Transcript Semantic Change and Grammaticalization in FDG

Learnable and unlearnable
languages
Kees Hengeveld
Introduction
• Can a typologist contribute to the
Learnability discussion?
• Can we distinguish between learnable and
unlearnable languages?
• A methodological problem: unlearnable
languages have not been attested
• The alternative: determining degrees of
learnability
• The implication: some languages are
harder/easier to learn than others
2
Introduction
• Transparency as a crucial factor in language
acquisition
• Implicational relations between degrees of
transparency can be uncovered through
typological research
• The resulting hierarchy helps to identify the
most opaque/transparent features of
language
• and to identify the most opaque/
transparent language systems
3
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Transparency
Defining Transparency in FDG
Typology
Typology and acquisition
Implications for other fields of language
study
6. Conclusions
4
1. Transparency
Transparency
Turkish
el-ler-im-de
hand-PL-1.SG.POSS-LOC
‘in my hands’
Mastered before the age of two
Transparency
Dutch
de
bal
DEF.COMM ball(COMM)
het
paard
DEF.NEUT horse(NEUT)
Not completely mastered at the age of seven
Transparency: overgeneralization
Dutch
ik koop-te
I buy-PST.SG
‘I bought’
<
ik
I
kocht
buy.PST.SG
Turkish
overgeneralization impossible
Transparency ≠ simplicity
Turkish
Koş-uş-tur-ul-a-ma-dı-y-sa-lar.
run-RECIPR-CAUS-PASS-ABIL-NEG-PST.VIS-y-COND-PL
‘If they haven’t been made available for our
service.’
Dutch
verbal system with tense, number, person
Transparency: Esperanto
Design feature of Esperanto
Esperanto
La uson-a prezid-ant-o
Bush pretend-is, ke Irako […]
DEF USA-adj preside-PRES.PRTC-N Bush pretend-PST that Iraq
‘The US president Bush pretended that Iraq […]’
2. Defining transparency in FDG
Frames,
Lexemes,
Primary
operators
Formulation
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Templates,
Auxiliaries,
Secondary
operators
Prosodic patterns,
Morphemes,
Tertiary
operators
Morphosyntactic
Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological
Encoding
Phonological Level
Interpersonal Level
(π M1: [
(π A1: [
(π F1)
(π P1)S
(π P2)A
(π C1: [
(π T1)Φ
(π R1)Φ
] (C1)Φ
] (A1)Φ
] (M1))
Move
Discourse Act
Illocution
Speaker
Addressee
Communicated Content
Ascriptive Subact
Referential Subact
Communicated Content
Discourse Act
Move
13
Representational Level
(π p1:
(π ep1:
(π e1:
[(π f1: [
(π f1)
(π x1)Φ
] (f1))
(e1)Φ])
(ep1))
(p1))
Propositional Content
Episode
State-of-Affairs
Configurational Property
Lexical Property
Individual
Configurational Property
State-of-Affairs
Episode
Propositional Content
14
Morphosyntactic Level
(Le1:
(Cl1:
(Xp1 :
(Xw1 :
(Xs1)
(Aff1)
(Xw1))
(Xp1))
(Cl1))
(Le1))
Linguistic Expression
Clause
Phrase
Word
Stem
Affix
Word
Phrase
Clause
Linguistic Expression
15
Phonological Level
(π U1:
(π IP1:
(π PP1:
(π PW1:
(π F1:
(π S1)
(F1))
(PW1))
(PP1))
(IP1)N
(U1))
Utterance
Intonational Phrase
Phonological Phrase
Phonological Word
Foot
Syllable
Foot
Phonological Word
Phonological Phrase
Intonational Phrase
Utterance
16
Frames,
Lexemes,
Primary
operators
Formulation
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Templates,
Auxiliaries,
Secondary
operators
Prosodic patterns,
Morphemes,
Tertiary
operators
Morphosyntactic
Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological
Encoding
Phonological Level
Relations between Levels
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level
18
Relations between Levels
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level
19
Relations between Levels
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level
20
Relations between Levels
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level
21
Relations within Levels
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y
Phonological Level
22
Relations within Levels
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y
23
Relations between and within
Levels
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y
Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y
24
Interpersonal - Representational
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level
25
No apposition
One Interpersonal unit should map onto one representational unit
Sri Lankan Malay
MrSebastian aada, se aada kitham duuva arà-oomong.
MrSebastian exist 1.SGexist 1.PL
two
NON.PAST-speak
‘You are here, I am here, the two of us are talking.’
Chickasaw
Aboha anõ’k-akõ
Dan ib-aa-binni’li-li-tok.
house in-CONTR.NONSUBJ Dan COM-LOC-sit-1.SG.A-PST
‘I sat with Dan in the house.’
26
Predication
No limitations on which semantic units can be chosen as predicates
Kharia
Lebu ɖel=ki.
man come=M.PST
‘The man came.’
Bhagwan lebu=ki
ro ɖel=ki.
God
man=m.pst and come=m.pst
‘God became man [=Jesus] and came [to earth].’
27
Interpersonal/Representational Morphosyntactic
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level
28
No grammatical relations
Pragmatic/semantic alignment system
Acehnese
Lȏn teungöh=lȏn=jak.
1 M=1.A=go
‘I am going.’
Gopnyan galak=geuh
that.
3.POL
happy=3.POL.U very
‘He is very happy.’
29
No discontinuity
Pragmatic/semantic units map onto a single morphosyntactic unit
English
The guy who is going to fix my lock has arrived.
The guy has arrived who is going to fix my lock.
30
Function marking not sensitive to
nature of input
Phrase rather than head marking
Nama
ǁ’iĩp
ke
‘áop=à
kè
3.SG.M DECL man=ACC REM.PAST
‘He called the man.’
ǂaí.
call
Siíkxm
ke
kè
ǁnàúǁ’iíp
kò
!úu !xáis=à .
1.PL.M.DU DECL REM.PAST hear 3.SG.M REC.PASTgo COMP=ACC
‘We heard that he had just left.’
31
Interpersonal/Representational/
Morphosyntactic - Phonological
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level
32
Phonological and morphosyntactic
phrasing run parallel
Acehnese
[Ureueng='nyan] [ka=geu=jak='woe] [ba'roe]
person=DEM
INCH=3=go=return yesterday
‘That person returned yesterday.’
Dutch
[Ik] [[wou]
[dat
[hij] [kwam]]].
['kʋɑu]
['dɑti]
['kʋɑm]
I
want.PST COMPhe
come.PST
‘I wish he would come.’
33
Phonological Phonological weight
does not influence position
Spanish
Lo=ví.
3.SG.ACC=see.PRF.PST.IND.3.SG
‘I saw him.’
Ví
a tu
vecino.
see.PRF.PST.IND.3.SG OBJ 2.SG.POSS neighbour
‘I saw you neighbour.’
34
Within the Morphosyntactic Level
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y
Phonological Level
35
No expletive elements
Tagalog
Marami-ng pera.
lot-LNK
money
‘There is a lot of money.’
“A lot of money”
36
No tense copying
Amele
Naus uqa ege [qila bele-q-an fo=ec]
sisil-t-en.
Naus he I
today go-1.PL-FUT Q=NMLZ ask-1.SG/3.SG-REM.PST
‘Naus asked me whether we would go today.’
37
No grammatical gender,
declination, conjugation
Spanish
casa ‘house’ is arbitrarily assigned to the class of feminine nouns
árbol ‘tree’ is arbitrarily assigned to the class of masculine nouns
38
No agreement
Spanish
la-ø
casa-ø
DEF.F-SG
house(F)-SG
‘the old house’
viej-a-ø
old-F-SG
el
DEF.M.SG
‘the old tree’
viej-o-ø
old-M-SG
árbol-ø
tree(M)-SG
39
No fusional morphology
No stem alternation
Wambon
enandeeat(basic stem) eat(PAST/FUT/IMP.PL stem)
naeat(IMP.SG stem)
No cumulation
Spanish
compr-é.
buy-IND.PAST.PF.1.SG
‘(I) bought.’
40
No phonological adaptation
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y
41
No phonological adaptation
Quechua nasal assimilation:
tayta-n=paq ‘father-3.POSS=PURP’ ‘for his father’ -> taytampaq
Spanish diphtongization:
dormir ‘sleep’ duerme ‘sleeps’
Dutch degemination:
pakkans ‘chance to be caught’ -> pakans
Turkish vowel harmony:
gel-miș ‘come-RES’ gör-müș ‘see-RES’
42
3. Typology
Sample
Diu Indo-Portuguese (Leufkens 2010)
Dutch
Esperanto (Jansen fc.)
Kharia (Leufkens fc.)
Pichi (Leufkens 2010)
Quechua (Grández Ávila fc.)
Sri Lankan Malay (Nordhoff fc.)
44
Transparent feature
No apposition
All semantic units used as
predicates
No grammatical relations
No discontinuity
No sensitivity for nature of
input
Parrallel phonological and
morphosyntactic phrasing
No influence of ph. weight
No expletive elements
No tense copying
No grammatical gender
No agreement
No stem alternation
No cumulation
No phonological adaptation
DIP
Dutch
Kharia
Pichi
Quechua
SLM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
45
Transparent feature
No apposition
All semantic units used as
predicates
No grammatical relations
No discontinuity
No sensitivity for nature of
input
Parrallel phonological and
morphosyntactic phrasing
No influence of ph. weight
No expletive elements
No tense copying
No grammatical gender
No agreement
No stem alternation
No cumulation
No phonological adaptation
Dutch
Quechua
Pichi
DIP
SLM
Kharia
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
46
Transparent feature
No tense copying
No grammatical gender
No agreement
No grammatical relations
Parrallel phonological and
morphosyntactic phrasing
No expletive elements
No sensitivity for nature of
input
No discontinuity
No stem alternation
All semantic units used as
predicates
No influence of phon. weight
No phonological adaptation
No apposition
No cumulation
Dutch
Quechua
Pichi
DIP
SLM
Kharia
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
47
Transparent feature
No tense copying
No grammatical gender
No agreement
No grammatical relations
Parrallel phonological and
morphosyntactic phrasing
No expletive elements
No sensitivity for nature of
input
No discontinuity
No stem alternation
All semantic units used as
predicates
No influence of phon. weight
No phonological adaptation
No apposition
No cumulation
Dutch
Pichi
DIP
SLM
Kharia
-
Quechua
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
48
Two scales
• Learnable/unlearnable languages
• Learnable/unlearnable features
49
Transparent feature
No tense copying
No grammatical gender
No agreement
No grammatical relations
Parrallel phonological and
morphosyntactic phrasing
No expletive elements
No sensitivity for nature of
input
No discontinuity
No stem alternation
All semantic units used as
predicates
No influence of phon. weight
No phonological adaptation
No apposition
No cumulation
Dutch
Pichi
DIP
SLM
Kharia
-
Quechua
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
50
Unlearnable non-transparent features
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y
Phonological Level
51
Learnable non-transparent features
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y
52
The learnability of Esperanto
• Phonology and morphology are extremely
learnable
• Syntax is not
53
Transparent feature
No tense copying
No grammatical gender
No agreement
-
Quechua
+
+
+
No grammatical relations
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
No influence of phon. weight
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
No phonological adaptation
No apposition
No cumulation
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
Parrallel phonological and
morphosyntactic phrasing
No expletive elements
No sensitivity for nature of
input
No discontinuity
No stem alternation
All semantic units used as
predicates
Dutch
Pichi
DIP
SLM
Kharia
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Esperanto
+
+
-
54
4. Typology and acquisition
Transparent feature
No tense copying
No grammatical gender
No agreement
No grammatical relations
Parrallel phonological and
morphosyntactic phrasing
No expletive elements
No sensitivity for nature of
input
No discontinuity
No stem alternation
All semantic units used as
predicates
No influence of phon. weight
No phonological adaptation
No apposition
No cumulation
Dutch
Quechua
Pichi
DIP
SLM
Kharia
—
—
—
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
56
Tense copying
Hij vroeg
of
ik ziek was.
he ask.PAST.SG whether I ill COP.PAST.SG
‘He asked whether I was ill.’
Ambiguity in acquisition:
He asked: “Are you ill?”.
He asked: “Were you ill?”.
Japanese
Taroo=wa Hanako=ga byookidat-ta=to
it-ta
Taroo=TOPHanako=NOM be.sick.PAST=COMP say-PAST
‘Taroo said that Hanako had been sick.’
57
Tense copying
Hollebrandse (1999)
The correct interpretation of the tense-copied
form takes at least until 7
58
Gender and agreement
het ding
DEF thing(NEUT)
‘the thing’
een
klein-Ø
INDEF small-NEUT
‘a small thing’
de jongen
DEF boy(COMM)
‘the boy’
ding
thing(NEUT)
een
klein-e
jongen
INDEF small-COMM boy(COMM)
‘a small boy’
59
Gender and agreement
Blom, Polišenská & Weerman (2008)
The acquisition of the gender/agreement system
takes at least until 7
60
Transparent feature
No tense copying
No grammatical gender
No agreement
No grammatical relations
Parrallel phonological and
morphosyntactic phrasing
No expletive elements
No sensitivity for nature of
input
No discontinuity
No stem alternation
All semantic units used as
predicates
No influence of phon. weight
No phonological adaptation
No apposition
No cumulation
Dutch
Quechua
Pichi
DIP
SLM
Kharia
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
—
—
—
61
5. Implications for other
fields of language study
Implications
• Why are there so few transparent languages,
while they seem to be the most easily
learnable ones?
• Time depth seems to enhance opaqueness.
• Among the limited set of examples of
transparent languages, creole languages are
well represented
• And so are (young) sign languages
63
Implications
• Intensive contact seems to favour
transparency ...
• ... which brings in the perspective of second
language acquisition
• All of this, in turn, is relevant for the
theoretical debate about the autonomy of
grammar
64
6. Conclusions
Conclusions
• An important parameter in determining the
degree of learnability of a language is its
degree of transparency
• Degrees of transparency can be established on
the basis of typological research, given a
formal definition of transparent features
• These degrees of transparency determine
ease of first language acquisition
66
Conclusions
• Typological research thus contributes to
learnability research ...
• .. and has a spin-off in other domains of
linguistic research, especially research into
language contact and second language
acquisition, and the emergence of new (sign)
languages
67
this presentation is accessible at
home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp