 11: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
French: [ne|n'|non|sans]1[pas|point|rien|personne|ni|aucun|plus]2[mais]3Alemannic: [nit|kei|nigs|nemads|nimi|keini]1[sundern]240005017 [ne]1croyez[pas]2quejesoisvenupourabolirlaloioulesprophètesjesuisvenu[non]1
pourabolir[mais]3pouraccomplir
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - French
ne
n'
nonsans
pas
point
rienpersonne
niaucun
plus
mais
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Alemannic
nit
keinigs
nemadsnimikeini
sundern
![Page 12: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
English: [not|no|nothing|lest|neither|cannot|none|except|never]1[but]2English2: [not|no|never|nothing|lest|unless|neither]1[but]2[do|did|does]340005017 think[not]1thaticame...icame[not]1todestroy[but]2tofulfil40005017 [do]3[not]1thinkthatihave...ihave[not]1cometodestroythem[but]2tofulfillthem
![Page 13: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Wolof
ul
du
uñu#
umabañ
w aaye
kenn
dara
a
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Moore
ye
sãlaa
ka
da
kõnra
zɩ
baaned
Wolof: [>ul<|du|>uñu#<|>uma<|bañ]1[waaye|kenn]2[dara|a]3Moore: [ye|sã|laa]1[ka|da|kõn|ra|zɩ]2[baa]3[ned]440005017 b[ul]1eendefeneñëw...ñëw[uma]1ngirdindileen[waaye]2ngirñuamciman40005017 [da]2tags‐y...noy[ye]1mam[ka]2wannansãam‐b[ye]1layaatɩpids‐ba
![Page 14: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Mari
огыл
ок
у кеида
огытылом
огыдаогытынжеит
омылогынаотогыдалогешогыналынышт
но
а
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Ewe
o
oa
a�ke
meny e
#ny em
wom
boŋ
ga
ke
#m
Mari: [огыл|ок|уке|ида|огытыл|ом|огыда|огыт|ынже|ит|омыл|огына|от|огыдал|огеш|огынал |ынышт]1[но|а]2Ewe: [o|oa]1[aɖeke|menye|>#nyem<|>wom<]2[boŋ|>ga<]3[ke]4[>#m<]5
![Page 15: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
AlgorithmictypologyandproceduraluniversalsThesameprocedureisappliedtocross‐linguisticallysimilarmaterialandtheprocedureappliedtocross‐linguisticdataisfullyexplicitandthereforereplicable.Itcanbeimplementedinacomputerprogramandrunwithouttheinterventionofatypologist(algorithmictypology).Theunderlyingideaisthattheprocedureofextractionisinvariant(proceduraluniversal)whereastheextractedstructurescanbehighlyvariabledependingonthetextsandlanguagestowhichtheyareapplied.
![Page 16: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
ComparisonofInequalityStassen(1985)ComparisonandUniversalGrammarTypologybasedonStandardofComparisonLocative ‘Elephantbigat/onhorse’ Separative ‘Fromhorseelephantbig’ Allative ‘Bigelephanttohorse’Particle ‘Elephantbigthanhorse’Exceed ‘Elephantbigexceedshorse/exceedshorseinsizeConjoinedA ‘Elephantbig,horsesmall’ B ‘Elephantbig,horsenotbig’Functionaldomain.Stassen,definedintensionally:Aconstructionhavingthesemanticfunctionofassigningagradedpositiononapredicativescaletotwoobjects,standardandcompareeareNPsHere,definedextensionally:Forconvenience,anyversecontainingEnglishthan
![Page 17: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Whataboutthepredicateintensifier“more”,“‐er”?“amajorityofthelanguagesdonotusesuchanovertmarking”(Stassen1985:27)“...Ihavenotsucceededinfindinganexplanatoryprincipleonthebasisofwhichthepresenceorabsenceofthismarkingcanbepredicted.Hence,Iwillassumethatthephenomenonofcomparative‐markingisirrelevanttoourtypologyofcomparativeconstructions,andthatitmustbeexplainedintermsof(asyetunknown)regularitieswhichareindependentofthosethatdeterminethechoiceofaparticulartypeofcomparativeconstruction.Therefore,Iwillnotindicatesystematicallywhetherornotagivenlanguagerequiresmorphologicalmarkingofthecomparativepredicate”(Stassen1985:28).‐>ThedatacollectioninStassen’stypologyisexplanation‐driven.Inthepresentapproach,datacollectionisindependent
![Page 18: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Spanish
más
may or
mejor
que
es
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Portuguese
domais
maior
melhor
que
é
Portuguese: [do]1[mais|maior|melhor]2[que]3[é]4Spanish: [más|mayor|mejor]1[que]2[es]341001007 vemaquele[que]3[é]4[mais]2poderoso[do]1[que]3eudequemnãosoudigno41001007 vienetrasmíel[que]2[es]3[más]1poderoso[que]2yoalcualnosoydignode
![Page 19: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Norwegian
enn
mere
større
ere#
bedre
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Lithuanian
negu
už
esn
daugiau
geriau
labiau
lengv iau
Norwegian: [enn]1[mere|større|>ere#<|bedre]2Lithuanian: [negu|už]1[>esn<|daugiau|geriau|labiau|lengviau]241001007 ermigkommerdensomersterk[ere]2[enn]1jeghanhvisskoremjegikk41001007 skelbėpomanęsateinagaling[esn]2is[už]1maneašnevertasnusilenkęs
![Page 20: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Tsimane
muju'cha'
mọjo'chas
mọjo'cha'
v a'cac
uy a'y a'
ọy a'y a'
dadam'
jam
Tsimane: [muju'cha'|mọjo'chas|mọjo'cha'|va'cac]1[uya'ya'|ọya'ya']2[dadam']3[jam]4Yanesha: [ello|tama]1[atarr]2
![Page 21: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Nointensifierintheconjoinedtype?No!Rathernostandardmarkerandmorethanoneintensifierinstead.Yanesha’(Matthew3:11)Ña‐pa' nent [atarr]2 ahuamencat‐esha' na‐ña‐pa' ama [tama]1 ahuamencat‐eyay‐no.he‐TOP REL much strong‐PROP I‐SEQ‐TOP,not that.much mighty‐NEG.SUFF‐MIDD‘that{comethafterme}ismightierthanI’
atarrP1;amatamaP2‘muchP1,notthat.muchP2’atarrP1;ellometan(err)anP2‘muchP1,more/again/separatedsurpass(again)P2’Tsimane(Matthew3:11)Mu’ qui ra' atsij [muju'cha']1 fer bu'yi‐ty,he/thatso.that FUT come more strong be.in.a.position‐MASC [jam]4 jeñej yụ, [uya'ya']2 yụ... not like I less I
TsimanehasthreeintensifierslotsP1[dadam']3[muju'cha']1...[ọya'ya']2P2‘P1bettermore...lessP2’42012007[dadam']3mu'[muju'cha']1arajjinacmi'in[jam]4jenejjaijtyi'in[ọya'ya']2ma'jotacsi
![Page 22: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Maori
atu
ake
erangi
nuike
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Tagalog
kaylaloŋ
higit
pa
dakila
Maori: [atu|ake|erangi]1[nui]2[ke]3 atu‘away’,ake‘up’,nui‘big’,/kee/‘different’Tagalog: [kay]1[laloŋ|higit]2[pa|dakila]3
41001007 ...iahautetahihekaharawa[ake]1iahauekoreahauetauki41001007 ...sumusunodsahulihankoaŋ[laloŋ]2makapaŋyarihan[kay]1saakinhindiako41012033 ...sakaniyaŋsariliay[higit]2[pa]3[kay]1salahatnaŋmaŋahandog...
![Page 23: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Ewe
wu
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Haitian
pasepi
pito
plis
41001007mounk'apvinaprem'langen[plis]3pouvwaanpil[pase]1m'mwenpabon40010031noupabezwenpèmenmnouvo[pi]2[plis]3[pase]1anpiltizwazo40011009twimwenmenmmwendinouli[pi]2[plis]3[pase]1yonpwofèt41009043l'jete[pito]2ouantrenanlaviaakyonsèlmen[pase]1pououreteaktoudemen
![Page 24: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Wolof
gën
ëpp
sut
moo a
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Erzya
седе
де
40003011 kiyñëwsamagannaaw[moo]2ma[ëpp]1kàttan41010025 giléemjaarcibën‐bënupusa[moo]2[gën]1[a]3yombboroomalalduggci40003011 мельгансыцясьмон[де]2нь[седе]1пеквиев
![Page 25: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
“Doublemarking”incomparisonisdescribedinAnsaldo(1999)asonetypeofcomparisonthatneedstobeaccountedforbyparticularexplanations.However,“doublemarking”isclearlytheruleratherthantheexception.Inavastmajorityofthelanguagessurveyedtherearebothstandardmarkersandintensifiersextractedincomparison unlessthereisastandardmarkerextendedintotheintensifyingdomainor
unlesstherearetwodifferenttypesofintensifiersintheconjoinedtype
Inaclearmajorityoflanguages,comparisonissyntagmaticallypolymorphous
![Page 26: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Borrowingoffunctionwordsandpolymorphy
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - QuechuaCajamarca
mas
maski
manda
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Comparison - CakchiquelCentral
más quechuvech
rukij
40003011 illapapirurinnamshamuqnoqa[manda]2suq[mas]1pudirniyuq41010025 xa[más]1laek...camello...junbak[que]2[chuvech]3junbeyonnoc
“Doppelsetzung”(Stolz&Stolz1996,Wiemer&Wälchli2012)
![Page 27: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Nextdomain:WANT
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Want - Somali
#doonay
doonijeclaan
inuu
inaan
inaad
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Want - Czech
chtel
#nech
chteli
chcete
chcichce
chcešchceš-lichtíti
chtejechtejí
iti#
![Page 28: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Somemarkercomplexesfor‘Want’:Czech: [chtěl|>#nech<|chtěli|chcete|(5moreforms)]1[>iti#<]2Zulu: [>thand<]1[>#uku]2Wolof: [bëgg|>#bëgg<]1[a]2Greek(Modern): [να|θέλω]1[θέλει|θέλεις|θέλω|θέλετε|(6moreforms)]2Somali: [>#doonay<|dooni|jeclaan]1[inuu|inaan|inaad]2Saramaccan: [kë]1GreenlandicWest: [>uma<]1Maltese: [>rid<|ried|riedx]1Haspelmath’s(2005)typologyof‘want’(simplified)andmarkercomplexes Complementsubject
implicitComplementsubjectexpressedovertly
Desiderativeaffix
Markercomplexwithoutsubordinator
Saramaccan Maltese WestGreenlandic
Markercomplexwithsubordinator
Czech,Zulu,Wolof ModernGreek,Somali
![Page 29: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Khanina(2008,2010)vs.GoddardandWierzbicka(2010). Khaninaclaimsthat‘want’isnotuniversalinthesenseof“beingtreatedonlyasparticulartypeofamoregeneralsituation”(2008:845).
Inhervarietysample,shefindsthat95of136desideratives(hercovertermforall‘want’expressions)“areregularlyusedtoexpressothersituationsthanpure‘want’”(2008:847).
AccordingtoherthisisachallengeforNaturalSemanticMetalanguagewhere‘want’isconsideredtobeasemanticprime,“i.e.anindivisibleunitofmeaningwithalexicalexponentinalllanguages”(GoodardandWierzbicka2010:108).
ForNaturalSemanticMetalanguageitisimportanttodistinguishbetweenpolysemyandsemanticgenerality.Forinstance,Spanish,quererhastwo(ormore)meanings‘want’and‘love/like’ratherthanonegeneralmeaning‘want/love/like’.Khanina,however,arguesthatmultiplemeaningsof‘want’expressionsarebestanalyzedasmacrofunctionbydefault.
Khaninaquestionstheuniversalityof‘want’.AccordingtoGoodardandWierzbicka(2010)thisisdueonlytoanunderestimationofpolysemy.
![Page 30: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Parallelstothepresentapproach
GoddardandWierzbicka(2010:114):“asemanticallyprimitivemeaningwillalwaysbeexpoundedbymeansofspecificallylexicalmaterial,bya‘segmentalsign’,andnot(forexample)byreduplication,orablaut,orsolelythroughagrammaticalconstruction.”
Khanina’sapproachissimilartothepresentoneinthatsheexplicitlychoosesdesiderativesinEuropeanlanguages(thepracticalmeta‐languagesofmostdescriptivegrammars)asherpointofdeparture.ShealsospeaksoftranslationalequivalentsofStandardAverageEuropean.IfIherechooseClassicalGreekethelo‘want’todefinethedomain,thebasicrationaleisverysimilar.
NaturalSemanticMetalanguageproceedstoalargeextentonomasiologicallyasfarassemanticprimesareconcerned.Forallconceptswhichareclaimednottobesemanticprimes,however,NaturalSemanticMetalanguagerathertakesasemasiologicalstance,butthisdoesnotneedtoconcernusheresince‘want’isclaimedtobeasemanticprime.
![Page 31: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Discoverymodevs.proficiencymodeIntheapproachtakenhere,weoperateinthediscoverymode.Thismeansthatwecannotmakeanydistinctionbetweenpolysemyandmacrofunctionsincethereisnoestablishedmarker‐meaningrelationship.Ifwewanttofindouthowameaningisexpressedcross‐linguistically,whatisgivenisonemeaningandallpotentialmarkercandidates.Themarker‐meaningrelationshipcannotbegiven,otherwisewewouldnotfindout.Ifthemarker‐meaningrelationshipisgiven,wealreadyknowwhatthemeaningofaformis.However,Idonotassumethatthereshouldbeanisomorphismbetweenmarkerandmeaning,aslongasthereisacollocationofmeaningandmarker,arelationshipcanbeestablishedirrespectiveofwhetherthereispolysemyinanarrowsenseormacrofunction.Inthematerialconsideredherethereisnoproblemtoestablishameaning‐markerrelationshipinthe‘want’‐domaininvirtuallyalllanguagesconsidered.
![Page 32: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
WANT=SAY,butinverydifferentwaysKobon(Mark10:51)“Yɨp nɨhöng‐aŋ, a gɨ‐mön, au‐ab‐ön?” ö g‐a...1SG.OBJ what do‐IMP3SG, QUOT do‐SS2SG come‐PRS‐2SG QUOT do‐RMPST3SG“Amgöu kauyaŋ nɨŋ‐nam, a g‐em, au‐ab‐in,” a g‐a.eye that again see‐PRESCR1SG QUOT do‐SS1SG come‐PRS1SG QUOT do‐RMPST3SG[Jesusansweredhim,]"Whatdoyouwantmetodoforyou?"[Theblindmansaidtohim,"Rhabboni,]thatImayseeagain."Literally:Helike:“Youcomelike‘Domewhat’”...Bukiyip(Mark10:51)“Nyak ny‐a‐kli i‐nek‐um‐enyu moneken?”...2SG 2SG‐REA‐say 1SG:IRR‐do‐BENEF‐2SG.OBJ what “...yek y‐a‐kli i‐na‐tulugun.”1SG 1SG‐IRR‐say 1SG:IRR‐REFL‐look/see[Jesusansweredhim,]“Whatdoyouwantmetodoforyou?”[Theblindmansaidtohim,“Rhabboni,]thatImayseeagain.”
![Page 33: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Want - Samoan
manao
fia
nagalo
mananaoloto
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Want - Bukiyip
yakli
Considerableparadigmaticpolymorphy.Samoan<manao>/mana‘o/(verb)‘want,desire’,fia(particlepreposedtoverb)expressesawish,finagalo(nounhonorific)‘wish’,<mānana‘o>/mana‘o/(verb)pluralofmana‘o‘want,desire’,loto(noun)‘heart,will’.
Firstpersonsingularsubjectisageneralcollocationof‘want’
![Page 34: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Alocalapproachtosemanticdecomposition Everyutterance(orpartofutterance)hasanexemplarycontextualmeaningofitsownthatisunique(see,e.g.,WälchliandCysouw2012fordiscussion).
Thisexemplarymeaningisusuallyhighlysimilartothatofmanyotherutterances,whichiswhyitispossibletoidentifyclustersofutteranceswithhighlysimilarmeaning:thesesharerangesofmeaning.
Foreveryrangeofmeaningthereisalocaldecompositionofexemplarycontextualmeaningintotwocomponents:thegeneralmeaningoftherangeversuseverythingelse.
Ifthemeaningrangeislexical,theexemplarswillmostobviouslydifferintheirgrammaticalmeanings.Ifthemeaningrangeisgrammatical,thevariableelementswillmostobviouslybelexical.Thisyieldsanappearanceofaglobaldivisionofmeaningintolexicalandgrammaticalmeaning.However,thisdivisionisnotinanywayrigid.
Grammaticalmeaningsandlexicalmeaningsaretreatedalike.Nodifferencebetweenlexicalandgrammaticaltypology.
![Page 35: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Futuretense (Indonesianakan)
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - French
er
a#
ont#
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Future - Haitian
v a
pral
p'ap
y 'an'a
![Page 36: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - English
shall
will
should
be
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - English2
will
believ e
be
![Page 37: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - Hungarian
majd
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - Finnish
AccordingtoDahl(1985:105)thenumberoflanguageswithoutfuturetensecategoryisfairlysmall.
![Page 38: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - Papago
wo
s-wohochs-ha
at
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - Yanesha
cha'# teruerr amach
InPapagothepotentialmodalmarkerwoisextractedalongwithatconsistingofa‐non‐imperativemoodand‐tcontemporarytense(usedinpast,presentandfuturecontextsopposedtozeropre‐experientalandd remotepast).
![Page 39: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
PredicativePossession
Stassen(2009):fourbasictypesofpredicativepossession:Type Definingmarker
Locational ‘At/topossessor[there]is/existsapossessee Possessor With ‘Possessoris/existswithapossessee’ Possessee Topic ‘[Asfor]Possessor,possesseeis/exists’ None Have ‘Possessorhasapossessee’ PredicatePredicateNegationPossessorIndefinitePossesseeNegationandindefinite(indefinitearticleofpossessum)aregeneralcollocationsofpredicativepossession
![Page 40: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Have‐possessivesareeasiesttoextractiftheyarerecent(highdedication)whentheyhavenotmanagedyettogrammaticalizeintosomethingelse
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Spanish
tiene
tenía
teniendo
tienen
tenemos
tenían
tengotenéis
tienestenga
no
oigasiete
#necesi
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Pred. Possession - Lithuanian
tur
reikia
#ne
ka
Spanish: [tiene|tenía|teniendo|tienen|tenemos|tenían|....]1[no|oiga|siete]2[>#necesi<]3Lithuanian: [>tur<|reikia]1[>#ne<|ką]2
![Page 41: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - German
haben
hatte
hat
habe
habt
hattenhast
einen
macht
zu
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Pred. Possession - French
n'
un
v ie
av ons
besoin
ay ant
av ait
ont
asav ez
aiav aient
entendeelle
aune
pas
oreilles
German: [haben|hatte|hat|habe|habt|hatten|hast]1[einen|macht]2[zu]3French: [n'|un|vie]1[avons|besoin|ayant|avait|ont|as|avez|ai...]2[a]3[une|pas|oreilles]4
![Page 42: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Vietnamese
có
cầncầmquỉ
không
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Indonesian
ada
menaruh
berolehbertelinga
tiada
memegangsakitperempuan
#ber
padany amempuny ai
padamu
Vietnamese: [có|cần|cầm|quỉ]1[không]2Indonesian: [ada|menaruh|beroleh|bertelinga|tiada|...]1[>#ber<|padanya...]2[padamu]3
![Page 43: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Finnish
on
oli
olisitarv itse
jolla
ei
meilläteilläminulla
sinulla
olehänellä
heillä
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Pred. Possession - Latvian
kam
nav
mums
man
ir
bija
butuausis
ta
tev
Finnish: [on|oli|olisi|tarvitse]1[jolla|ei|meillä|teillä|minulla|sinulla]2[ole]3[hänellä|heillä]4Latvian: [kam|nav|mums|man]1[ir|bija|būtu|ausis]2[tā|tev]3
![Page 44: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Withthe‘with’possessiveextractionoftenfails:
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Hausa
ba
bakwaibiy ukunnen
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Hixkaryana
Hausa: [ba|bakwai|biyu|kunnen]1‘not/seven/two/ear’
![Page 45: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Stassen(2009): Predicativization:reanalysisofthecategorialandsyntacticstatusofthephrasewhichcontainsthepossessee
Transitivization/‘Have’‐drift:ifalanguagestartstoreanalyseitspossessiveinthedirectionofamajortype,theintendedoutputwillalwaysbeaHave‐possessive
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Somali
#hay sa
leey ahay
lahay nlahaaleennahay
umahay sto
baahan
WhyHavedrift?“Itishardtoseewhythereshouldbeashiftfromspatialcontacttowardscontrol,butnottheotherwayaround”(Stassen2009:242)Whenevertheextractionissuccessfulitmostlycontainsapredicatemarkerinoneoftheslots(notnecessarilyinthefirstslot)
leh‐‘have’relatedtola‘with’
![Page 46: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Enter
Talmy(1991,2000)Satellite‐framinglanguages Verb‐framinglanguagesPathexpressedinadposition/case,verbalaffixoradverbialparticle
Pathexpressedinverb
Frenchentr‐,Turkishgir‐ Englishin,Russianv/v‐
AccordingtoBerthele(2006:235)theprepositionmakesacontributiontotheencodingofthepath,eventhoughtoalesserextentthantheverb.ThissuggestsforFrenchthatwewouldgettheverbentr‐inthefirstslotandtheprepositiondansinthesecondslot.
Sinha&Kuteva(1995)DistributedSpatialSemantics
Talmy(1972):(Spanish)[aPOINT] MOVE<‐TOIN TO(IN) [aSPHERE] entrar athe“motiveverb”(themotioncomponentlocatedintheverb)conflateswithacopyfromthedirectional(thepreposition)
![Page 47: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
DomaindefinedbyClassicalGreeklemmaeiserchomai‘enter’
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Enter - French
entrdans
maison
roy aume
0 1 2 3 4 50.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Enter - Alemannic
goht
kumme
in
ins
inä
hus
gehn
kummt
![Page 48: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
‘House’aspartofthemeaningof‘Enter’
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Enter - Samoan
uluf ale
ulu
sao
o
atu
f ale
malo
aai
0 1 2 3 4 50.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Enter - Dinka
la
baai
Inaconveniencesampleof51languagesthereisanaverageof2.4slotsperlanguage.In36languages(42%)thereisatleastonenounextracted(mostly‘house’)
![Page 49: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
Inthevastmajorityoflanguagesbothverbal(V)andadnominal/adverbal(AN/AV)componentscontributetotheencodingof‘enter’.V Somali,Maltese,Hausa,FulAdamawa,Vietnamese,Tagalog,Mandarin,
Burarra,YineVAN/AV Basque,Kannada,Albanian,Alemannic,Greek(Modern),Hindi,French,
Italian,Latin,Portuguese,Romanian,Spanish,Korean,Buriat,Kalmyk,Tatar,Turkish,Finnish,Komi,Mari,Mordvin(Erzya),Swahili,Zulu,Ewe,Wolof,Bambara,Moore,Yoruba,Dinka,Zarma,HaitianCreole,Saramaccan,Maori,Samoan,Indonesian,Malagasy,Lahu,Tobelo,Kuot,WikMungkan,Greenlandic(West),Mixe(Coatlán)Otomí(Mezquital),Trique,Paumarí,Quechua(Cajamarca),Aymara
AN/AVV Avar,Welsh,Danish,German,English,Icelandic,LowSaxon,Norwegian,Swedish,Greek(Classical),Saami(Northern),TokPisin,Yanesha’
AN/AV Latvian,Lithuanian,Croatian,Hungarian,Cakchiquel,Bribri ANAV&V Afrikaans,Dutch,Czech,Polish,Russian,OsseticV&AV Mapudungunboldface:onlyoneslot,allotherdoculectshavetwoormoreslots
![Page 50: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Enter - Latin
#intr
#ingre
domum
regnum
in
![Page 51: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
![Page 52: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
0 1 2 3 4 50.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Enter - Yanesha
osbe't
allcha'
all
pa'pacllo allña
![Page 53: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
SomemarkercomplexesforEnter:Verbal,Adverbal,AdnominalAlemannic: [goht|kumme]1[in|ins]2[inä|hus]3[gehn|kummt]4English: [into|in]1[entered|enter]2[house|kingdom|came]3GreekModern: [>#μπ<]1[σπίτι|μέσα|στη]2[στο|βασιλεία]3GreekClassical:[>#εισ<]1[>λθ<]2[εις]3[την]4[βασιλειαν|οικιαν]5Italian: [>#entr<]1[casa|nel]2[nella|in]3Latin: [>#intr<|>#ingre<]1[domum|regnum]2[in]3Spanish: [>#entr<]1[en]2[casa|reino]3Russian: [в]1[вошел|войти|войдя|вошли]2[дом]3Turkish: [>#gir<]1[evine|içeri|eve]2Finnish: [meni|mennä]1[sisään|sisälle]2[siellä|valtakuntaan]3[tuli|sinne]4Hungarian: [>#be<]1[>ba#<]2Maltese: [daħal|jidħol|daħlu]1Ewe: [>ge<]1[me]2[ɖe]3Haitian: [antre]1[kay|wa]2[kote|lakay]3[nan]4TokPisin: [insait]1[go]2[haus|kingdom]3[taun]4Vietnamese: [vào]1[nhà]2Tagalog: [>asok#<]1[bahay|kaharian]2Mapudungun: [>#konp<]1[ruka|mülewe]2
![Page 54: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
Middlevoice(“Reflexive”):triggerCroatianse>areal/genealogicaleffectCroatian se 1.0Polish się 0.5718Czech se 0.55836Russian >ся#< 0.52197Russian >сь#< 0.51321Romanian se 0.42018Icelandic >st#< 0.41464Spanish se 0.38316Latvian >ies#< 0.3582Afrikaans word 0.35431Romanian s' 0.35357Italian si 0.34838Latin >ur#< 0.34398Portuguese se 0.3165Alemannic sich 0.31625Latvian >ās#< 0.3152LowSaxon sich 0.31472Danish sig 0.30998Swedish sig 0.30734German sich 0.30669French se 0.30658
GreekClassical >θη< 0.30607Dutch worden 0.29763English3 be 0.29591English be 0.29451English2 be 0.29373Norwegian sig 0.28876Portuguese >‐se#< 0.273SaamiNorthernn >uvv< 0.27032Albanian >ohe< 0.27002Danish >es#< 0.2656GreekModern >ηκ< 0.2586Welsh >ir#< 0.24938Welsh >#ym< 0.24607Lithuanian >si< 0.24275Dutch zich 0.23754Norwegian >es#< 0.23708Yoruba a 0.23662Malayalam >pped< 0.23651Mari >алт< 0.23095Swedish >as#< 0.22728Hausa yi 0.22458
![Page 55: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
Spanish >se#< 0.22393Romanian vă 0.22252Komi >öдч< 0.21995Albanian u 0.21817Dutch wordt 0.21636Papago e 0.21098LowSaxon woare 0.21081English2 >ed< 0.21043GreekClassical >αι#< 0.20949Finnish >ty< 0.20837Lahu la 0.20774Hungarian >ék#< 0.20648SaamiNorthern >oj< 0.20549Alemannic wird 0.20413Zulu >wa#< 0.20181Tatar >ыл< 0.20094English3 was 0.19769QuechuaCajamarca >aka< 0.19682TokPisin kamap 0.19448Kalmyk >гд< 0.1938English were 0.19252Icelandic sig 0.19147Norwegian blev 0.19144
Bribri e' 0.19057Dutch werd 0.19035French s' 0.18798Tagalog >aŋag< 0.18769English3 >#re< 0.1859Yine >tka#< 0.18529Alemannic wäre 0.18476Turkish >nm< 0.18391Norwegian bli 0.18309Swedish bliva 0.18194Czech >no#< 0.18086Wolof >iku< 0.17981Kannada >iko< 0.17874Romanian te 0.17851Hixkaryana >os< 0.17817Kuot >#te< 0.17683Yoruba nigbati 0.17679Dutch >ver< 0.17521English2 were 0.17355German werden 0.17214Somali la 0.17183GreenlandicWest >neqa< 0.17171Romanian de 0.17127
![Page 56: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
56
Middlevoice(“Reflexive”)Croatian se 1.0Polish się 0.5718Czech se 0.55836Russian >ся#< 0.52197Romanian se 0.42018Icelandic >st#< 0.41464Spanish se 0.38316Latvian >ies#< 0.3582Afrikaans word 0.35431Italian si 0.34838Latin >ur#< 0.34398Portuguese se 0.3165Alemannic sich 0.31625LowSaxon sich 0.31472Danish sig 0.30998Swedish sig 0.30734German sich 0.30669French se 0.30658GreekClassical >θη< 0.30607Dutch worden 0.29763English3 be 0.29591
English be 0.29451English2 be 0.29373Norwegian sig 0.28876SaamiNorthernn >uvv< 0.27032Albanian >ohe< 0.27002GreekModern >ηκ< 0.2586Welsh >ir#< 0.24938Lithuanian >si< 0.24275Yoruba a 0.23662Malayalam >pped< 0.23651Mari >алт< 0.23095Hausa yi 0.22458Komi >öдч< 0.21995Papago e 0.21098Finnish >ty< 0.20837Lahu la 0.20774Hungarian >ék#< 0.20648Zulu >wa#< 0.20181Tatar >ыл< 0.20094QuechuaCajamarca >aka< 0.19682TokPisin kamap 0.19448
![Page 57: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
57
Can all lexical and grammatical meanings be addressed in this way? No,probablynot.Gramswithextremelyhightextfrequency(“inflectionalcategories”),suchasplural,adnominalpossession(‘genitive’),present,imperfectivearedifficulttoaddressinmostlanguages.Thepresentversionoftheapproachisverycrude,possibleimprovements: Lexemesandgramsasmarkercandidatesinsteadofwordformsandmorphs Cross‐linguisticsemanticprototypesassemantictriggersratherthanwordformsfromparticularlanguagesinstantiatingameaning(Dahl1985)
Therearemanypracticalproblems: Accidentalcollocationsinaparalleltext Lexicalorgrammaticalmeaningsnotattestedinaparalleltext
![Page 58: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
58
Isthismoderntypology?
“Moderntypologyisadisciplinethatdevelopsvariablesforcapturingsimilaritiesanddifferencesofstructuresbothwithinandacrosslanguages(qualitativetypology),exploresclustersandskewingsinthedistributionofthesevariables(quantitativetypology),andproposestheoriesthatexplaintheclustersandskewings(theoreticaltypology)”(Bickel2007:248) qualitative>quantitative>theoreticalHereweratheruseaninverseprocessingchaintheoretical>quantitative>qualitativeTheoreticalconsiderationandquantitativeanalysiscomefirst;theoutcomeisadescriptivemeasurementwhichmustbeevaluatedqualitativelyCross‐linguisticdescriptionhasbeenstronglyneglectedintypology.Descriptionintypologyshouldnotbefullyoutsourcedtofieldlinguists,anditshouldbeindependentfromexplanation(datacollectionintypologyshouldnotbeexplanation‐driven)
![Page 59: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
59
ReferencesAnsaldo, Umberto. 1999. Comparative constructions in Sinitic. Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalization. PhD
Thesis. University of Stockholm. Berthele, Raphael. 2006. Ort und Weg. Die sprachliche Raumreferenz in Varietäten des Deutschen, Rätoromanischen
und Französischen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bickel, Balthasar. 2007 Typology in the 21st century: major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11 (1): 239–251. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Davies, John. 1981. Kobon. (Lingua Descriptive Studies, 3.) Amsterdam: North-Holland. Goddard, Cliff & Wierzbicka, Anna. 2010. ‘Want’ is a lexical and conceptual universal. Studies in Language 34(1): 108–
123 Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66(3): 377-388 Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. ‘Want’ complement subjects. In Haspelmath, Martin & Dryer, Matthew & Gil, David &
Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. (Book with interactive CD-ROM). Chapter 124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khanina, Olesya. 2008. How universal is ‘wanting’? Studies in Language 32(4): 818–865. Khanina, Olesya. 2010. Reply to Goddard and Wierzbicka. Studies in Language 34.1: 124-130 Manning, Christopher D. & Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological
perspective. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1968. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique par Rudolf Engler. Tome 1. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz
![Page 60: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
60
Sinha, Chris & Kuteva, Tanja. 1995. Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18: 167-199. Sölling, Arnd. 2011. Bewegungsverben in Nordamerika - Semantische Elemente in narrativen Texten. Diss. phil. hist.,
Universität Bern, Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stolz, Christel, Stolz, Thomas. 1996. Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika. Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt
(Hispanoindiana II). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 49: 86-123. Talmy, Leonard. 1972. Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at
Berkeley. Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15-18, 1991, 480-519. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. von Waldenfels, Ruprecht. Forthcoming. Explorations into variation across Slavic: taking a bottom-up approach. In
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Linguistic variation in text and speech, within and across languages. To be published in Walter de Gruyter’s Linguae et Litterae series.
Wälchli, Bernhard. Forthcoming. Algorithmic typology and going from known to similar unknown categories within and across languages. In Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Linguistic variation in text and speech, within and across languages. To be published in Walter de Gruyter’s Linguae et Litterae series.
Wälchli, Bernhard & Cysouw, Michael. 2012. Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50.3: 671-710. (Theme issue edited by Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Vanhove, M. (eds.), New Directions in Lexical Typology).
Wiemer, Björn & Wälchli, Bernhard. 2012. Contact-induced grammatical change: Diverse phenomena, diverse perspectives. In Wiemer, B. & Wälchli, B. & Hansen, B. (eds.), Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, 3-64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Page 61: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
61
Appendix1:Extractfromthedatabase(TriggerVietnameseđã,2545tokens)
No Domain Doculect Slot Type Marker Amplitude Dedication Extraction21 Perfect German 1 W hat 0.229971724788 0.648936170213 0.3852622 Perfect German 1 W habe 0.0890669180019 0.549418604651 0.2556423 Perfect German 1 W haben 0.0947219604147 0.463133640553 0.2554124 Perfect German 1 W ist 0.213477851084 0.276556776557 0.2386425 Perfect German 1 W hatte 0.0508953817154 0.421875 0.2651726 Perfect German 1 W war 0.062205466541 0.236135957066 0.2247227 Perfect German 1 W hast 0.0263901979265 0.427480916031 0.2285628 Perfect German 1 W habt 0.0311027332705 0.308411214953 0.2318229 Perfect German 1 W hatten 0.0254476908577 0.409090909091 0.2449930 Perfect German 1 W sind 0.0433553251649 0.159169550173 0.2109731 Perfect German 2 M ge 0.8821866164 0.320877613987 0.2166932 Perfect English 1 W hath 0.123939679548 0.57423580786 0.2571633 Perfect English 1 W had 0.116399622997 0.505112474438 0.2496434 Perfect English 1 W have 0.144203581527 0.398956975228 0.2514835 Perfect English 2 W which 0.16918001885 0.468057366362 0.2413736 Perfect English 2 M ed# 0.538171536287 0.296931877275 0.2223337 Perfect English 2 W made 0.0400565504241 0.291095890411 0.2345638 Perfect English 2 W sent 0.0268614514609 0.322033898305 0.2195539 Perfect English 3 W been 0.0725730442978 0.709677419355 0.22933163 Perfect Vietnamese 1 W đã 1.0 1.0 1.0164 Perfect Vietnamese 2 W cho 0.395852968897 0.356234096692 0.21582...
![Page 62: Morphosemantics, constructions, algorithmic typology and parallel](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021006/62038f03da24ad121e4ad101/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
62
Appendix2:R‐codewrittenbythePythonprogramgeneratingthevisualizationofmarkercomplexesplot(c(0,5),c(0,1),col="white",main="Perfect‐German",xlab="",ylab="")slot=0;par=0ing=0.648936170213;ingg=0.648936170213;ed=0.229971724788;edd=0.3;str="hat"rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)par=par+eding=0.549418604651;ingg=0.549418604651;ed=0.0890669180019;edd=0.3;str="habe"rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)par=par+eding=0.463133640553;ingg=0.463133640553;ed=0.0947219604147;edd=0.3;str="haben"rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)par=par+eding=0.276556776557;ingg=0.3;ed=0.213477851084;edd=0.3;str="ist"rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)...