learnable and unlearnable languages kees hengeveld
TRANSCRIPT
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