1 / 28

Differences in morphosyntactic analyticity between language varieties

Differences in morphosyntactic analyticity between language varieties. Helle Metslang, Külli Habicht , Pärtel Lippus , Karl Pajusalu 51 st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea Tallinn , 29 .8 – 1.9. 2018 WS „ Circum-Baltic languages: varieties, comparisons, and change “.

speaks
Download Presentation

Differences in morphosyntactic analyticity between language varieties

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Differences in morphosyntactic analyticity between language varieties Helle Metslang, KülliHabicht, PärtelLippus, Karl Pajusalu 51st Annual Meeting of the SocietasLinguisticaEuropaea Tallinn, 29.8 – 1.9.2018 WS „Circum-Baltic languages: varieties, comparisons, and change“

  2. Outline • Variation in analyticity in languages and registers • Data • Analytic-syntheticpairsin Estonian • Case 1: phrasal verb – simple verb • Case 2: adpositional phrase– caseform • Conclusions

  3. Variation in analyticity in languages and registers • Historically, Estonian is an agglutinative Finno-Ugric language, but shows stronger tendencies toward analyticity than e.g. Finnish (Grünthal 2000). • Estonian tends to choose analytic expressions while Finnish prefers synthetic ones (Metslang 1994) – comparisonof standard languages (fictiontexts) • The degree of analyticity may differ between languagevarieties • Analyticity brings greater transparency, and therefore is preferred in spoken language and by non-native speakers (Haspelmath, Michaelis 2017). • In written communicationeconomy trumps transparency, and therefore syntheticity is preferred. • The degree of analyticity may be influenced by language contacts and language planning.

  4. Variation in analyticity in registers • Researchquestions: • How to compare language varieties with regard to analyticity/syntheticity? • Estonian example: howdoesanalyticitydifferbetweenregisters?

  5. Measuringanalyticity and syntheticity • Measuringseparately: analyticity index, syntheticity index (Szmrecsanyi 2012, Siegel et al. 2014) • Measuringtogether: reflectsthechoicebetweentwoalternativeways of expression • Indicators– pairs of synonymous expressions that differ in analyticity/syntheticity • 1) Quantitative analysis: compare the normalized frequencies of the analytic expressions in corpus material • 2) Qualitative analysis: compare the usage of typical analytic/synthetic pairs in different varieties

  6. Background. Periods of standard language development • Pre-standardization (until the last quarter of the 19th century) – development of the standard Estonian. Bible translations as source of standard language, considerable variation in use between different authors and regions. • Standardization (until World War II) – conscious development of standard by native speakers, popularization of standard • Post-standardization (to the present day) – ensuring the functioning of thestandard language with many registers, emergence of internet language, study of spoken language, weakening of standard language norms starting in the 1960s.

  7. Studiedvarieties • Written language of non-native speakers • 17th­–18th century written Estonian, developed by Germans • 21st century L2 Estonianinterlanguage • Modern standard language • Newspapertexts • Fictiontexts • Academictexts • Internet language (texts on websites) • Spontaneous spoken language

  8. Studiedphenomena • 6 verbs6 adessive – S + adppealpairs (ära) hävitama‘destroy’merel – mere peal‘on the sea’ (ära) keelama‘forbid’mäel – mäe peal‘on the mountain’ (ära) kustutama‘erase’ laeval – laeva peal‘on the ship’ (ära) lõpetama‘finish’laual – laua peal‘on the table’ (ära) unustama‘forget’toolil – tooli peal‘on the chair’ (ära) varastama‘steal’turul – turu peal‘at the market’

  9. Data: Estonian languagecorpora • OLE = Corpus of Old Literary Estonian. vakk.ut.eedoi:10.15155/TY.0005 • PC = Phonetic Corpus of Estonian Spontaneous Speech. https://www.keel.ut.ee/en/languages-resourceslanguages-resources/phonetic-corpus-estonian-spontaneous-speech • ERC = Estonian Reference Corpus. http://www.cl.ut.ee/korpused/segakorpus/index.php?lang=en • EtTenTen.www.keeleveeb.ee/dict/corpus/ettenten • Estonian Interlanguage Corpus. http://evkk.tlu.ee/?language=en

  10. Amount of data in corpora OLE (OldLiterary Estonian) ~ 1 million PC (spontaneousspokenlanguage) ~ 395 000 NEWS (standard writtenEstonian, newspapers)5 million FICT (standard writtenEstonian, fictiontexts) 5 million RES (standard writtenEstonian, academictexts)5 million WEB (Internetlanguage) ~ 315 million L2 (interlanguage of L2learners) ~ 844 000

  11. Analytic-syntheticpairs 1: phrasal and simpleverbs Phrasal verbs with the perfective particle ära vs. perfectivity marking via object caseand/or the semantics of the verb (1a) Peeterkoristasköögiära Peetertidy:pstkitchen.genpp ‘Peeter tidied up the kitchen’ (1b) Peeterkoristasköögi Peetertidy:pstkitchen.gen ‘Peeter tidied up the kitchen’ (1c) Peeterkoristaskööki Peetertidy:pstkitchen.part ‘Peeter was tidying the kitchen’

  12. Analytic-syntheticpairs 2: Phrases with the postposition peal ‘on’ vs. the adessive case (2a) Arvuti onlauapeal computeristable.gen on ‘The computer ison the table’ (2b) Arvuti onlaua-l computeris table-ad ‘The computer ison the table’

  13. Factorsinfluencinganalyticity/syntheticity • Greatertransparency of analyticalexpressions (spokenlanguage, language of non-nativespeakers) • In speech, analytical expressions determine the sentence rhythm • Imitation of spoken interaction in text (fiction) • Analyticity of German (nativelanguage of thedevelopers and users of theOldLiterary Estonian) • Favoring of synthetic expressions by native Estonian language planners in the 20th century (Modern Estonian, especially edited academic and newspaper texts) • Syntheticity is encouraged by the information density of academic texts • Combination of written and spoken language features in internet language. Competition between economy and transparency.

  14. Hypotheses We hypothesize that analyticity is greater • in spoken language • inthe language of non-native speakers (OLE, L2) than • in modern written language (especially in academic texts) Between these extremes, we should find • internet language • language of fiction

  15. Comparisonofthe normalized frequencies of the analytic expressions in corpus material 1

  16. Comparisonofthe normalized frequencies of the analytic expressions in corpus material 2

  17. Conclusions from quantitative analysis • In descending order of analyticity, based on both linguistic phenomena examined: • OldLiterary Estonian • Spokenlanguage • Fictiontexts • Webtexts • Newspapertexts • Academictexts • Modern L2 textsshow a difference: the postpositionpealis used frequently, whilethe particle äraisnot. Possibleexplanations: The constructionN+pealis a synonymousalternativetotheadessive – themore transparent alternativeispreferred. Äramerelyduplicatesotherways of expressingperfectivity, and iseasytoomit. The methods of standard languageinstructionmayalso have aneffect, stressingthesuperiority of syntheticforms and the need toavoidtheredundancyofanalyticforms.

  18. Example of typical variation: ära + V vs. V ära unustama – unustama ‘forget’

  19. ära unustama – unustama: examples Se v̈llevnnutisEuaIumalaKesckuerra, ninck /.../ soÿsestPuhst, ninckandisAdamillekaas ..(OLE, 1603) ‘Eve forgot God’s command and ate it from the tree and gave it to Adam as well’ ma mäletan et ta ütlesmullenumbrikaaga ma unustasinselleära(PC) ‘I remember that he told me the number but I forgot it’ Oli mis oli, unustameära. (FICT) ‘Be as it may, let’s forget it.’ Ühtne karjala kirjakeelunustatikohe ja vene keelekõrval sai ametlikukskeeleks taas soomekeel. (RES) ‘The common Karelian standard language was immediately forgotten and Finnish once again joined Russian as an official language.’ Ta unustas sõltumatust ja vabadust.(L2) ‘He forgot independence and freedom’

  20. What is revealed by the typical variation of a simple verb and a phrasal verb with ära? • By far the most analytic is the translation-based OLE, where phrasal verbs with äracopy the German structure. • In spontaneous spokenlanguage, analytic and synthetic usage are found in equal proportion. • Greater isanalyticity in fiction and internet language than in newspaper and academic texts. Possible reasons: weaker influence of norms in the former group, greater proximity to standard language of the latter group. • Fiction texts feature:imitations of spoken interaction;in narrative, perfective sequential eventsevents are presented and are highlighted by means ofperfectiveparticles. • The use of ära isunexpectedlylow in L2texts. Thiscouldbeexplained by thelanguagelearner’s desire to use simpler structuresand bythemethodsof standard languageinstruction.

  21. Example of a typical varying phrase: laual vs. laua peal ‘on thetable’

  22. laual – laua peal: examples Ja sedda roga, mis ta lauapeäl, ja ta sullaste honed, ja ta teenride ammetid ja nende rided ..(OLE,1739) ‘And the food on his table, and his farmhands’ homes, and his servants’ positions and clothing’ avastas et salatikauss on laua peal (PC) ‘discovered that the salad bowl is on the table’ Laua peal on minu arvuti. (L2) ‘My computer is on the table’ Laualvedeleblohakaltraputatudtuhk(NEWS) ‘There is ash strewn carelessly on the table’ Rullitainasjahusellaual 1 cm paksuseks.(WEB) ‘Roll the dough on a floury table to 1 cm thickness’

  23. What is revealed by the typical variation of the adessive and a postpositional phrase? • Analyticity is greater in spontaneous spokenlanguageand in OLE. Possibleexplanations: desire for transparency; in spoken language also rhythm and redundancy; in OLE the influenceof German analytic constructions. • L2 texts show greater analyticity than L1 standard language. Analyticityis motivated by the desire for transparency as well as overgeneralization from a more analytic L1.

  24. What is revealed by the typical variation of the adessive and a postpositional phrase? • Modern newspaper, fiction, and academic texts are dominated by the synthetic forms favored in standard language. Theeffectofrecommendationsoflanguageplanners. Desireforinformationdensity. Aboutdifferent motivations see also Klavan 2012: 253-257; Klavan, Kesküla, Ojava 2011. • Internet language shows somewhat greater analyticity than newspaper, fiction and academic texts. This confirms the placement of internet language as a modern variety between spontaneous spokenlanguageand standard language.

  25. Conclusions 1 • The preliminary results demonstrate the efficacy of the method and mainlysupport the hypotheses. • The degree of analyticity of different language varietiesdiffers according to various factors, the most important of which are • the drive for transparency and simplicity; • influence of contact languages, • methodsof standard languageinstruction and • language planning attitudes.

  26. Conclusions 2 • The results of the quantitative and qualitative comparisons agree, therefore we can confidently identify a relationship between language variety and the degree of analyticity. • The language varieties examined reveal similar behavior with regard to both indicator phenomena and both quantitative and qualitative analysis: 1) greater analyticity (OldLiterary Estonian, spontaneousspokenlanguage), 2) medium analyticity(fiction and web-texts), 3) low analyticity (newspaper and academic texts). • The analyticity of L2 texts differs between the two indicator phenomena examined, reflecting the strategic choices made by language learners.

  27. Conclusions3 • The method is suitable for comparing degrees of analyticity across registers in one or multiple languages, if the languages have alternativepairs of analytic and synthetic expressions – e.g. forcomparison of Finniclanguagesacrossvarieties. • Ourstudydemonstratestheimportance of consideringcross-register differences in evaluatingthedegree of analyticity in languages.

  28. References • Grünthal, Riho (2000), Typological characteristics of the Finnic languages: A reappraisal, in J. Laakso (ed.), Facing Finnic: Some Challenges to Historical and Contact Linguistics, Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 31−63. • Haspelmath, Martin & Susanne Maria Michaelis (2017), Analytic and synthetic. Typological change in varieties of European languages, in I. Buchstaller, and B. Siebenhaar (eds.), Language Variation – European Perspectives VI: Selected Papers from the 8th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE8). Leipzig, 2015, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–22. • Klavan, Jane (2012). Evidenceinlinguistics: corpus-linguistic and experimentalmethodsforstudyinggrammaticalsynonymy. DissertationeslinguisticaeuniversitatisTartuensis 15. Tartu: Universityof Tartu Press. • Klavan, Jane & KaisaKesküla, Laura Ojava (2011), The division of labour between synonymous locative cases and adpositions: the Estonian adessive and the adpositionpeal ’on’, in S. Kittilä, K. Västi, and J. Ylikoski (eds.), Studies on Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 111−134. • Metslang, Helle (1994), Temporal RelationsinthePredicate and theGrammatical System ofEstonian and Finnish. Oulu: Universityof Oulu. • Metslang, Helle (2001), On the developments of the Estonian aspect: The verbal particle ära, in Ö. Dahl, and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages, vol. 2: Grammar and Typology. (Studies in Language Companion Series 55), Amsterdam: Benjamins, 443–479. • Siegel, Jeff & BenediktSzmrecsanyi, Jeff Kortmann (2014), Measuring analyticity and syntheticity in creoles, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29:1, 49–85. • Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2012), Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English, in T. Nevalainen, and E. ClossTraugott (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 654–665.

More Related