transparency in language kees hengeveld sterre leufkens

Transparency in language

Kees HengeveldSterre Leufkens

Introduction

• Scarcity of transparent languages versus learnability of transparent languages

• Is there any systematicity in the degrees if transparency that languages display?

• Which types of features are more likely to be transparent?

• Can languages be ranked systematically in terms of their degree of transparency and, hence, learnability?

2

Contents

1. Transparency2. Transparency and FDG3. Transparent and non-transparent features4. The sample5. The data6. Results7. Conclusions

3

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 buyed” ‘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

2. Transparency and FDG

Interactions between levels

10

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Level

Relations between Levels

11

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level


12

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level


13

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level

Relations within Levels

14

Interpersonal Level


Morphosyntactic Level: Form X → Form Y

Phonological Level

Relations within Levels

15

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level: Form X → Form Y

Relations between and within Levels

16

Interpersonal Level




3. (Non-)transparent features

Interpersonal - Representational

18

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level

Apposition

One Interpersonal unit maps onto more than one representational unit

Peter, my brother, is ill.

19

Interpersonal/Representational - Morphosyntactic

20

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level

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.’

21

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.

22

Stem alternation

Wambonen- ande- na-eat(basic stem) eat(PAST/FUT/IMP.PL stem) eat(IMP.SG stem)

Spanishcab-er quepo *cabofit-INF I.fit I.fit

23

Interpersonal/Representational/Morphosyntactic - Phonological

24

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level

Phonological and morphosyntactic phrasing do not 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 COMP he

come.PST‘I wish he would come.’

25

Phonological weight influences morphosyntactic placement

SpanishLo=ví.3.SG.ACC=see.PRF.PST.IND.3.SG‘I saw him.’

Vía tu

vecino.see.PRF.PST.IND.3.SG OBJ 2.SG.POSS neighbour‘I saw you neighbour.’

26

Within the Morphosyntactic Level

27

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level

Expletive elements

Tagalog

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

28

Grammatical gender

Spanish casa ‘house’ is arbitrarily assigned to the class of feminine nounsárbol ‘tree’ is arbitrarily assigned to the class of masculine nouns

29

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’

30

Within the phonological level

31

Interpersonal Level




Phonological adaptations

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’

32

4. The sample

34

Language family Sample Language(s)Afro-Asiatic ShekoAltaic TurkishAustralian Bininj Gun-WokAustro-Asiatic KhariaAustronesian SamoanChukotko-Kamchatkan ChukchiCreole Sri Lanka MalayDravidian TamilEskimo-Aleut West GreenlandicIndo-European DutchJaponic JapaneseKartvelian GeorgianKhoisan SandaweNiger-Congo FongbeNorth Caucasian KhwarshiOtomanguean Sochiapam Chinantec

Quechuan Huanuco Quechua

Sino-Tibetan BantawaTrans-New Guinea TeiwaYukaghir Kolyma Yukaghir

5. The data

36

Language

Property

Bantawa.Chukchi, Sandawe, Sheko

Bininj Gun-Wok

Dutch

Fongbe, Japanese, Samoan, Teiwa

Khwarshi, Sochiapan Chinantec

Georgian, West Greenlandic

Quechua, YukaghirTamil, Turkish

Kharia

Sri Lanka Malay

Apposition + + + + + + + + +

Discontinuous constituents - + + - + + + - -

Grammatical agreement (clausal) - - + - + - - - -

Grammatical agreement (phrasal) - - + - + + - - -

Grammatical gender - - + - - - - - -

Grammatical relations + + + + + + + + -

Stem alternation + + + - + + + + -

Nominal expletives - - + - - - - - -

Phonological adaptations + + + + + + + + +

Phon. weight influences order - - + - + + + + +

The data (unsorted)

6. Results

38

Language

Property

Dutch



Quechua, Yukaghir, Tamil, Turkish

Kharia

Bantawa, Chukchi, Sandawe, Sheko

Bininj Gun-Wok


Sri Lanka Malay

Nominal expletives + - - - - - - - -

Grammatical gender + - - - - - - - -

Grammatical agreement (clausal) + + - - - - - - -

Grammatical agreement (phrasal) + + + - - - - - -

Discontinuous constituents + + + + - - + - -

Phon. weight influences order + + + + + - - - +

Stem alternation + + + + + + + - -


Apposition + + + + + + + + +


The data (sorted)

The transparency hierarchyApposition/Phonological adaptations

⊂Grammatical relations

⊂Morphologically based stem alternation

⊂Phonological weight influences morphosyntactic placement

⊂Discontinuous constituents

⊂Grammatical agreement (phrasal)

⊂Grammatical agreement (clausal)

⊂Grammatical gender/Nominal expletives

39

40

Language

Property

Dutch



Quechua, Yukaghir, Tamil, Turkish

Kharia

Bantawa, Chukchi, Sandawe, Sheko

Bininj Gun-Wok


Sri Lanka Malay

Nominal expletives + - - - - - - - -

Grammatical gender + - - - - - - - -

Grammatical agreement (clausal) + + - - - - - - -

Grammatical agreement (phrasal) + + + - - - - - -

Discontinuous constituents + + + + - - + - -

Phon. weight influences order + + + + + - - - +

Stem alternation + + + + + + + - -


Apposition + + + + + + + + +


The data (sorted)

Counterexample: Bininj Gun-Wok discontinuity

Ngakngak bogen ga-rrabu-gurrmegrey-crowned.babbler two 3-egg-lay.NPST‘Grey-crowned babblers lay two eggs.’

41

Counterexample: Sri Lanka Malay displacement

Se=ppe oorang thuuva pada anà-biilang1.SG=POSS man old PL PST-say

kithang pada Malaysia=dering1.PL PL Malaysia=ABL

anà-dhaathang katha.PST-come QUOT

‘My elders said that we had come from Malaysia.’

42

Tranparent and non-transparent features

Transparency hierarchy Interface or Level

Apposition IL – RL

Phonological adaptations PL

Grammatical relations IL/RL – ML

Morphologically based stem alternation IL/RL – ML

Phon. weight influences order IL/RL/ML – PL

Discontinuous constituents IL/RL – ML

Grammatical agreement (phrasal) ML

Grammatical agreement (clausal) ML

Grammatical gender ML

Nominal expletives ML

Highly non-transparent features

44

Interpersonal Level



Phonological Level

Weakly non-transparent features

45

Interpersonal Level




Transparent and non-transparent languages

Transparency hierarchy LanguagesApposition Phonological adaptations Sri Lanka MalayGrammatical relations Samoan, Teiwa, Fongbe, JapaneseStem alternation Bantawa, Bininj Gun-Wok,

Chukchi, Sandawe, ShekoPhon. weight influences order KhariaDiscontinuous constituents Quechua, Yukaghir, Tamil, TurkishGrammatical agreement (phrasal) Georgian, West GreenlandicGrammatical agreement (clausal) Khwarshi, Sochiapan ChinantecGrammatical gender

Nominal expletives Dutch

7. Conclusions

Conclusions

• The notion of transparency is a useful parameter in systematically characterizing languages as to the overall design of their grammars.

• The transparency hierarchy captures the differences between languages as to their degrees of transparency.

48

Conclusions

• Purely morphosyntactically motivated non-transparent features are the ones that languages are most resistent to.

• Given that transparent structures are easier to learn, the transparency hierarchy also predicts that there are differences in the degrees of learnability of languages.

49

this presentation is accessible atwww.keeshengeveld.nl

transparency in language kees hengeveld sterre leufkens

Documents