11/16/2012 Presentation Plan Spatial markers in • Background � Semantics South Asian languages � Polysemy � Representation of Spatial markers Tafseer Ahmed • A study of South Asian spatial markers University of Karachi � Saptial Usages of Spatial markers � Non Saptial Usages of Spatial markers This work was conducted at University of Konstanz, Germany. 2 • Axial Parts, Origin of Case markers Personal Motivation: Machine Translation Problem • There is no 1-1 mapping between spatial Background markers of two languages. • Urdu sE is used for different English prepositions in the following examples. • Semantics • Polysemy • Representation of Spatial Markers 4 1
11/16/2012 English prepositions mapped to Urdu Urdu sE and its equivalents sE Nepali (IA) Pashto Manipuri • He came from Karachi. (TB) (Ir) Source of Motion baaTa (Abl) na (Abl) dagi (Abl) • He passed through the garden. Causee baaTa (Abl) pa (Loc-Inst) daa (Loc-Dat) dekhi (Abl) na (Abl) Ø (Nom) Stimulus (fear) • He opened the door with the key. Manner pa (Loc-Inst) naa (Inst) Reason le (Inst) naa (Inst) • The door was opened by him. Instrument le (Inst) pa (Loc-Inst) naa (Inst) Reciprocal Obj sanga (Com) sara (Com) gaa (Com) • He asked me a question. (fight) 5 6 Emotion Obj (love) sanga (Com) sara (Com) Ø (Nom) Semantics Semantics • Layers of Language Processing • Synatx: unacceptable ................... She see a men. � Morphology: analysis of word forms • Synatx: acceptable � Synatx: She sees a man. analysis of structure She sees the men. � Semantics: analysis of meaning ..................... 7 8 2
11/16/2012 Semantics Semantics • Syntax: acceptable • We need structures to model sentences, phrases and words. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. • The spatial markers ‘in’, ‘on’, par , sE etc. are not mere atomic labels, but they are However, the sentence is (usually) not modeled by using complex structures. acceptable semantically. 9 10 Polysemy • It is the capacity for a word to have Representation of multiple related meanings. Spatial Markers e.g. crane (a bird, a machine) • It is distinct from homonymy , in which the multiple meanings of a word my be unconnected or unrelated. e.g. bark (dog’s, wood’s) 11 3
11/16/2012 Naming Convnetion(s) Naming Convention(s) • Spatial markers in Avar Commonly used terms • Ablative: source e.g. ‘from’ QuickTime™ and a • Perlative: path e.g. ‘through’ decompressor are needed to see this picture. • Allative:goal e.g. ‘to’ • Perlative: location e.g. ‘at’ 13 14 Example: Sindhi Ablative markers Some Models for Spatial Markers • ho ghar= khaaN aa-yo • Jackendoff (1990) 3SG house= ABL come-PERF ‘He came from the house.’ <Sindhi> • Kracht (2002) • muuN mez= taaN kitaab khaN-o 1SG table= ABL_on book take-PERF ‘I took the book off the table.’ <Sindhi> • Ostler (1979) • kapRaa peTii-a= maaN b1aahar kaDh Cloth.PL box-OBL= ABL_in outside take- out ‘Take the clothes out of the box.’ <Sindhi> 15 16 4
11/16/2012 Jackendoff (1990) Examples • in the box • Conceptual Structures � ‘IN’ : [ Place IN ([ Thing ])] ‘IN’ : [ Place IN ([ Thing box])] � ‘From’ : [ Path FROM ([ Place/Thing ]) ] • from the market � ‘Through’ : [ Path VIA ([ Place/Thing ]) ] ‘From’ : [ Path FROM ([ Place market]) ] � ‘To’ : [ Path TO ([ Place/Thing ]) ] • mEz taaN (‘off the table’) <Sindhi> [ Path FROM ([ Place ON ([ Thing table]) ]) ] 17 18 Kracht (2002) Modes for spatial markers • Locative expressions have two layers: • coinitial (object moves away from location) e.g. configuration and mode . ‘from’ • The configuration is the way in which several • transitional (object enters and leaves the objects are positioned with respect to each location) e.g. ‘through’ other. � Examples are: ‘at’, ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘between’, ‘in front’ etc. • cofinal (object reaches the location) e.g. ‘to’ • The mode describes the way in which an object moves with respect to the named configuration. • static (object is at the location) e.g. ‘at’, ‘in’ 19 20 5
11/16/2012 Ostler (1979) • Binary features for case linking for A study of Sanskrit. South Asian Spatial markers • Features (source and goal) � source : [+source,-goal] • Spatial Usages � path : [+source,+goal] • Non-spatial Usages � location/goal : [-source,+goal] � theme : [-source,-goal] 21 PhD Dissertation Dissertation Questions • Dissertation Title: Spatial Expressions and Case • Question 1: Did many case markers originate in South Asian languages . from spatial terms? • Question 2: Can a model be proposed that explains different spatial usages of the same • Supervisor: Miriam Butt form? • Question 3: Why is a core spatial marker used • Major work was done as part of the project A-24 for non-spatial usages? What is the relation “The role of semantic fields in the development between the spatial features of markers and the of postpositions and case markers” of SFB 471 semantic features for the marked entity? at Universitaet Konstanz. 23 24 6
11/16/2012 Languages Surveyed Issues related to Spatial Usages • Indo-Aryan • Fine Grained differences between spatial � Haryani, Nepali, Punjabi, Saraiki, Sindhi, markers Urdu/Hindi � Old Urdu/Hindi, Sanskrit • Polysemy of spatial forms • Indo-Iranian � Balochi, Pashto • Tibeto-Burman � Manipuri • Axial Part (Raza 2011) • Dravidian � Malayalam 25 26 Fine Grained Differences Dynamic vs. Static ablatives in Spatial markers • Ablative of Sindhi, Punjabi, Saraiki etc. Static ( dekhi ) • us=le dilli= dek h i kathmandu=samma 3SG=Erg Delhi= Abl Kathmandu=Loc-till (Sindhi example is presented earlier) baaTo banaa-yo street make.PST ‘He built a street from Delhi to Kathmandu.’ <Nepali> • Dynamic vs. Static Ablative markers • Dynamic ( baaTa ) kud-yo 3SG u dilli= baaTa kathmanDu=samma Delhi= Abl Kathmandu=Loc-to ran-PST ‘He ran from Delhi to Kathmandu.’ <Nepali> 27 28 7
11/16/2012 Dynamic vs. Static ablatives Polysemy of Spatial forms • Static (both ninna and mutal ) • Ablative-Perlative aa roDa [Delhi-yil- ninna / Delhi mutal ] � e.g., Urdu/Hindi se , Sindhi maaN this road [Delhi-LOC- ABL / Delhi ABL ] bombe vare uNDa • Locative-Allative Bombay Loc-till be.PRES � e.g. Urdu/Hindi par , Punjabi te ‘The road goes from Delhi to Bombay.’ <Malayalam> • Locative-Perlative • Dynamic (only ninna ) � e.g. Pashto pa avan [Delhi-yil- ninna / Delhi mutal* ] vannu 3SG [Delhi-LOC- ABL / Delhi ABL ] come.PST ‘He came from Delhi.’ < Malayalam > A hybrid+extended semantic representation for spatial usages of SA markers is presented in the dissertation. 29 30 Axial Part Non-Spatial Usages of Spatial markers • Another kind of Spatial markers • Non-Canonical Second Argument (NCSA) • [ [mEz sE] [2 fit] Upar ] • Instrument marker • Addressee marker • Extension of the proposed semantic representation to deal with Axial Part postpositions of Urdu. (Raza & Ahmed 2011, Raza 2011) Are these examples of Polysemy or Homonymy? 31 32 8
11/16/2012 Non Canonical Marking Non-Canonical Second Argument (NCSA) • In Urdu/Hindi and many other South Asian • Canonical Object (2nd Argument) languages, zaahid=ne ghar (=ko) taamiir kiyaa Zahid=ERG house (=ACC) construction do.PERF ‘Zahid built � Canonical Subject is marked with nominative or a/the house.’ <Urdu/Hindi> ergative. � Canonical Object is marked with nominative or • Non Canonical Second Argument accusative. zaahid=ne jamiil= par b h arosaa kiyaa Zahid=ERG Jameel= LOC-on trust do.PERF ‘Zahid trusted Jameel.’ <Urdu/Hindi> • Subject can also be marked non-canonically by dative, genitive, ablative/instrumental and locative. (Mohanan 1994, Butt and King 2005 ) 33 34 Classes of South Asian NCSA Proposed Semantic reasons for NCSA • High and Low Transitivity Examples Subject 2nd Arg. Semantic (e.g. Hoper and Thompson, Tsunoda, Malchukov) Marking Marking Feature • Event Structure Approach I fear canonical, dative ablative source (e.g. Levin, Ramchand) • Localist (oriented) Approach II resign canonical ablative source (e.g. Jackendoff, Ostler, Butt) III trust, suspect canonical, dative locative, default goal/ • Thematic Roles and Lexical Entailments dative specialized goal (e.g. Dowty style features) IV attack, govern canonical locative, default goal/ • Linking Theories dative specialized goal V love, hate canonical, dative comitative involved However, no single approach completely explains the reason of NCO marking and the choice of particular case marker. VI fight, marry canonical comitative involved 35 36 9
Recommend
More recommend
