$30 off During Our Annual Pro Sale. View Details »

Semantic Relations in Diachronic Word Families

Semantic Relations in Diachronic Word Families

Talk, held at the 6th Indo-European Research Colloquium (Jena/Cologne, 2022/03/07).

Schweikhard

August 18, 2022
Tweet

More Decks by Schweikhard

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. LC
    CA
    Semantic Relations in Diachronic Word Families
    Nathanael E. Schweikhard
    Max Planck Institutes for Evolutionary Anthropology
    and Science of Human History
    Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
    Project CALC
    March 7, 2022
    1 / 23

    View Slide

  2. Table of Contents
    1 Semantic Relations
    2 Materials and Methods
    3 Results
    4 Mechanisms of Language Change
    5 Conclusion
    2 / 23

    View Slide

  3. Semantic Relations
    ungelücke
    ‘bad fortune’
    gelücke
    ‘good or
    bad fortune’
    glück
    ‘good fortune’
    Glück
    ‘good fortune,
    happiness’
    derivation
    sound
    change
    sound
    change
    semantic
    change
    semantic difference
    formal relations
    semantic relations
    Unglück
    ‘bad fortune’
    sound
    change
    semantic
    change
    3 / 23

    View Slide

  4. Semantic Relations
    arzāt
    ‘physician’
    arciater
    'senior physician'
    borrowing
    semantic difference
    formal relations
    semantic relations
    Arzt
    ‘physician’
    sound
    change
    4 / 23

    View Slide

  5. Semantic Relations (Koch 2001, Pepper and Arnaud 2020)
    Semantic Relations
    identity
    BOW
    composition
    WOOD
    possession
    ARCHER
    ...
    ...
    production
    BOWYER
    metaphor
    ELBOW
    hyponymy
    LONGBOW
    hyperonymy
    WEAPON
    similarity
    contrast
    taxonomy
    contiguity
    containment
    causation
    co-taxonymy
    CROSSBOW
    5 / 23

    View Slide

  6. Semantic Relations (Koch 2001, Pepper and Arnaud 2020)
    Semantic Relations
    identity
    BOW
    similarity
    contrast
    contiguity
    6 / 23

    View Slide

  7. Semantic Relations (Koch 2001, Pepper and Arnaud 2020)
    HIGH -> HEIGHT
    Semantic Relations
    identity
    BOW
    similarity
    contrast
    contiguity
    7 / 23

    View Slide

  8. Semantic Relations (Koch 2001, Pepper and Arnaud 2020)
    FORTUNE -> MISFORTUNE
    HIGH -> HEIGHT
    Semantic Relations
    identity
    BOW
    similarity
    contrast
    contiguity
    8 / 23

    View Slide

  9. Semantic Relations (Koch 2001, Pepper and Arnaud 2020)
    composition
    WOOD
    possession
    ARCHER
    ...
    ...
    production
    BOWYER
    containment
    causation
    Semantic Relations
    identity
    BOW
    similarity
    contrast
    contiguity
    9 / 23

    View Slide

  10. Semantic Relations (Koch 2001, Pepper and Arnaud 2020)
    Semantic Relations
    identity
    BOW
    composition
    WOOD
    possession
    ARCHER
    ...
    ...
    production
    BOWYER
    metaphor
    ELBOW
    hyponymy
    LONGBOW
    hyperonymy
    WEAPON
    similarity
    contrast
    taxonomy
    contiguity
    containment
    causation
    co-taxonymy
    CROSSBOW
    10 / 23

    View Slide

  11. Materials
    480 German nouns
    basic vocabulary from NorthEuraLex
    etymological information from
    Kroonen 2013
    Pfeifer et al. 1993
    11 / 23

    View Slide

  12. Method of Data Annotation
    ID SOURCE FORM SOURCE CONCEPT SOURCE PROCESS SEMANTIC RELATION ID TARGET FORM TARGET CONCEPT TARGET
    1 gelücke good or bad fortune sound change taxonomy 2 glück good fortune
    2 glück good fortune sound change contiguity 3 Glück happiness
    1 gelücke good or bad fortune derivation taxonomy 4 ungelücke bad fortune
    4 ungelücke bad fortune sound change unchanged inheritance 5 Unglück bad luck
    12 / 23

    View Slide

  13. Influence of Reconstruction
    identity (4.6%)
    taxonomy (42.0%)
    metaphor (13.0%)
    contiguity (38.9%)
    attested (N = 131)
    loan (1.5%)
    identity
    (17.6%)
    taxonomy
    (24.7%)
    metaphor
    (24.7%)
    contiguity
    (32.9%)
    reconstructed(N=85)
    13 / 23

    View Slide

  14. Influence of Part of Speech
    identity (4.6%)
    taxonomy (42.0%)
    metaphor (13.0%)
    contiguity (38.9%)
    loan (1.5%)
    identity (39.1%)
    metaphor (8.7%)
    contiguity (52.2%)
    identity
    (15.4%)
    contiguity (84.6%)
    Noun -> Noun (N=131) Adjective -> Noun (N=26) Verb -> Noun (N=23)
    14 / 23

    View Slide

  15. Influence of Part of Speech (only word formation)
    identity (39.1%)
    metaphor (8.7%)
    contiguity (52.2%)
    identity
    (15.4%)
    contiguity (84.6%)
    Noun -> Noun (N=63) Adjective -> Noun (N=26) Verb -> Noun (N=23)
    taxonomy (34.9%)
    identity
    (9.5%)
    contiguity
    (42.9%)
    metaphor
    (12.7%)
    15 / 23

    View Slide

  16. Influence of Type of Process
    word formation (N=57)
    hyperonymy (5.3%)
    hyponymy (31.6%)
    co-taxonomy (1.8%)
    containment (33.3%)
    causation (14.0%)
    hyperonymy (5.3%)
    hyponymy (31.6%)
    containment (33.3%)
    causation (14.0%)
    metaphor
    (14.0%) taxonomy
    (38.6%)
    contiguity (47.4%)
    semantic change (N=55) borrowing (N=13)
    hyperonymy (29.1%)
    hyponymy (16.4%)
    containment (14.5%) causation (23.6%)
    loan (3.6%)
    contiguity
    (38.2%)
    taxonomy (45.5%)
    metaphor
    (12.7%)
    hyperonymy (38.5%)
    hyponymy (23.1%)
    containment (23.1%)
    taxonomy (61.5%)
    contiguity
    (23.1%)
    metaphor
    (15.4%)
    16 / 23

    View Slide

  17. Influence of Type of Word Formation
    derivation (N=17)
    hyperonymy (17.6%)
    hyponymy (23.5%)
    co-taxonomy (5.9%)
    containment (41.2%)
    causation (11.8%)
    contiguity (52.9%)
    taxonomy (47.1%)
    compound modifiers (N=15) compound heads (N=25)
    containment (66.7%)
    causation (33.3%)
    contiguity (100.0%)
    hyponymy (56.0%)
    containment (8.0%)
    causation (4.0%)
    metaphor (32.0%)
    contiguity
    (12.0%)
    taxonomy (56.0%)
    17 / 23

    View Slide

  18. Influence of Semantic Field
    borrowing 11.2 %
    compounding
    derivation 10.6 %
    objects (N=329) animals (N=39) body parts (N=48)
    persons (N=33) time (N=31)
    borrowing 0 %
    compounding 2.7 %
    derivation 7.7 %
    borrowing 6.3 %
    compounding 8.3 %
    derivation 0 %
    borrowing 18.2 %
    compounding 12.1 %
    derivation 3.0 %
    borrowing 41.9 %
    compounding 22.6 %
    derivation 3.2 %
    1.8 %
    18 / 23

    View Slide

  19. Mechanisms of Language Change (Enfield 2015, Koch 2016)
    process type
    word formation
    hearer
    semantic change
    speaker
    borrowing
    innovation by
    19 / 23

    View Slide

  20. Influence of Type of Word Formation
    derivation (N=17)
    hyperonymy (17.6%)
    hyponymy (23.5%)
    co-taxonomy (5.9%)
    containment (41.2%)
    causation (11.8%)
    contiguity (52.9%)
    taxonomy (47.1%)
    compound modifiers (N=15) compound heads (N=25)
    containment (66.7%)
    causation (33.3%)
    contiguity (100.0%)
    hyponymy (56.0%)
    containment (8.0%)
    causation (4.0%)
    metaphor (32.0%)
    contiguity
    (12.0%)
    taxonomy (56.0%)
    20 / 23

    View Slide

  21. Influence of Type of Process
    word formation (N=57)
    hyperonymy (5.3%)
    hyponymy (31.6%)
    co-taxonomy (1.8%)
    containment (33.3%)
    causation (14.0%)
    hyperonymy (5.3%)
    hyponymy (31.6%)
    containment (33.3%)
    causation (14.0%)
    metaphor
    (14.0%) taxonomy
    (38.6%)
    contiguity (47.4%)
    semantic change (N=55) borrowing (N=13)
    hyperonymy (29.1%)
    hyponymy (16.4%)
    containment (14.5%) causation (23.6%)
    loan (3.6%)
    contiguity
    (38.2%)
    taxonomy (45.5%)
    metaphor
    (12.7%)
    hyperonymy (38.5%)
    hyponymy (23.1%)
    containment (23.1%)
    taxonomy (61.5%)
    contiguity
    (23.1%)
    metaphor
    (15.4%)
    21 / 23

    View Slide

  22. Conclusion
    connection between method of innovation and semantic relation
    contiguity overall most important semantic relation
    taxonomy predominant in hearer-based innovations
    many other factors involved
    more data needed
    22 / 23

    View Slide

  23. Thank You!
    Thank you very much for your attention!
    23 / 23

    View Slide