Morphosemantics,constructions,
algorithmictypology
andparalleltexts
BernhardWälchli
[email protected]
StockholmUniversity
Bern(CH),September20,2012
BernerZirkelfürSprachwissenschaft
UniversitätBern,InstitutfürSprachwissenschaft
1
Abstract
Unlikemorphology(theinternalformalstructureofwords)andsemantics(thestudy
ofthemeaningofwordsandsentences),morphosemanticsisconcernedwiththe
linkbetweenmarkerandmeaning.Traditionalapproachestomorphosemanticssuch
assemioticsandconstructiongrammararguethattherelationshipbetweenimage
acoustiqueandconceptissymbolic.Thisworkswellifthelinksareknown(inthe
“proficiencymode”).InthistalkIarguethatthereisastatisticalalternativewhichis
particularlyusefulifthelinksarenotknown(inthe“discoverymode”).Meanings
andmarkersformcollocationsintextswhichcanbemeasuredbymeansof
collocationmeasures.However,thereisaconsiderablenon‐isomorphismbetween
markerandmeaning.Asiswellknownamarkercanhavemanydifferentmeanings
(polysemy).Somewhatlesswellknownisthatameaningisoftenexpressedbymany
differentmarkers,bothparadigmaticallyandsyntagmatically(polymorphy).
Tomakemeaningsandmarkerscommensurable,theymustbeconvertedinto
unitsofthesamekind.Thissamekindisthesetofcontextsinatextorcorpuswhere
amarkerormeaningoccurs.Ifthedistributionofameaninginacorpusisknown,its
correspondingmarkercomplexcanbedeterminedwhichconsistsofa
paradigmaticallyandsyntagmaticallyorderedsetofsimplemarkers.Themarkers
consideredherearesurfacemarkersoftwotypes:wordformsandmorphs
2
(continuouscharacterstringswithinwordforms).Moreabstractmarkertypessuch
aslexemes,grammaticalcategoriesandwordclassesmightoftenbebettermarkers
thansurfacemarkers,buttheyarenotavailableinthediscoverymode.
Markercomplexesareasimpleconstructiontype.Aproceduralapproachto
constructiongrammarisadoptedwheremarkercomplexesareviewedasan
intermediatestageinaprocessingchainofincreasinglymorecomplexconstruction
typesfromsimplemarkersviamarkercomplexestosyntacticconstructions.Marker
complexeshavetheadvantagethattheycanbeextractedautomaticallyfrom
massivelyparalleltexts,i.e.translationsofthesametextintomanylanguages,such
astheNewTestamentusedhere.Inparalleltextsthesamemeanings(withcertain
restrictions)areexpressedacrossdifferentlanguages.Thismeansthatafunctional
domaincanbedefinedasasetofcontextswhereacertainmeaningoccurs.
Thesameprocedureisappliedtocross‐linguisticallysimilarmaterialandthe
procedureappliedtocross‐linguisticdataisfullyexplicitandthereforereplicable.It
canbeimplementedinacomputerprogramandrunwithouttheinterventionofa
typologist(algorithmictypology).Theunderlyingideaisthattheprocedureof
extractionisinvariant(proceduraluniversal)whereastheextractedstructurescan
behighlyvariabledependingonthetextsandlanguagestowhichtheyareapplied.
3
Thetalkconsiderstowhatextentsurfacemarkersaresufficientasinputfor
theidentificationofconstructionsinarangeofgrammaticalandlexicaldomainsina
world‐wideconveniencesampleofsomewhatmorethan50languages.Oneofthe
domainsconsideredinmoredetailiscomparisonofinequality.Comparisonof
inequalityisexpressedinmostlanguagesofthesamplebyanatleastbipartite
markercomplexconsistingofthepartsstandardmarker(‘than’)andpredicate
intensifier(‘more’,‘‐er’).Itwillbearguedherethatbothofthemareintrinsicpartsof
thecomparativeconstruction.ThesefindingsarenotfullyinaccordancewithLeon
Stassen’stypologyofcomparison–aclassicalstudyinfunctionaldomaintypology–
whichisbasedexclusivelyontheencodingofthestandardNP.Otherdomains
consideredinthetalkincludenegation,‘want’,future,andpredicativepossession.
4
Traditionalapproachestomorphosemantics
DeSaussure:Semiotics
Concept
Image
acoustique
Morphology
Semantics
Morphosemantics
Croft:RadicalConstructionGrammar
CONSTRUCTION
syntacticproperties
morphologicalproperties
phonologicalproperties
semanticproperties
pragmaticproperties
discourse‐functionalproperties
FORM
symbolic
correspondence(link)
(CONVENTIONAL)
MEANING
theinternalformalstructureofwords
thestudyofthemeaningofwordsandsentences
thelinkbetweenmarkerandmeaning
5
Analternativetosymboliclinks:collocations
“[a]collocationisanexpressionconsistingoftwoormorewordsthatcorrespondto
someconventionalwayofsayingthings”(Manning&Schütze1999:151)
strongtea
powerfuldrug
Meaningandmarkersaredifferentkindsofthings.However,intextstheyboth
manifestthemselvesasdistributions.Distributionisthemediuminwhichmeaning
canbeturnedintomarkerandviceversa.
Meaningsandmarkerscollocate
Collocationmeasures,e.g.,t‐score
a x y
 
prob( A, B)  prob( A)  prob( B) n n n
T

1
1 a  prob( A, B)

n
n n
6
Naturalandnon‐naturalmeaning(Grice1957,written1948)
Naturalmeaning
“Thosespotsmeanmeasles”
Canberestatedas“Thefactthathehas
thosespotsmeansthathehasmeasles”
xmeansthatpentailsp
Non‐naturalmeaning
“Thelightedsignontheroofmeansthat
thecabisfree”
Iscompatiblewith“Butitisn’tinfactfree
–thedriverhasmadeamistake”.
xdoesnotmeanthatpentailsp
Collocationsarenaturalmeaning
7
ConstructionsinConstructionGrammar
Goldberg(2006:5)“[A]LLLEVELSOFGRAMMATICALANALYSISINVOLVECONSTRUCTIONS:
LEARNEDPAIRINGSOFFORMWITHSEMANTICORDISCOURSEFUNCTION,includingmorphemes
orwords,idioms,partlylexicallyfilledandfullygeneralphrasalpatterns”(emphasis
removed,BW)
morpheme:
word
idiom(partlyfilled)
Ditransitive
Passive
e.g.pre‐,ing
e.g.avocado,anaconda,and
e.g.jog<someone’s>memory,send<someone>tothecleaners
SubjVObj1Obj2(e.g.hegaveherafishtaco,hebakedheramuffin)
SubjauxVPpp(PPby)(e.g.thearmadillowashitbyacar)
Adynamicapproachtoconstructions
Marker Markercomplex
Syntacticconstruction
Processingchainofincreasinglymorecomplexconstructions
8
Anonomasiologicalapproach
Meaning
Onomasiological given
Semasiological wanted
Form
wanted
given
Intypology:functionaldomain
AccordingtoMiestamo(2005:293)afunctionaldomainis“anydomainofrelated
(semanticorpragmatic)functionsthat(oneormore)language(s)encodewiththe
formalmeanstheypossess”
Non‐isomorphismofmarkersandmeanings:
PolysemyandPolymorphy
ameaningisoftenexpressedbymanydifferentmarkers
Spanishquererhasmorethanone
meaning‘want’,‘love/desire’
Negation(informalsemanticssimply)in
Frenchhasmorethanonemarker:ne,pas,
point,non,rien,sansetc.
Syntagmaticandparadigmaticpolymorphy
9
Markercomplex:paradigmaticallyandsyntagmatically
orderedsetofsimplemarkers
Basicconventions
readbottom‐upleft‐to‐right
sans
non
0.8
1.0
Negation - French
0.6
n'
Slots:columns,lefttoright
Amplitude:verticalextension
Dedication:horizontalextension
Wordform:green
Morph:yellow,
#iswordboundary
plus
aucun
ni
personne
rien
0.4
point
0.2
ne
pas
0.0
mais
0
1
2
3
4
5
Wordorder:doesnotfigure
Syntax:doesnotfigure
Lexemes,grams:donotfigure
10
Negation - Alemannic
0.2
1.0
ne
pas
nit
0.2
0.4
0.4
point
mais
sundern
0.0
0.0
0
French:
Alemannic:
40005017
keini
nimi
nemads
nigs
kei
0.6
plus
aucun
ni
personne
rien
0.6
n'
0.8
sans
non
0.8
1.0
Negation - French
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
[ne|n'|non|sans]1[pas|point|rien|personne|ni|aucun|plus]2[mais]3
[nit|kei|nigs|nemads|nimi|keini]1[sundern]2
[ne]1croyez[pas]2quejesoisvenupourabolirlaloioulesprophètesjesuisvenu[non]1
pourabolir[mais]3pouraccomplir
11
English:
English2:
40005017
40005017
[not|no|nothing|lest|neither|cannot|none|except|never]1[but]2
[not|no|never|nothing|lest|unless|neither]1[but]2[do|did|does]3
think[not]1thaticame...icame[not]1todestroy[but]2tofulfil
[do]3[not]1thinkthatihave...ihave[not]1cometodestroythem[but]2tofulfillthem
12
Negation - Wolof
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Negation - Moore
bañ
uma
kõn
da
a
w aaye
ye ka
0.2
kenn
0.2
sã
0.4
0.4
du
ul
laa
0.6
0.6
uñu#
zɩ
ra
ned
Wolof:
Moore:
40005017
40005017
0.0
0.0
dara
0
1
2
baa
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
[>ul<|du|>uñu#<|>uma<|bañ]1[waaye|kenn]2[dara|a]3
[ye|sã|laa]1[ka|da|kõn|ra|zɩ]2[baa]3[ned]4
b[ul]1eendefeneñëw...ñëw[uma]1ngirdindileen[waaye]2ngirñuamciman
[da]2tags‐y...noy[ye]1mam[ka]2wannansãam‐b[ye]1layaatɩpids‐ba
13
1.0
Negation - Ewe
oa
0.6
0.8
ынышт
огынал
огеш
огыдал
от
огына
омыл
ит
ынже
огыт
огыда
ом
огытыл
ида
у ке
o
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Mari
ок
огыл
0.0
0
Mari:
Ewe:
1
2
3
4
5
ga
ke
a ke
0.0
но
#ny em
meny e
0.2
0.2
а
#m
wom
0
1
boŋ
2
3
4
5
[огыл|ок|уке|ида|огытыл|ом|огыда|огыт|ынже|ит|омыл|огына|от|огыдал|огеш|огынал
|ынышт]1[но|а]2
[o|oa]1[aɖeke|menye|>#nyem<|>wom<]2[boŋ|>ga<]3[ke]4[>#m<]5
14
Algorithmictypologyandproceduraluniversals
Thesameprocedureisappliedtocross‐linguisticallysimilar
materialandtheprocedureappliedtocross‐linguisticdatais
fullyexplicitandthereforereplicable.Itcanbeimplemented
inacomputerprogramandrunwithouttheinterventionofa
typologist(algorithmictypology).
Theunderlyingideaisthattheprocedureofextractionis
invariant(proceduraluniversal)whereastheextracted
structurescanbehighlyvariabledependingonthetextsand
languagestowhichtheyareapplied.
15
ComparisonofInequality
Stassen(1985)ComparisonandUniversalGrammar
TypologybasedonStandardofComparison
Locative
‘Elephantbigat/onhorse’
Separative ‘Fromhorseelephantbig’
Allative
‘Bigelephanttohorse’
Particle
‘Elephantbigthanhorse’
Exceed
‘Elephantbigexceedshorse/exceedshorseinsize
ConjoinedA ‘Elephantbig,horsesmall’
B ‘Elephantbig,horsenotbig’
Functionaldomain.Stassen,definedintensionally:
Aconstructionhavingthesemanticfunctionofassigningagradedpositionona
predicativescaletotwoobjects,standardandcompareeareNPs
Here,definedextensionally:
Forconvenience,anyversecontainingEnglishthan
16
Whataboutthepredicateintensifier“more”,“‐er”?
“amajorityofthelanguagesdonotusesuchanovertmarking”(Stassen1985:27)
“...Ihavenotsucceededinfindinganexplanatoryprincipleonthebasisofwhichthe
presenceorabsenceofthismarkingcanbepredicted.Hence,Iwillassumethatthe
phenomenonofcomparative‐markingisirrelevanttoourtypologyofcomparative
constructions,andthatitmustbeexplainedintermsof(asyetunknown)regularities
whichareindependentofthosethatdeterminethechoiceofaparticulartypeof
comparativeconstruction.Therefore,Iwillnotindicatesystematicallywhetheror
notagivenlanguagerequiresmorphologicalmarkingofthecomparativepredicate”
(Stassen1985:28).
‐>ThedatacollectioninStassen’stypologyisexplanation‐driven.
Inthepresentapproach,datacollectionisindependent
17
Comparison - Portuguese
melhor
0.6
may or
que
0.4
maior
do
0.2
más
que
mais
é
0.0
es
0.0
0.2
0.8
mejor
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
Comparison - Spanish
0
Portuguese:
Spanish:
41001007
41001007
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
[do]1[mais|maior|melhor]2[que]3[é]4
[más|mayor|mejor]1[que]2[es]3
vemaquele[que]3[é]4[mais]2poderoso[do]1[que]3eudequemnãosoudigno
vienetrasmíel[que]2[es]3[más]1poderoso[que]2yoalcualnosoydignode
18
Comparison - Lithuanian
0.8
0.6
bedre
ere#
lengv iau
labiau
už
geriau
0.4
daugiau
større
0.2
enn
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
Comparison - Norwegian
0.0
0.0
mere
negu esn
0
Norwegian:
Lithuanian:
41001007
41001007
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
[enn]1[mere|større|>ere#<|bedre]2
[negu|už]1[>esn<|daugiau|geriau|labiau|lengviau]2
2
3
4
5
ermigkommerdensomersterk[ere]2[enn]1jeghanhvisskoremjegikk
skelbėpomanęsateinagaling[esn]2is[už]1maneašnevertasnusilenkęs
19
v a'cac
mọjo'cha'
mọjo'chas
jam
ọy a'y a'
muju'cha'
uy a'y a'
dadam'
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Tsimane
0
Tsimane:
Yanesha:
1
2
3
4
5
[muju'cha'|mọjo'chas|mọjo'cha'|va'cac]1[uya'ya'|ọya'ya']2[dadam']3[jam]4
[ello|tama]1[atarr]2
20
Nointensifierintheconjoinedtype?
No!Rathernostandardmarkerandmorethanoneintensifierinstead.
Yanesha’(Matthew3:11)
Ña‐pa' ñ eñ t̃ [atarr]2 ahuamencat̃‐esha' na‐ña‐pa' ama [tama]1 ahuamencat̃‐eyay‐no.
he‐TOP REL much
strong‐PROP
I‐SEQ‐TOP,not that.much mighty‐NEG.SUFF‐MIDD
‘that{comethafterme}ismightierthanI’
atarrP1;amatamaP2‘muchP1,notthat.muchP2’
atarrP1;ellometan(err)anP2‘muchP1,more/again/separatedsurpass(again)P2’
Tsimane(Matthew3:11)
Mu’
qui
ra'
atsij
he/thatso.that FUT come
[jam]4 jeñej
yụ,
not
like I
[muju'cha']1 fer
bu'yi‐ty,
more
strong
be.in.a.position‐MASC
[uya'ya']2
yụ...
less
I
Tsimanehasthreeintensifierslots
P1[dadam']3[muju'cha']1...[ọya'ya']2P2‘P1bettermore...lessP2’
42012007[dadam']3mu'[muju'cha']1ạ̈ rä jjinacmi'in[jam]4jeñ ejjaijtyi'in[ọya'ya']2ma'jotacsi
21
Comparison - Tagalog
0.8
0.6
erangi
ake
0.4
kay
higit
dakila
atu
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
Comparison - Maori
nui
laloŋ
ke
0.0
0.0
pa
0
Maori:
Tagalog:
41001007
41001007
41012033
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
[atu|ake|erangi]1[nui]2[ke]3
atu‘away’,ake‘up’,nui‘big’,/kee/‘different’
[kay]1[laloŋ|higit]2[pa|dakila]3
...iahautetahihekaharawa[ake]1iahauekoreahauetauki
...sumusunodsahulihankoaŋ[laloŋ]2makapaŋyarihan[kay]1saakinhindiako
...sakaniyaŋsariliay[higit]2[pa]3[kay]1salahatnaŋmaŋahandog...
22
Comparison - Haitian
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Comparison - Ewe
wu
0
1
2
3
4
5
pito
pase
pi
plis
0
1
2
3
4
5
41001007mounk'apvinaprem'langen[plis]3pouvwaanpil[pase]1m'mwenpabon
40010031noupabezwenpèmenmnouvo[pi]2[plis]3[pase]1anpiltizwazo
40011009twimwenmenmmwendinouli[pi]2[plis]3[pase]1yonpwofèt
41009043l'jete[pito]2ouantrenanlaviaakyonsèlmen[pase]1pououreteaktoudemen
23
Comparison - Erzya
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Comparison - Wolof
sut
ëpp
gën
moo
0
1
a
2
3
4
5
де
седе
0
1
2
3
4
5
40003011 kiyñëwsamagannaaw[moo]2ma[ëpp]1kàttan
41010025 giléemjaarcibën‐bënupusa[moo]2[gën]1[a]3yombboroomalalduggci
40003011 мельгансыцясьмон[де]2нь[седе]1пеквиев
24
“Doublemarking”incomparisonisdescribedinAnsaldo(1999)asone
typeofcomparisonthatneedstobeaccountedforbyparticular
explanations.However,“doublemarking”isclearlytheruleratherthan
theexception.
Inavastmajorityofthelanguagessurveyedtherearebothstandard
markersandintensifiersextractedincomparison
 unlessthereisastandardmarkerextendedintotheintensifying
domainor
 unlesstherearetwodifferenttypesofintensifiersintheconjoined
type
Inaclearmajorityoflanguages,comparisonissyntagmatically
polymorphous
25
Borrowingoffunctionwordsandpolymorphy
“Doppelsetzung”(Stolz&Stolz1996,
Wiemer&Wälchli2012)
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.4
maski
masmanda
más
que
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
Comparison - CakchiquelCentral
1.0
1.0
Comparison - QuechuaCajamarca
chuvech
0.0
0.0
rukij
0
40003011
41010025
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
illapapirurinnamshamuqnoqa[manda]2suq[mas]1pudirniyuq
xa[más]1laek...camello...junbak[que]2[chuvech]3junbeyonnoc
4
26
Nextdomain:WANT
Want - Somali
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
jeclaan
dooni
inaad
inaan
#doonay
0.2
0.2
chtejí
chteje
chtíti
chceš-li
chceš
chce
chci
chcete
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.8
Want - Czech
#nech
chtel
0.0
0.0
inuu
chteli
0
1
2
3
4
0
iti#
1
2
3
4 27
Somemarkercomplexesfor‘Want’:
Czech:
[chtěl|>#nech<|chtěli|chcete|(5moreforms)]1[>iti#<]2
Zulu:
[>thand<]1[>#uku]2
Wolof:
[bëgg|>#bëgg<]1[a]2
Greek(Modern):
[να|θέλω]1[θέλει|θέλεις|θέλω|θέλετε|(6moreforms)]2
Somali:
[>#doonay<|dooni|jeclaan]1[inuu|inaan|inaad]2
Saramaccan:
[kë]1
GreenlandicWest: [>uma<]1
Maltese:
[>rid<|ried|riedx]1
Haspelmath’s(2005)typologyof‘want’(simplified)andmarkercomplexes
Complementsubject Complementsubject
Desiderative
implicit
expressedovertly
affix
Markercomplex
Saramaccan
Maltese
West
withoutsubordinator
Greenlandic
Markercomplexwith Czech,Zulu,Wolof
ModernGreek,Somali subordinator
28
Khanina(2008,2010)vs.GoddardandWierzbicka(2010).
 Khaninaclaimsthat‘want’isnotuniversalinthesenseof“beingtreatedonlyas
particulartypeofamoregeneralsituation”(2008:845).
 Inhervarietysample,shefindsthat95of136desideratives(hercovertermforall
‘want’expressions)“areregularlyusedtoexpressothersituationsthanpure
‘want’”(2008:847).
 AccordingtoherthisisachallengeforNaturalSemanticMetalanguagewhere
‘want’isconsideredtobeasemanticprime,“i.e.anindivisibleunitofmeaningwith
alexicalexponentinalllanguages”(GoodardandWierzbicka2010:108).
 ForNaturalSemanticMetalanguageitisimportanttodistinguishbetween
polysemyandsemanticgenerality.Forinstance,Spanish,quererhastwo(ormore)
meanings‘want’and‘love/like’ratherthanonegeneralmeaning‘want/love/like’.
Khanina,however,arguesthatmultiplemeaningsof‘want’expressionsarebest
analyzedasmacrofunctionbydefault.
 Khaninaquestionstheuniversalityof‘want’.AccordingtoGoodardandWierzbicka
(2010)thisisdueonlytoanunderestimationofpolysemy.
29
Parallelstothepresentapproach
 GoddardandWierzbicka(2010:114):“asemanticallyprimitivemeaningwill
alwaysbeexpoundedbymeansofspecificallylexicalmaterial,bya‘segmental
sign’,andnot(forexample)byreduplication,orablaut,orsolelythrougha
grammaticalconstruction.”
 Khanina’sapproachissimilartothepresentoneinthatsheexplicitlychooses
desiderativesinEuropeanlanguages(thepracticalmeta‐languagesofmost
descriptivegrammars)asherpointofdeparture.Shealsospeaksoftranslational
equivalentsofStandardAverageEuropean.IfIherechooseClassicalGreekethelo
‘want’todefinethedomain,thebasicrationaleisverysimilar.
 NaturalSemanticMetalanguageproceedstoalargeextentonomasiologicallyasfar
assemanticprimesareconcerned.Forallconceptswhichareclaimednottobe
semanticprimes,however,NaturalSemanticMetalanguagerathertakesa
semasiologicalstance,butthisdoesnotneedtoconcernusheresince‘want’is
claimedtobeasemanticprime.
30
Discoverymodevs.proficiencymode
Intheapproachtakenhere,weoperateinthediscoverymode.Thismeansthatwe
cannotmakeanydistinctionbetweenpolysemyandmacrofunctionsincethereisno
establishedmarker‐meaningrelationship.Ifwewanttofindouthowameaningis
expressedcross‐linguistically,whatisgivenisonemeaningandallpotentialmarker
candidates.Themarker‐meaningrelationshipcannotbegiven,otherwisewewould
notfindout.Ifthemarker‐meaningrelationshipisgiven,wealreadyknowwhatthe
meaningofaformis.
However,Idonotassumethatthereshouldbeanisomorphismbetweenmarkerand
meaning,aslongasthereisacollocationofmeaningandmarker,arelationshipcan
beestablishedirrespectiveofwhetherthereispolysemyinanarrowsenseor
macrofunction.Inthematerialconsideredherethereisnoproblemtoestablisha
meaning‐markerrelationshipinthe‘want’‐domaininvirtuallyalllanguages
considered.
31
WANT=SAY,butinverydifferentways
Kobon(Mark10:51)
“Yɨp
nɨhön g‐aŋ,
a
gɨ‐mön, au‐ab‐ön?”
ö
g‐a...
1SG.OBJ what do‐IMP3SG, QUOT do‐SS2SG come‐PRS‐2SG QUOT do‐RMPST3SG
“Amgö u kauyaŋ nɨŋ‐nam,
a
g‐em,
au‐ab‐in,”
a
g‐a.
eye that again see‐PRESCR1SG QUOT do‐SS1SG come‐PRS1SG QUOT do‐RMPST3SG
[Jesusansweredhim,]"Whatdoyouwantmetodoforyou?"[Theblindmansaidto
him,"Rhabboni,]thatImayseeagain."Literally:Helike:“Youcomelike‘Dome
what’”...
Bukiyip(Mark10:51)
“Nyak ny‐a‐kli
i‐nek‐um‐enyu
moneken?”...
2SG‐REA‐say 1SG:IRR‐do‐BENEF‐2SG.OBJ
what
2SG
“...yek y‐a‐kli
i‐na‐tulugun.”
1SG‐IRR‐say 1SG:IRR‐REFL‐look/see
1SG
[Jesusansweredhim,]“Whatdoyouwantmetodoforyou?”[Theblindmansaidto
him,“Rhabboni,]thatImayseeagain.”
32
Want - Bukiyip
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Want - Samoan
loto
mananao
nagalo
fia
manao
0
1
2
3
4
Firstperson
singularsubjectisa
generalcollocation
of‘want’
yakli
0
1
2
3
4
Considerableparadigmaticpolymorphy.
Samoan<manao>/mana‘o/(verb)‘want,desire’,fia(particlepreposedtoverb)
expressesawish,finagalo(nounhonorific)‘wish’,<mānana‘o>/mana‘o/(verb)
pluralofmana‘o‘want,desire’,loto(noun)‘heart,will’.
33
Alocalapproachtosemanticdecomposition
 Everyutterance(orpartofutterance)hasanexemplarycontextualmeaningof
itsownthatisunique(see,e.g.,WälchliandCysouw2012fordiscussion).
 Thisexemplarymeaningisusuallyhighlysimilartothatofmanyotherutterances,
whichiswhyitispossibletoidentifyclustersofutteranceswithhighlysimilar
meaning:thesesharerangesofmeaning.
 Foreveryrangeofmeaningthereisalocaldecompositionofexemplary
contextualmeaningintotwocomponents:thegeneralmeaningoftherange
versuseverythingelse.
 Ifthemeaningrangeislexical,theexemplarswillmostobviouslydifferintheir
grammaticalmeanings.Ifthemeaningrangeisgrammatical,thevariable
elementswillmostobviouslybelexical.Thisyieldsanappearanceofaglobal
divisionofmeaningintolexicalandgrammaticalmeaning.However,thisdivisionis
notinanywayrigid.
 Grammaticalmeaningsandlexicalmeaningsaretreatedalike.Nodifference
betweenlexicalandgrammaticaltypology.
34
Futuretense
(Indonesianakan)
Future - French
0.6
0.4
p'ap
0.2
er
ont#
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Future - Haitian
a#
pral
0
n'a
y 'a
0.0
0.0
va
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
35
Future - English
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Future - English2
should
believ e
0.4
will
0.2
0.2
0.4
will
shall
be
0.0
0.0
be
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
36
Future - Hungarian
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Future - Finnish
0
0.0
majd
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
AccordingtoDahl(1985:105)thenumberoflanguageswithoutfuturetense
categoryisfairlysmall.
4
37
Future - Yanesha
0.6
0.8
s-ha
s-wohoch
0.2
0.4
wo
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
Future - Papago
cha'#
ter
uerr
amach
0.0
0.0
at
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
InPapagothepotentialmodalmarkerwoisextractedalongwithatconsistingofa‐
non‐imperativemoodand‐tcontemporarytense(usedinpast,presentandfuture
contextsopposedtozeropre‐experientalandḍremotepast).
38
PredicativePossession
Stassen(2009):fourbasictypesofpredicativepossession:
Type
Definingmarker
 Locational ‘At/topossessor[there]is/existsapossessee Possessor
Possessee
 With
‘Possessoris/existswithapossessee’
None
 Topic
‘[Asfor]Possessor,possesseeis/exists’
Predicate
 Have
‘Possessorhasapossessee’
Predicate
Negation
Possessor
Indefinite
Possessee
Negationandindefinite(indefinitearticleofpossessum)aregeneralcollocationsof
predicativepossession
39
Have‐possessivesareeasiesttoextractiftheyarerecent(highdedication)whenthey
havenotmanagedyettogrammaticalizeintosomethingelse
Pred. Possession - Spanish
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Pred. Possession - Lithuanian
0.6
0.6
tenga
tienes
tenéis
tengo
tenían
reikia
tienen
siete
ka
0.4
0.4
tenemos
oiga
tur
0.2
tenía
0.2
teniendo
no
#ne
0.0
0.0
tiene
#necesi
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
Spanish:
[tiene|tenía|teniendo|tienen|tenemos|tenían|....]1[no|oiga|siete]2[>#necesi<]3
Lithuanian: [>tur<|reikia]1[>#ne<|ką]2
40
Pred. Possession - German
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - French
hast
hatten
0.6
0.6
habt
habe
0.4
0.4
v ie
hat
n'
1
2
3
4
pas
a
besoin
une
av ons
0.0
0.0
0
ont
ay ant
macht
einen
oreilles
av ait
0.2
0.2
haben
av ez
as
un
hatte
zu
elle
entende
av aient
ai
0
1
2
3
4
German: [haben|hatte|hat|habe|habt|hatten|hast]1[einen|macht]2[zu]3
French: [n'|un|vie]1[avons|besoin|ayant|avait|ont|as|avez|ai...]2[a]3[une|pas|oreilles]4
41
0.8
0.8
perempuan
sakit
memegang
0.4
0.6
quỉ
cầm
cần
0.4
0.6
Pred. Possession - Indonesian
1.0
1.0
Pred. Possession - Vietnamese
tiada
bertelinga
beroleh
menaruh
#ber
0.2
0.2
có
mempuny ai
padany a
không
0.0
0.0
ada
0
Vietnamese:
Indonesian:
1
2
3
4
padamu
0
1
2
3
4
[có|cần|cầm|quỉ]1[không]2
[ada|menaruh|beroleh|bertelinga|tiada|...]1[>#ber<|padanya...]2[padamu]3
42
Pred. Possession - Latvian
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Pred. Possession - Finnish
tarv itse
olisi
ausis
butu
0.4
0.4
oli
0.2
on
0.2
sinulla
minulla
teillä
meillä
ei
man
bija
mums
nav
ir
tev
kam
0
Finnish:
Latvian:
1
2
heillä
hänellä
3
ta
0.0
0.0
jolla
ole
4
0
1
2
3
4
[on|oli|olisi|tarvitse]1[jolla|ei|meillä|teillä|minulla|sinulla]2[ole]3[hänellä|heillä]4
[kam|nav|mums|man]1[ir|bija|būtu|ausis]2[tā|tev]3
43
Withthe‘with’possessiveextractionoftenfails:
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
kunnen
biy u
bakwai
0.0
ba
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Hixkaryana
1.0
Pred. Possession - Hausa
0
1
2
3
4
0
Hausa: [ba|bakwai|biyu|kunnen]1‘not/seven/two/ear’
1
2
3
4
44
baahan
hay sto
uma
leennahay
lahaa
lahay n
leey ahay
#hay sa
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Stassen(2009):
 Predicativization:reanalysisofthecategorialandsyntacticstatusofthephrase
whichcontainsthepossessee
 Transitivization/‘Have’‐drift:ifalanguagestartstoreanalyseitspossessiveinthe
directionofamajortype,theintendedoutputwillalwaysbeaHave‐possessive
Pred. Possession - Somali
WhyHavedrift?
“Itishardtoseewhythereshouldbea
shiftfromspatialcontacttowardscontrol,
butnottheotherwayaround”(Stassen
2009:242)
Whenevertheextractionissuccessfulit
leh‐‘have’
mostlycontainsapredicatemarkerin
relatedtola
oneoftheslots(notnecessarilyinthe
‘with’
firstslot)
0
1
2
3
4
45
Enter
Talmy(1991,2000)
Satellite‐framinglanguages
Verb‐framinglanguages
Pathexpressedinadposition/case,verbal Pathexpressedinverb
affixoradverbialparticle
Frenchentr‐,Turkishgir‐
Englishin,Russianv/v‐
AccordingtoBerthele(2006:235)theprepositionmakesacontributiontothe
encodingofthepath,eventhoughtoalesserextentthantheverb.Thissuggestsfor
Frenchthatwewouldgettheverbentr‐inthefirstslotandtheprepositiondansin
thesecondslot.
Sinha&Kuteva(1995)DistributedSpatialSemantics
Talmy(1972):(Spanish)
[aPOINT]
MOVE<‐TOIN
TO(IN) [aSPHERE]
entrar
a
the“motiveverb”(themotioncomponentlocatedintheverb)conflateswithacopy
fromthedirectional(thepreposition)
46
DomaindefinedbyClassicalGreeklemmaeiserchomai‘enter’
Enter - Alemannic
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.8
entr
dans
ins
kumme
in
0.2
roy aume
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
Enter - French
hus
kummt
goht
maison
0.0
0.0
inä
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
gehn
3
4
5
47
‘House’aspartofthemeaningof‘Enter’
Enter - Dinka
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Enter - Samoan
0.6
0.6
o
ulu
atu
0.4
0.4
sao
uluf ale
0.0
f ale
0
1
2
0.2
aai
3
la
baai
0.0
0.2
malo
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Inaconveniencesampleof51languagesthereisanaverageof2.4slotsperlanguage.
In36languages(42%)thereisatleastonenounextracted(mostly‘house’)
48
Inthevastmajorityoflanguagesbothverbal(V)andadnominal/adverbal(AN/AV)
componentscontributetotheencodingof‘enter’.
V
Somali,Maltese,Hausa,FulAdamawa,Vietnamese,Tagalog,Mandarin,
Burarra,Yine
VAN/AV Basque,Kannada,Albanian,Alemannic,Greek(Modern),Hindi,French,
Italian,Latin,Portuguese,Romanian,Spanish,Korean,Buriat,Kalmyk,
Tatar,Turkish,Finnish,Komi,Mari,Mordvin(Erzya),Swahili,Zulu,Ewe,
Wolof,Bambara,Moore,Yoruba,Dinka,Zarma,HaitianCreole,
Saramaccan,Maori,Samoan,Indonesian,Malagasy,Lahu,Tobelo,Kuot,
WikMungkan,Greenlandic(West),Mixe(Coatlán)Otomí(Mezquital),
Trique,Paumarí,Quechua(Cajamarca),Aymara
AN/AVV Avar,Welsh,Danish,German,English,Icelandic,LowSaxon,Norwegian,
Swedish,Greek(Classical),Saami(Northern),TokPisin,Yanesha’
AN/AV
Latvian,Lithuanian,Croatian,Hungarian,Cakchiquel,Bribri
ANAV&V Afrikaans,Dutch,Czech,Polish,Russian,Ossetic
V&AV
Mapudungun
boldface:onlyoneslot,allotherdoculectshavetwoormoreslots
49
1.0
Enter - Latin
#intr
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
#ingre
in
regnum
0.0
domum
0
1
2
3
4
5
50
51
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Enter - Yanesha
os
be't
all
allcha'
0.0
pa'pacllo
0
1
2
3
4
allña
5
52
SomemarkercomplexesforEnter:Verbal,Adverbal,Adnominal
Alemannic:
[goht|kumme]1[in|ins]2[inä|hus]3[gehn|kummt]4
English:
[into|in]1[entered|enter]2[house|kingdom|came]3
GreekModern: [>#μπ<]1[σπίτι|μέσα|στη]2[στο|βασιλεία]3
GreekClassical:[>#εισ<]1[>λθ<]2[εις]3[την]4[βασιλειαν|οικιαν]5
Italian:
[>#entr<]1[casa|nel]2[nella|in]3
Latin:
[>#intr<|>#ingre<]1[domum|regnum]2[in]3
Spanish:
[>#entr<]1[en]2[casa|reino]3
Russian:
[в]1[вошел|войти|войдя|вошли]2[дом]3
Turkish:
[>#gir<]1[evine|içeri|eve]2
Finnish:
[meni|mennä]1[sisään|sisälle]2[siellä|valtakuntaan]3[tuli|sinne]4
Hungarian:
[>#be<]1[>ba#<]2
Maltese:
[daħal|jidħol|daħlu]1
Ewe:
[>ge<]1[me]2[ɖe]3
Haitian:
[antre]1[kay|wa]2[kote|lakay]3[nan]4
TokPisin:
[insait]1[go]2[haus|kingdom]3[taun]4
Vietnamese: [vào]1[nhà]2
Tagalog:
[>asok#<]1[bahay|kaharian]2
Mapudungun: [>#konp<]1[ruka|mülewe]2
53
Middlevoice(“Reflexive”):triggerCroatianse>areal/genealogicaleffect
Croatian
Polish
Czech
Russian
Russian
Romanian
Icelandic
Spanish
Latvian
Afrikaans
Romanian
Italian
Latin
Portuguese
Alemannic
Latvian
LowSaxon
Danish
Swedish
German
French
se
się
se
>ся#<
>сь#<
se
>st#<
se
>ies#<
word
s'
si
>ur#<
se
sich
>ās#<
sich
sig
sig
sich
se
1.0
0.5718
0.55836
0.52197
0.51321
0.42018
0.41464
0.38316
0.3582
0.35431
0.35357
0.34838
0.34398
0.3165
0.31625
0.3152
0.31472
0.30998
0.30734
0.30669
0.30658
GreekClassical
Dutch
English3
English
English2
Norwegian
Portuguese
SaamiNorthernn
Albanian
Danish
GreekModern
Welsh
Welsh
Lithuanian
Dutch
Norwegian
Yoruba
Malayalam
Mari
Swedish
Hausa
>θη<
worden
be
be
be
sig
>‐se#<
>uvv<
>ohe<
>es#<
>ηκ<
>ir#<
>#ym<
>si<
zich
>es#<
a
>pped<
>алт<
>as#<
yi
0.30607
0.29763
0.29591
0.29451
0.29373
0.28876
0.273
0.27032
0.27002
0.2656
0.2586
0.24938
0.24607
0.24275
0.23754
0.23708
0.23662
0.23651
0.23095
0.22728
0.22458
54
Spanish
Romanian
Komi
Albanian
Dutch
Papago
LowSaxon
English2
GreekClassical
Finnish
Lahu
Hungarian
SaamiNorthern
Alemannic
Zulu
Tatar
English3
QuechuaCajamarca
TokPisin
Kalmyk
English
Icelandic
Norwegian
>se#<
vă
>öдч<
u
wordt
e
woare
>ed<
>αι#<
>ty<
la
>ék#<
>oj<
wird
>wa#<
>ыл<
was
>aka<
kamap
>гд<
were
sig
blev
0.22393
0.22252
0.21995
0.21817
0.21636
0.21098
0.21081
0.21043
0.20949
0.20837
0.20774
0.20648
0.20549
0.20413
0.20181
0.20094
0.19769
0.19682
0.19448
0.1938
0.19252
0.19147
0.19144
Bribri
Dutch
French
Tagalog
English3
Yine
Alemannic
Turkish
Norwegian
Swedish
Czech
Wolof
Kannada
Romanian
Hixkaryana
Kuot
Yoruba
Dutch
English2
German
Somali
GreenlandicWest
Romanian
e̱ '
werd
s'
>aŋag<
>#re<
>tka#<
wäre
>nm<
bli
bliva
>no#<
>iku<
>iko<
te
>os<
>#te<
nigbati
>ver<
were
werden
la
>neqa<
de
0.19057
0.19035
0.18798
0.18769
0.1859
0.18529
0.18476
0.18391
0.18309
0.18194
0.18086
0.17981
0.17874
0.17851
0.17817
0.17683
0.17679
0.17521
0.17355
0.17214
0.17183
0.17171
0.17127
55
Middlevoice(“Reflexive”)
Croatian
Polish
Czech
Russian
Romanian
Icelandic
Spanish
Latvian
Afrikaans
Italian
Latin
Portuguese
Alemannic
LowSaxon
Danish
Swedish
German
French
GreekClassical
Dutch
English3
se
się
se
>ся#<
se
>st#<
se
>ies#<
word
si
>ur#<
se
sich
sich
sig
sig
sich
se
>θη<
worden
be
1.0
0.5718
0.55836
0.52197
0.42018
0.41464
0.38316
0.3582
0.35431
0.34838
0.34398
0.3165
0.31625
0.31472
0.30998
0.30734
0.30669
0.30658
0.30607
0.29763
0.29591
English
English2
Norwegian
SaamiNorthernn
Albanian
GreekModern
Welsh
Lithuanian
Yoruba
Malayalam
Mari
Hausa
Komi
Papago
Finnish
Lahu
Hungarian
Zulu
Tatar
QuechuaCajamarca
TokPisin
be
be
sig
>uvv<
>ohe<
>ηκ<
>ir#<
>si<
a
>pped<
>алт<
yi
>öдч<
e
>ty<
la
>ék#<
>wa#<
>ыл<
>aka<
kamap
0.29451
0.29373
0.28876
0.27032
0.27002
0.2586
0.24938
0.24275
0.23662
0.23651
0.23095
0.22458
0.21995
0.21098
0.20837
0.20774
0.20648
0.20181
0.20094
0.19682
0.19448
56
Can all lexical and grammatical meanings be addressed in this
way?
No,probablynot.Gramswithextremelyhightextfrequency(“inflectional
categories”),suchasplural,adnominalpossession(‘genitive’),present,imperfective
aredifficulttoaddressinmostlanguages.
Thepresentversionoftheapproachisverycrude,possibleimprovements:
 Lexemesandgramsasmarkercandidatesinsteadofwordformsandmorphs
 Cross‐linguisticsemanticprototypesassemantictriggersratherthanwordforms
fromparticularlanguagesinstantiatingameaning(Dahl1985)
Therearemanypracticalproblems:
 Accidentalcollocationsinaparalleltext
 Lexicalorgrammaticalmeaningsnotattestedinaparalleltext
57
Isthismoderntypology?
“Moderntypologyisadisciplinethatdevelopsvariablesforcapturingsimilarities
anddifferencesofstructuresbothwithinandacrosslanguages(qualitativetypology),
exploresclustersandskewingsinthedistributionofthesevariables(quantitative
typology),andproposestheoriesthatexplaintheclustersandskewings(theoretical
typology)”(Bickel2007:248)
qualitative>quantitative>theoretical
Hereweratheruseaninverseprocessingchain
theoretical>quantitative>qualitative
Theoreticalconsiderationandquantitativeanalysiscomefirst;theoutcomeisa
descriptivemeasurementwhichmustbeevaluatedqualitatively
Cross‐linguisticdescriptionhasbeenstronglyneglectedin
typology.Descriptionintypologyshouldnotbefullyoutsourced
tofieldlinguists,anditshouldbeindependentfromexplanation
(datacollectionintypologyshouldnotbeexplanation‐driven)
58
References
Ansaldo, Umberto. 1999. Comparative constructions in Sinitic. Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalization. PhD
Thesis. University of Stockholm.
Berthele, Raphael. 2006. Ort und Weg. Die sprachliche Raumreferenz in Varietäten des Deutschen, Rätoromanischen
und Französischen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007 Typology in the 21st century: major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11 (1): 239–251.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davies, John. 1981. Kobon. (Lingua Descriptive Studies, 3.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Goddard, Cliff & Wierzbicka, Anna. 2010. ‘Want’ is a lexical and conceptual universal. Studies in Language 34(1): 108–
123
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66(3): 377-388
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. ‘Want’ complement subjects. In Haspelmath, Martin & Dryer, Matthew & Gil, David &
Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. (Book with interactive CD-ROM). Chapter
124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khanina, Olesya. 2008. How universal is ‘wanting’? Studies in Language 32(4): 818–865.
Khanina, Olesya. 2010. Reply to Goddard and Wierzbicka. Studies in Language 34.1: 124-130
Manning, Christopher D. & Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological
perspective. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1968. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique par Rudolf Engler. Tome 1. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz
59
Sinha, Chris & Kuteva, Tanja. 1995. Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18: 167-199.
Sölling, Arnd. 2011. Bewegungsverben in Nordamerika - Semantische Elemente in narrativen Texten. Diss. phil. hist.,
Universität Bern,
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stolz, Christel, Stolz, Thomas. 1996. Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika. Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt
(Hispanoindiana II). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 49: 86-123.
Talmy, Leonard. 1972. Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at
Berkeley.
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15-18, 1991, 480-519.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
von Waldenfels, Ruprecht. Forthcoming. Explorations into variation across Slavic: taking a bottom-up approach. In
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Linguistic variation in text and speech, within and across
languages. To be published in Walter de Gruyter’s Linguae et Litterae series.
Wälchli, Bernhard. Forthcoming. Algorithmic typology and going from known to similar unknown categories within and
across languages. In Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Linguistic variation in text and speech,
within and across languages. To be published in Walter de Gruyter’s Linguae et Litterae series.
Wälchli, Bernhard & Cysouw, Michael. 2012. Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of
motion verbs. Linguistics 50.3: 671-710. (Theme issue edited by Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Vanhove, M. (eds.),
New Directions in Lexical Typology).
Wiemer, Björn & Wälchli, Bernhard. 2012. Contact-induced grammatical change: Diverse phenomena, diverse
perspectives. In Wiemer, B. & Wälchli, B. & Hansen, B. (eds.), Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in
Language Contact, 3-64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
60
Appendix1:Extractfromthedatabase(TriggerVietnameseđã,2545tokens)
No
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
163
164
Domain
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Perfect
Doculect
German
German
German
German
German
German
German
German
German
German
German
English
English
English
English
English
English
English
English
Vietnamese
Vietnamese
Slot
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
Type
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
W
W
W
W
M
W
W
W
W
W
Marker
hat
habe
haben
ist
hatte
war
hast
habt
hatten
sind
ge
hath
had
have
which
ed#
made
sent
been
đã
cho
Amplitude
0.229971724788
0.0890669180019
0.0947219604147
0.213477851084
0.0508953817154
0.062205466541
0.0263901979265
0.0311027332705
0.0254476908577
0.0433553251649
0.8821866164
0.123939679548
0.116399622997
0.144203581527
0.16918001885
0.538171536287
0.0400565504241
0.0268614514609
0.0725730442978
1.0
0.395852968897
Dedication
0.648936170213
0.549418604651
0.463133640553
0.276556776557
0.421875
0.236135957066
0.427480916031
0.308411214953
0.409090909091
0.159169550173
0.320877613987
0.57423580786
0.505112474438
0.398956975228
0.468057366362
0.296931877275
0.291095890411
0.322033898305
0.709677419355
1.0
0.356234096692
Extraction
0.38526
0.25564
0.25541
0.23864
0.26517
0.22472
0.22856
0.23182
0.24499
0.21097
0.21669
0.25716
0.24964
0.25148
0.24137
0.22233
0.23456
0.21955
0.22933
1.0
0.21582...
61
Appendix2:R‐codewrittenbythePythonprogramgeneratingthevisualizationof
markercomplexes
plot(c(0,5),c(0,1),col="white",main="Perfect‐German",xlab="",ylab="")
slot=0;par=0
ing=0.648936170213;ingg=0.648936170213;ed=0.229971724788;edd=0.3;str="hat"
rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")
text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)
par=par+ed
ing=0.549418604651;ingg=0.549418604651;ed=0.0890669180019;edd=0.3;str="habe"
rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")
text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)
par=par+ed
ing=0.463133640553;ingg=0.463133640553;ed=0.0947219604147;edd=0.3;str="haben"
rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")
text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)
par=par+ed
ing=0.276556776557;ingg=0.3;ed=0.213477851084;edd=0.3;str="ist"
rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")
text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)
...
62