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 Mars 2016 Previous Month
L M M J V S D
29 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 31 1 2 3

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

mar. 29/03/2016 Atelier HELAN2: Amos Teo "Visualising the typology of argument marking in Tibeto-Burman languages of South Asia by applying phylogenetic methods to parallel texts"
14h00-15h30
ISH, Ennat Leger

In this paper, I present some preliminary results of a large-scale investigation on the typology of argument marking in Tibeto-Burman languages of South Asia, using data from Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India (LSI, Grierson, 1903–1927). The LSI is rich in data, containing grammatical sketches, word lists and sample texts from more than 700 linguistic varieties. As this work has become digitized and made publicly available, we have become to see more large-scale linguistic studies – for instance, Borin et al (2014) show some preliminary results of lexical comparison using word list data from the LSI.
The goal of the paper is to offer a new method of visualizing typological similarities and differences in argument marking across the Tibeto-Burman languages of South Asia. Previous typological studies of argument marking in Tibeto-Burman (e.g. LaPolla 1995; Coupe 2011) often compare categories such as ‘ergative’ or ‘locative’, but these labels are typically based on a few prototypical examples and do not capture similarities / differences in the degree of systematicity to which such marking is used – for instance, we find split ergative and differential argument marking systems (e.g. Chelliah & Hyslop 2012).
The data for this study come from the translations of the Prodigal Son parable found in the LSI, looking mainly at Tibeto-Burman languages and Indo-Aryan languages. The method used here is based on Cysouw (2014)’s analysis of ‘massively parallel texts’, i.e. texts in which the configuration of situations is very similar across the sampled languages (see also Cysouw & Wälchli 2007). Unlike lexical comparisons that rely on direct cross-linguistic comparisons of transcriptions, this method first looks at how an each argument as it appears in a text is morphologically coded (with its specific ‘contextual role’), and compares it with the morphological marking of every other argument within the same text. By looking at the degree of similarity between how languages code each pair of contextual roles, we can then visualize differences in argument marking across the family using a NeighborNet algorithm, without relying on more abstract labels like ‘ergative’ and ‘locative’.
The aim of the paper is to showcase a way of using old data to make new typological observations. Furthermore, although this study looks only at Tibeto-Burman languages, future studies will also incorporate data from Indo-Aryan languages. One important question is the degree to which similarities in alignment patterns can be attributed to language contact. For instance, Noonan (2009) notes some convergence in the grammaticalization of relational morphology between Tibeto-Burman and Indo-Aryan languages spoken in Nepal. It is hoped that such new methods can shed light on questions regarding the areality of specific grammatical features.

References
Borin, Lars, Anju Saxena, Taraka Rama, Bernard Comrie. 2014. Linguistic landscaping in South Asia using digital language resources: Genetic vs. areal linguistics. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (Eds.) Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14). Reykjavik. 3317-3144.
Chelliah, Shobhana & Gwendolyn Hyslop (eds.) 2012. Optional Case Marking in Tibeto-Burman, Part II [Special issue]. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 35(1).
Coupe, Alexander. 2011. Pragmatic foundations for transitivity in Ao. In František Kratochvíl, Alexander R. Coupe & Randy J. LaPolla (Eds.) Studies in transitivity: insights from language documentation. Studies in Language 35(3). 492–522.
Cysouw, Michael & Bernhard Wälchli (Eds.). 2007. Parallel Texts: Using translational equivalents in linguistic typology. [Special Issue] Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(2).
Cysouw, Michael. 2010. Semantic maps as metrics of meaning. In Michael Cysouw & Martin Haspelmath & Andrej Malchukov (Eds.). Linguistic Discovery 8.1: 70-95. (Special issue “Semantic maps: methods and applications”).
LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. ‘Ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James Matisoff, and Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.) New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax (Senri Ethnological Studies 41). 189-228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Noonan, Michael. 2009. Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. In Barðal, Jóhanna & Shobhana Chelliah (Eds.) The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse Factors in the development of case. Studies in Language Companion Series 108. 261–282.




ASLAN -  Université de Lyon -  CNRS -  Université Lumière Lyon 2 -  MSH-LSE -  IXXI -  DDL :  Contact |  Mentions légales |