DDL - UMR 5596
ISH - Bat C
14 avenue Berthelot
69007 Lyon
Tél : 04 72 72 64 12
Fax : 04 72 72 65 90
Contact

Calendrier






Previous Month Septembre 2018 Previous Month
L M M J V S D
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

  Colloque
  Conférences
  Soutenance
  Divers
  Plusieurs évènements
 Vous êtes ici : Accueil /  Evénements / Calendrier

ven. 07/09/2018 Atelier Typologie sémantique
Mudburra associated motion in a genetic and areal perspective
David Osgarby (University of Queensland, Australia)
14h-15h30
ISH - Salle Berty Albrecht

Associated motion (AM) in Mudburra (Ngumpin-Yapa, Pama-Nyungan) is expressed by means of verbal suffixes distinguishing two paths of motion: motion away from the deictic centre (itive), and motion towards the deictic centre (ventive). As such Mudburra AM is ‘simple’ according to Guillaume’s (2016) measure of ‘degree of elaboration’, especially in comparison to the highly elaborated systems of Arandic associated motion found to the south of Mudburra, such as Kaytetye (Koch 1984). This presentation describes the forms, functions and distribution of AM markers in Mudburra (Osgarby 2018). The Mudburra AM system makes similar contrasts to that of the unrelated neighbouring language Wambaya (Ngurlun, Mirndi), despite the fact that they possess entirely distinct grammatical structures (Nordlinger 2001). The two-way AM distinction in Mudburra and Wambaya are illustrative of an areal tendency to make only a small number of distinctions in verbal grammatical path of motion markers. Morphology cognate to Mudburra AM suffixes function as deictic directionals in some related languages, and other Ngumpin-Yapa and Ngurlun languages have repurposed the markers of associated motion as makers of tense/aspect/modality: a situation that makes the Northern Central Australia region of particular interest to the study of development and loss of AM systems.

References

Guillaume, Antoine. 2016. “Associated Motion in South America: Typological and Areal Perspectives.” Linguistic Typology 20 (1): 81–177. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0003.

Koch, Harold. 1984. “The Category of ‘Associated Motion’ in Kaytej.” Language in Central Australia 1: 23–34.

Nordlinger, Rachel. 2001. “Wambaya in Motion.” In Forty Years on: Ken Hale and Australian Languages, edited by Jane Simpson, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Peter Austin, and Barry Alpher, 401–414. Pacific Linguistics 512. Canberra: Australian National University. https://doi.org/10.15144/PL-512.401.

Osgarby, David. 2018. “Verbal Morphology and Syntax of Mudburra: An Australian Aboriginal Language of the Northern Territory.” University of Queensland.




jeu. 20/09/2018 Séminaire DTT - Atelier LED-TDR
Revitalisation du zapotèque du Mexique
14h-15h30
ISH - salle Georges Lyvet

Projection d’un documentaire sur des initiatives de revitalisation, par un groupe d’Anciens, de la langue Dizdea, connue comme langue Zapotèque de l’Etat de Oaxaca (Mexique). La discussion qui suivra sera animée par Amanda Delgado et Maurice Pico, experts linguistes de ce documentaire.

Trailer disponible à l’adresse suivante : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLJM_Ek0SLo


Contact...  


ven. 21/09/2018 Axe DTT - réunion de rentrée (réunion interne)
14h - 16h
ISH - amphi Marc Bloch
Contact...  


jeu. 27/09/2018 Atelier History and Ecology of Languages: Frank Seifart Speech pauses and the development of prefixes on verbs and nouns
14h00-15h30
ISH, salle Ennat Léger

In this talk, I report on joint work with Jan Strunk and Balthasar Bickel

The probability for function words to develop into affixes differs for different functions, e.g. the preference for suffixing as opposed to prefixing is more pronounced for case than for person markers (Cysouw 2009). A possible explanation links this difference to the extent to which markers predict a specific construction (Himmelmann 2014). Here, we show that in addition to this function-specific effect, prefixation probabilities differ globally between nominal and verbal hosts, and we suggest that this difference is grounded in different probabilities of speech pauses before these hosts. No parallel effects are found after hosts.

To estimate affixation probabilities, we extracted information on fusion together with information on position relative to the phonological host (noun vs. verb) for a wide range of markers in the AUTOTYP database (Bickel et al. 2017). This includes systematic samples of case, agreement, tense, number, and negation markers and less systematic samples of many other categories collected in various projects with a total of well over 2,000 markers studied. Results shown that the chance for fused (vs. non-fused) markers is significantly lower before nominal than before verbal hosts. No such effect was observed with postposed markers, i.e. while the host category has an effect on prefixation, it has no such effect on suffixation

An explanation for this comes from measurements of pause probabilities before nouns vs. before verbs in corpora documenting spontaneous speech of nine languages (between 17.500 and 37.550 words each) (Seifart et al. 2018): Baure (Arawakan), Bora (Boran), Chintang (Sino-Tibetan), Even (Tungusic), Hoocak (Siouan), N|uu (Tuu), Texistepec (Mixe-Zoquean), Dutch and English (Germanic). In these data, the likelihood for pauses before nouns is significantly higher than before verbs We attribute this finding to the fact that lexical nouns are usually appropriate pragmatically only for new referents (vs. pronoun ­or gap; Levinson 2000), a constraint which induces increased time for lexical access (Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer 1999). This contrasts with verbs, where there are no such choices and lexical access time does not seem to depend on information structure.

This suggests that the increased pause probabilities before nouns vs. before verbs inhibits the phonological fusion of pre-posed functional elements before nouns, but not before verbs, and thus explains the asymmetry in the occurrence of prefixes across parts of speech in the languages of the world.

References:

Bickel, Balthasar, Johanna Nichols, Taras Zakharko, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kristine Hildebrandt, Michael Rießler, Lennard Bierkandt, Fernando Zúñiga & John B. Lowe. 2017. /The AUTOTYP typological databases, version 0.1.0/. https://github.com/autotyp/autotyp-data/tree/0.1.0.

Bickel, Balthasar. 2013. Distributional biases in language families. In Bickel, Balthasar, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), /Language typology and historical contingency/, 415–444. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cysouw, Michael. 2009. The asymmetry of affixation. /Snippets/ 20(3). 10–14.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. /Language/ 90(4). 927–960.

Levelt, Willem J. M., Ardi Roelofs & Antje S. Meyer. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. /Behavioral and Brain Sciences/ 22(01). 1–38.

Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. /Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature/. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Seifart, Frank, Jan Strunk, Swintha Danielsen, Iren Hartmann, Brigitte Pakendorf, Søren Wichmann, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Nivja H. de Jong & Balthasar Bickel. 2018. Nouns slow down speech across structurally and culturally diverse languages. /Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences/ 115(22). 5720–5725. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1800708115 .

Zakharko, Taras & Balthasar Bickel. 2011ff. familybias: Family bias estimation. R package, https://github.com/IVS-UZH.




ven. 28/09/2018 On automatic creation of lexical semantic questionnaires
14h00-15h30
ISH, salle Ennat Léger
Conférence de :
  • Denis Paperno (LORIA)
dans le cadre HELAN2

We propose creating questionnaires for lexical typology (in the spirit of Rakhilina and Reznikova 2016) in an automatized fashion. We evaluate our system on questionnaire creation for 'smooth', 'sharp', 'thick', and 'straight' (object features often but not always expressed by adjectives), and perform a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results. Our algorithm consists of the following steps: 1) extracting a list of frequent phrases, or bigrams, of the form “adjective + noun”; 2) computing a co-occurrence-based vector representation for every noun phrase; 3) clustering the vector space; 4) extracting three core elements from the each cluster while eliminating all clusters containing less than three elements. This algorithm allows revealing semantic oppositions that indeed are typologically relevant. For example, many languages distinguish lexically ‘sharp edges (e.g. knives)’ and ‘sharp points (e.g. arrows)’, having two distinct adjectives with the meaning ‘sharp’: one for the first sense, another for the second one (compare tranchant/aiguisé vs. pointu in French). There is no such distinction in Russian; still, Russsian noun phrases illustrating these context types fall into two different clusters (ostryj nož ‘sharp knife’, ostryj nožik ‘sharp little knife’, ostroje lezvije ‘sharp blade’ vs. ostraja strela ‘sharp arrow’, ostroje kop’ë ‘sharp spear’, ostryj kamen’ ‘sharp stone’).


Contact...  


Remonter

ASLAN -  Université de Lyon -  CNRS -  Université Lumière Lyon 2 -  ISH -  Typologie -  IXXI -  DDL :  Contact |  Mentions légales |  Plan du site