diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'resources/pdf')
| -rw-r--r-- | resources/pdf/cocoa2022.pdf | 913 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | resources/pdf/sbl2022.pdf | bin | 0 -> 220521 bytes |
2 files changed, 913 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/resources/pdf/cocoa2022.pdf b/resources/pdf/cocoa2022.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b327828 --- /dev/null +++ b/resources/pdf/cocoa2022.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,913 @@ +\documentclass[ocgsteps,ocgstepsdraft,larger]{../text/text} + +\newcommand{\auth}[3]{% + #1 \\[-1ex] + {\small \href{https://twitter.com/#2}{@#2}} \\[-1ex] + {\small \href{mailto:#3}{#3}}} + +\title{\Large Space in the causal chain:\\The perspective from French and Biblical Hebrew} +\author{ + \auth{Camil Staps}{SemiCamil}{info@camilstaps.nl} + \and + \auth{Johan Rooryck}{JohanRooryck}{johan.rooryck@gmail.com} +} +\date{COCOA, 9\textsuperscript{th} November 2022} + +\usepackage{amssymb} +\newcommand{\sv}[1]{\ensuremath{\llbracket{#1}\rrbracket}} + +\tikzset{ + >=stealth, + every picture/.style={ + baseline + }, + every tree node/.style={ + align=center, + anchor=north + }, + level 1+/.style={ + level distance=4.5\baselineskip + } +} + +\usepackage{gb4e} +\let\eachwordone=\it +\setlist{nosep} + +\usepackage{endnotes} + +\let\footnote=\endnote + +\newcommand{\imp}[1]{{\color{red}#1}} + +\setlength\tabcolsep{.2222em} % \> + +\DeclareMathOperator{\Agent}{Agent} +\DeclareMathOperator{\Origin}{Origin} +\DeclareMathOperator{\Net}{net} +\DeclareMathOperator{\FROM}{FROM} +\DeclareMathOperator{\THROUGH}{THROUGH} + +\begin{document} + +\maketitle + +\begin{step}[section] + \section{Outline} + + \begin{enumerate} + \item + Languages with multiple Agent prepositions are problematic for current accounts of Agent PPs + + \begin{enumerate} + \item + \sloppy + These prepositions have interpretive differences, + which we can explain with the Space $\Rightarrow$ Causation metaphor~\citep{Croft2012} + \item + We need a formalism that remains close to conceptual thinking about causation: + force dynamics~\citep{CopleyEtAl2015,CopleyEtAl2020} + \item + This allows a polymorphic denotation of Agent prepositions with which we can predict the interpretive differences based on spatial meaning + \end{enumerate} + + \item + Space in the causal chain can be interpreted in different ways + + \begin{enumerate} + \item + In French, greater distance indicates a lack of influence \dots + \item + \dots\ but in Biblical Hebrew, greater distance indicates more control. + \item + This is acceptable if we understand that languages can have different {\sc perspectives on the causal chain} + \end{enumerate} + \end{enumerate} +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[section] + \section{Agent PPs} + + \subsection{\texorpdfstring{The Space $\Rightarrow$ Causation metaphor~\citep{Croft2012}}{The Space => Causation metaphor (Croft 2012)}} + + \citet{Croft2012} makes a distinction between roles that precede the Object in the causal chain and roles that follow it: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \gls{Sue broke the coconut for Greg with a hammer.} + \trailingcitation{\citep[224]{Croft2012}} + \begin{tabular}{lllllll} + Sue & $\rightarrow$ & hammer & $\rightarrow$ & coconut & $\dashrightarrow$ & Greg \\ + Subject & & Antecedent oblique & & Object & & Subsequent oblique \\ + \end{tabular} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + Antecedent obliques are commonly marked with ablative/perlative/proximative prepositions (\ref{antecedent}), and subsequent obliques with allative ones (\ref{subsequent}): + + \begin{exe} + \ex \label{antecedent} + \begin{xlist} + \ex Cause: \gls{The rabbit died \imp{from}/\imp{of} thirst.} + \trailingcitation{\citep[223]{Croft2012}} + \ex Agent: \gls{The cat food was eaten \imp{by} raccoons.} + \ex Means: \gls{I went downtown \imp{by} bus.} + \ex Instrument: \gls{Sue broke the coconut \imp{with} a hammer.} + \ex Comitative: \gls{I went to the park \imp{with} Carol.} + \end{xlist} + + \ex \label{subsequent} + \begin{xlist} + \ex Result: \gls{They smashed the statue \imp{to} pieces.} + \trailingcitation{\citep[223]{Croft2012}} + \ex Result: \gls{The boy carved the stick \imp{into} a knife.} + \ex Beneficiary: \gls{Sue broke the coconut \imp{for} Greg.} + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + This suggests the {\sc Space $\Rightarrow$ Causation metaphor}: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{tabular}[t]{lccc} + \textit{Causation:} & antecedent role & Object & subsequent role \\ + & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ & $\Uparrow$ \\ + \textit{Space:} & ablative/origin & locative & allative/goal \\ + \end{tabular} + \trailingcitation{\citep[225]{Croft2012}} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +%\begin{step}[subsection] +% \subsection{Formal accounts of Agent PPs} +% There are two main theories of Agent PPs. +% In adjunct strategies, Agent PPs are adjuncts to Voice~\citep{Bruening2013,Legate2014,IngasonEtAl2016}: +% +% \begin{exe} +% \ex +% \begin{xlist} +% \ex +% \gls{The senator was bribed by the lobbyist.} +% \trailingcitation{(\citealp[25]{Bruening2013}, types added)} +% +% {\tikzset{% +% level 1+/.style={level distance=3\baselineskip}, +% level 1/.style={sibling distance=-60pt}, +% level 2/.style={sibling distance=-30pt}, +% level 3/.style={sibling distance=-20pt}} +% \setstretch{1} +% \Tree +% [.{Pass \\ $st$} +% [.{Pass[S:Voice(S:N)] \\ $(e)st,st$} ] +% [.{Voice[S:N] \\ $st$} +% [.{Voice[S:N] \\ $est$} +% [.{Voice[S:V, S:N] \\ $st,est$} ] +% [.{V \\ $st$} +% [.{V[S:N] \\ $est$ \\ bribe} ] +% [.{N \\ $e$ \\ the senator} ] +% ] +% ] +% [.{P[S$_a$:Voice(S:N)] \\ $est,st$} +% [.{P[S:N, S$_a$:Voice(S:N)] \\ \imp{$e,est,st$} \\ by} ] +% [.{N \\ $e$ \\ the lobbyist} ] +% ] +% ] +% ] +% } +% \ex +% $\sv{\mathit{by}} = \lambda x \lambda f_{est} \lambda e . f(e,x)$ +% \end{xlist} +% \end{exe} +%\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{A formal account of Agent PPs} + In the formalization that we will adopt, + Agent PPs merge in the same place as the external argument in the active voice~\citep{AngelopoulosEtAl2020}. + This is preferable over an adjunct position because the Agent PP can bind a reflexive pronoun: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \gls{The packages were sent by the children$_i$ to themselves$_i$.} + \trailingcitation{(\cite[14]{AngelopoulosEtAl2020}, types added)} + + {\tikzset{% + level 1+/.style={level distance=3\baselineskip}, + level 2/.style={sibling distance=30pt}, + level 3/.style={sibling distance=10pt}} + \setstretch{1} + \Tree + [.{VoiceP \\ $st$} + [.{Voice \\ $st,st$} ] + [.{\textit{v}P \\ $st$} + [.{PP$_i$ \\ $e$} + [.{P \\ \imp{$ee$} \\ \gls{by}} ] + [.{DP \\ $e$} \edge[roof]; {\gls{the children}$_i$} ] + ] + [.{\textit{v}' \\ $est$} + [.{\vphantom{P}\textit{v} \\ $st,est$} ] + [.{VP \\ $st$} \edge[roof]; {send the packages to \gls{themselves}$_i$} ] + ] + ] + ] + } + \end{exe} + + But note that the Agent preposition is seen as a purely functional element with type $ee$, + denoting the identity function: $\sv{\textit{by}} = \lambda x.x$. + It thus assumes homonymy of the Agent preposition \gls{by} with spatial \gls{by}, as in \gls{the house by the lake}. + There is no room for semantic content of the Agent preposition. +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{Multiple Agent prepositions: the case of French} + In French passives the Agent can be introduced by both \gls{de} \enquote{from} and \gls{par} \enquote{by, via}. + Which prepositions are allowed varies: + + \begin{exe} + \ex \label{basic} + \begin{xlist} + \ex \label{chien} + \gls{Le chien est lavé par/*de Marie.} + \trailingcitation{\citep[584]{Straub1974}} \\ + `The dog was washed by Mary.' + \ex \label{mois} + \gls{Le mois de février est précédé du/*par le mois de janvier.} + \trailingcitation{\citep[591]{Straub1974}} \\ + `February is preceded by January.' + \ex \label{etudiantes} + \gls{Les étudiantes sont accompagnées par/de leurs familles.} + \trailingcitation{(after \citealp[200]{Gaatone1998})} \\ + `The students are accompanied by their families.' + \ex \label{detenu} + \gls{Le détenu est accompagné par le/*du policier.} \\ + `The inmate is accompanied by the policeman.' + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + We will argue that the difference between \gls{de} and \gls{par} has to do with {\sc influence}: + In (\ref{detenu}), the inmate is somehow \enquote{influenced} by the policeman, + whereas the students in (\ref{etudiantes}) are not necessarily \enquote{influenced} by their parents. + Hence \gls{de} marks a lack of influence. + This can also be seen in (\ref{chien})--(\ref{mois}). +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + Although the French data confirm \citeauthor{Croft2012}'s (\citeyear{Croft2012}) Space $\Rightarrow$ Causation metaphor, + his theory cannot explain the difference between \gls{de} and \gls{par}. + Both mark an antecedent role, but \citeauthor{Croft2012} does not make further distinctions: + + \begin{quote} + Although \imp{one cannot predict which participant roles a specific Oblique case marking will subsume}---% + case markers are usually quite polysemous---% + one can predict that a specific Oblique case marking will subsume only antecedent roles or only subsequent roles. + That is, \imp{one can generally categorize Oblique morphosyntactic markers as either Antecedent or Subsequent}, as in (\ref{antecedent})--(\ref{subsequent}). + \trailingcitation{\citep[223, emphasis added]{Croft2012}} + \end{quote} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + The formal approach also has trouble handling the French data. + If the Agent preposition denotes the identity function, + how can we differentiate between \gls{de} and \gls{par}? + %Binding data shows that we cannot use an adjunct strategy: + + %\begin{exe} + % \ex + % \begin{xlist} + % \ex + % \gls{Les étudiantes$_i$ sont accompagnées par/de leurs parents$_j$ de leur$_{i\text{/}j}$ propre gré.} + % \trailingcitation{(after \citealp[200]{Gaatone1998})} \\ + % `The students were accompanied by their parents out of their free will.' + % \ex + % \gls{Les étudiantes$_i$ étaient venues sans leurs parents$_j$ de leur$_{i\text{/*}j}$ propre gré.} \\ + % `The students came without their parents out of their free will.' + % \end{xlist} + %\end{exe} + + %But in argument strategies the preposition is taken to denote the identity function; + % with type $ee$, it has no access to the eventuality influenced by the complement. +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + We need a formalism that remains closer to intuitive thinking about causation. + To be able to implement the ideas from \citet{Croft2012} we want a single denotation for each preposition, + from which can derive both spatial and causal meanings. + Force dynamics~\citep{Talmy1988,CopleyEtAl2015,CopleyEtAl2020} will help us with this. +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{\texorpdfstring{A polymorphic denotation of \gls{de} and \gls{par}}{A polymorphic denotation of de and par}} + The use of \gls{de} and \gls{par} outside passives first suggests that force dynamics might be the right approach. + \gls{De} is used to name Causes that are situations (\ref{cause-de}), + while \gls{par} is used to name Causes that are forces (\ref{cause-par}). + + \begin{exe} + \ex \label{cause-de} + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \gls{Jean est mort de/*par} \{\gls{faim / vieillesse / la maladie de Parkinson}\}. \\ + `Jean died of hunger / old age / Parkinson's disease.' + \ex + \gls{Marie} \{\gls{s'est écriée / a gémi}\} \gls{de/*par} \{\gls{douleur / admiration / plaisir}\} / ??\gls{de l'impact du ballon}. \\ + `Marie cried out / groaned from pain / admiration / pleasure / the impact of the ball.' + \end{xlist} + \ex \label{cause-par} + \gls{La fenêtre s'est cassée *de/par} \{\gls{un tremblement de terre / l'impact du ballon}\}. \\ + `The window broke due to an earthquake / the impact of the ball.' + \end{exe} + + This is similar to what \citet[139--142]{CopleyEtAl2015} describe for English \gls{from}, + which can mark forces but not entities: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex \gls{The floor broke from the *(weight of the) elephant.} + \trailingcitation{\citep[141]{CopleyEtAl2015}} + \ex \gls{The window broke from John*('s hitting it).} + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} + + With a distinction between entities (type $e$), forces (type $f$), and situations (type $s$) + we can obtain a formalization that derives the correct facts for (\ref{cause-de})--(\ref{cause-par}), + and the behaviour of \gls{de} and \gls{par} in passives as well. +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + We will give \gls{de} and \gls{par} an abstract definition based on its basic spatial meaning. + The type is $\eta\theta t$, where $\eta$ and $\theta$ can be any type + as long as the abstract spatial meaning has a reasonable interpretation for that type~(cf.~\cite[162]{Morrill1994}). + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex $\sv{\mathit{de}}_{\eta\theta t} = \lambda x_\eta \lambda y_\theta . \FROM(x,y)$, for any types $\eta, \theta$ + \ex $\sv{\mathit{par}}_{\eta\theta t} = \lambda x_\eta \lambda y_\theta . \THROUGH(x,y)$, for any types $\eta, \theta$ + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + For instance: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \gls{un médecin de Paris} \\ + `a doctor from Paris' + \ex $\sv{\mathit{de}}_{eet} = \lambda x_e \lambda y_e . \FROM(x,y)$, interpreted as ``$y$ comes from $x$''. + \end{xlist} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \gls{le train à Lyon par Dijon} \\ + `the train to Lyon via Dijon' + \ex $\sv{\mathit{par}}_{eet} = \lambda x_e \lambda y_e . \THROUGH(x,y)$, interpreted as ``$y$ goes through $x$''. + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + For the Cause markers \gls{de} and \gls{par} we get: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \gls{Jean est mort de/*par faim.} \\ + `Jean died of hunger.' + \ex $\sv{\mathit{de}}_{sst} = \lambda s_0 \lambda s_1 . \FROM(s_0, s_1)$, interpreted as $(\Net(s_0))(s_0) = s_1$. + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[list] + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \gls{La fenêtre s'est cassée *de/par un tremblement de terre.} \\ + `The window broke due to an earthquake.' + \ex $\sv{\mathit{par}}_{fst} = \lambda f \lambda s_1 . \THROUGH(f, s_1)$, interpreted as $\exists s_0 : \Net(s_0) = f \land f(s_0) = s_1$. + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + Mapping the concepts of force dynamics onto \citeauthor{Croft2012}'s (\citeyear{Croft2012}) Space $\Rightarrow$ Causation metaphor, + we can explain why \gls{de} has type $sst$ but not $fst$, + and why \gls{par} has type $fst$ but not $sst$. + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{tikzpicture} + \node[circle,draw] (s0) at (0,0) {$s_0$}; + \node[circle,draw] (s1) at (6,0) {$s_1$}; + \draw[->] (s0) -- (s1) node[midway,above] {$f$}; + \node at (0,-1) {Ablative}; + \node at (0,-1.7) {\gls{de} `from'}; + \node at (3,-1) {Perlative}; + \node at (3,-1.7) {\gls{par} `through'}; + \node at (6,-1) {Object}; + \node at (6,-1.7) {passive subject}; + \end{tikzpicture} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{Formalizing the Agent prepositions} + We assume an intermediate projection which we will call OriginP to implement the argument strategy~\citep{AngelopoulosEtAl2020} in the framework of \citet{CopleyEtAl2020}: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \gls{the soup was heated by John} + + {\tikzset{level 1+/.style={level distance=3\baselineskip}} + \setstretch{1} + \Tree + [.{VoiceP \\ $fd$} + [.{Voice$_{\text{PASS}}$ \\ $efd,fd$} ] + [.{OriginP \\ $efd$} + [.{PP \\ $ft$} + [.{P \\ $eft$ \\ \gls{by}} ] + [.{DP \\ $e$} \edge[roof]; {\gls{John}} ] + ] + [.{Origin' \\ $efd$} + [.{Origin \\ $fd,efd$} ] + [.{\textit{v}P \\ $fd$} \edge[roof]; {\gls{heat the soup}} ] + ] + ] + ] + } + + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex \label{denotation-origin} + $\sv{\text{Origin}} = \lambda p_{fd} \lambda e \lambda f, \Origin(f,e) . p(f)$ + \ex \label{denotation-by} + $\sv{\textit{by}} = \lambda e \lambda f . \Origin(f,e)$ + \ex \label{denotation-passive} + $\sv{\text{Voice}_{\text{PASS}}} = \lambda p_{efd} \lambda f . \exists x : p(x,f)$ + \end{xlist} + + \ex + $\sv{\text{VoiceP}}$ \\ + %$= (\lambda p_{efd} \lambda f . \exists x : p(x,f)) (\sv{\text{OriginP}})$ + %\hfill (\ref{denotation-passive}) \\ + \null\qquad$= \lambda f . \exists x : \sv{\text{OriginP}}(x,f)$ + \hfill (\ref{denotation-passive}) \\ + %\hfill (Function Application) \\ + \null\qquad$= \lambda f . \exists x, \sv{\text{PP}}(f) : \sv{\text{Origin'}}(x,f)$ + \hfill (Predicate Restriction) \\ + %$= \lambda f . \exists x, \sv{\text{PP}}(f) : (\lambda p_{fd} \lambda e \lambda f , \Origin(f,e) . p(f))(\sv{\text{\textit{v}P}})(x,f)$ + %\hfill (\ref{denotation-origin}) \\ + \null\qquad$= \lambda f . \exists x, \sv{\text{PP}}(f), \Origin(f,x) . \sv{\text{\textit{v}P}}(f)$ + \hfill (\ref{denotation-origin}) \\ + %\hfill (Function Application) + \null\qquad$= \lambda f . \exists x, \Origin(f, \sv{\text{John}}), \Origin(f,x) . \sv{\text{\textit{v}P}}(f)$ + \hfill (\ref{denotation-by}) \\ + \null\qquad$= \lambda f, \Origin(f, \sv{\text{John}}) . \sv{\text{\textit{v}P}}(f)$ + \hfill (redundant existential bind) + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + So we're looking for an interpretation of \gls{de} and \gls{par} with type $eft$: + + \begin{exe} + \exr{etudiantes} + \gls{Les étudiantes sont accompagnées par/de leurs familles.} + \trailingcitation{(after \citealp[200]{Gaatone1998})} \\ + `The students are accompanied by their families.' + \ex \label{de-passive} + $\sv{\mathit{de}}_{eft} = \lambda e \lambda f . \FROM(e, f)$, interpreted as $\Origin(e, f)$. + \ex \label{par-passive} + $\sv{\mathit{par}}_{eft} = \lambda e \lambda f . \THROUGH(e, f)$, interpreted as $\Agent(e,f)$. + \end{exe} + + We hypothesize, based on \citet{Croft2012}, that spatial distance is related to distance to the Patient in the causal chain. + A greater distance ($\FROM$) is interpreted as a general $\Origin$. + The origin of the causal chain is used not only for Agents, + but for anything that can be seen as the ultimate starting point of a force: + volitional agents, but also natural phenomena or reasons, for example. + + An entity that is more proximal to the Patient ($\THROUGH$) more likely manipulates the Patient directly. + We describe that here with $\Agent$, for lack of a better term. + + This link between proximity to the Patient and direct manipulation is not surprising. + We see it also in the distinction between the English Agent marker \gls{by} and Instrument marker \gls{with}. + Instruments manipulate the Patient more directly, + and \gls{with} is more proximal than \gls{by}: cf.\ \gls{the girl by/with the bike}. +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{Corollaries} + + The fact that \gls{par} is especially suited to mark direct manipulators (Agents) + has an impact on the further pragmatic interpretation of \gls{de} and \gls{par}. + This allows us to explain differences in the distribution of \gls{de} and \gls{par} that were previously not well-described. + What we called {\sc influence} above can be derived from Proto-Agent (or Proto-Patient) properties (cf.\ \cite{Dowty1991}). + Consider (\ref{detenu})--(\ref{detenu-no-influence}): + + \begin{exe} + \exr{detenu} + \gls{Le détenu est accompagné par le/*du policier.} \\ + `The inmate is accompanied by the policeman.' + \ex \label{detenu-no-influence} + \gls{L'ex-détenu est apparu devant le tribunal, accompagné par le/du policier qui l'avait alors arrêté.} \\ + `The former inmate appeared in front of the courthouse, accompanied by the policeman that had previously arrested him.' + \end{exe} + + These examples establish a different relationship between the policeman and the inmate: + only in (\ref{detenu}) do we expect the policeman to restrain the inmate in his movements. + This difference can be described in terms of Proto-Agent / Proto-Patient properties: + + \begin{itemize} + \item + In (\ref{detenu}), the inmate is more \imp{affected}, + because he is less free to move around. + \item + In (\ref{detenu}), the policeman is more \imp{goal-oriented}, + because he has the concrete goal to prevent the inmate from escaping. + \end{itemize} + + Example (\ref{detenu}) thus has a more prototypical Agent than (\ref{detenu-no-influence}), + which explains why only \gls{par} is allowed. +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + This also works for examples with inanimate arguments: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex \label{village-rainer} + \gls{Rainer participe pour la première fois à une course de slalom en montagne. Cette course a eu lieu à Reitnau, petit village situé au coeur de la Suisse et surplombé \imp{par} une chaîne de montagne.}% + \footnote{\url{http://www.kueschall.ch/fr/Archiv\_978.aspx}, retrieved November 13, 2010 by \url{http://web.archive.org}.} \\ + `Rainer takes part in a mountain slalom for the first time. This race took place in Reitnau, a small village located in the heart of Switzerland and overlooked \imp{by} a mountain range.' + \ex \label{village-tourism} + \gls{La première image offerte aux visiteurs est un village paroi surplombé \imp{de} ses deux tours et de son église auxquels on accède par un réseau de ruelles ou d'escaliers.}% + \footnote{\url{https://www.saintmartinlevieil.fr/}, retrieved September 16, 2022.} \\ + `The first image offered to visitors is a walled village overlooked \imp{by} its two towers and its church which are accessed by a network of alleys or stairs.' + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} + + In (\ref{village-rainer}) our mental image of the village changes because of the mention of the mountain range: + that is what makes it a suitable place for the mountain slalom. + This is a more abstract reinterpretation of affectedness and goal-orientedness. +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + This can become as abstract as visual dominance: + + \begin{exe} + \ex \label{surplomber-de} + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \gls{de \dots\ hauts plateaux désolés surplombés \imp{de} sommets déchiquetés}% + \footnote{\url{http://lesdeuxvoyageurs.com/Inde/Ladakh2005/Accueil\_Ladakh/Accueil\_Ladakh2005.html}, retrieved December 8, 2021.} \\ + `desolate highlands overlooked \imp{by} jagged mountain tops' + \ex + \gls{un mur d'enceinte surplombé \imp{de} barbelé}% + \footnote{\url{http://www.haitiministries.com/www/nouvelles/}, retrieved December 8, 2021.} \\ + `a compound wall surmounted \imp{by} barbed wire' + \end{xlist} + + \ex \label{surplomber-par} + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \gls{un sentier surplombé \imp{par} des rochers de grès rose tout le long du parcours}% + \footnote{\url{http://www.netrando.com/fr/direct/PHALDAB012.htm}, captured by Linguee.com, retrieved December 8, 2021.} \\ + `a small path that winds \imp{at the feet of} pink sandstone cliffs all along the way' + \ex + \gls{un stade surplombé \imp{par} un tremplin de saut à ski}% + \footnote{\url{http://fr.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=102/edition=6946/news/newsid=88409.html}, captured by Linguee.com, retrieved December 8, 2021.} \\ + `a [soccer] stadium overlooked \imp{by} a ski jump' + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} + + In the examples in (\ref{surplomber-de}), neither participant is foregrounded with respect to the other, + a balance emphasised by modifiers (\gls{désolés \dots\ déchiquetés}; \gls{d'enceinte}). + This is not the case in (\ref{surplomber-par}), where the prepositional object really changes the way we see the subject. +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + By focusing on the force/Agent, \gls{par} can pick out a resultative interpretation of a verb + when \gls{de} leads to a stative interpretation: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \gls{Notre-Dame délaissé \imp{de} ses touristes en plein confinement}% + \footnote{\url{https://twitter.com/chouettephoto/status/1344600099113074691}, retrieved March 18, 2022.} \\ + `the Notre-Dame, abandoned \imp{of} its tourists in full lockdown' + \ex + \gls{En cas d'enfant délaissé \imp{par} ses parents (art. 501 de la charia), \dots}% + \footnote{\url{http://www.arabhumanrights.org/publications/countries/lebanon/crc/lebanon3-05f.pdf}, captured by Linguee.com, retrieved March 18, 2022.} \\ + `In case of a child neglected \imp{by} its parents (art. 501 of the sharia), \dots' + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + In this way, the spatial meaning of \gls{de} and \gls{par} still resonates in causal uses, + and from there it can have various effects, depending on context. +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[section] + \section{Different perspectives on the causal chain} + + \subsection{Biblical Hebrew} + The Biblical Hebrew prepositions \gls{min} `from, out of' and \gls{b\schwa} `in, by, against' + present a similar problem as French \gls{de} and \gls{par}. + Both are said to be Agent markers in the grammars, but we look here at (more frequent) other causal functions. + + \gls{B\schwa} is the default preposition for Instruments (\ref{instrument-be}), but \gls{min} occurs as well (\ref{instrument-min}). + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex \label{instrument-be} + \heb{רַבִּ֗ים אֲשֶׁר־מֵ֨תוּ֙ בְּאַבְנֵ֣י הַבָּרָ֔ד מֵאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרְג֛וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בֶּחָֽרֶב׃} + \trailingcitation{(Joshua 10:11 ESV)} + \gll rabbîm \glot{}ăšer mē\b{t}û \imp{b\schwa{}}=\glot{}a\b{b}nē hab=bārā\b{d} mē=\glot{}ăšer hār\schwa\=gû b\schwa{}nē yiśrā\glot\=el \imp{b\schwa}=ḥāre\b{b} \\ + many {\sc rel} died {\imp{in}=stones of} the=hail from={\sc rel} killed {sons of} Israel \imp{in}=sword \\ + \glt `There were more who died \imp{because of} the hailstones than the sons of Israel killed \imp{with} the sword.' + \ex \label{instrument-min} + \heb{וְעַתָּ֗ה הוֹאֵל֙ וּבָרֵךְ֙ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית עַבְדְּךָ֔ ... וּמִבִּרְכָ֣תְךָ֔ יְבֹרַ֥ךְ בֵּֽית־עַבְדְּךָ֖ לְעוֹלָֽם׃} + \trailingcitation{(2 Samuel 7:29 ESV)} + \gll w\schwa=\phar{}attâ hô\glot\=el û=\b{b}ārē\b{k} \glot{}e\b{t} bê\b{t} \phar{}a\b{b}d-\schwa\b{k}ā \dots{} û=\imp{mib}=bir\b{k}ā\b{t}-\schwa\b{k}ā y\schwa\b{b}ōra\b{k} bêt \phar{}a\b{b}d-\schwa\b{k}ā l\schwa=\phar{}ôlām \\ + and=now want and=bless {\sc obj} {house of} servant-your \dots{} and=\imp{from}=blessing-your {will be blessed} house servant-your to=eternity \\ + \glt `Now therefore may it please you to bless the house of your servant, \dots, and \imp{with} your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever.' + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + Conversely, \gls{min} is the default preposition for Reasons (\ref{reason-min}), but \gls{b\schwa} occurs as well (\ref{reason-be}). + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex \label{reason-min} + \heb{וַיְמַהֵ֣ר שָׁא֗וּל וַיִּפֹּ֤ל מְלֹא־קֽוֹמָתוֹ֙ אַ֔רְצָה וַיִּרָ֥א מְאֹ֖ד מִדִּבְרֵ֣י שְׁמוּאֵ֑ל} + \trailingcitation{(1 Samuel 28:20 ESV)} + \gll way\schwa{}mahēr šā\glot{}ûl wayyippōl m\schwa{}lō\glot{} qômā\b{t}-ô \glot{}arṣ-â wayyīrā\glot{} m\schwa\glot{}ō\b{d} \imp{mid}=di\b{b}rê š\schwa{}mû\glot{}ēl \\ + {and hastened} Saul {and fell} {full of} height-his earth-wards {and he feared} very {\imp{from}=words of} Samuel \\ + \glt `Then Saul fell at once full length on the ground, filled with fear \imp{because of} the words of Samuel.' + \ex \label{reason-be} + \heb{וְלֹֽא־תִכָּרֵ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ בָּרָעָֽב׃} + \trailingcitation{(Gen 41:36 ESV)} + \gll w\schwa=lō\glot{} \b{t}ikkārē\b{t} hā=\glot{}āreṣ \imp{b}=ā=rā\phar{}ā\b{b} \\ + and=not {shall be cut off ({\sc mid})} the=land \imp{in}=the=famine \\ + \glt `(That food shall be a reserve \dots), so that the land may not perish \imp{through} the famine.' + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + We argue that \gls{min} `from' marks {\sc dominance} or {\sc full control}, + while \gls{b\schwa} `in, by, against' is used for entities that are not in full control: + + \begin{itemize} + \item In (\ref{instrument-be}), the stones / sword are Instruments of other entities (God and the Israelites): no full control. + \item In (\ref{instrument-min}), the blessing is so powerful that it lasts forever, hence it is dominant. + \item In (\ref{reason-min}), ``at once'', ``full length'', and ``very'' indicate the complete fear that overcomes Saul: full control. + \item In (\ref{reason-be}), the famine is not a dominant factor since the land has built up reserves. + \end{itemize} +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{Biblical Hebrew: more examples} + + When a reason for joy is given, \gls{b\schwa} `in' is often used, + while \gls{min} is used for reasons for fear. + This is understandable, since fear is usually something you are overcome by, + while joy is something that is more easily controlled. + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \heb{שִׂמְחוּ֙ בַּאֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ וְיִשְׂמַ֥ח גַּם־ה֖וּא בָּכֶֽם׃} + \trailingcitation{(Judges 9:19 ESV)} + \gll śimḥû \imp{ba}=\glot\upa\b{b}îmele\b{k} w\schwa=yiśmaḥ gam hû\glot{} \imp{bā}=\b{k}em \\ + rejoice \imp{in}=Abimelech and={let rejoice} also he \imp{in}=you \\ + \glt `rejoice \imp{in} Abimelech, and let him also rejoice \imp{in} you.' + \ex + \heb{וְלִשְׂמֹ֖חַ בַּעֲמָל֑וֹ זֹ֕ה מַתַּ֥ת אֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽיא׃} + \trailingcitation{(Ecclesiastes 5:19 ESV)} + \gll w\schwa=li=śmōaḥ \imp{ba}=\phar\upa{}māl-ô zô mattat \glot\upe{}lōhîm hî\glot{} \\ + and=to=rejoice \imp{in}=toil-his this {gift of} God she \\ + \glt `(\dots) and [to] rejoice \imp{in} his toil---this is the gift of God.' + \end{xlist} + + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex + \heb{וַיַּסְתֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנָ֔יו כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א מֵהַבִּ֖יט אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִֽים׃} + \trailingcitation{(Exodus 3:6 ESV)} + \gll wayyastēr mōš\=ę pān-āw kî yārē\glot{} \imp{mē}=habbîṭ \glot{}el hā=\glot\upe{}lōhîm \\ + {and hid} Moses face-his because feared \imp{from}=look.{\sc inf} to the=God \\ + \glt `And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.' + \ex + \heb{וְהִנֵּ֥ה קָרַ֖ן ע֣וֹר פָּנָ֑יו וַיִּֽירְא֖וּ מִגֶּ֥שֶׁת אֵלָֽיו׃} + \trailingcitation{(Exodus 34:30 ESV)} + \gll w\schwa=hinnēh qāran \phar{}ôr pān-āw wayyîr\schwa\glot{}û \imp{mig}=geše\b{t} \glot\=el-āw \\ + and=look shone skin face-his {and they feared} \imp{from}=approach.{\sc inf} to-him \\ + \glt `and behold, the skin of [Moses's] face shone, and they were afraid to come near him.' + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} + + Only \gls{min} `from' can render something impossible. + This is understandable if only \gls{min} has enough control to completely rule something out: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \heb{הַרְבָּ֥ה אַרְבֶּ֖ה אֶת־זַרְעֵ֑ךְ וְלֹ֥א יִסָּפֵ֖ר מֵרֹֽב׃} + \trailingcitation{(Genesis 16:10 ESV)} + \gll harbâ \glot{}arb\=ę \glot{}e\b{t} zar\phar\=e-\b{k} w\schwa=lō\glot{} yissā\=pēr \imp{mē}=rō\b{b} \\ + multiply.{\sc inf-abs} {I will multiply} {\sc obj} seed-yours and=not {it will be countable} \imp{from}=multitude \\ + \glt `I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered \imp{for} multitude.' + \end{exe} + + And in Isaiah 28:7, \gls{b\schwa} and \gls{min} are used, + together with \gls{yayin} `wine' / \gls{šē\b{k}ār} `strong drink' and various verbs, + to build a climax: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + \begin{xlist} + \ex \gls{ŠGH \imp{b\schwa{}} yayin} `go astray in wine'; + \ex \gls{T\phar{}H \imp{b\schwa{}} šē\b{k}ār} `stagger in strong drink'; + \ex \gls{ŠGH \imp{b\schwa{}} šē\b{k}ār} `go astray in strong drink'; + \ex \gls{BL\phar{} \imp{min} yayin} `be numbed from wine'; + \ex \gls{T\phar{}H \imp{min} šē\b{k}ār} `stagger from strong drink'. + \end{xlist} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{Comparison with French} + + At first, these results seem to conflict with what we said for French. + In Hebrew the more distal preposition marks higher dominance / control, + while in French the more distal preposition marked less influence: + + \begin{exe} + \ex + Biblical Hebrew: + + \begin{tabular}[t]{llllll} + \emph{Causation:} & Dominance / full control & $\rightarrow$ & Less control & $\rightarrow$ & Patient\\ + & \gls{min} `from' & & \gls{b\schwa} `in, by, against' \\ + \emph{Space:} & Ablative & & Locative/Proximative \\ + \end{tabular} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[list] + \begin{exe} + \ex + French: + + \begin{tabular}[t]{llllll} + \emph{Causation:} & No influence & $\rightarrow$ & Influence & $\rightarrow$ & Patient\\ + & \gls{de} `from' & & \gls{par} `through' \\ + \emph{Space:} & Ablative & & Perlative \\ + \end{tabular} + \end{exe} +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + Still, both languages can be understood using \citeauthor{Croft2012}'s (\citeyear{Croft2012}) Space $\Rightarrow$ Causation metaphor. + It is logical if the Ablative marks more control, + because the entity at the start of the causal chain is not controlled itself (Biblical Hebrew). + But it is also logical if the Ablative marks less influence, + because the entity is not necessarily in direct contact with the Patient (French). +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + We can explain these seemingly contradictory results with different perspectives on the causal chain: + + \begin{itemize} + \item + French has a {\sc Patient-oriented perspective}: + in this language, \gls{de} and \gls{par} developed causal semantics + through recycling the distance they express to the Patient. + It is not crucial that \gls{de} marks the absolute beginning of the causal chain, + but the relative proximity to the Patient is important. + + \item + Biblical Hebrew has a {\sc Origin-oriented perspective}: + \gls{b\schwa} and \gls{min} developed causal semantics + based on the distance to the beginning of the causal chain, rather than the Patient. + It is crucial that \gls{min} points to the absolute beginning of the causal chain + for it to express dominance or full control. + \end{itemize} +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[section] + \section{Conclusion} + + \subsection{Formalizing Agent prepositions} + Common formal theories of Agent prepositions take the Agent preposition as a purely functional element~(e.g.\ \cite{AngelopoulosEtAl2020}). + They have trouble accounting for languages with multiple Agent prepositions, + where the spatial meaning of these prepositions has not been lost entirely~(cf.\ \cite{Croft2012}). + + Force dynamics~\citep{CopleyEtAl2020} provides a formalism that remains closer to intuitive thinking about causation. + The distinctions it makes between entity, force, and situation are useful to formalize differences between Agent prepositions. + We have proposed a way to implement Agent prepositions à la \citet{AngelopoulosEtAl2020} in the framework of \citet{CopleyEtAl2020}. +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{\texorpdfstring{Making the Space $\Rightarrow$ Causation metaphor more fine-grained}{Making the Space => Causation metaphor more fine-grained}} + \citeauthor{Croft2012} only distinguishes Antecedent and Subsequent Obliques, + and actively warns against going any further: + + \begin{quote} + Although \imp{one cannot predict which participant roles a specific Oblique case marking will subsume}---% + case markers are usually quite polysemous---% + one can predict that a specific Oblique case marking will subsume only antecedent roles or only subsequent roles. + That is, \imp{one can generally categorize Oblique morphosyntactic markers as either Antecedent or Subsequent}, as in (\ref{antecedent})--(\ref{subsequent}). + \trailingcitation{\citep[223, emphasis added]{Croft2012}} + \end{quote} + + There is indeed no universal mapping between spatial categories and causal concepts. + However, we \emph{can} make the metaphor more fine-grained when looking at a concrete language: + \imp{relative position in space} mirrors \imp{relative position in the causal chain}. + Thus we can describe the system of French as ``proximity to Patient is influence'', + and the system of Biblical Hebrew as ``proximity to Origin is control''. +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + We can do the same for English: + + \begin{exe} + \exr{antecedent} + \begin{xlist} + \ex Cause: \gls{The rabbit died \imp{from}/\imp{of} thirst.} + \trailingcitation{\citep[223]{Croft2012}} + \ex Agent: \gls{The cat food was eaten \imp{by} raccoons.} + \ex Means: \gls{I went downtown \imp{by} bus.} + \ex Instrument: \gls{Sue broke the coconut \imp{with} a hammer.} + \ex Comitative: \gls{I went to the park \imp{with} Carol.} + \end{xlist} + + \exr{subsequent} + \begin{xlist} + \ex Result: \gls{They smashed the statue \imp{to} pieces.} + \trailingcitation{\citep[223]{Croft2012}} + \ex Result: \gls{The boy carved the stick \imp{into} a knife.} + \ex Beneficiary: \gls{Sue broke the coconut \imp{for} Greg.} + \end{xlist} + + \ex + \begin{tabular}[t]{llllll} + Cause $\>\rightarrow$ & Agent $\>\rightarrow$ & Comitative/Instrument $\>\rightarrow$ & Patient $\>\rightarrow$ & Result $\>\rightarrow$ & Beneficiary \\ + \gls{of, from} & \gls{by} & \gls{by, with} & & \gls{to, into} & \gls{for} \\ + Ablative & Proximative & Closer proximative & & Allative & Closer allative \\ + \end{tabular} + \end{exe} + + {\footnotesize + (For \enquote{closer proximative}, consider the difference between \gls{the house by/with the lake}. + For \enquote{closer allative}, consider that \gls{(be)for(e)} is the endpoint of the direction expressed by \gls{to}.)} +\end{step} + +\begin{step}[subsection] + \subsection{Perspectives on the causal chain} + Furthermore, we suggested that languages may have different perspectives on the causal chain. + We identified the Patient-oriented perspective of French and the Origin-oriented perspective of Biblical Hebrew. + This makes \citeauthor{Croft2012}'s~(\citeyear{Croft2012}) theory more predictive while remaining falsifiable. +\end{step} + +\begin{step} + Natural follow-up questions are: + + \begin{enumerate} + \item Are there other perspectives besides Origin-oriented and Patient-oriented? + \item Is the perspective a language-wide parameter or can different prepositions in the same language take a different perspective? + \item What determines the perspective of a language (or of a preposition)? + \end{enumerate} +\end{step} + +\clearpage +\begin{step}[section] + \vspace{.8em} + \setstretch{1} + \def\enotesize{\normalsize} + \theendnotes + + \printbibliography +\end{step} + +\end{document} diff --git a/resources/pdf/sbl2022.pdf b/resources/pdf/sbl2022.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3d34125 --- /dev/null +++ b/resources/pdf/sbl2022.pdf |