learnable and unlearnable languages kees hengeveld

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. Transparency2. Defining Transparency in FDG3. Typology 4. Typology and acquisition5. Implications for other fields of language

study6. Conclusions

4

1. Transparency

Transparency

Turkishel-ler-im-dehand-PL-1.SG.POSS-LOC

‘in my hands’

Mastered before the age of two

Transparency

Dutchde balDEF.COMM ball(COMM)

het paardDEF.NEUT horse(NEUT)

Not completely mastered at the age of seven

Transparency: overgeneralization

Dutchik koop-te < ik kochtI buy-PST.SG I buy.PST.SG

‘I bought’

Turkishovergeneralization impossible

Transparency ≠ simplicity

TurkishKoş-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.’

Dutchverbal system with tense, number, person

Transparency: EsperantoDesign feature of Esperanto

EsperantoLa 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

Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Formulation

Morphosyntactic Encoding

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Encoding

Phonological Level

Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators

13

Interpersonal Level

(π M1: [ Move

(π A1: [ Discourse Act

(π F1) Illocution

(π P1)S Speaker

(π P2)A Addressee

(π C1: [ Communicated Content

(π T1)Φ Ascriptive Subact

(π R1)Φ Referential Subact

] (C1)Φ Communicated Content

] (A1)Φ Discourse Act

] (M1)) Move

14

Representational Level

(π p1: Propositional Content

(π ep1: Episode

(π e1: State-of-Affairs

[(π f1: [ Configurational Property

(π f1) Lexical Property

(π x1)Φ Individual

] (f1)) Configurational Property

(e1)Φ]) State-of-Affairs

(ep1)) Episode

(p1)) Propositional Content

15

Morphosyntactic Level

(Le1: Linguistic Expression

(Cl1: Clause

(Xp1 : Phrase

(Xw1 : Word

(Xs1) Stem

(Aff1) Affix

(Xw1)) Word

(Xp1)) Phrase

(Cl1)) Clause

(Le1)) Linguistic Expression

16

Phonological Level

(π U1: Utterance

(π IP1: Intonational Phrase

(π PP1: Phonological Phrase

(π PW1: Phonological Word

(π F1: Foot

(π S1) Syllable

(F1)) Foot

(PW1)) Phonological Word

(PP1)) Phonological Phrase

(IP1)N Intonational Phrase

(U1)) Utterance

Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators

Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Formulation

Morphosyntactic Encoding

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Encoding

Phonological Level

Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators

Relations between Levels

18

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level

Relations between Levels

19

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level

Relations between Levels

20

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level

Relations between Levels

21

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level

Relations within Levels

22

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y

Phonological Level

Relations within Levels

23

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y

Relations between and within Levels

24

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y

Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y

Interpersonal - Representational

25

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level

No appositionOne Interpersonal unit should map onto one representational unit

Sri Lankan MalayMrSebastian 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.’

ChickasawAboha 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

28

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level

No grammatical relations

Pragmatic/semantic alignment system

AcehneseLȏn 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

EnglishThe 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

Namaǁ’iip ke ‘áop=à kè ǂaí.3.SG.M DECL man=ACC REM.PAST call‘He called the man.’

Siíkxm ke kè ǁnàú ǁ’iíp kò !úu !xáis=à .

1.PL.M.DU DECL REM.PAST hear 3.SG.M REC.PAST goCOMP=ACC

‘We heard that he had just left.’

31

Interpersonal/Representational/Morphosyntactic - Phonological

32

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level

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

SpanishLo=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

35

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y

Phonological Level

No expletive elements

Tagalog

Marami-ng pera.lot-LNK money‘There is a lot of money.’“A lot of money”

36

No tense copyingAmele 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 nounsárbol ‘tree’ is arbitrarily assigned to the class of masculine nouns

38

No agreementSpanish la-ø casa-ø viej-a-øDEF.F-SG house(F)-SG old-F-SG‘the old house’

el árbol-ø viej-o-øDEF.M.SG tree(M)-SG old-M-SG‘the old tree’

39

No fusional morphology

No stem alternationWambonen- ande- na-eat(basic stem) eat(PAST/FUT/IMP.PL stem) eat(IMP.SG stem)

No cumulationSpanishcompr-é.buy-IND.PAST.PF.1.SG‘(I) bought.’

40

No phonological adaptation

41

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y

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)DutchEsperanto (Jansen fc.)Kharia (Leufkens fc.)Pichi (Leufkens 2010)Quechua (Grández Ávila fc.)Sri Lankan Malay (Nordhoff fc.)

44

45

Transparent feature DIP Dutch Kharia Pichi Que-chua

SLM

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 - - - - - -

46

Transparent feature Dutch Que-chua

Pichi DIP SLM Kharia

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 - - - - - -

47

Transparent feature Dutch Que-chua

Pichi DIP SLM Kharia

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 - - - - - -

48

Transparent feature Dutch Que-chua

Pichi DIP SLM Kharia

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 - - - - - -

Two scales

• Learnable/unlearnable languages• Learnable/unlearnable features

49

50

Transparent feature Dutch Que-chua

Pichi DIP SLM Kharia

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 - - - - - -

Unlearnable non-transparent features

51

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y

Phonological Level

Learnable non-transparent features

52

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y

The learnability of Esperanto

• Phonology and morphology are extremely learnable

• Syntax is not

53

54

Transparent feature Dutch Que-chua

Pichi DIP SLM Kharia Espe-ranto

No tense copying - + + + + + +No grammatical gender - + + + + + +No agreement - + + + + + -No grammatical relations - - + + + + -Parrallel phonological and morpho syntactic 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 - - - - - - +

4. Typology and acquisition

56

Transparent feature Dutch Que-chua

Pichi DIP SLM Kharia

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 - - - - - -

Tense copyingHij 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?”.

JapaneseTaroo=wa Hanako=ga byookidat-ta=to it-taTaroo=TOP Hanako=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 agreementhet ding de jongenDEF thing(NEUT) DEF boy(COMM)‘the thing’ ‘the boy’

een klein-Ø dingINDEF small-NEUT thing(NEUT)‘a small thing’

een klein-e jongenINDEF 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

61

Transparent feature Dutch Que-chua

Pichi DIP SLM Kharia

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 - - - - - —

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 arewell 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 athome.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp