| 1. |
- Agbetsoamedo, Yvonne, et al.
(författare)
-
Temperature terms in the Ghanaian languages in a typological perspective
- 2015
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This talk deals with the conceptualisation of temperature in some of the Ghanaian languages as reflected in their systems of central temperature terms, such as hot, cold, to freeze, etc. We will discuss these systems in the light of a large-scale cross-linguistic collaborative project, involving 35 researchers (including the present authors) and covering more than 50 genetically, areally and typologically diverse languages (Koptjevskaja-Tamm ed. 2015). The key questions addressed here are how the different languages carve up the temperature domain by means of their linguistic expressions, and how the temperature expressions are used outside of the temperature domain. Languages cut up the temperature domain among their expressions according to three main dimensions: TEMPERATURE VALUES (e.g., warming vs. cooling temperatures, or excessive heat vs. pleasant warmth), FRAMES OF TEMPERATURE EVALUATION (TACTILE, The stones are cold; AMBIENT, It is cold here; and PERSONAL-FEELING, I am cold), and ENTITIES whose “temperature” is evaluated. Although the temperature systems are often internally heterogeneous, we may still talk about the main temperature value distinctions for the whole system. The Ghanaian languages favour the cross-linguistically preferred two-value systems, with water often described by a more elaborated system. An interesting issue concerns conventionalisation and frequency of expressions with a primary meaning outside of the temperature domain, for temperature uses. For instance, the conventionalised expressions for talking about ‘warm/hot’ in Ewe involve sources of heat (‘fire’) and bodily exuviae (‘sweat’). The Ghanaian languages often manifest numerous extended uses of their temperature terms. However, strikingly, none of them conforms to one of the most widely quoted conceptual metaphors, “affection is warmth” (Lakoff & Johnson 1999:50), which is also true for many other languages in (West) Africa and otherwise.
|
|
| 2. |
- Börstell, Carl, 1987-
(författare)
-
Object marking in the signed modality : Verbal and nominal strategies in Swedish Sign Language and other sign languages
- 2017
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In this dissertation, I investigate various aspects of object marking and how these manifest themselves in the signed modality. The main focus is on Swedish Sign Language (SSL), the national sign language of Sweden, which is the topic of investigation in all five studies. Two of the studies adopt a comparative perspective, including other sign languages as well. The studies comprise a range of data, including corpus data, elicited production, and acceptability judgments, and combine quantitative and qualitative methods in the analyses.The dissertation begins with an overview of the topics of valency, argument structure, and object marking, primarily from a spoken language perspective. Here, the interactions between semantics and morphosyntax are presented from a typological perspective, introducing differential object marking as a key concept. With regard to signed language, object marking is discussed in terms of both verbal and nominal strategies.Verbal strategies of object marking among sign languages include directional verbs, object handshape classifiers, and embodied perspective in signing. The first study investigates the use of directionality and object handshapes as object marking strategies in Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL), Israeli Sign Language (ISL), and SSL. It is shown that the strategies generally display different alignments in terms of the types of objects targeted, which is uniform across languages, but that directionality is much more marginal in ABSL than in the other two languages. Also, we see that there is a connection between object marking strategies and the animacy of the object, and that the strategies, object animacy, and word order preferences interact. In the second and third studies, SSL is investigated with regard to the transitive–reflexive distinction. Here, we see that there are interactional effects between object handshapes and the perspective taken by the signer. This points to intricate iconic motivations of combining and structuring complex verb sequences, such as giving preference to agent focusing structures (e.g., agent perspective and handling handshapes). Furthermore, the use of space is identified as a crucial strategy for reference tracking, especially when expressing semantically transitive events.Nominal strategies include object pronouns and derivations of the sign PERSON. The fourth study provides a detailed account of the object pronoun OBJPRO in SSL, which is the first in-depth description of this sign. It is found that the sign is in widespread use in SSL, often corresponds closely to object pronouns of spoken Swedish, and is argued to be grammaticalized from the lexical sign PERSON. In the final study, the possible existence of object pronouns in other sign languages is investigated by using a sample of 24 languages. This analysis reveals that the feature is found mostly in the Nordic countries, suggesting areal contact phenomena. However, the study also shows that there are a number of derivations of PERSON, such as reflexive pronouns, agreement auxiliaries, and case markers. The use of PERSON as a source of grammaticalization for these functions is attributed to both semantic and phonological properties of the sign.This dissertation is unique in that it is dedicated to the topic of object marking in the signed modality. It brings a variety of perspectives and methods together in order to investigate the domain of object marking, cross-linguistically and cross-modally.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gast, Volker, et al.
(författare)
-
The areal factor in lexical typology : Some evidence from lexical databases
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Aspects of linguistic variation. - : Walter de Gruyter. - 9783110607956 - 9783110607963 ; , s. 43-82
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Our study aims to explore how much information about areal patterns of colexification we can gain from lexical databases, such as CLICS and ASJP. We adopt a bottom-up (rather than hypothesis-driven) approach, identifying areal patterns in three steps: (i) determine spatial autocorrelations in the data, (ii) identify clusters as candidates for convergence areas and (iii) test the clusters resulting from the second step controlling for genealogical relatedness. Moreover, we identify a (genealogical) diversity index for each cluster. This approach yields promising results, which we regard as a proof of concept, but we also point out some drawbacks of the use of major lexical databases.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Hörberg, Thomas, 1979-
(författare)
-
Probabilistic and Prominence-driven Incremental Argument Interpretation in Swedish
- 2016
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This dissertation investigates how grammatical functions in transitive sentences (i.e., `subject' and `direct object') are distributed in written Swedish discourse with respect to morphosyntactic as well as semantic and referential (i.e., prominence-based) information. It also investigates how assignment of grammatical functions during on-line comprehension of transitive sentences in Swedish is influenced by interactions between morphosyntactic and prominence-based information.In the dissertation, grammatical functions are assumed to express role-semantic (e.g., Actor and Undergoer) and discourse-pragmatic (e.g., Topic and Focus) functions of NP arguments. Grammatical functions correlate with prominence-based information that is associated with these functions (e.g., animacy and definiteness). Because of these correlations, both prominence-based and morphosyntactic information are assumed to serve as argument interpretation cues during on-line comprehension. These cues are utilized in a probabilistic fashion. The weightings, interplay and availability of them are reflected in their distribution in language use, as shown in corpus data. The dissertation investigates these assumptions by using various methods in a triangulating fashion.The first contribution of the dissertation is an ERP (event-related brain potentials) experiment that investigates the ERP response to grammatical function reanalysis, i.e., a revision of a tentative grammatical function assignment, during on-line comprehension of transitive sentences. Grammatical function reanalysis engenders a response that correlates with the (re-)assignment of thematic roles to the NP arguments. This suggests that the comprehension of grammatical functions involves assigning role-semantic functions to the NPs.The second contribution is a corpus study that investigates the distribution of prominence-based, verb-semantic and morphosyntactic features in transitive sentences in written discourse. The study finds that overt morphosyntactic information about grammatical functions is used more frequently when the grammatical functions cannot be determined on the basis of word order or animacy. This suggests that writers are inclined to accommodate the understanding of their recipients by more often providing formal markers of grammatical functions in potentially ambiguous sentences. The study also finds that prominence features and their interactions with verb-semantic features are systematically distributed across grammatical functions and therefore can predict these functions with a high degree of confidence.The third contribution consists of three computational models of incremental grammatical function assignment. These models are based upon the distribution of argument interpretation cues in written discourse. They predict processing difficulties during grammatical function assignment in terms of on-line change in the expectation of different grammatical function assignments over the presentation of sentence constituents. The most prominent model predictions are qualitatively consistent with reading times in a self-paced reading experiment of Swedish transitive sentences. These findings indicate that grammatical function assignment draws upon statistical regularities in the distribution of morphosyntactic and prominence-based information in language use. Processing difficulties in the comprehension of Swedish transitive sentences can therefore be predicted on the basis of corpus distributions.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 1957-
(författare)
-
Action nouns
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Word formation. - Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter. - 9783110246278 ; , s. 1195-2009
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Action nominals consitute a cross-linguistically robustly attested phenomenon. The present article provides an overview of the central problems related to their status as mixed category, situated in-between prototypical verbs and prototypical nouns, such as the verbal and nominal properties of action nominals and internal syntax of action nominal constructions, the status of action nominals as inflected, derived or transposed words and the different theoretical approaches to their formation. It combines a large-scale typological perspective on action nominals in the languages of Europe with a closer look at some particular phenomena in particular languages.
|
|
| 8. |
- Koptjevskaja Tamm, Maria, 1957-, et al.
(författare)
-
Antonyms and derivational negation : a pilot study of cross-linguistic variation
- 2015
-
Ingår i: ALT 2015. - Albuquerque : University of New Mexico. ; , s. 85-86
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Typological research on negation has mainly focused on clausal negation and on indefinite pronouns in the scope of negation (see Miestamo 2007 for an overview). Derivational affixes expressing negation (e.g., un- in unhappy or -less in powerless), have so far not figured in systematic typological studies. Zimmer's (1964) seminal study of affixal negation with adjectives is mainly restricted to a few well-known Indo-European languages; other families are given less attention. Semantically, derivational negation is closely connected to antonymy, which can be expressed by unrelated lexemes (lexical antonyms: small vs. big) or by means of overt derivational negation (morphological antonyms: happy vs. unhappy). Lexical and morphological antonymy do not necessarily exclude each other. E.g., Russian has regular triads of the kind bol’šoj ‘big’ – malen’kij ‘little’ – nebol’šoj ‘NEG.big’, and even tetrads, such as dobryj ‘kind’ – zloj ‘mean’ – nedobryj ‘NEG.kind’ – nezloj ‘NEG.mean’. Antonymy has been a popular topic in semantic theories and in logic (see Horn 2001). A central distinction is the one between contradictory vs. contrary opposites; the former are either–or (dead vs. alive), whereas the latter show a middle ground between the two poles (small vs. big). It has been suggested that languages have “canonical antonyms”, i.e. “a limited core of highly opposable couplings” (speed: slow/fast, luminosity: dark/light, strength: weak/strong, size small/large, width: narrow/wide, merit bad/good and thickness thin/thick) (Paradis & al. 2009). However, systematic typological studies of antonymy are lacking. This talk presents a cross-linguistic pilot study of antonymy and its expression by both lexical and overt morphological means. Our pilot sample includes 20 languages from different families and geographical areas. The data come from dictionaries and grammars as well as from a questionnaire sent to language experts. We focus on antonymy in property words (adjectives), more specifically in such forms that can be used as adnominal modifiers, with the goal to find correlations between semantic and formal properties of antonyms. From the formal point of view, we will pay attention to the type of marking (e.g., prefix vs. suffix), to the number of different derivational negators in a language, whether these markers can be used on other word classes than property words and how they are related to other negative markers in the language, primarily to clausal negation. Taking in semantics, we will observe what types of opposition (contrary vs. contradictory, scalar vs. non-scalar etc.) and which domains (evaluation, size, dimension, temperature etc.) are expressed by lexical antonyms vs. each attested type of overt morphological marking. Specific hypotheses to be tested against the cross-linguistic data include the following. Evaluatively positive members of an antonym pair are more likely to accept morphological negation (unclever vs. *unstupid). The existence of a lexical antonym may block the possibility of morphological marking and if triads (or tetrads) exist, there will be cross-linguistically recurring ways in which the meanings of the lexical vs. morphological antonyms are related to each other. Morphological antonyms built with elements similar to clausal negators in the language will tend to involve contradictory rather than contrary opposites.
|
|
| 9. |
- Koptjevskaja Tamm, Maria, 1957-, et al.
(författare)
-
Antonyms and word-level negation
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Abstracts. ; , s. 74-74
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Typological research on negation has focused most prominently on standard negation, i.e. the basic negation strategies in declarative clauses, and some work has also been done on other aspects of clausal negation as well as on indefinite pronouns in the scope of negation. Negation at the level of words, i.e., derivational affixes expressing negation as well as case markers with negative semantics, has so far not figured in systematic typological studies, but it has received some attention in theoretical literature on semantics and morphology. Zimmer (1964) discusses “affixal” negation primarily in English and a couple of other Indo-European languages, but also comments on a few non-Indo‐European languages and even suggests some cross‐linguistic generalizations. Subsequent work (e.g., Horn 1989) is similarly restricted in its cross‐linguistic scope. From the semantic point of view, the issue of word‐level negation is closely connected to antonymy. Antonymy and types of opposition have been a popular topic in semantic theories (see Horn 1989), where the central distinction is between contrary and contradictory opposites. The two types differ as to whether they allow a third possibility in-between: contradictory opposites are either–or (dead vs. alive), whereas in contrary opposites there is a middle ground between the two poles (small vs. big). Linguistically, antonyms can be expressed by unrelated lexemes (lexical antonyms) like the examples cited above, or by means of overt negation (happy vs. unhappy, possible vs. impossible). Lexical and morphological antonymy do not necessarily exclude each other. E.g., Russian has regular triads of the kind bol’šoj ‘big’ – malen’kij ‘little’ – nebol’šoj ‘NEG‐big’, and even tetrads, such as dobryj ‘kind’ – zloj ‘mean’ – nedobryj ‘NEG-kind’ – nezloj ‘NEG-mean’. Despite all the attention that antonymy has received from semanticists, work in a broader cross‐linguistic comparative perspective is lacking. This talk presents a pilot study of antonymy and its expression by both lexical and overt morphological means. We will focus on antonymy in property words (adjectives), more specifically in such forms that can be used as adnominal modifiers. Our main interest will be in finding correlations between semantic and formal properties of antonyms. From the formal point of view, we will pay attention to the type of marking (e.g., prefix vs. suffix), to the number of different word-‐level negators in a language, whether these markers can be used on other word classes than property words and how they are related to other negative markers in the language. Taking in semantics, we will observe what types of opposition (contrary vs. contradictory, scalar vs. non-‐scalar etc.)and which domains of property scales (evaluation, size, dimension, temperature etc.) are expressed by lexical antonyms vs. each attested type of overt morphological marking, i.e. whether the linguistic evidence allows us to classify antonyms into cross‐linguistically relevant types. Does the existence of a lexical antonym exclude the possibility of morphological marking? Do the markers exclude one another on the same lexical item? Are there semantic principles governing such blocking effects? Can triads and/or tetrads be found in addition to pairs? Our pilot sample includes 15 languages from different families and geographical areas. The data comes from dictionaries and grammars and, most importantly, from a questionnaire sent to language experts. As this is a pilot study of a domain previously unexplored in language typology, our main goal is to sketch different ways of approaching this intriguing domain from a broader cross-linguistic perspective.
|
|
| 10. |
- Koptjevskaja Tamm, Maria, 1957-, et al.
(författare)
-
How our biology predisposes us to an "AFFECTION IS WARMTH" "metaphor", and how our environment changes its anchor
- 2015
-
Ingår i: 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europea. ; , s. 83-84
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- "AFFECTION IS WARMTH" is one of the most widely quoted "universal" conceptual metaphors. Cognitive linguists suggest these to be conceptual, based on frequently used English expressions as “warm words, feelings”. In this talk, we will reflect on their cross-disciplinary collaboration, using both the findings of a large-scale cross-linguistic study of the meanings and uses of the temperature terms in the world’s languages and the insights from (social) psychology. Our first question –inspired by Geeraerts and Grondelaers (1995) –was to explore whether these reflect universal patterns or whether they are based on specific cultural traditions. Their presence across languages indeed varies considerably: while some languages demonstrate elaborated systems of such uses, quite a few lack them altogether, and yet others vary as to which temperature term has predominantly positive associations in its extended uses (e.g. ‘cold’rather than ‘warm’). This disconfirms the idea that this conceptual metaphor is universal, and further confirms suspicions from social psychology, which has falsified another basic assumption from conceptual metaphor theory –unidirectionality (IJzerman & Semin 2010). In the remainder, we first explore these patterns, and then provide first explorations for why they are likely to differ across languages. Perhaps surprisingly, the edited volume by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2015) clearly reveals a significant variance in using temperature metaphors. Australian languages, Hup (Nadahup), Mapudungun (Araucanian), and Ojibwe (Algonquian) basically lack any extended use of temperature terms, while the 84SLE 2015 Book of AbstractsOceanic languages in Vanuatu and Nganasan (Uralic) have very few. This is in contrast both to some European and other Asian languages, but also to the African languages Ewe, Gbaya, Gurenɛ, Likpe, Sɛlɛɛ, Abui and Kamang (Timor-Alor-Pantar), and Yucatec Maya. These latter reveal a rich inventory of extended uses pertaining to their temperature terms, ranging from the more common ones, to the idiosyncratic ones. The actual cross-linguistic variation is both striking, thought-provoking, and calling for more research. Insights from (social) psychology may provide us with further answers for why such cross-cultural variation exists among languages. The most important reason is likely that temperature metaphors reflect how people deal with the metabolic demands of the environment. Thermoregulation is one of the most metabolically expensive activities across the animal kingdom. Other animals (and thus also humans) help regulate the temperature environment when this gets too cold, making a comfortable warm touch seem to answer basic biological necessities in mammalian sociality (Harlow & Suomi 1970; IJzerman et al. 2015). The second part of this talk will discuss the biological mechanisms behind social thermoregulation, and point to how others keeping us warm can help us answer to basic metabolic needs (cf. Beckes & Coan 2011; Beckes et al. 2014). From that, humans have developed so-called "cultural complements" to deal with the demands of the environment, and we will speculate that different linguistic metaphors are reflective of different metabolic needs across cultures, which are implemented according to different cultural practices (e.g., differences in touch) and rely on different needsdepending on the environment (e.g., different climates). Together, we discuss how language can facilitate culturally coordinated metabolism regulation, and thus point to the role of different attention-driving functions of linguistic –not conceptual –metaphors in cultural coordination.
|
|
