View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Morphosemantics,constructions,algorithmictypologyandparalleltextsBernhardWälchlibernhard@ling.su.seStockholmUniversityBern(CH),September20,2012BernerZirkelfürSprachwissenschaftUniversitätBern,InstitutfürSprachwissenschaft
2
AbstractUnlikemorphology(theinternalformalstructureofwords)andsemantics(thestudyofthemeaningofwordsandsentences),morphosemanticsisconcernedwiththelinkbetweenmarkerandmeaning.Traditionalapproachestomorphosemanticssuchassemioticsandconstructiongrammararguethattherelationshipbetweenimageacoustiqueandconceptissymbolic.Thisworkswellifthelinksareknown(inthe“proficiencymode”).InthistalkIarguethatthereisastatisticalalternativewhichisparticularlyusefulifthelinksarenotknown(inthe“discoverymode”).Meaningsandmarkersformcollocationsintextswhichcanbemeasuredbymeansofcollocationmeasures.However,thereisaconsiderablenon‐isomorphismbetweenmarkerandmeaning.Asiswellknownamarkercanhavemanydifferentmeanings(polysemy).Somewhatlesswellknownisthatameaningisoftenexpressedbymanydifferentmarkers,bothparadigmaticallyandsyntagmatically(polymorphy). Tomakemeaningsandmarkerscommensurable,theymustbeconvertedintounitsofthesamekind.Thissamekindisthesetofcontextsinatextorcorpuswhereamarkerormeaningoccurs.Ifthedistributionofameaninginacorpusisknown,itscorrespondingmarkercomplexcanbedeterminedwhichconsistsofaparadigmaticallyandsyntagmaticallyorderedsetofsimplemarkers.Themarkersconsideredherearesurfacemarkersoftwotypes:wordformsandmorphs
3
(continuouscharacterstringswithinwordforms).Moreabstractmarkertypessuchaslexemes,grammaticalcategoriesandwordclassesmightoftenbebettermarkersthansurfacemarkers,buttheyarenotavailableinthediscoverymode. Markercomplexesareasimpleconstructiontype.Aproceduralapproachtoconstructiongrammarisadoptedwheremarkercomplexesareviewedasanintermediatestageinaprocessingchainofincreasinglymorecomplexconstructiontypesfromsimplemarkersviamarkercomplexestosyntacticconstructions.Markercomplexeshavetheadvantagethattheycanbeextractedautomaticallyfrommassivelyparalleltexts,i.e.translationsofthesametextintomanylanguages,suchastheNewTestamentusedhere.Inparalleltextsthesamemeanings(withcertainrestrictions)areexpressedacrossdifferentlanguages.Thismeansthatafunctionaldomaincanbedefinedasasetofcontextswhereacertainmeaningoccurs. Thesameprocedureisappliedtocross‐linguisticallysimilarmaterialandtheprocedureappliedtocross‐linguisticdataisfullyexplicitandthereforereplicable.Itcanbeimplementedinacomputerprogramandrunwithouttheinterventionofatypologist(algorithmictypology).Theunderlyingideaisthattheprocedureofextractionisinvariant(proceduraluniversal)whereastheextractedstructurescanbehighlyvariabledependingonthetextsandlanguagestowhichtheyareapplied.
4
Thetalkconsiderstowhatextentsurfacemarkersaresufficientasinputfortheidentificationofconstructionsinarangeofgrammaticalandlexicaldomainsinaworld‐wideconveniencesampleofsomewhatmorethan50languages.Oneofthedomainsconsideredinmoredetailiscomparisonofinequality.Comparisonofinequalityisexpressedinmostlanguagesofthesamplebyanatleastbipartitemarkercomplexconsistingofthepartsstandardmarker(‘than’)andpredicateintensifier(‘more’,‘‐er’).Itwillbearguedherethatbothofthemareintrinsicpartsofthecomparativeconstruction.ThesefindingsarenotfullyinaccordancewithLeonStassen’stypologyofcomparison–aclassicalstudyinfunctionaldomaintypology–whichisbasedexclusivelyontheencodingofthestandardNP.Otherdomainsconsideredinthetalkincludenegation,‘want’,future,andpredicativepossession.
5
TraditionalapproachestomorphosemanticsDeSaussure:Semiotics Croft:RadicalConstructionGrammar
Morphology theinternalformalstructureofwordsSemantics thestudyofthemeaningofwordsandsentencesMorphosemantics thelinkbetweenmarkerandmeaning
CONSTRUCTION
Imageacoustique
syntacticpropertiesmorphologicalpropertiesphonologicalproperties
semanticpropertiespragmaticproperties
discourse‐functionalproperties
Concept FORMsymboliccorrespondence(link)
(CONVENTIONAL)MEANING
6
Analternativetosymboliclinks:collocations“[a]collocationisanexpressionconsistingoftwoormorewordsthatcorrespondtosomeconventionalwayofsayingthings”(Manning&Schütze1999:151)
strongtea powerfuldrugMeaningandmarkersaredifferentkindsofthings.However,intextstheybothmanifestthemselvesasdistributions.Distributionisthemediuminwhichmeaningcanbeturnedintomarkerandviceversa.MeaningsandmarkerscollocateCollocationmeasures,e.g.,t‐score
na
n
ny
nx
na
BAprobn
BprobAprobBAprobT
1),(1)()(),(
7
Naturalandnon‐naturalmeaning(Grice1957,written1948)Naturalmeaning Non‐naturalmeaning
“Thosespotsmeanmeasles” “Thelightedsignontheroofmeansthat
thecabisfree”Canberestatedas“Thefactthathehasthosespotsmeansthathehasmeasles”xmeansthatpentailsp
Iscompatiblewith“Butitisn’tinfactfree–thedriverhasmadeamistake”.xdoesnotmeanthatpentailsp
Collocationsarenaturalmeaning
8
ConstructionsinConstructionGrammarGoldberg(2006:5)“[A]LLLEVELSOFGRAMMATICALANALYSISINVOLVECONSTRUCTIONS:LEARNEDPAIRINGSOFFORMWITHSEMANTICORDISCOURSEFUNCTION,includingmorphemesorwords,idioms,partlylexicallyfilledandfullygeneralphrasalpatterns”(emphasisremoved,BW)morpheme: e.g.pre‐,ingword e.g.avocado,anaconda,andidiom(partlyfilled) e.g.jog<someone’s>memory,send<someone>tothecleanersDitransitive SubjVObj1Obj2(e.g.hegaveherafishtaco,hebakedheramuffin)Passive SubjauxVPpp(PPby)(e.g.thearmadillowashitbyacar)
Adynamicapproachtoconstructions Marker Markercomplex SyntacticconstructionProcessingchainofincreasinglymorecomplexconstructions
9
Anonomasiologicalapproach Meaning FormOnomasiological given wantedSemasiological wanted given
Intypology:functionaldomainAccordingtoMiestamo(2005:293)afunctionaldomainis“anydomainofrelated(semanticorpragmatic)functionsthat(oneormore)language(s)encodewiththeformalmeanstheypossess”
Non‐isomorphismofmarkersandmeanings:PolysemyandPolymorphy ameaningisoftenexpressedbymanydifferentmarkers
Spanishquererhasmorethanonemeaning‘want’,‘love/desire’
Negation(informalsemanticssimply)inFrenchhasmorethanonemarker:ne,pas,point,non,rien,sansetc.Syntagmaticandparadigmaticpolymorphy
10
Markercomplex:paradigmaticallyandsyntagmaticallyorderedsetofsimplemarkers
Basicconventions
readbottom‐upleft‐to‐right
Slots:columns,lefttorightAmplitude:verticalextensionDedication:horizontalextensionWordform:greenMorph:yellow,#iswordboundary
Wordorder:doesnotfigureSyntax:doesnotfigureLexemes,grams:donotfigure0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - French
ne
n'
nonsans
pas
point
rienpersonne
niaucun
plus
mais
11
French: [ne|n'|non|sans]1[pas|point|rien|personne|ni|aucun|plus]2[mais]3Alemannic: [nit|kei|nigs|nemads|nimi|keini]1[sundern]240005017 [ne]1croyez[pas]2quejesoisvenupourabolirlaloioulesprophètesjesuisvenu[non]1
pourabolir[mais]3pouraccomplir
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - French
ne
n'
nonsans
pas
point
rienpersonne
niaucun
plus
mais
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Alemannic
nit
keinigs
nemadsnimikeini
sundern
12
English: [not|no|nothing|lest|neither|cannot|none|except|never]1[but]2English2: [not|no|never|nothing|lest|unless|neither]1[but]2[do|did|does]340005017 think[not]1thaticame...icame[not]1todestroy[but]2tofulfil40005017 [do]3[not]1thinkthatihave...ihave[not]1cometodestroythem[but]2tofulfillthem
13
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Wolof
ul
du
uñu#
umabañ
w aaye
kenn
dara
a
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Moore
ye
sãlaa
ka
da
kõnra
zɩ
baaned
Wolof: [>ul<|du|>uñu#<|>uma<|bañ]1[waaye|kenn]2[dara|a]3Moore: [ye|sã|laa]1[ka|da|kõn|ra|zɩ]2[baa]3[ned]440005017 b[ul]1eendefeneñëw...ñëw[uma]1ngirdindileen[waaye]2ngirñuamciman40005017 [da]2tags‐y...noy[ye]1mam[ka]2wannansãam‐b[ye]1layaatɩpids‐ba
14
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Mari
огыл
ок
у кеида
огытылом
огыдаогытынжеит
омылогынаотогыдалогешогыналынышт
но
а
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Negation - Ewe
o
oa
a�ke
meny e
#ny em
wom
boŋ
ga
ke
#m
Mari: [огыл|ок|уке|ида|огытыл|ом|огыда|огыт|ынже|ит|омыл|огына|от|огыдал|огеш|огынал |ынышт]1[но|а]2Ewe: [o|oa]1[aɖeke|menye|>#nyem<|>wom<]2[boŋ|>ga<]3[ke]4[>#m<]5
15
AlgorithmictypologyandproceduraluniversalsThesameprocedureisappliedtocross‐linguisticallysimilarmaterialandtheprocedureappliedtocross‐linguisticdataisfullyexplicitandthereforereplicable.Itcanbeimplementedinacomputerprogramandrunwithouttheinterventionofatypologist(algorithmictypology).Theunderlyingideaisthattheprocedureofextractionisinvariant(proceduraluniversal)whereastheextractedstructurescanbehighlyvariabledependingonthetextsandlanguagestowhichtheyareapplied.
16
ComparisonofInequalityStassen(1985)ComparisonandUniversalGrammarTypologybasedonStandardofComparisonLocative ‘Elephantbigat/onhorse’ Separative ‘Fromhorseelephantbig’ Allative ‘Bigelephanttohorse’Particle ‘Elephantbigthanhorse’Exceed ‘Elephantbigexceedshorse/exceedshorseinsizeConjoinedA ‘Elephantbig,horsesmall’ B ‘Elephantbig,horsenotbig’Functionaldomain.Stassen,definedintensionally:Aconstructionhavingthesemanticfunctionofassigningagradedpositiononapredicativescaletotwoobjects,standardandcompareeareNPsHere,definedextensionally:Forconvenience,anyversecontainingEnglishthan
17
Whataboutthepredicateintensifier“more”,“‐er”?“amajorityofthelanguagesdonotusesuchanovertmarking”(Stassen1985:27)“...Ihavenotsucceededinfindinganexplanatoryprincipleonthebasisofwhichthepresenceorabsenceofthismarkingcanbepredicted.Hence,Iwillassumethatthephenomenonofcomparative‐markingisirrelevanttoourtypologyofcomparativeconstructions,andthatitmustbeexplainedintermsof(asyetunknown)regularitieswhichareindependentofthosethatdeterminethechoiceofaparticulartypeofcomparativeconstruction.Therefore,Iwillnotindicatesystematicallywhetherornotagivenlanguagerequiresmorphologicalmarkingofthecomparativepredicate”(Stassen1985:28).‐>ThedatacollectioninStassen’stypologyisexplanation‐driven.Inthepresentapproach,datacollectionisindependent
18
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Spanish
más
may or
mejor
que
es
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Portuguese
domais
maior
melhor
que
é
Portuguese: [do]1[mais|maior|melhor]2[que]3[é]4Spanish: [más|mayor|mejor]1[que]2[es]341001007 vemaquele[que]3[é]4[mais]2poderoso[do]1[que]3eudequemnãosoudigno41001007 vienetrasmíel[que]2[es]3[más]1poderoso[que]2yoalcualnosoydignode
19
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Norwegian
enn
mere
større
ere#
bedre
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Lithuanian
negu
už
esn
daugiau
geriau
labiau
lengv iau
Norwegian: [enn]1[mere|større|>ere#<|bedre]2Lithuanian: [negu|už]1[>esn<|daugiau|geriau|labiau|lengviau]241001007 ermigkommerdensomersterk[ere]2[enn]1jeghanhvisskoremjegikk41001007 skelbėpomanęsateinagaling[esn]2is[už]1maneašnevertasnusilenkęs
20
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Tsimane
muju'cha'
mọjo'chas
mọjo'cha'
v a'cac
uy a'y a'
ọy a'y a'
dadam'
jam
Tsimane: [muju'cha'|mọjo'chas|mọjo'cha'|va'cac]1[uya'ya'|ọya'ya']2[dadam']3[jam]4Yanesha: [ello|tama]1[atarr]2
21
Nointensifierintheconjoinedtype?No!Rathernostandardmarkerandmorethanoneintensifierinstead.Yanesha’(Matthew3:11)Ña‐pa' nent [atarr]2 ahuamencat‐esha' na‐ña‐pa' ama [tama]1 ahuamencat‐eyay‐no.he‐TOP REL much strong‐PROP I‐SEQ‐TOP,not that.much mighty‐NEG.SUFF‐MIDD‘that{comethafterme}ismightierthanI’
atarrP1;amatamaP2‘muchP1,notthat.muchP2’atarrP1;ellometan(err)anP2‘muchP1,more/again/separatedsurpass(again)P2’Tsimane(Matthew3:11)Mu’ qui ra' atsij [muju'cha']1 fer bu'yi‐ty,he/thatso.that FUT come more strong be.in.a.position‐MASC [jam]4 jeñej yụ, [uya'ya']2 yụ... not like I less I
TsimanehasthreeintensifierslotsP1[dadam']3[muju'cha']1...[ọya'ya']2P2‘P1bettermore...lessP2’42012007[dadam']3mu'[muju'cha']1arajjinacmi'in[jam]4jenejjaijtyi'in[ọya'ya']2ma'jotacsi
22
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Maori
atu
ake
erangi
nuike
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Tagalog
kaylaloŋ
higit
pa
dakila
Maori: [atu|ake|erangi]1[nui]2[ke]3 atu‘away’,ake‘up’,nui‘big’,/kee/‘different’Tagalog: [kay]1[laloŋ|higit]2[pa|dakila]3
41001007 ...iahautetahihekaharawa[ake]1iahauekoreahauetauki41001007 ...sumusunodsahulihankoaŋ[laloŋ]2makapaŋyarihan[kay]1saakinhindiako41012033 ...sakaniyaŋsariliay[higit]2[pa]3[kay]1salahatnaŋmaŋahandog...
23
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Ewe
wu
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Haitian
pasepi
pito
plis
41001007mounk'apvinaprem'langen[plis]3pouvwaanpil[pase]1m'mwenpabon40010031noupabezwenpèmenmnouvo[pi]2[plis]3[pase]1anpiltizwazo40011009twimwenmenmmwendinouli[pi]2[plis]3[pase]1yonpwofèt41009043l'jete[pito]2ouantrenanlaviaakyonsèlmen[pase]1pououreteaktoudemen
24
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Wolof
gën
ëpp
sut
moo a
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - Erzya
седе
де
40003011 kiyñëwsamagannaaw[moo]2ma[ëpp]1kàttan41010025 giléemjaarcibën‐bënupusa[moo]2[gën]1[a]3yombboroomalalduggci40003011 мельгансыцясьмон[де]2нь[седе]1пеквиев
25
“Doublemarking”incomparisonisdescribedinAnsaldo(1999)asonetypeofcomparisonthatneedstobeaccountedforbyparticularexplanations.However,“doublemarking”isclearlytheruleratherthantheexception.Inavastmajorityofthelanguagessurveyedtherearebothstandardmarkersandintensifiersextractedincomparison unlessthereisastandardmarkerextendedintotheintensifyingdomainor
unlesstherearetwodifferenttypesofintensifiersintheconjoinedtype
Inaclearmajorityoflanguages,comparisonissyntagmaticallypolymorphous
26
Borrowingoffunctionwordsandpolymorphy
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Comparison - QuechuaCajamarca
mas
maski
manda
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Comparison - CakchiquelCentral
más quechuvech
rukij
40003011 illapapirurinnamshamuqnoqa[manda]2suq[mas]1pudirniyuq41010025 xa[más]1laek...camello...junbak[que]2[chuvech]3junbeyonnoc
“Doppelsetzung”(Stolz&Stolz1996,Wiemer&Wälchli2012)
27
Nextdomain:WANT
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Want - Somali
#doonay
doonijeclaan
inuu
inaan
inaad
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Want - Czech
chtel
#nech
chteli
chcete
chcichce
chcešchceš-lichtíti
chtejechtejí
iti#
28
Somemarkercomplexesfor‘Want’:Czech: [chtěl|>#nech<|chtěli|chcete|(5moreforms)]1[>iti#<]2Zulu: [>thand<]1[>#uku]2Wolof: [bëgg|>#bëgg<]1[a]2Greek(Modern): [να|θέλω]1[θέλει|θέλεις|θέλω|θέλετε|(6moreforms)]2Somali: [>#doonay<|dooni|jeclaan]1[inuu|inaan|inaad]2Saramaccan: [kë]1GreenlandicWest: [>uma<]1Maltese: [>rid<|ried|riedx]1Haspelmath’s(2005)typologyof‘want’(simplified)andmarkercomplexes Complementsubject
implicitComplementsubjectexpressedovertly
Desiderativeaffix
Markercomplexwithoutsubordinator
Saramaccan Maltese WestGreenlandic
Markercomplexwithsubordinator
Czech,Zulu,Wolof ModernGreek,Somali
29
Khanina(2008,2010)vs.GoddardandWierzbicka(2010). Khaninaclaimsthat‘want’isnotuniversalinthesenseof“beingtreatedonlyasparticulartypeofamoregeneralsituation”(2008:845).
Inhervarietysample,shefindsthat95of136desideratives(hercovertermforall‘want’expressions)“areregularlyusedtoexpressothersituationsthanpure‘want’”(2008:847).
AccordingtoherthisisachallengeforNaturalSemanticMetalanguagewhere‘want’isconsideredtobeasemanticprime,“i.e.anindivisibleunitofmeaningwithalexicalexponentinalllanguages”(GoodardandWierzbicka2010:108).
ForNaturalSemanticMetalanguageitisimportanttodistinguishbetweenpolysemyandsemanticgenerality.Forinstance,Spanish,quererhastwo(ormore)meanings‘want’and‘love/like’ratherthanonegeneralmeaning‘want/love/like’.Khanina,however,arguesthatmultiplemeaningsof‘want’expressionsarebestanalyzedasmacrofunctionbydefault.
Khaninaquestionstheuniversalityof‘want’.AccordingtoGoodardandWierzbicka(2010)thisisdueonlytoanunderestimationofpolysemy.
30
Parallelstothepresentapproach
GoddardandWierzbicka(2010:114):“asemanticallyprimitivemeaningwillalwaysbeexpoundedbymeansofspecificallylexicalmaterial,bya‘segmentalsign’,andnot(forexample)byreduplication,orablaut,orsolelythroughagrammaticalconstruction.”
Khanina’sapproachissimilartothepresentoneinthatsheexplicitlychoosesdesiderativesinEuropeanlanguages(thepracticalmeta‐languagesofmostdescriptivegrammars)asherpointofdeparture.ShealsospeaksoftranslationalequivalentsofStandardAverageEuropean.IfIherechooseClassicalGreekethelo‘want’todefinethedomain,thebasicrationaleisverysimilar.
NaturalSemanticMetalanguageproceedstoalargeextentonomasiologicallyasfarassemanticprimesareconcerned.Forallconceptswhichareclaimednottobesemanticprimes,however,NaturalSemanticMetalanguagerathertakesasemasiologicalstance,butthisdoesnotneedtoconcernusheresince‘want’isclaimedtobeasemanticprime.
31
Discoverymodevs.proficiencymodeIntheapproachtakenhere,weoperateinthediscoverymode.Thismeansthatwecannotmakeanydistinctionbetweenpolysemyandmacrofunctionsincethereisnoestablishedmarker‐meaningrelationship.Ifwewanttofindouthowameaningisexpressedcross‐linguistically,whatisgivenisonemeaningandallpotentialmarkercandidates.Themarker‐meaningrelationshipcannotbegiven,otherwisewewouldnotfindout.Ifthemarker‐meaningrelationshipisgiven,wealreadyknowwhatthemeaningofaformis.However,Idonotassumethatthereshouldbeanisomorphismbetweenmarkerandmeaning,aslongasthereisacollocationofmeaningandmarker,arelationshipcanbeestablishedirrespectiveofwhetherthereispolysemyinanarrowsenseormacrofunction.Inthematerialconsideredherethereisnoproblemtoestablishameaning‐markerrelationshipinthe‘want’‐domaininvirtuallyalllanguagesconsidered.
32
WANT=SAY,butinverydifferentwaysKobon(Mark10:51)“Yɨp nɨhöng‐aŋ, a gɨ‐mön, au‐ab‐ön?” ö g‐a...1SG.OBJ what do‐IMP3SG, QUOT do‐SS2SG come‐PRS‐2SG QUOT do‐RMPST3SG“Amgöu kauyaŋ nɨŋ‐nam, a g‐em, au‐ab‐in,” a g‐a.eye that again see‐PRESCR1SG QUOT do‐SS1SG come‐PRS1SG QUOT do‐RMPST3SG[Jesusansweredhim,]"Whatdoyouwantmetodoforyou?"[Theblindmansaidtohim,"Rhabboni,]thatImayseeagain."Literally:Helike:“Youcomelike‘Domewhat’”...Bukiyip(Mark10:51)“Nyak ny‐a‐kli i‐nek‐um‐enyu moneken?”...2SG 2SG‐REA‐say 1SG:IRR‐do‐BENEF‐2SG.OBJ what “...yek y‐a‐kli i‐na‐tulugun.”1SG 1SG‐IRR‐say 1SG:IRR‐REFL‐look/see[Jesusansweredhim,]“Whatdoyouwantmetodoforyou?”[Theblindmansaidtohim,“Rhabboni,]thatImayseeagain.”
33
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Want - Samoan
manao
fia
nagalo
mananaoloto
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Want - Bukiyip
yakli
Considerableparadigmaticpolymorphy.Samoan<manao>/mana‘o/(verb)‘want,desire’,fia(particlepreposedtoverb)expressesawish,finagalo(nounhonorific)‘wish’,<mānana‘o>/mana‘o/(verb)pluralofmana‘o‘want,desire’,loto(noun)‘heart,will’.
Firstpersonsingularsubjectisageneralcollocationof‘want’
34
Alocalapproachtosemanticdecomposition Everyutterance(orpartofutterance)hasanexemplarycontextualmeaningofitsownthatisunique(see,e.g.,WälchliandCysouw2012fordiscussion).
Thisexemplarymeaningisusuallyhighlysimilartothatofmanyotherutterances,whichiswhyitispossibletoidentifyclustersofutteranceswithhighlysimilarmeaning:thesesharerangesofmeaning.
Foreveryrangeofmeaningthereisalocaldecompositionofexemplarycontextualmeaningintotwocomponents:thegeneralmeaningoftherangeversuseverythingelse.
Ifthemeaningrangeislexical,theexemplarswillmostobviouslydifferintheirgrammaticalmeanings.Ifthemeaningrangeisgrammatical,thevariableelementswillmostobviouslybelexical.Thisyieldsanappearanceofaglobaldivisionofmeaningintolexicalandgrammaticalmeaning.However,thisdivisionisnotinanywayrigid.
Grammaticalmeaningsandlexicalmeaningsaretreatedalike.Nodifferencebetweenlexicalandgrammaticaltypology.
35
Futuretense (Indonesianakan)
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - French
er
a#
ont#
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Future - Haitian
v a
pral
p'ap
y 'an'a
36
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - English
shall
will
should
be
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - English2
will
believ e
be
37
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - Hungarian
majd
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - Finnish
AccordingtoDahl(1985:105)thenumberoflanguageswithoutfuturetensecategoryisfairlysmall.
38
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - Papago
wo
s-wohochs-ha
at
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Future - Yanesha
cha'# teruerr amach
InPapagothepotentialmodalmarkerwoisextractedalongwithatconsistingofa‐non‐imperativemoodand‐tcontemporarytense(usedinpast,presentandfuturecontextsopposedtozeropre‐experientalandd remotepast).
39
PredicativePossession
Stassen(2009):fourbasictypesofpredicativepossession:Type Definingmarker
Locational ‘At/topossessor[there]is/existsapossessee Possessor With ‘Possessoris/existswithapossessee’ Possessee Topic ‘[Asfor]Possessor,possesseeis/exists’ None Have ‘Possessorhasapossessee’ PredicatePredicateNegationPossessorIndefinitePossesseeNegationandindefinite(indefinitearticleofpossessum)aregeneralcollocationsofpredicativepossession
40
Have‐possessivesareeasiesttoextractiftheyarerecent(highdedication)whentheyhavenotmanagedyettogrammaticalizeintosomethingelse
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Spanish
tiene
tenía
teniendo
tienen
tenemos
tenían
tengotenéis
tienestenga
no
oigasiete
#necesi
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Pred. Possession - Lithuanian
tur
reikia
#ne
ka
Spanish: [tiene|tenía|teniendo|tienen|tenemos|tenían|....]1[no|oiga|siete]2[>#necesi<]3Lithuanian: [>tur<|reikia]1[>#ne<|ką]2
41
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - German
haben
hatte
hat
habe
habt
hattenhast
einen
macht
zu
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Pred. Possession - French
n'
un
v ie
av ons
besoin
ay ant
av ait
ont
asav ez
aiav aient
entendeelle
aune
pas
oreilles
German: [haben|hatte|hat|habe|habt|hatten|hast]1[einen|macht]2[zu]3French: [n'|un|vie]1[avons|besoin|ayant|avait|ont|as|avez|ai...]2[a]3[une|pas|oreilles]4
42
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Vietnamese
có
cầncầmquỉ
không
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Indonesian
ada
menaruh
berolehbertelinga
tiada
memegangsakitperempuan
#ber
padany amempuny ai
padamu
Vietnamese: [có|cần|cầm|quỉ]1[không]2Indonesian: [ada|menaruh|beroleh|bertelinga|tiada|...]1[>#ber<|padanya...]2[padamu]3
43
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Finnish
on
oli
olisitarv itse
jolla
ei
meilläteilläminulla
sinulla
olehänellä
heillä
0 1 2 3 40.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Pred. Possession - Latvian
kam
nav
mums
man
ir
bija
butuausis
ta
tev
Finnish: [on|oli|olisi|tarvitse]1[jolla|ei|meillä|teillä|minulla|sinulla]2[ole]3[hänellä|heillä]4Latvian: [kam|nav|mums|man]1[ir|bija|būtu|ausis]2[tā|tev]3
44
Withthe‘with’possessiveextractionoftenfails:
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Hausa
ba
bakwaibiy ukunnen
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Hixkaryana
Hausa: [ba|bakwai|biyu|kunnen]1‘not/seven/two/ear’
45
Stassen(2009): Predicativization:reanalysisofthecategorialandsyntacticstatusofthephrasewhichcontainsthepossessee
Transitivization/‘Have’‐drift:ifalanguagestartstoreanalyseitspossessiveinthedirectionofamajortype,theintendedoutputwillalwaysbeaHave‐possessive
0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pred. Possession - Somali
#hay sa
leey ahay
lahay nlahaaleennahay
umahay sto
baahan
WhyHavedrift?“Itishardtoseewhythereshouldbeashiftfromspatialcontacttowardscontrol,butnottheotherwayaround”(Stassen2009:242)Whenevertheextractionissuccessfulitmostlycontainsapredicatemarkerinoneoftheslots(notnecessarilyinthefirstslot)
leh‐‘have’relatedtola‘with’
46
Enter
Talmy(1991,2000)Satellite‐framinglanguages Verb‐framinglanguagesPathexpressedinadposition/case,verbalaffixoradverbialparticle
Pathexpressedinverb
Frenchentr‐,Turkishgir‐ Englishin,Russianv/v‐
AccordingtoBerthele(2006:235)theprepositionmakesacontributiontotheencodingofthepath,eventhoughtoalesserextentthantheverb.ThissuggestsforFrenchthatwewouldgettheverbentr‐inthefirstslotandtheprepositiondansinthesecondslot.
Sinha&Kuteva(1995)DistributedSpatialSemantics
Talmy(1972):(Spanish)[aPOINT] MOVE<‐TOIN TO(IN) [aSPHERE] entrar athe“motiveverb”(themotioncomponentlocatedintheverb)conflateswithacopyfromthedirectional(thepreposition)
47
DomaindefinedbyClassicalGreeklemmaeiserchomai‘enter’
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Enter - French
entrdans
maison
roy aume
0 1 2 3 4 50.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Enter - Alemannic
goht
kumme
in
ins
inä
hus
gehn
kummt
48
‘House’aspartofthemeaningof‘Enter’
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Enter - Samoan
uluf ale
ulu
sao
o
atu
f ale
malo
aai
0 1 2 3 4 50.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Enter - Dinka
la
baai
Inaconveniencesampleof51languagesthereisanaverageof2.4slotsperlanguage.In36languages(42%)thereisatleastonenounextracted(mostly‘house’)
49
Inthevastmajorityoflanguagesbothverbal(V)andadnominal/adverbal(AN/AV)componentscontributetotheencodingof‘enter’.V Somali,Maltese,Hausa,FulAdamawa,Vietnamese,Tagalog,Mandarin,
Burarra,YineVAN/AV Basque,Kannada,Albanian,Alemannic,Greek(Modern),Hindi,French,
Italian,Latin,Portuguese,Romanian,Spanish,Korean,Buriat,Kalmyk,Tatar,Turkish,Finnish,Komi,Mari,Mordvin(Erzya),Swahili,Zulu,Ewe,Wolof,Bambara,Moore,Yoruba,Dinka,Zarma,HaitianCreole,Saramaccan,Maori,Samoan,Indonesian,Malagasy,Lahu,Tobelo,Kuot,WikMungkan,Greenlandic(West),Mixe(Coatlán)Otomí(Mezquital),Trique,Paumarí,Quechua(Cajamarca),Aymara
AN/AVV Avar,Welsh,Danish,German,English,Icelandic,LowSaxon,Norwegian,Swedish,Greek(Classical),Saami(Northern),TokPisin,Yanesha’
AN/AV Latvian,Lithuanian,Croatian,Hungarian,Cakchiquel,Bribri ANAV&V Afrikaans,Dutch,Czech,Polish,Russian,OsseticV&AV Mapudungunboldface:onlyoneslot,allotherdoculectshavetwoormoreslots
50
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Enter - Latin
#intr
#ingre
domum
regnum
in
51
52
0 1 2 3 4 50.
00.
20.
40.
60.
81.
0
Enter - Yanesha
osbe't
allcha'
all
pa'pacllo allña
53
SomemarkercomplexesforEnter:Verbal,Adverbal,AdnominalAlemannic: [goht|kumme]1[in|ins]2[inä|hus]3[gehn|kummt]4English: [into|in]1[entered|enter]2[house|kingdom|came]3GreekModern: [>#μπ<]1[σπίτι|μέσα|στη]2[στο|βασιλεία]3GreekClassical:[>#εισ<]1[>λθ<]2[εις]3[την]4[βασιλειαν|οικιαν]5Italian: [>#entr<]1[casa|nel]2[nella|in]3Latin: [>#intr<|>#ingre<]1[domum|regnum]2[in]3Spanish: [>#entr<]1[en]2[casa|reino]3Russian: [в]1[вошел|войти|войдя|вошли]2[дом]3Turkish: [>#gir<]1[evine|içeri|eve]2Finnish: [meni|mennä]1[sisään|sisälle]2[siellä|valtakuntaan]3[tuli|sinne]4Hungarian: [>#be<]1[>ba#<]2Maltese: [daħal|jidħol|daħlu]1Ewe: [>ge<]1[me]2[ɖe]3Haitian: [antre]1[kay|wa]2[kote|lakay]3[nan]4TokPisin: [insait]1[go]2[haus|kingdom]3[taun]4Vietnamese: [vào]1[nhà]2Tagalog: [>asok#<]1[bahay|kaharian]2Mapudungun: [>#konp<]1[ruka|mülewe]2
54
Middlevoice(“Reflexive”):triggerCroatianse>areal/genealogicaleffectCroatian se 1.0Polish się 0.5718Czech se 0.55836Russian >ся#< 0.52197Russian >сь#< 0.51321Romanian se 0.42018Icelandic >st#< 0.41464Spanish se 0.38316Latvian >ies#< 0.3582Afrikaans word 0.35431Romanian s' 0.35357Italian si 0.34838Latin >ur#< 0.34398Portuguese se 0.3165Alemannic sich 0.31625Latvian >ās#< 0.3152LowSaxon sich 0.31472Danish sig 0.30998Swedish sig 0.30734German sich 0.30669French se 0.30658
GreekClassical >θη< 0.30607Dutch worden 0.29763English3 be 0.29591English be 0.29451English2 be 0.29373Norwegian sig 0.28876Portuguese >‐se#< 0.273SaamiNorthernn >uvv< 0.27032Albanian >ohe< 0.27002Danish >es#< 0.2656GreekModern >ηκ< 0.2586Welsh >ir#< 0.24938Welsh >#ym< 0.24607Lithuanian >si< 0.24275Dutch zich 0.23754Norwegian >es#< 0.23708Yoruba a 0.23662Malayalam >pped< 0.23651Mari >алт< 0.23095Swedish >as#< 0.22728Hausa yi 0.22458
55
Spanish >se#< 0.22393Romanian vă 0.22252Komi >öдч< 0.21995Albanian u 0.21817Dutch wordt 0.21636Papago e 0.21098LowSaxon woare 0.21081English2 >ed< 0.21043GreekClassical >αι#< 0.20949Finnish >ty< 0.20837Lahu la 0.20774Hungarian >ék#< 0.20648SaamiNorthern >oj< 0.20549Alemannic wird 0.20413Zulu >wa#< 0.20181Tatar >ыл< 0.20094English3 was 0.19769QuechuaCajamarca >aka< 0.19682TokPisin kamap 0.19448Kalmyk >гд< 0.1938English were 0.19252Icelandic sig 0.19147Norwegian blev 0.19144
Bribri e' 0.19057Dutch werd 0.19035French s' 0.18798Tagalog >aŋag< 0.18769English3 >#re< 0.1859Yine >tka#< 0.18529Alemannic wäre 0.18476Turkish >nm< 0.18391Norwegian bli 0.18309Swedish bliva 0.18194Czech >no#< 0.18086Wolof >iku< 0.17981Kannada >iko< 0.17874Romanian te 0.17851Hixkaryana >os< 0.17817Kuot >#te< 0.17683Yoruba nigbati 0.17679Dutch >ver< 0.17521English2 were 0.17355German werden 0.17214Somali la 0.17183GreenlandicWest >neqa< 0.17171Romanian de 0.17127
56
Middlevoice(“Reflexive”)Croatian se 1.0Polish się 0.5718Czech se 0.55836Russian >ся#< 0.52197Romanian se 0.42018Icelandic >st#< 0.41464Spanish se 0.38316Latvian >ies#< 0.3582Afrikaans word 0.35431Italian si 0.34838Latin >ur#< 0.34398Portuguese se 0.3165Alemannic sich 0.31625LowSaxon sich 0.31472Danish sig 0.30998Swedish sig 0.30734German sich 0.30669French se 0.30658GreekClassical >θη< 0.30607Dutch worden 0.29763English3 be 0.29591
English be 0.29451English2 be 0.29373Norwegian sig 0.28876SaamiNorthernn >uvv< 0.27032Albanian >ohe< 0.27002GreekModern >ηκ< 0.2586Welsh >ir#< 0.24938Lithuanian >si< 0.24275Yoruba a 0.23662Malayalam >pped< 0.23651Mari >алт< 0.23095Hausa yi 0.22458Komi >öдч< 0.21995Papago e 0.21098Finnish >ty< 0.20837Lahu la 0.20774Hungarian >ék#< 0.20648Zulu >wa#< 0.20181Tatar >ыл< 0.20094QuechuaCajamarca >aka< 0.19682TokPisin kamap 0.19448
57
Can all lexical and grammatical meanings be addressed in this way? No,probablynot.Gramswithextremelyhightextfrequency(“inflectionalcategories”),suchasplural,adnominalpossession(‘genitive’),present,imperfectivearedifficulttoaddressinmostlanguages.Thepresentversionoftheapproachisverycrude,possibleimprovements: Lexemesandgramsasmarkercandidatesinsteadofwordformsandmorphs Cross‐linguisticsemanticprototypesassemantictriggersratherthanwordformsfromparticularlanguagesinstantiatingameaning(Dahl1985)
Therearemanypracticalproblems: Accidentalcollocationsinaparalleltext Lexicalorgrammaticalmeaningsnotattestedinaparalleltext
58
Isthismoderntypology?
“Moderntypologyisadisciplinethatdevelopsvariablesforcapturingsimilaritiesanddifferencesofstructuresbothwithinandacrosslanguages(qualitativetypology),exploresclustersandskewingsinthedistributionofthesevariables(quantitativetypology),andproposestheoriesthatexplaintheclustersandskewings(theoreticaltypology)”(Bickel2007:248) qualitative>quantitative>theoreticalHereweratheruseaninverseprocessingchaintheoretical>quantitative>qualitativeTheoreticalconsiderationandquantitativeanalysiscomefirst;theoutcomeisadescriptivemeasurementwhichmustbeevaluatedqualitativelyCross‐linguisticdescriptionhasbeenstronglyneglectedintypology.Descriptionintypologyshouldnotbefullyoutsourcedtofieldlinguists,anditshouldbeindependentfromexplanation(datacollectionintypologyshouldnotbeexplanation‐driven)
59
ReferencesAnsaldo, Umberto. 1999. Comparative constructions in Sinitic. Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalization. PhD
Thesis. University of Stockholm. Berthele, Raphael. 2006. Ort und Weg. Die sprachliche Raumreferenz in Varietäten des Deutschen, Rätoromanischen
und Französischen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bickel, Balthasar. 2007 Typology in the 21st century: major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11 (1): 239–251. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Davies, John. 1981. Kobon. (Lingua Descriptive Studies, 3.) Amsterdam: North-Holland. Goddard, Cliff & Wierzbicka, Anna. 2010. ‘Want’ is a lexical and conceptual universal. Studies in Language 34(1): 108–
123 Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66(3): 377-388 Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. ‘Want’ complement subjects. In Haspelmath, Martin & Dryer, Matthew & Gil, David &
Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. (Book with interactive CD-ROM). Chapter 124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khanina, Olesya. 2008. How universal is ‘wanting’? Studies in Language 32(4): 818–865. Khanina, Olesya. 2010. Reply to Goddard and Wierzbicka. Studies in Language 34.1: 124-130 Manning, Christopher D. & Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological
perspective. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1968. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique par Rudolf Engler. Tome 1. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz
60
Sinha, Chris & Kuteva, Tanja. 1995. Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18: 167-199. Sölling, Arnd. 2011. Bewegungsverben in Nordamerika - Semantische Elemente in narrativen Texten. Diss. phil. hist.,
Universität Bern, Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stolz, Christel, Stolz, Thomas. 1996. Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika. Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt
(Hispanoindiana II). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 49: 86-123. Talmy, Leonard. 1972. Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at
Berkeley. Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15-18, 1991, 480-519. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. von Waldenfels, Ruprecht. Forthcoming. Explorations into variation across Slavic: taking a bottom-up approach. In
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Linguistic variation in text and speech, within and across languages. To be published in Walter de Gruyter’s Linguae et Litterae series.
Wälchli, Bernhard. Forthcoming. Algorithmic typology and going from known to similar unknown categories within and across languages. In Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Linguistic variation in text and speech, within and across languages. To be published in Walter de Gruyter’s Linguae et Litterae series.
Wälchli, Bernhard & Cysouw, Michael. 2012. Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50.3: 671-710. (Theme issue edited by Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Vanhove, M. (eds.), New Directions in Lexical Typology).
Wiemer, Björn & Wälchli, Bernhard. 2012. Contact-induced grammatical change: Diverse phenomena, diverse perspectives. In Wiemer, B. & Wälchli, B. & Hansen, B. (eds.), Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, 3-64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
61
Appendix1:Extractfromthedatabase(TriggerVietnameseđã,2545tokens)
No Domain Doculect Slot Type Marker Amplitude Dedication Extraction21 Perfect German 1 W hat 0.229971724788 0.648936170213 0.3852622 Perfect German 1 W habe 0.0890669180019 0.549418604651 0.2556423 Perfect German 1 W haben 0.0947219604147 0.463133640553 0.2554124 Perfect German 1 W ist 0.213477851084 0.276556776557 0.2386425 Perfect German 1 W hatte 0.0508953817154 0.421875 0.2651726 Perfect German 1 W war 0.062205466541 0.236135957066 0.2247227 Perfect German 1 W hast 0.0263901979265 0.427480916031 0.2285628 Perfect German 1 W habt 0.0311027332705 0.308411214953 0.2318229 Perfect German 1 W hatten 0.0254476908577 0.409090909091 0.2449930 Perfect German 1 W sind 0.0433553251649 0.159169550173 0.2109731 Perfect German 2 M ge 0.8821866164 0.320877613987 0.2166932 Perfect English 1 W hath 0.123939679548 0.57423580786 0.2571633 Perfect English 1 W had 0.116399622997 0.505112474438 0.2496434 Perfect English 1 W have 0.144203581527 0.398956975228 0.2514835 Perfect English 2 W which 0.16918001885 0.468057366362 0.2413736 Perfect English 2 M ed# 0.538171536287 0.296931877275 0.2223337 Perfect English 2 W made 0.0400565504241 0.291095890411 0.2345638 Perfect English 2 W sent 0.0268614514609 0.322033898305 0.2195539 Perfect English 3 W been 0.0725730442978 0.709677419355 0.22933163 Perfect Vietnamese 1 W đã 1.0 1.0 1.0164 Perfect Vietnamese 2 W cho 0.395852968897 0.356234096692 0.21582...
62
Appendix2:R‐codewrittenbythePythonprogramgeneratingthevisualizationofmarkercomplexesplot(c(0,5),c(0,1),col="white",main="Perfect‐German",xlab="",ylab="")slot=0;par=0ing=0.648936170213;ingg=0.648936170213;ed=0.229971724788;edd=0.3;str="hat"rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)par=par+eding=0.549418604651;ingg=0.549418604651;ed=0.0890669180019;edd=0.3;str="habe"rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)par=par+eding=0.463133640553;ingg=0.463133640553;ed=0.0947219604147;edd=0.3;str="haben"rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)par=par+eding=0.276556776557;ingg=0.3;ed=0.213477851084;edd=0.3;str="ist"rect(slot,par,slot+ing,par+ed,col="green")text(slot+ingg/2,par+ed/2,str,cex=si*edd)...
Recommended