Linguistic Profiles for Investigations of Form and Meaning
description
Transcript of Linguistic Profiles for Investigations of Form and Meaning
Linguistic Profiles for Investigations of Form and Meaning
Laura A. JandaCLEAR (Cognitive Linguistics: Empirical Approaches to Russian)
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
A Big Question perspective
Big QuestionsTranscend theory Interesting for all linguists
TheoryHelps to focus Big Questions
OperationalizationFacilitates quantitative methods
Overview1. Big Questions2. Theoretical perspective3. Operationalization4. Portable5. Multipurpose 6. Examples7. Infrastructure8. Applications
1. Some Big QuestionsWhat is the relationship between form and meaning?
What is the relationship between lexicon and grammar?
What is the structure of linguistic categories?
What is the structure of linguistic constructions?
2. Theoretical perspective:Cognitive linguistics
Minimal Assumption: language can be accounted for in terms of general cognitive strategies
• no autonomous language faculty• no strict division between grammar and lexicon• no a priori universals
Usage-Based: generalizations emerge from language data• no strict division between langue and parole• no underlying forms
Meaning is Central: holds for all language phenomena• no semantically empty forms• differences in behavior are motivated (but not
specifically predicted) by differences in meaning
Big Questions focused byCognitive Linguistics
What is the relationship between form and meaning?How does form reflect meaning?Can we use difference in form as a measure of meaning?
What is the relationship between lexicon and grammar?How do we account for meaning in grammar?Can we use similar models for grammatical meanings?
What is the structure of linguistic categories?What is relationship between prototype and periphery?Can we compare category structure across near
synonyms?
What is the structure of linguistic constructions? Are constructions hierarchical or flat?What is the relationship between constructions and
fillers?
3. Operationalization:Linguistic profiles
Focused subsets of behavioral profiles (Firth 1957, Harris 1970, Hanks 1996, Geeraerts et al. 1999, Speelman et al. 2003, Divjak & Gries 2006, Gries & Divjak 2009)
Grammatical profiling: relationship between frequency distribution of forms and linguistic categories
Semantic profiling: relationship between meanings (semantic tags) and forms
Constructional profiling: relationship between frequency distribution of grammatical constructions and meaning
Radial category profiling: differences in the frequency distribution of uses across two or more near-synonyms Collostructional profiling: relationship between a construction and the words that fill its slots
4. Portable
Linguistic profiles are portable– across questions– across theories– across statistical models– across languages
Linguistic profiles are a suite of methodological ideas that make it possible to approach Big Questions empirically from a variety of angles
Ideally results are also portable across platforms – open source, open access, available to all
researchers
5. Multipurpose
Quantitatively measured results yield real gains in our understanding of languages
These results can serve multiple purposes:– resources for language learners and users– (real, not statistical) machine translation – documentation and revitalization for
minority indigenous languages – language policy
6. Examples
• Grammatical Profiles: TAM in Russian• Semantic Profiles: “Empty” prefixes in Russian• Constructional Profiles: SADNESS in Russian• Radial Category Profiles: Ambipositions in North
SaamiFor each example we will identify:
• Big Questions• Theoretical perspective• Operationalization (Profiling) & statistical methods• Portability• Multipurpose applications
For each example we will identify:• Big Questions• Theoretical perspective• Operationalization (Profiling) & statistical methods• Portability• Multipurpose applications
Grammatical Profiles: TAM in Russian
Janda, L. A. & Lyashevskaya, O. 2011. “Grammatical profiles and the interaction of the lexicon with aspect, tense and mood in Russian”. Cognitive Linguistics 22:4 (2011), 719-763.
Crash course in Russian TAM
Tense: Past vs. Non-Past– Non-Past: Imperfective = Present vs. Perfective = Future
Aspect: Perfective (marked) vs. Imperfective (unmarked)– All forms of all verbs express aspect – “Aspectual pairs” = same lexical meaning, different aspect, e.g.,
pisat’ ‘write[imperfective]’ vs. napisat’ ‘write[perfective]’– Aspectual pairs can be formed via both prefixation and suffixation
(perepisat’ ‘rewrite[perfective]’ vs. perepisyvat’ ‘rewrite[imperfective]’)
– ≈1400 imperfective base stems form ≈2000 perfective aspectual partners using 16 prefixes
– ≈20K perfective stems form imperfective partners using 3 suffixes
– These affixes are traditionally assumed to be “empty”
Mood: imperative, infinitives in modal constructions
Grammatical Profiles: TAM in Russian
Big Questions:
What is the relationship between form and meaning?
➜ between verb inflection and grammatical meaning of aspect?
What is the relationship between lexicon and grammar?
➜ between lexical meaning of verbs and TAM?
Grammatical Profiles: TAM in Russian
Theoretical focus:
Can we measure the expression of aspect according to distribution of inflected forms?
Can we distinguish between prefixation vs. suffixation in formation of aspectual pairs?
Can we measure the attraction of lexical classes to grammatical categories?
Grammatical Profiles: TAM in Russian
Operationalization:
Grammatical profiles: frequency distribution of inflected forms➜Distribution of Russian verb forms according to
subparadigm➜Distribution of Russian verbs according to subparadigm
Data:Approx. 6M verb forms from the Russian National Corpus (
http://ruscorpora.ru/ )
Statistics:Chi-square, Cramer’s V effect size, distribution plots
What is a grammatical profile?
Verbs have different forms:eat 749 Meats 121 Meating 514 Meaten 88.8 Mate 258 M
The grammaticalprofile of eat
Grammatical Profiles of Russian Verbs
20.04.23 18
Nonpast Past Infinitive Imperative
Imperfective 1,330,016 915,374 482,860 75,717
Perfective 375,170 1,972,287 688,317 111,509
chi-squared = 947756df = 3p-value < 2.2e-16effect size (Cramer’s V)= 0.399 (medium-large)
Distribution of Russian verb forms according to subparadigmPrefixation (dark) vs. suffixation (light):Statistically significant, BUT effect sizes too small (0.076 & 0.037)
Prefixation (dark) vs. suffixation (light):Statistically significant, BUT effect sizes too small (0.076 & 0.037)
04/20/23
20
Distribution of Russian verbs according to subparadigm:Imperfective verbs and their attraction to imperative
Over 200 outliersOver 200 outliers
Imperfective imperative “be doing X!”• Polite: guest knows what to expect: razdevajtes’
‘take off your coat’, sadites’ ‘sit down’• Insistence: hearer is hesitant: stupajte ‘get going’,
gljadite ‘look’, zabirajte ‘take’• Insistence: hearer has not behaved properly
(connection with negation): provalivaj ‘get out of here’, končaj ‘stop’, ne perebivaj ‘don’t interrupt’
• Polite requests: vyručajte ‘help’• Kind wishes: vyzdoravlivajte ‘get well’• Idiomatic: davajte posmotrim ‘let’s take a look’• Idiomatic/culturally anchored: proščaj(te)
‘farewell’, soedinjajtes’ ‘unite’ (slogan), zapevaj ‘sing’ (army)
Grammatical Profiles: Findings
• Perfective verbs behave differently than imperfective verbs
• “Verb pairs” behave the same regardless of which type of morphology (prefixation vs. suffixation) is used to mark aspect
• We can identify exactly the verbs that are most attracted to various TAM combinations.
Grammatical Profiles: Portability
• Across issues:– Grammatical profiling and gender stereotypes (Kuznetsova 2012)
• Across languages:– Gives 96% resolution of perfective vs. imperfective for Old Church
Slavonic verbs, as compared with Dostál 1954 (Eckhoff & Janda 2013)
– Planned study of grammatical profiles across 4 languages:
• Across researchers:– All outlier verbs listed in Janda & Lyashevksaya 2011, data and
code for Eckhoff & Janda 2013 on website
Grammatical Profiles: Multipurpose Applications
Pedagogical implications:• Strategic combinations of verbs and subparadigms
Semantic Profiles: “Empty” prefixes in Russian
Janda, L. A. & Lyashevskaya, O. 2013. “Semantic Profiles of Five Russian Prefixes: po-, s-, za-, na-, pro-”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21:2, 211-258.
Semantic Profiles: “Empty” prefixes in Russian
Big Questions:
What is the relationship between form and meaning?
➜ ...between prefixes and meanings of verbs?
Are there any “empty” forms?➜ Are prefixes empty as claimed?
Imperfective base Prefixed perfective
sovetovat’ ‘advise’ posovetovat’ ‘advise’
varit’ ‘cook’ svarit’ ‘cook’
pisat’ ‘write’ napisat’ ‘write’
tverdet’ ‘harden’ zatverdet’ ‘harden’
gremet’ ‘thunder’ progremet’ ‘thunder’
Semantic Profiles: “Empty” prefixes in Russian
Theoretical focus:
Can we measure the relationship between prefixes and meanings of verbs?
➜ Distribution of prefixes vs. semantic groups of verbs
How do we show that “empty” forms aren’t really empty?
➜ Show that prefixes have different semantic behaviors
Semantic Profiles: “Empty” prefixes in Russian
Operationalization:
Semantic profiling: relationship between meanings (semantic tags) and forms
➜Distribution of Russian verb prefixes vs. semantic tags
Data:382 verbs with “empty” prefixes from the Exploring
Emptiness database (http://emptyprefixes.uit.no/index.php ), semantic tags independently assigned in the Russian National Corpus (http://ruscorpora.ru/ )
Statistics:Chi-square, Cramer’s V effect size, Fisher Test
20.04.23 29
chi-square = 248, df = 12, p = 2.2e-16; Cramer’s V effect-size = 0.8
Attractions and repulsions measured by Fisher Test
Semantic Profiles: Findings
• Each prefix has a unique semantic profile• Each prefix is attracted to and repulsed by a
different set of semantic classes of verbs• It is possible to establish meanings of prefixes
and expectations for how prefixes combine with verbs
Semantic Profiles: Portability
All data, statistical code, lists of verbs available at:http://emptyprefixes.uit.no/semantic_eng.htm
Semantic Profiles: Multipurpose Applications
Pedagogical implications:We can design materials
that reduce the burden of memorizing ≈2000 correct prefix-verb combinations
Constructional Profiles: SADNESS in Russian
Janda, L. A. & Solovyev, V. 2009. “What Constructional Profiles Reveal About Synonymy: A Case Study of Russian Words for sadness and happiness”. Cognitive Linguistics 20:2, 367-393.
Crash course in Russian case & SADNESS
Nouns are obligatorily case-marked
6 cases: Nominative, Accusative, Dative, Instrumental, Genitive, Locative
– All cases can appear with a preposition– All cases except Locative can also appear without a
preposition
– 70 constructions [(preposition) [NOUN]case]
SADNESS: 6 near-synonyms, no “umbrella term”– grust’, melanxolija, pečal’, toska, unynie, xandra
Constructional Profiles: SADNESS in Russian
Big Questions:
What is the relationship between form and meaning?
➜What is the relationship between words and grammatical constructions?
➜What is the relationship between synonyms?
Constructional Profiles: SADNESS in Russian
Theoretical focus:
Can we measure the difference between synonyms in terms of distribution in grammatical constructions?
Constructional Profiles: SADNESS in Russian
Operationalization:
Constructional profiling: relationship between frequency distribution of grammatical constructions and meaning
➜SADNESS words vs. distribution in [(preposition) [NOUN]case] constructions
Data: 500 sentences for each word from Russian National Corpus, Biblioteka Maksima Moškova
Statistics:Chi-square, Cramer’s V effect size, Hierarchical Clustering
(squared Euclidean distance)
Chi-square = 730.35, df = 30, p < 0.0001, Cramer’s V = 0.305
pečal’ toska xandra melanxolija grust’ unynie
‘Sadness’ Hierarchical Cluster
Constructional Profiles: Findings
Each synonym has a unique constructional profile
Some synonyms are closer together, others are farther apart
Constructional Profiles: Portability
• Across issues:– Logistic regression analysis of Russian gruzit’ ‘load’
with 3 “empty” prefixes across Locative Alternation constructions (Sokolova 2012, Sokolova, Janda and Lyashevskaya 2012)
– Analysis of aspectual pairs formed by prefix pro- (Kuznetsova 2012)
• Across languages:– North Saami anaphoric possessive constructions:
reflexive pronoun vs. possessive suffix (forthcoming)• Data published in Janda & Solovyev article; data and
code for gruzit’ on website.
Constructional Profiles: Multipurpose Applications
Pedagogical implications:Teach relevant constructions with near-synonyms
Possible implication for machine translation:Lexical selection informed by constructional profiles
Radial Category Profiles: Ambipositions in North Saami
Antonsen, L., Janda, L. A., & Baal, B. A. B. “Njealji davvisámi adposišuvnna geavahus” [“The Use of Four North Saami Adpositions”], co-authored with Lene Antonsen[1] and Berit Anne Bals Baal[3], Sámi dieđalaš áigečála 2012, v. 2. 32pp.
Janda, L. A., Antonsen, L. & Baal, B. A. B. Forthcoming. “A Radial Category Profiling Analysis of North Sámi Ambipositions”. High Desert Linguistics Society Proceedings, Volume 1. 11 pp.
Crash course in North Saami ambipositions
Unusually large number of adpositions that can appear as both prepositions and postpositions, always use Genitive case1. a. miehtá dálvvi b. dálvvi miehtá
[over winter-G] [winter-G over]‘during the winter’
2. a. čađa áiggi b. áiggi čađa[through time-G] [time-G through]
‘through time’3. a. rastá joga b. joga rastá [across river-G] [river-G across]
‘across the river’4. a. maŋŋel soađi b. soađi maŋŋel
[after war-G] [war-G after]‘after the war’
5 = North Saami
Radial Category Profiles: North Saami ambipositions
Big Questions:
What is the relationship between form and meaning?➜What is the relationship between position
(preposition vs. postposition) and meaning?
What is the influence of majority languages (prepositional languages in West vs. postpositional languages in East)?
Is there a relationship between frequency of ambipositions and their use to distinguish meaning?
Radial Category Profiles: North Saami ambipositions
Theoretical focus:
Can we measure the difference between uses in preposition vs. postposition?
Can we model the meanings in terms of a radial category?
Can we measure dialectal differences?
Radial Category Profiles: North Saami ambipositions
Operationalization:
Radial category profiling: differences in the frequency distribution of uses across two or more near-synonyms
➜Distribution across uses in radial category for preposition vs. postposition
Data: 100+ sentences for each position from 10M word newspaper corpus, plus exx. from literature, Bible translation
Statistics:Chi-square, Cramer’s V effect size
Radial categories:miehtá ‘over’ in newspapers
20.04.23 49
time9%
extent79%
motion12%
preposition
time95%
extent5%
postpositionchi-squ = 170, df = 2, p < 2.2e-16; Cramer’s V = 0.85
Distribution of adpostitions
20.04.23 50
Х2=129.7, df=2, p<2.2e-16Cramer’s V=0.48
Х2=129.7, df=2, p<2.2e-16Cramer’s V=0.48
Radial Category Profiles: Findings
There is a relationship between meaning and position
Prevailing trends in majority languages do influence use of position
There seems to be a typological relationship between frequency of ambipositions and their use to distinguish meaning
Languages with few ambipositions (Germanic, Russian) do not use position distinctively
Languages with more ambipositions use them in more complex ways (North Saami > Finnish, Estonian)
Radial Category Profiles: Portability
• Across issues and languages:– Russian prefixes vy- vs. iz- (Nesset, Endresen, Janda
2011) – Russian prefixes o-/ob-/obo- (Baydimirova
[Endresen] 2010)• Data and code published on website.
Radial Category Profiles: Multipurpose Applications
Pedagogical implications:Teach ambipositions with relevant meanings and nouns
Improvements to constraint grammar analyzer:Improves linguistic analysis and language technology tools, these are crucial to preserving and revitalizing the language
7. Infrastructure
Data management issues: Remember those problems with portability?
--Data analyzed in proprietary programs--Data not publicly available or hard to navigate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2zK3sAtr-4
TROLLing
Tromsø Repository of Language and Linguistics
•International archive of data and code•All items open-source, open access•Searchable metadata•Verify results, see how to implement various statistical models•Housed at UiT library•Connected to CLARIN (Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure, a networked federation of European data repositories)
8. Applications
A model for applications:http://giellatekno.uit.no/english.html
A model for applications:http://giellatekno.uit.no/english.html