What is the role of semantic maps in linguistics?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Unit 2: Following Characters Into Meaning
Advertisements

On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages.
What we know about linguistic relativity so far Linguistics 5430 Spring 2007.
CSCTR Session 11 Dana Retová.  Start bottom-up  Create cognition based on sensori-motor interaction ◦ Cohen et al. (1996) – Building a baby ◦ Cohen.
Cognitive Linguistics Croft&Cruse 3: Conceptualization and construal operations, pt. 1.
Cognitive Linguistics Croft & Cruse 6 A dynamic construal approach to sense relations I: hyponymy and meronymy.
How Language Structures Concepts LEONARD TALMY University at Buffalo SUNY Barcelona, April 2009.
Cognitive Linguistics Croft & Cruse 10 An overview of construction grammars (part 2, through end)
Taylor 6 Polysemy & Meaning Chains. Overview Many linguistic categories are associated with several prototypes. This chapter will talk about family resemblance.
Meaning and Language Part 1.
What is the role of semantic maps in linguistics? Laura A. Janda UNC-Chapel Hill/University of Tromsø
Lecture 1 Introduction: Linguistic Theory and Theories
Lost in translation What is lost in translation from one language to another? Why? If only translating was this simple...
Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 7: Words.
1 Linguistics lecture #9 November 23, Overview Modularity again How visual cognition affects language How spatial cognition affects language Can.
North Sámi Ambipositions: Radial Category Profiling & Typological Comparisons Laura A. Janda, Lene Antonsen, Berit Anne Bals Baal CLEAR-group (Cognitive.
Construal Scope effects on Imperfective vs. Perfective.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 22, March 27, 2007.
Time, Tense and Aspect Rajat Kumar Mohanty Centre For Indian Language Technology Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian.
Using Metaphor to Understand Russian Aspect Laura A. Janda UNC-Chapel Hill
Topic and the Representation of Discourse Content
The Frontiers of Space & Time: Laura A. Janda UNC-CH
Group I: Native American Languages Laura Buszard-WelcherEmily Kidder Phil Cash CashPaul Kroeber Gene DealRuth Rouvier Brian FitzsimmonsLori Levin Julia.
Ontologies, Conceptualizations, and Possible Worlds Revisiting “Formal Ontologies and Information Systems” 10 years later Nicola Guarino CNR Institute.
Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference By: Randy J. LaPolla City University of Hong Kong Presented by:
Inflection. Inflection refers to word formation that does not change category and does not create new lexemes, but rather changes the form of lexemes.
1 Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study Maria Pigada and Norbert Schmitt ( 2006)
Figure and Ground Part 2 APLNG 597C LEJIAO WANG 03/16/2015.
King Faisal University جامعة الملك فيصل Deanship of E-Learning and Distance Education عمادة التعلم الإلكتروني والتعليم عن بعد [ ] 1 King Faisal University.
History and Core Concepts of Cognitive Linguistics Laura A. Janda
“How to account for aspectual derivation in Russian" Laura A. Janda UNC-Chapel Hill/University of Tromsø
DEIXIS Deixis belongs within the domain of pragmatics because it directly concerns the relationship between the structure of languages and the contexts.
Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska
Laura A. Janda UNC-Chapel Hill
Vocabulary Module 2 Activity 5.
Spatial Data Models 5/7/2018 What are Spatial Data?
Week 3b. Merge, feature checking
What is Cognitive Linguistics?
Statistical NLP: Lecture 7
Metaphor in Grammar: Conceptualization of Time
Russian Aspect: From Theory to Pedagogy
Statistical NLP: Lecture 3
Searching corpora.
Russian RAZ-: A case of semantic camouflage
Time and Change Parmenides vs. Heraclitus:
Metaphor in Grammar: Conceptualization of Time
The Metaphorical Shape of Actions: Verb Classifiers in Russian
An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics
Representation of Actions as an Interlingua
Properties of Matter and Concepts of Time: A Model for Russian Aspect
A new perspective on philosophical debates
Part I: Basics and Constituency
Overview Tenses in colour is a set of high-quality colour-coded charts for graphically and systematically presenting the English tense system. It aims.
Lost in translation What is lost in translation from one language to another? Why? If only translating was this simple...
William Norris Professor and Head, Department of Computer Science
Structural relations Carnie 2013, chapter 4 Kofi K. Saah.
The scope of Semantics Made Simple
Properties of Matter and Concepts of Time: A Model for Russian Aspect
Ontology.
William Norris Professor and Head, Department of Computer Science
“Radial categories of constructions”
DEIXIS Deixis belongs within the domain of pragmatics because it directly concerns the relationship between the structure of languages and the contexts.
Metaphors for Time in Russian
Geographic Concepts These are the ideas that link the studies in Geography together and give a focus for our investigations.
“The Historical Development of Aspectual Clusters in Russian”
Lost in translation What is lost in translation from one language to another? Why? If only translating was this simple...
Structure of a Lexicon Debasri Chakrabarti 13-May-19.
The Classical Approach to Categorization
The Invisible Process to help with analysis:
Presentation transcript:

What is the role of semantic maps in linguistics? Laura A. Janda UNC-Chapel Hill/University of Tromsø janda@unc.edu/laura.janda@hum.uit.no www.unc.edu/~lajanda

Main idea We don’t know whether all languages are based on the “same” parameters We can’t build up a theory based on such an assumption Semantic maps are an example of a discrete type of model, and it is possible that they conflate data that is not compatible

Overview Polyfunctional grams. How can they be compared across various languages? What is a semantic map? – Examples DISCRETE vs. CONTINUOUS (Langacker 2006) and what this distinction means for semantic maps Linguistic differences that cannot be accommodated in semantic maps Conclusions: What does it mean to make linguistic comparisons?

Polyfunctional grams All languages have such units Adpositions, inflectional and derivational morphemes, etc. These units represent linguistic categories Tense, aspect, case, The categories reflect the way that people understand experiences such as physical location, time, and relationships between things

Polyfunctional grams How can such units be described? Cognitive linguists use Schemas Prototypes Radial categories

Polyfunctional grams An example: The genitive case in Slavic Schema: Something (trajectory) that moves or is located near something else (landmark) Prototypes: ‘source’, ‘goal’, ‘reference’, ‘whole’ Radial category (with metaphorical extensions)

Polyfunctional grams They are more complicated than one might think There is no one-to-one correspondence between such units and the concepts that they represent These units often overlap with each other These units can be used in various combinations See Polish examples 1 and 2

Polyfunctional grams It just gest worse when one tries to compare such units across several languages See examples 3 and 4 Polish, Czech, and Russian inherited the “same” preposition and case systems What happens when we have dissimilar, unrelated languages? Semantic maps are designed to compare large numbers of languages

What is a semantic map? The most prominent theorists are Croft (2001, 2003, Croft and Poole forthcoming) Haspelmath (1997a, 1997b, 2003) Others who have made significant contributions Anderson (1982), Clancy (2006), Kemmer (1993), van der Auwera & Plungjan (1998), van der Auwera, Dobrushina & Goussev (2004), van der Auwera & Malchukov (in press), van der Auwera & Temurcu (in press)

What is a semantic map? Terminology Conceptual space Semantic map All possible distinctions that a human being can perceive The backdrop (grid) for a semantic map Semantic map The distribution of actual distinctions made by one or a number of languages across the parameters of conceptual space

What is a semantic map? Research proceeds from individual languageas to semantic maps to conceptual space Semantic maps claim that it is possible to find Parameters of a universal conceptual space (what kinds of distinctions human beings can both perceive and code in language) Implicational universals (which functions can co-occur in grams) Grammaticalization paths (diachronic directions for grammaticalization)

Are there limitations to semantic maps as a linguistic model? When semantic maps compare several languages, the model is making an important assumption: All languages are based on same parameters, merely choosing various subsets of those parameters for grammaticalization Is it really possible to discover the parameters of human conceptualization by using semantic maps? First we need to work through an example…

Temporal locations (Haspelmath 1997b) hour year day part season month day

English at hour year day part season month day in on

Norwegian [no preposition] i hour year om day part season month day på

Polish locative o hour year instrumental day part season accusative month day [no preposition] genitive w

The semantic map for temporal location It works – We do find a typological pattern here All languages use only contiguous portions of the map In contiguous portions of the map we find longer time periods vs. shorter time periods day part connected to day vs. season connected to year But these are not “deep” conclusions

DISCRETE vs. CONTINUOUS Langacker (2006) All models are metaphorical, and all metaphors are potentially misleading All metaphors emphasize some factors and suppress others When a model is too discrete or too continuous, it suppresses information Linguistic models tend to be too discrete Even a misleading model can lead to good results if the person using it takes into consideration its limitations

The advantages of discrete models One can find “things” og “groups” in a continuous reality (galaxies, archipelagoes, villages, cf. Langacker 2006) One can see how how individual grams overlap in their functions in a given domain One can find typological patterns across languages One can visualize messy empirical data as coherent wholes (more organization than a list and more details than an abstract general meaning, cf. Haspelmath 2003)

Limitations of discrete models Semantic maps see only discrete points and ignore the continuous zones between them This effect is amplified when one makes comparisons across languages A cross-linguistic semantic map is two orders of magnitude more discrete than a radial category, for it ignores the continuous zones both at the level of individual languages and across languages

Other limitations of discrete models When we say in November (Eng), i november (Norw) og w listopadzie (Pol), do in, i and w have “the same meaning”? Even when in, i and w are used in “the same meaning”, they have different things in their semantic baggage (different prototypes and metaphorical extensions) A semantic map shows only the “distances” between units – it doesn’t tell us anything about their meanings (Langacker, pc 2006)

Langacker’s alternative: a mountain range discrete points continuous fields

Differences that cannot be accommodated in semantic maps Up until this point we have only talked about quantitative differences between models (discrete vs. continuous) We just assumed that the things that were being compared were indeed comparable…

Qualitative differences Different parameters one language uses one set of parameters and another language uses an entirely different set of parameters for the “same” domain Different means one language has grammaticalised a distinction that another language represents only optionally in the lexicon Different metaphors In different languages the “same” grammatical distinction is motivated by different metaphors

Different parameters Finnish has no grammatical gender distinctions, but gender is obligatorily marked on nounds, adjectives, pronouns, and verbs in Slavic languages like Polish Location can be expressed in a variety of different ways Tzeltal uses cardinal directions even for locating small items, whereas other languages use deictic terms such as right vs. left, in front of vs. behind

A: The apples are inside-bowl B: The apples are loose fitting-bowl C: The apples are concave valley that faces me-bowl D: The apples are stomach-bowl

Do all of these distinctions come from only one conceptual space? A: The apples are inside-bowl B: The apples are loose fitting-bowl Do all of these distinctions come from only one conceptual space? C: The apples are concave valley that faces me-bowl D: The apples are stomach-bowl

Semantic maps of expressions for spatial location Levinson et al. (2003): 71 expressions for spatial location from 9 languages Goal: to find out which expressions cluster together (rejecting the notion that these clusters represent innate universal categories) Croft & Poole (forthcoming): used Levinson’s data and applied more sophisticated mathematical analysis (Multi Dimensional Scaling) Goal: to find universal categories

Other problems Levinson et al. (2003) uesd data from 9 languages, but there are perhaps as many as 7000 languages in the world Do we want to base a theory on only 0.13% of the relevant data? Levinson et al. (2003) researched 71 expressions for spatial location Do we know that these 71 spatial locations are precisely the ones that represent all the differences that a human being can perceive and encode in language?

Different means A concept can be expressed by a grammatical category in one language, but be expressed only lexically in another language Evidential verb paradigms i Macedonian and Albanian vs. angivelig (Norw), allegedly (Eng), rzekomo (Pol) Two (or more) concepts can have different status in different languages verb-framed vs. satellite-framed

differences disappear El perro entró corriendo Hunden løp inn On a semantic map these differences disappear

Different metaphors Human beings cannot perceive time directly, and it seems that all languages use the TIME IS SPACE metaphor But different languages use different versions of this metaphor Expressions for before vs. after Aspect in Russian

Many languages use IN FRONT to express ‘before’ behind (me) in front Haspelmath (1997b: 56-57) Many languages use IN FRONT to express ‘before’ German vor, Latin ante, Polish przed, Albanian para Fewer languages use BEHIND to express ‘after’ Latin post, Albanian pas

Aspect in Russian: three (pairs of) metaphors Discrete solid object vs. Fluid substance => Perfective vs. Imperfective Travel vs. Motion => Completable vs. Non-completable Granular vs. Continuous => Singularizable vs. Non-singularizable

Discrete solid object vs. Fluid substance => Perfective vs Discrete solid object vs. Fluid substance => Perfective vs. Imperfective Discrete solid object => Perfective Fluid substance => Imperfective vs. Ja napisal roman ‘I have written a novel’ The event has a shape, clear boundaries, etc. Ona gotovilas’ k èksamenam ‘She studied for the exams’ The event has no shape, clear boundaries, etc.

Travel vs. Motion => Completable vs. Non-completable Professor rabotaet v universitete ‘The professor is working at the university’ The verb can have a Complex Act Perfective: porabotat’ ‘work for a while (without a result)’ Pisatel’ pišet knigu ‘The author is writing a book’ The verb can have a Natural Perfective: napisat’ ‘write (until a result is achieved)’

Granular vs. Continuous => Singularizable vs. Non-singularizable Mal’čik čixal ‘The boy sneezed/was sneezing’ The verb can have a Single Act Perfective: čixnut’ ‘sneeze (once)’ Mal’čik igral vo dvore ‘The boy played outside’

Metaphorical differences can’t be accommodated in semantic maps The metaphorical system for aspect in Russian is very complex Other languages probably use other metaphors for aspect A semantic map has to ignore metaphorical differences How can one make comparisons across a number of different metaphorical systems?

Semantic maps of aspectual expressions Dahl (1985): expressions for 250 types of events from 64 languages Goal: to find out which expressions cluster together (rejecting the notion that these groups represent universal categories) Croft & Poole (forthcoming): used Dahl’s data and applied more sophisticated mathematical analysis (Multi Dimensional Scaling) Goal: to find universal categories

Other problems Dahl (1985) used data from 64 languages, but there are perhaps as many as 7000 languages in the world Do we want to base a theory on only 0.9% of the relevant data? Dahl (1985) researched expressions for 250 types of events Do we know that these 250 types of events are precisely the ones that represent all the differences that a human being can perceive and encode in language?

Conclusions Some theorists (Croft, Poole, Haspelmath) claim that a) A single universal conceptual space exists b) The grammar of each language is the sum of the “lines” drawn by that language across this single shared space

What does it mean to make linguistic comparisons? We don’t know whether a single universal conceptual space exists It is possible that different languages “inhabit” different conceptual spaces A semantic map necessarily ignores the meanings that motivate points of usage and the continuous fields between them We don’t know whether the things that are compared on a semantic map can be compared at all

Summary Semantic maps can But we must be cautious and remember that Help us to visualize complex data Help us to find a pattern across a number of languages But we must be cautious and remember that We still know very little about conceptual space and whether it is universal or not A semantic map is a relatively discrete model and it may conflate data that is incommensurate

Many thanks to: Steven Clancy, William Croft, Östen Dahl, Martin Haspelmath, Ronald Langacker, Johan van der Auwera, who shared their ideas with me