DOCSLIB.ORG

Semantic Differences in Translation Exploring the Field of Inchoativity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Semantic Differences in Translation Exploring the Field of Inchoativity Semantic differences in translation Exploring the field of inchoativity Lore Vandevoorde language Translation and Multilingual Natural science press Language Processing 13 Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing Editors: Oliver Czulo (Universität Leipzig), Silvia Hansen-Schirra (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz), Reinhard Rapp (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz) In this series: 1. Fantinuoli, Claudio & Federico Zanettin (eds.). New directions in corpus-based translation studies. 2. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Sambor Grucza (eds.). Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. 3. Neumann, Stella, Oliver Čulo & Silvia Hansen-Schirra (eds.). Annotation, exploitation and evaluation of parallel corpora: TC3 I. 4. Czulo, Oliver & Silvia Hansen-Schirra (eds.). Crossroads between Contrastive Linguistics, Translation Studies and Machine Translation: TC3 II. 5. Rehm, Georg, Felix Sasaki, Daniel Stein & Andreas Witt (eds.). Language technologies for a multilingual Europe: TC3 III. 6. Menzel, Katrin, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski & Kerstin Anna Kunz (eds.). New perspectives on cohesion and coherence: Implications for translation. 7. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Oliver Czulo & Sascha Hofmann (eds). Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting. 8. Svoboda, Tomáš, Łucja Biel & Krzysztof Łoboda (eds.). Quality aspects in institutional translation. 9. Fox, Wendy. Can integrated titles improve the viewing experience? Investigating the impact of subtitling on the reception and enjoyment of film using eye tracking and questionnaire data. 10. Moran, Steven & Michael Cysouw. The Unicode cookbook for linguists: Managing writing systems using orthography profiles. 11. Fantinuoli, Claudio (ed.). Interpreting and technology. 12. Nitzke, Jean. Problem solving activities in post-editing and translation from scratch: A multi-method study. 13. Vandevoorde, Lore. Semantic differences in translation. ISSN: 2364-8899 Semantic differences in translation Exploring the field of inchoativity Lore Vandevoorde language science press Vandevoorde, Lore. 2020. Semantic differences in translation: Exploring the field of inchoativity (Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 13). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/194 © 2020, Lore Vandevoorde Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The views expressed in this book are the author’s and in no way reflect the views of the Council or European Council. ISBN: 978-3-96110-072-9 (Digital) 978-3-96110-073-6 (Hardcover) ISSN: 2364-8899 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2573677 Source code available from www.github.com/langsci/194 Collaborative reading: paperhive.org/documents/remote?type=langsci&id=194 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Lukas Gienapp, Felix Kopecky Illustration: Sebastian Nordhoff Proofreading: Amir Ghorbanpour, Barend Beekhuizen, Bev Erasmus, Dan Bondarenko, Jeroen van de Weijer, Mario Bisiada, Jean Nitzke, Sebastian Nordhoff & Selçuk Eryatmaz Fonts: Libertinus, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono Typesetting software:Ǝ X LATEX Language Science Press Xhain Grünberger Str. 16 10243 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Pour Alexis et Fabrice On ne voit bien qu’avec le cœur L’essentiel est invisible pour les yeux (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) Contents Acknowledgements v Abbreviations vii 1 Introduction 1 2 Theoretical considerations 7 2.1 Introduction ............................. 7 2.2 Corpus-based translation studies .................. 8 2.2.1 Corpora ........................... 8 2.2.2 Baker’s universals ..................... 13 2.2.3 The cognitive turn in translation studies ......... 25 2.2.4 On a tightrope with equivalence ............. 32 2.2.5 Conclusion ......................... 34 2.3 Contrastive corpus studies ..................... 35 2.3.1 Use of translations in contrastive studies ......... 35 2.3.2 Back-translation ...................... 37 2.3.3 Applying back-translation: Mutual Correspondence ... 40 2.3.4 Applying back-translation: Semantic Mirroring ..... 41 2.3.5 Conclusion ......................... 49 2.4 Corpus semantics .......................... 50 2.4.1 Translational equivalence in Word Sense Disambiguation 50 2.4.2 Vector Space Models .................... 54 2.4.3 Corpus-based cognitive semantics ............ 57 2.5 Conclusion .............................. 63 3 Methodology 65 3.1 Introduction ............................. 65 3.2 Semasiological and onomasiological perspectives ........ 66 3.3 The Dutch Parallel Corpus ..................... 68 3.4 The Semantic Mirrors Method ................... 70 3.4.1 Work flow of the SMM ................... 70 Contents 3.4.2 Prerequisites and assumptions ............... 72 3.4.3 Overlap ........................... 73 3.5 Extended Semantic Mirrors Method: SMM++ ........... 77 3.5.1 Extension 1: Translation direction and asymmetry of trans- lation ............................. 78 3.5.2 Extension 2: Statistical implementability of the data sets 80 3.5.3 Technical fine-tuning .................... 82 3.5.4 Conceptual issue ...................... 84 3.6 Applying the first extension of the SMM to retrieve data sets for beginnen ............................... 86 3.6.1 First T-images of beginnenENG and beginnenFR ...... 86 3.6.2 Inverse T-images of beginnenENG and beginnenFR .... 93 3.6.3 Second T-images of beginnenENG and beginnenFR .... 97 3.6.4 Final selection of candidate lexemes ........... 102 3.7 Statistical visualization ....................... 103 3.7.1 Introduction to the statistical visualization ........ 103 3.7.2 Correspondence Analysis ................. 104 3.7.3 Hierarchical Cluster Analysis ............... 111 3.8 Statistical approaches to universals on the semantic level .... 128 3.8.1 Measuring prototypicality effects as a proxy for levelling out .............................. 128 3.8.2 Semantic fields of commencer and to begin ........ 135 3.9 Conclusion .............................. 136 4 Results 139 4.1 Introduction ............................. 139 4.2 SourceDutch ............................. 140 4.2.1 Results of the Hierarchical Agglomerative Cluster analysis 140 4.2.2 Prototype-based organization of the clusters in the den- drogram (semasiological level) ............... 143 4.2.3 Prototype-based organization of the lexemes within each cluster (onomasiological level) ............... 143 4.2.4 Interpretation of the semantic field of beginnen/inchoativity for SourceDutch ...................... 147 4.3 TransDutchENG ........................... 154 4.3.1 Results of the Hierarchical Agglomerative Cluster analysis 154 4.3.2 Prototype-based organization of the clusters in the den- drogram (semasiological level) ............... 157 ii Contents 4.3.3 Prototype-based organization of the lexemes within each cluster (onomasiological level) ............... 158 4.3.4 Interpretation of the semantic field of beginnen/inchoativity for TransDutchENG ..................... 160 4.4 TransDutchFR ............................ 163 4.4.1 Results of the Hierarchical Agglomerative Cluster analysis 163 4.4.2 Prototype-based organization of the clusters in the den- drogram (semasiological level) ............... 165 4.4.3 Prototype-based organization of the lexemes within each cluster (onomasiological level) ............... 165 4.4.4 Interpretation of the semantic field of beginnen/inchoativity for TransDutchFR ...................... 168 4.5 Levelling out ............................. 172 4.5.1 Semasiological levelling out ................ 176 4.5.2 Onomasiological changes in the prototype-based organi- zation ............................ 179 4.6 Shining through ........................... 180 4.6.1 Semasiological shining through .............. 180 4.6.2 Onomasiological shining through ............. 185 4.7 Normalization ............................ 189 4.7.1 Semasiological normalization ............... 189 4.7.2 Onomasiological normalization .............. 190 4.8 Conclusion .............................. 191 5 Cognitive explorations 193 5.1 Introduction ............................. 193 5.1.1 Linking cognitive explanations to corpus data ...... 194 5.1.2 Linking cognitive explanations to semantic fields .... 195 5.1.3 Similarities and differences between the models ..... 197 5.2 Gravitational Pull Hypothesis ................... 199 5.3 A cognitive-explanational model from neurolinguistics ..... 203 5.3.1 Paradis’ neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism ..... 203 5.3.2 Applying Paradis’ theory to translation ......... 206 5.3.3 Applying Paradis’ theory to the resulting semantic rep- resentations of inchoativity ................ 210 5.4 Conclusion .............................. 213 6 Conclusion 215 6.1 General conclusions ......................... 215 6.2 Retrospective insights ........................ 217 iii Contents Appendix A: T-images 221 Appendix B: R script 227 Appendix C: Distances of lexemes 231 References 233 Name index 253 iv Acknowledgements This book began as my PhD thesis; I would therefore like to express my sincer- est gratitude to my supervisor, Gert De Sutter, my co-supervisor, Koen Plevoets, and the members of my doctoral advisory committee Sandra Halverson, Dagmar Divjak and Els Lefever. I would also like to thank the Hogeschool Onderzoeks- fonds, who funded the research to begin with, and Ghent University to provide me with the necessary research facilities to continue my research. I would like to thank my colleagues Alexandra, Annelore,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SCLA Book of Abstracts
    Aleksandrs Berdicevskis & Alexander Piperski WHAT DO WE REGULARIZE AND WHAT IS REGULAR: RUSSIAN VERBS THROUGH THE CENTURIES One of the most notable and widespread long-term processes in language change is the regularization of morphological forms. It has been studied from various aspects, and questions that have been addressed include, for instance, who is most likely to eliminate irregularities, children or adults (Hudson Kam & Newport 2009), when irregularities are most likely to be eliminated, in what social circumstances (Berdichevskij 2012), which irregularities are most likely to be eliminated (Lieberman et al 2007, Carroll et al. 2012). In this paper, we deal with the latter question. We also show, however, that in order to get a reliable answer a more fundamental question has to be addressed first: What is regular for the speakers’ minds? The answer is not always obvious. In a well-known study where a neat correlation between the rate of regularization of irregular English verbs and the frequency of word usage was found, Lieberman et al. (2007) classify the -ed verbs as regular and all other verbs as irregular, which seems a logical thing to do. Studying the same process in German strong verbs, Carroll et al. (2012) also use a binary opposition, noting though that for German this decision presents certain problems. We perform a similar study on Russian verbs, which cannot be divided into two classes (“regular” and “irregular”). Of the 16 basic inflectional classes (Zaliznjak 1977), 5 are sometimes labelled “regular” and 11 “irregular”, but they are in fact irregular to a different extent. Since binary notation is not an option, an understanding of what regularity actually is and how it should be operationalized is required.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining Morphosyntactic Feature Values: the Case of Case1 Greville G
    To appear in: Greville G. Corbett and Michael Noonan (eds) Case and grammatical relations: papers in honour of Bernard Comrie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Determining morphosyntactic feature values: the case of case1 Greville G. Corbett Surrey Morphology Group A long-running and still vital debate concerns the way in which we can determine the number of cases (case values) in a given language. This matters both for the description of particular languages, and even more for typology, given the imperative for the typologist to compare like with like. Within this debate special attention has been devoted to Russian. And rightly so, since Russian exhibits a whole set of difficult analytic problems with respect to case. As a result it has been claimed to have as few as six case values or as many as eleven. This contribution continues the debate, again giving Russian a central place. Our concern with case is partly with case as a feature (comparable to gender, number and person), but mainly with the values of the feature (nominative, accusative and so on).2 What is novel about it is first the adoption of a canonical approach, in which we construct a logical scheme against which to evaluate the different case values (see §1 below), and second the fact that the criteria we discuss are shown to be relevant to morphosyntactic features more generally, rather then being restricted to case. The debate on case has a distinguished earlier history, including among others Hjelmslev (1935-37), Jakobson (1936, 1958),3 de Groot (1939) and Kuryłowicz 1 This is an issue to which Bernard Comrie has made important contributions (1986, 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Words and Alternative Basic Units for Linguistic Analysis
    Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis 1 Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis Jens Allwood SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg A. P. Hendrikse, Department of Linguistics, University of South Africa, Pretoria Elisabeth Ahlsén SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg Abstract The paper deals with words and possible alternative to words as basic units in linguistic theory, especially in interlinguistic comparison and corpus linguistics. A number of ways of defining the word are discussed and related to the analysis of linguistic corpora and to interlinguistic comparisons between corpora of spoken interaction. Problems associated with words as the basic units and alternatives to the traditional notion of word as a basis for corpus analysis and linguistic comparisons are presented and discussed. 1. What is a word? To some extent, there is an unclear view of what counts as a linguistic word, generally, and in different language types. This paper is an attempt to examine various construals of the concept “word”, in order to see how “words” might best be made use of as units of linguistic comparison. Using intuition, we might say that a word is a basic linguistic unit that is constituted by a combination of content (meaning) and expression, where the expression can be phonetic, orthographic or gestural (deaf sign language). On closer examination, however, it turns out that the notion “word” can be analyzed and specified in several different ways. Below we will consider the following three main ways of trying to analyze and define what a word is: (i) Analysis and definitions building on observation and supposed easy discovery (ii) Analysis and definitions building on manipulability (iii) Analysis and definitions building on abstraction 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Modern Languages UPPSALA UNIVERSITY
    SLOVO Journal of Slavic Languages, Literatures and Cultures Volume 59, 2018 Department of Modern Languages UPPSALA UNIVERSITY Slovo Journal of Slavic Languages, Literatures and Cultures No. 59, 2018 Editors: Mattias Ågren, Julie Hansen, Jussi Nuorluoto, Jelena Spasenić Department of Modern Languages UPPSALA UNIVERSITET Department of Modern Languages Slovo. Journal of Slavic Languages, Literatures and Cultures No. 59, 2018 Front cover: Uppsala University Library Carolina Rediviva with marching students in the foreground. Johan Way, 1842 (UUB). ISSN: 2001–7395 CONTENTS ”RURIKS STAMTRÄD” – EN AV DE RYSKA SKATTERNA PÅ CAROLINA REDIVIVA 7 OLENA JANSSON, INGRID MAIER ЛЕКСИЧЕСКИЕ СРЕДСТВА ЭКСПРЕССИВНОГО И ЭМОЦИОНАЛЬНОГО ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЯ В ПОВЕСТИ АСТРИД ЛИНДГРЕН «ЭМИЛЬ ИЗ ЛЁННЕБЕРГИ» И ЕЁ ПЕРЕВОДАХ НА РУССКИЙ ЯЗЫК 40 ELENA KAPUSTINA, MARTINA BJÖRKLUND WHEN A SINGLE WORD IS ENOUGH: NORWEGIAN COMPOUNDS AND THEIR RUSSIAN COUNTERPARTS 61 TORE NESSET I MÖRKRETS SKUGGA… OM EDITH SÖDERGRANS OCH HALINA POŚWIATOWSKAS POETISKA VÄRLDAR 73 MAŁGORZATA ANNA PACKALÉN PARKMAN REVIEW. ANDREA GULLOTTA. INTELLECTUAL LIFE AND LITERATURE AT SOLOVKI 1923-1930: THE PARIS OF THE NORTHERN CONCENTRATION CAMPS. CAMBRIDGE: LEGENDA 2018. X + 370 PP. 93 IRINA KARLSOHN NEWS FROM UPPSALA 95 OLENA JANSSON IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR ANDREI ZALIZNIAK 99 KARINE ÅKERMAN SARKISIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR 2017 102 JOHAN MUSKALA Slovo. Journal of Slavic Languages, Literatures and Cultures ISSN 2001–7395 No. 59, 2018, pp. 7–39 ”Ruriks stamträd” – en av de ryska skatterna på Carolina Rediviva1 Olena Jansson och Ingrid Maier Institutionen för moderna språk, Uppsala universitet [email protected] [email protected] Abstract. “Rurik’s genealogical tree” – one of the Russian treasures at Carolina Rediviva Among the treasures in the university library in Uppsala (Sweden) is an extraordinary genealogical tree of Russia’s Rurikid rulers, beginning with the legendary Rurik and ending with Tsar Fedor Ivanovič, who died in 1598.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Polysemy and Metaphor in the Verbs of Perception
    Manasia: Polysemy and Metaphor 55 Polysemy and Metaphor in the Verbs of Perception Mihaela Georgiana Manasia ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the idea that has been recently that perception verbs have a polysemous structure motivated by ourput forwardexperience by andseveral understanding studies in the of fieldthe world. of cognitive Metaphor linguistics is not only characteristic of poetic language, but on the contrary, it can be found everywhere in everyday language and the polysemous and constructional alternatives makes them a motivating semantic character of perception verbs reflected into a wide range of syntactic KEY WORDS: polysemy, metaphor, perception verbs, prototypical meaning,field to approach metaphorical in this meaning. respect. olysemy represents, within semantics, the term used to Pcharacterize the situation in which a word has two or more polysemy has been subject to controversies and continues to remain similar meanings. Despite this very simple definition, the concept of In 1980, the study of polysemy and metaphor expands a debatable field in the linguistic research. book Metaphors We Live By. relationwithin cognitive of meanings. linguistics It is perceivedespecially withas categorization Lakoff and Johnson’s namely related meanings are organised They intodefine categories polysemy based as a systematic on family resemblance. 55 56 HARVARD SQUARE SYMPOSIUM | THE FUTURE OF KNOWLEDGE to put forward that perception verbs have a polysemous structure, motivatedRecent by studies our experience in the field and of cognitive understanding semantics of thehave world. tried Metaphor represents one of the cognitive instruments structuring the way in which we think, perceive and act. this varietyThe authors of meanings of Metaphors and a part We of Live everyday By criticized language the that classical affects theory of metaphor as a comparison, describing similarities that already exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin Haspelmath, List of Publications
    Martin Haspelmath - List of publications To appear 2010: [Andrej L. Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie] 2010. Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. "The Behaviour-before-Coding Principle in syntactic change." To appear in: Floricic, Franck (ed.) Mélanges Denis Creissels. Paris: Presses de L'École Normale Supérieure. [Uri Tadmor, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor] "Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary." Diachronica 2010 "Framework-free grammatical theory." In: Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.) The Oxford handbook of grammatical analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 341-365. 2009 [Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor] (eds.) 2009. Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1081 pp. [Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor] (eds.) 2009. World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Online resource, <http://wold.livingsources.org/> [Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor]. 2009. "The Loanword Typology project and the World Loanword Database." In: [Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor] (eds.) 2009. Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1-34. "Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues." In: Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.) 2009. Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 35-54. "Terminology of case." In: Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds.) 2009. The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 505-517. "An empirical test of the Agglutination Hypothesis." Scalise, Sergio & Magni, Elisabetta & Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.) 2009. Universals of language today. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 76.) Dordrecht: Springer, 13-29. "The typological database of the World Atlas of Language Structures." In: Everaert, Martin & Musgrave, Simon (eds.) 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Participle-Converbs in Iron Ossetic: Syntactic and Semantic Properties1
    Participle-Converbs in Iron Ossetic: 1 Syntactic and Semantic Properties Oleg Belyaev, Arseniy Vydrin This paper concerns the use of forms in -gɐ and -gɐjɐ in contemporary Ossetic. Our aim is to produce a typologically informed and fine-grained account of both the syntax and semantics of these two formatives. As we will show, the main difference is that while the form in -gɐ is a participle-converb (with a wide range of uses), the form in -gɐjɐ is a converb proper. At the same time, there are a number of surprising syntactic effects and subtle semantic differences. We will provide a general description of the uses of the two forms and of some of the typologically interesting facts associated with them, and an explanation of the facts observed. 1. Introduction The two deverbal Ossetic2 forms under discussion are derived from the present stem via the affixes -gɐ and -gɐjɐ (formally the ablative of -gɐ), e.g. kɐn-ən "to do" → kɐn-gɐ(jɐ) žɐʁ-ən "to say" → žɐʁ-gɐ(jɐ) According to the main reference grammars (ABAEV 1970, AXVLEDIANI 1963, BAGAEV 1965), the form in -gɐ can be used both as a participle (1) and as a converb (2), while the form in -gɐjɐ can only be used as a converb (2). Word order in Ossetic NPs is fairly rigid, and attributes must always be preposed to the noun they modify. Therefore, the form in -gɐ(jɐ) in (2) is unambiguously converbal. (1) wəsə lɐppu-jə ɐldar xɐd-tul-gɐ(*-jɐ) wɐrdon-ə š-bad-ən kod-t-a that boy-GEN landlord self-roll-PART-ABL cart-IN PV-sit-INF do-TR-PST.3SG 3 "the landlord made that boy sit on a "self-going"cart"(ABAEV 1970: 612) (2) lɐppu kɐw-gɐ(-jɐ) ba-səd jɐ=xɐzar-mɐ boy cry-PART(-ABL) PV-go.PST.3SG POSS.3SG=house-ALL 4 "the boy, crying, came to his house" 1 The research was carried out with the financial support of RGNF, grant No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Expression of Modality in Logoori
    JALL 2020; 41(2): 195–238 John Gluckman* and Margit Bowler* The expression of modality in Logoori https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2020-2010 Abstract: This study presents a theoretically informed description of the expres- sion of modality in Logoori (Luyia; Bantu). We document verbal and non-verbal modal expressions in Logoori, and show how these expressions fit into proposed typologies of modal systems (Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jurgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics,38–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Armin von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/ lity.1998.2.1.79; Nauze, Fabrice. 2008. Modality in typological perspective. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation PhD thesis). We show that Logoori’s modal system raises some interesting questions regarding the typology and theoretical analysis of modality and its relationship to other kinds of meaning. Our study contributes to the nascent but growing research on modal systems cross linguistically by adding data from an understudied Bantu language. Keywords: Logoori, modality, Bantu, typology Abstract in Loogori: Kuloma sia linyalika na lidemadema, kya kulanganga “imiima” (“modality”), gavoleka mu Lulogooli. Lulogooli ni lulimi lwa ihiri ya avaluhya, na lumolomwa mu vivala vya imugwi wa Afrika. Ulusuma ilu lunduta kutula ku zisaabu na lilekanya lya uvuhandiki na uvwimiridzu vwa imiima. Kulangama sia livugirirana lya tsingulu (“force”) na lifunya (“flavor”) kutula ku Kratzer, Angelika.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Corpus-Based Grammar of Upper Lozva Mansi: Diachrony and Variation
    Introduction Upper Lozva Mansi Our Documentation Grammar writing Conclusion Towards a corpus-based grammar of Upper Lozva Mansi: diachrony and variation Daria Zhornik, Sophie Pokrovskaya, Vladimir Plungian Lomonosov Moscow State University Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Descriptive Grammars and Typology, Helsinki, 29.03.2019 . Daria Zhornik, Sophie Pokrovskaya, Vladimir Plungian MSU, ILing RAS Upper Lozva Mansi: diachrony and variation Introduction Upper Lozva Mansi Our Documentation Grammar writing Conclusion Overview Introduction Upper Lozva Mansi Our Documentation Grammar writing Conclusion . Daria Zhornik, Sophie Pokrovskaya, Vladimir Plungian MSU, ILing RAS Upper Lozva Mansi: diachrony and variation Introduction Upper Lozva Mansi Our Documentation Grammar writing Conclusion Some background I Mansi < Ob-Ugric < Uralic, EGIDS status: threatened; I Russia, 940 speakers (2010 census) in Western Siberia. Daria Zhornik, Sophie Pokrovskaya, Vladimir Plungian MSU, ILing RAS Upper Lozva Mansi: diachrony and variation Introduction Upper Lozva Mansi Our Documentation Grammar writing Conclusion The Mansi language I Earlier: 4 Mansi dialect branches I Today: only the Northern group survives I Most Northern Mansi speakers: disperse distribution in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug I Speakers mostly live in Russian villages/towns: I forced shift to Russian; I almost no opportunities for using Mansi; I all education is in Russian I In turns out that much
    [Show full text]
  • S&P 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change
    4.43201 Semantics & Pragmatics 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change S&P 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change Today’s Menu: 1. Semantic shift: various processes of semantic change (widening /narrowing, amelioration/ pejoration) & their causes 2. Grammaticalization (both semantic & structural change) and its causes. Last week, we zoomed in on the ‘technical features’ of our ‘spinning wheel’; we examined the smallest units that make it up (word-meanings), and grouped them by resemblance (synonyms/ antonyms; homonymy/ polysemy) and contiguity (hyponymy/ hypernymy & meronymy/ holonymy). Thus, we established the nature of ‘systemic’ lexical relations between word-meanings because of resemblance or contiguity between them, as perceived by our minds. This week, while still focused on the ‘technical specifications’ of the language tool, we will ‘zoom out’ a little, and view its smallest units in the 4th dimension of all existence – Time. Our task this week is to establish how word-meanings change over time, and to explain why they do so. 1. Semantic Change: How do word-meanings change over time? In historical/ diachronic linguistics, semantic change refers to a change in denotative, socially shared, word meaning. Semantic shift is the general way of referring to any unspecified semantic change. Major types of semantic change may be viewed as . Widening (generalization) – a shift to a more general meaning: i.e., in Middle English, bridde meant a ‘small bird’; later, bird came to be used in a general sense and the word fowl, formerly the more general word, was restricted to the sense of ‘farm birds bred especially for consumption’; . Narrowing (specification) – a shift towards a more specific concept: the opposite of widening, or expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Eastern Armenian Verbal Paradigms
    Vladimir Plungian Notes on Eastern Armenian verbal paradigms “Temporal mobility” and perfective stems Abstract: The paper discusses two “hidden” semantic oppositions in the Arme- nian verbal system: both have no specific segmental markers but are manifested in the division of verbal forms into certain formal classes. In the first case, we deal with the the division into synthetic and periphrastic forms, which corresponds to the expression of the so-called "temporal mobility" (or the ability to express the opposition between present and past). In the second case, it is the morphological opposition between the basic verbal stem and the stem with an alternation. The choice of the alternating stem is related to the perfective semantics of the verbal form, so that one can speak of a general aspectual opposition of perfective and imperfective sets of forms in Armenian (not isolated in traditional analysis). Keywords: Armenian, verbal inflection, tense, aspect Introduction The main focus of the present paper will be certain formal properties of verbal paradigms in Armenian, first of all those which may have special cross-linguistic relevance. To the best of our knowledge, these properties have not been dis- cussed in the specialized literature at any length (if at all). The main bulk of our material comes from the standard written language of the Republic of Armenia, i.e., Average East Armenian (cf. Vaux 1998). Hereafter, we will refer to it simply as “Armenian”, unless otherwise stated. Similar properties of other idioms of Modern Armenian (both Eastern and Western dialects) deserve a separate and a more detailed discussion, which is far beyond the scope of the present study.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter M. Arkadiev
    PETER M. ARKADIEV CHAPTER 7 Differential Argument Marking in Two-term Case Systems and its Implications for the General Theory of Case Marking1 1. INTRODUCTION In this paper I present a view of case marking that explicitly rejects a commonly assumed position that its primary function is to merely distinguish arguments from one another (cf. Comrie 1978, 1989; Dixon 1979, 1994), while marking them according to their specific semantic or pragmatic functions is a secondary phenomenon. In order to show that such a view (which has already been challenged by many linguists, see section 2) is untenable, I will investigate data from argument- encoding variations in languages which possess only two cases, and will compare them with similar phenomena from languages with richer case systems. As it will be seen, ‘nondiscriminative’ coding strategies found in two-term case systems, though typologically unusual, can be easily accounted for under the assumption that case marking of a particular argument is subject to ‘local’ ‘indexing’ rules and constraints dealing rather with this particular argument, than with the overall ‘global’ relational structure of the clause. The ‘discriminatory’ function, though retaining its importance, is, in this view, no more than just one of the constraints relevant for argument marking, whose ranking with regards to other such constraints is not always and not necessarily high. Also, I am going to argue that, contrary to some recent Optimality-theoretic proposals (see e.g., Woolford 2001), the case inventory found in a particular language cannot be always derived from a universal set of constraints (see Wunderlich and Lakämper 2001 for a similar proposal).
    [Show full text]