morphosyntactic data phylogenetic analysis of
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphosyntactic Dataa case study of Negation in Tupí-Guaraní
N. Chousou-Polydouri, L. Michael, Z. O’Hagan, N. Gasparini, F. Rose
SLE, Leiden 2-5 September 20151
![Page 2: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction
○ linguistic phylogenetics mostly based on lexicon□ Gray & Atkinson 2003, Bowern & Atkinson 2012, Bouckaert et al.
2012...
○ with some exceptions based on morphosyntax□ abstract typological features (e.g. Dunn et al. 2005, Danielsen et al.
2011)□ cognate sets of morphemes (e.g. Nakhleh et al. 2005)□ parameters of UG (e.g. Longobardi & Guardiano 2009)
○ no previous use of cognate constructions
2
![Page 3: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
spoken in Amazonia and surrounding regions
Kokama
Omagua
Mawe
Tupinamba
Guaranian languages
Tupí-Guaraní
3
![Page 4: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Tupí-Guaraní
○ well established subgroup of the Tupí family○ ~45 languages, many extinct or threatened○ previous classifications
□ 8 subgroups (Rodrigues and Cabral 2002)
□ phylogenetic classification based on lexical data (Michael et al. 2015)
□ agreement in most low-level subgroups, different higher structure
4
![Page 5: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
phylogenetic internal classification of Tupí-Guaraní (Michael et al. 2015)
5
![Page 6: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Tupí-Guaraní
○ much comparative work in morphosyntax□ esp. Jensen 1998, Cabral 2000, 2001, 2007...
○ some reconstructions of morphemes and constructions□ Jensen 1987, 1990, 1997…, Schleicher 1998,
Cabral 2001, Cabral & Rodrigues 2005
○ little use of morphosyntax in classification□ Dietrich 1990, 2009, Schleicher 1998, Rodrigues
& Cabral 20026
![Page 7: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
TG Morphosyntactic Comparative Project
○ collaboration between Lyon and Berkeley○ morphosyntactic database (constructions)
□ phylogenetic classification □ comparison with classification based on lexicon□ subsequent work using the comparative method
7
![Page 8: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
TG Morphosyntactic Database
○ 27 TG languages + 2 nonTG Tupí languages
○ Domains:□ Negation, Person Marking, Valency Modifying
Operations, Directives…
○ Constructions organized by functions □ i.e. imperative 2pl, reciprocal object of
postpositions, indexation of 1inclA → 2plP…
○ Method illustration with negation8
![Page 9: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Previous work on TG negation
○ Reconstructions of morphemes in PTG:□ *n-...-i standard negation (Jensen 1998, Schleicher 1998)
□ *-eʔɨm privative (N and dep. verbs) (Jensen 1998), negation of nouns and imperative (Schleicher 1998)
□ *ruã/*ruĩ adverbial negation (and more) (Jensen 1998)
□ *eme negative imperative (Jensen 1998)
□ *ani free negative response (Jensen 1998), free prohibitive (Dietrich 2003)
□ *-c(o)we after -i w/ some TAM (Schleicher 1998)
○ No explicit reconstruction of constructions9
![Page 10: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Negation Dataset
○ 11 functions: standard negation, negative imperative, free prohibitive, denominal privative...
○ not just a list of morphemes, but whole constructions
10
![Page 11: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Negation Dataset
11PR: person marker
![Page 12: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Negation Dataset
12PR: person marker
![Page 13: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Building cognate sets
○ Cognate = common ancestor□ similarity of form & meaning/function
○ Morpheme cognate sets□ 45 sets□ 20 sets with at least two languages
○ Construction cognate sets□ 23 sets with at least two languages and distinct
from morpheme cognate sets
13
![Page 14: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
*eʔɨm morpheme cognate set
14
![Page 15: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
*eʔɨm morpheme cognate set
15
![Page 16: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
*N-eʔɨm construction cognate set
16
![Page 17: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
*N-eʔɨm construction cognate set
17
![Page 18: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Character Coding
1. Binary presence-absence coding for both morpheme and construction cognate sets
2. Partially ordered and partially polarized multistate coding for morpheme function.
18
![Page 19: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
state network for function of *eam
19
Free Negation “no”
Deverbal Privative
Standard Negation Constituent NegationDenominal Privative
Standard Negation
2
3
2
![Page 20: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
○ 43 binary characters total○ 5 multistate function characters
informative for subgrouping
too few characters for building a tree (more data coming...)
20
Character Coding
![Page 21: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Ancestral State Reconstruction
○ quantitative technique○ traces evolution of a feature○ reconstructs state of feature at interior
nodes○ uses explicit model of evolution○ typically tree is fixed
□ TG tree based on lexical data (Michael et al. 2015)
21
![Page 22: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Ancestral State Reconstruction
○ Cognate characters□ maximum likelihood reconstruction□ model: gain vs loss ~1:15 (Bayesian estimate)
○ Morpheme function characters□ parsimony reconstruction□ model: state network
22
![Page 23: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Results: Morphemes
presence of *ani (morpheme)
probability of presence
Proto-Tupí-Guaraní
nonTG
![Page 24: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
presence of *ani (morpheme)
24
![Page 25: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
presence of *eam (morpheme)
25
![Page 26: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
presence of *eam (morpheme)
26
![Page 27: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Results:PTG morphemes
*-eʔɨm privative *ruã/*ruĩ constituent negation *eme negative imperative*ani free negation *-c(o)we negation with certain TAM
reconstructed at a lower level (subgroup III plus Southern subgroup)
27
![Page 28: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Results: Constructions
presence of *PRimp-V emePR: person marker
![Page 29: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
presence of *PRimp-V eme
29
![Page 30: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
presence of *t-PRind-V eme
30
![Page 31: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
presence of *t-PRind-V eme
31
![Page 32: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
*PR-V eme negative imperative*ta-PR-V eme negative directive*n-PR-N,V-i standard negation
reconstructed as a construction with two affixes, rather than a circumfix
*N-eʔɨm denominal privative
PR: person marker
Results:PTG constructions
32
![Page 33: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
function of *eam33
Results: Functions
Free Negation “no”
Standard Negation
Deverbal Privative
General negator
![Page 34: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Conclusions
○ 6 PTG negators (ani, -eʔɨm, -i, nda-, -ruã, eme) out of 45 cognate sets
○ 5 PTG negative constructions○ many reconstructions: shallow group○ some examples of grammaticalization (e.g.
*eam)○ many cases of functional extension (e.g. -ã
in Siriono)
34
![Page 35: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Conclusions
○ Phylogenetic methods & morphosyntax:□ morphology already treated just like lexicon□ syntactic data can also be used□ both add information refining the classification
○ ancestral state reconstruction techniques help□ determining where in the tree an element can be
reconstructed□ determining the proto-function of that element
35
![Page 36: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Acknowledgements
○ Data harvesters □ K. Bartolomei, N. Chousou-Polydouri, E. Clem, W.
Daviet, N. Gasparini, P. Granado Columba, L. Michael, Z. O’Hagan, F. Rose
○ Additional data contributors□ E-M. Rössler, S. Meira
○ RefLex development and support□ S. Flavier
○ Funding: □ France-Berkeley Fund, Labex ASLAN
36
![Page 37: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Sources
Aché field notes
Paraguayan Guaraní Guasch1996Kaiowá Cardoso 2008Mbyá Dooley 2006Tapiete Gonzalez 2005Chiriguano Dietrich 1986Guarayu Höller 1932Siriono field notesYuki Villafañe 2004Omagua field notesKokama field notes, Vallejos 2010Tupinambá Lemos Barbosa 1956Tapirapé Praça 2007Tocantins Asuriní Harrison 1975Parakana Silva1999
Avá Canoeiro Borges 2006Tembé Duarte 2007Anambé Juliao 2005Araweté Solano 2009Xingu Asuriní Pereira 2009Kayabí Dobson 88, 97Parintintin Pease 2007[1968]Kamaiurá Seki 2000Wayampí Copin 2012Emerillon Rose 2011Ka'ápor Lopes 2009Guajá Magalhaes 2007Awetí Reiter 2011Mawé Franceschini 1999, field notes
37
![Page 38: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Higher structure comparison between Rodrigues & Cabral 2002 (on the left) and our TG classification (on the right)
(colors according to the 3 main branches of Rodrigues & Cabral 2002)38
![Page 39: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
function of *eme
Neg. Imp. & Neg. Dir. Neg. Imp. Neg. Dir. Neg. Int.MCN & FCN
Tupinamba (Lemos Barbosa 1956:91-92)e-î-pysyk umé2sg.imp-3.P-takeneg.imp‘Don’t take it.’t’ o-î-pysyk umédir 3A-3P-takeneg.dir‘He should not take it !’
39
![Page 40: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
ani PR-V (Negative Directive or Negative Imperative)
40
![Page 41: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
presence of *-c(o)we morpheme
Guarayu (Höller 1932:29)nd-a-mae-i-chi-raneg-1sg-look-neg-neg.fut-nfut‘I will not look’
41
![Page 42: Morphosyntactic Data Phylogenetic Analysis of](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012719/61b20cf98ec5d069206540aa/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
*ani (free negation)
42