Semantic Relations in Diachronic Word Families

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

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