Urdu Grammar Report - uni-konstanz.de · 2019. 10. 2. · Urdu Grammar Group (Konstanz) Urdu Report ParGram 2008, California 7 / 34. Urdu Ezafe Urdu Ezafe - History The Ezafe is a

Urdu Grammar Report

Urdu Grammar Group

Konstanz

ParGram 2008, California

Urdu Grammar Group (Konstanz) Urdu Report ParGram 2008, California 1 / 34

Overview

Project Status

Have applied for a project (January 2007).

Decision still pending, looks like might end up being a resubmit.

In the meantime, patched together and Hiwi-Funding.

Managed to get some university-internal funding.

(German ParSem efforts now seriously under way, are to include Urdu,Spanish, German and English — possibly Turkish.)


Overview

Bigger Progresses

Transliterator


Overview

Bigger Progresses

Transliterator

Urdu Ezafe (LFG08)


Overview

Bigger Progresses

Transliterator

Urdu Ezafe (LFG08)

Tense/Aspect (perennial problem)


Transliterator

Transliterator

Goal: Keep the morphological analyzer in ASCII so we can do bothUrdu (Arabic-based script) and Hindi (Devanagari) in the long run.


Transliterator

Transliterator


To this end, need a Transliterator that will take us from scriptweirdnesses to ASCII (and back).


Transliterator

Transliterator



Other efforts have also realized this, so now several sites working onthis.


Transliterator

Transliterator



Other efforts have also realized this, so now several sites working onthis.

We’d like the Transliterator to be written in XFST, for a cleaninterface with the morphology.


Transliterator

Transliterator — CRULP

Current: Have farmed out a work package to CRULP (Center forResearch on Urdu Language Processing).


Transliterator



We specified the transliteration scheme (mainly Tina).


Transliterator




They do the following:


Transliterator





Use Input with or without diacritics.


Transliterator





Use Input with or without diacritics.Normalize the Input to contain all the diacritics.


Transliterator





Use Input with or without diacritics.Normalize the Input to contain all the diacritics.Transliterate this.


Transliterator





Use Input with or without diacritics.Normalize the Input to contain all the diacritics.Transliterate this.

Work is supposed to be done by the end of September. First resultslook good.


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe — Background

We implemented an analysis of Urdu ezafe:

1 to deal with a new phenomenon in Urdu (no other existingliterature/implementation to date)


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe — Background

We implemented an analysis of Urdu ezafe:

1 to deal with a new phenomenon in Urdu (no other existingliterature/implementation to date)

2 Discuss and illustrate issues of the morphology-syntax-prosodyinterface — this is important for PR and discussions of architectureissues outside of ParGram (and so we want your help with it).


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe - History

The Ezafe is a loan construction from Persian


Urdu Ezafe



It originates in an Old Iranian relative pronoun, specializing as adevice for nominal attribution in Middle Iranian


Urdu Ezafe




The Ezafe tends to be part of the high/literary language since Persianwas the language of the Moghul court and mostly influenced thelanguage of the courtiers and poets.


Urdu Ezafe




The Ezafe tends to be part of the high/literary language since Persianwas the language of the Moghul court and mostly influenced thelanguage of the courtiers and poets.

It remains productive today, but modern speakers show a tendency toleave it out.


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe - The Modifier

Expresses a dependency between the head noun and its modifierwithin the NP:


Urdu Ezafe



Modifier can be a Noun

hukuumat=e paakistaangovernment-Ez Pakistan‘the government of Pakistan’ Schmidt (1999:246) Urdu


Urdu Ezafe



Modifier can be a Noun

hukuumat=e paakistaangovernment-Ez Pakistan‘the government of Pakistan’ Schmidt (1999:246) Urdu

Modifier can be an Adjective

sadaa=e bulandvoice-Ez high‘a high voice’ Delacy (2003:100) Urdu


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe — Headedness

The Ezafe-Construction is weird, as Urdu is generally a head-finallanguage.


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe — Headedness

The Ezafe-Construction is weird, as Urdu is generally a head-finallanguage.

Compare the functionally (but not syntactically) similar genitiveconstruction.

pAkistAn=kI hukUmatPakistan=Gen.F.Sg government‘Pakistan’s government‘ Schmidt (1999:246) Urdu

hukUmat=e pakistAngovernment=Ez Pakistan‘The government of Pakistan‘ Schmidt (1999:246) Urdu


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe — Clitic Status


Urdu Ezafe


The Ezafe has scope over coordination

[mAl O daulat]=e dunyAmaterial and wealth=Ez world‘The material and wealth of the world‘


Urdu Ezafe




The Ezafe never attaches to the single constituents of thecoordination.


Urdu Ezafe





Ezafe also takes scope over other phrasal material(quantifier/determiners).


Urdu Ezafe





Ezafe also takes scope over other phrasal material(quantifier/determiners).

We analyze the Ezafe as a clitic (similarly to case markers in Urdu).


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe - Prosody

From the prosodic point of view:

The Ezafe depends on a host.


Urdu Ezafe




It attaches to the prosodic word to its left.


Urdu Ezafe





sAhib=e takHt (‘owner of throne’)


Urdu Ezafe





sAhib=e takHt (‘owner of throne’)

Easily verified if construction is pronounced


Urdu Ezafe

Urdu Ezafe - Analysis

To summarize the facts:


Urdu Ezafe



The Ezafe triggers a head-initial construction.


Urdu Ezafe




It is prosodically attached to its host on the left, but demands acomplement to its right, with which it forms a constituent.


Urdu Ezafe




It is prosodically attached to its host on the left, but demands acomplement to its right, with which it forms a constituent.

This constituent modifies the NP to its left.


Urdu Ezafe


What should the analysis be?

and

How is the Ezafe clitic =e best analyzed with respect to themorphology-syntax-interface?


XLE-solution

Our solution

Our analysis does not place the Ezafe-clitic within the morphology(contra Samvelian 2005 and HPSG, who see it as a phrasal affixlicensed by a lexical rule)


XLE-solution

Our solution

Our analysis does not place the Ezafe-clitic within the morphology(contra Samvelian 2005 and HPSG, who see it as a phrasal affixlicensed by a lexical rule)

Instead, the analysis is a cooperation between c-, f- and p-structure


XLE-solution

The c-structure - ”lion of Punjab”

CS 1: NP

NPez

NPez_

N

sher

EzP

EZ

e

N

panjAb


XLE-solution


CS 1: NP

NPez

NPez_

N

sher

EzP

EZ

e

N

panjAb

The Ezafe is the head of an EzP-constituent and licenses a complement toits right (panjAb).


XLE-solution


CS 1: NP

NPez

NPez_

N

sher

EzP

EZ

e

N

panjAb

The Ezafe is the head of an EzP-constituent and licenses a complement toits right (panjAb).

The EzP constituent forms the modifier of the NPez on the left, whichcontains the head of the entire NP.


XLE-solution

The f-structure - “lion of Punjab”

"sher e panjAb"

'sher'PRED'panjAb'PRED

countCOMMONNSEMcommonNSYN

NTYPE

GEND masc, MOD-TYPE ezafe, NUM sg, PERS 330

MOD

+_EZAFECHECKcountCOMMONNSEM

commonNSYNNTYPE

GEND masc, NUM sg, PERS 31


XLE-solution


"sher e panjAb"



NTYPE


MOD


commonNSYNNTYPE


The head of the NP is sher


XLE-solution


"sher e panjAb"



NTYPE


MOD


commonNSYNNTYPE



panjAb is in the complement-position of the Ezafe and functions as modifierof the head of the NP


XLE-solution


"sher e panjAb"



NTYPE


MOD


commonNSYNNTYPE




We analyze it as a MOD because the ezafe-construction is functionally alsosomewhat similar to compounding.


XLE-solution


"sher e panjAb"



NTYPE


MOD


commonNSYNNTYPE




We analyze it as a MOD because the ezafe-construction is functionally alsosomewhat similar to compounding.

However, neither f-structure nor c-structure model Ezafe’s prosodicattachment to the prosodic word on the left.


XLE-solution

The p-structure - “lion of Punjab”

The proper place for the prosodic attachment would seem to be a prosodicprojection(Butt and King 1998).

CL-FORM ezafe, DOMAIN P-WORD, P-FORM sher-1P-PHRASEDOMAIN83

DOMAIN P-WORD, P-FORM panjAb-2P-PHRASEDOMAIN125

P-PHRASEDOMAIN127130


XLE-solution

The p-structure - “lion of Punjab”

The proper place for the prosodic attachment would seem to be a prosodicprojection(Butt and King 1998).

CL-FORM ezafe, DOMAIN P-WORD, P-FORM sher-1P-PHRASEDOMAIN83

DOMAIN P-WORD, P-FORM panjAb-2P-PHRASEDOMAIN125

P-PHRASEDOMAIN127130

In the p-structure, the Ezafe can be grouped with the prosodic host to itsleft, namely sher, the head of the NP


prosodic architecture

workbench

How did we accomplish this?



workbench

How did we accomplish this?

We actually (and unfortunately) had to use a hack



workbench

CS 1: NP

NPez

NPez_

N

sher

EzP

EZ

e

N

panjAb



workbench

CS 1: NP

NPez

NPez_

N

sher

EzP

EZ

e

N

panjAb

The Ezafe -e receives a Check-feature in its lexical entry:(ˆ CHECK Ezafe) = +



workbench

CS 1: NP

NPez

NPez_

N

sher

EzP

EZ

e

N

panjAb


The N under NPez checks for the Check-feature (ˆ CHECK Ezafe) =c +



workbench

CS 1: NP

NPez

NPez_

N

sher

EzP

EZ

e

N

panjAb


The N under NPez checks for the Check-feature (ˆ CHECK Ezafe) =c +

If the feature is present, the CL-form Ezafe is included into the prosodicword of the N: (p::* $ CL-FORM) = ezafe



workbench

However, the linguistically correct version would be that the Ezafeitself asks to be attached to its prosodic host on the left.



workbench


I.e., the clitic should be able to specify that it would like to attach toa host to its left (something like left sister).



workbench



Question: Can this be done in XLE?



workbench



Question: Can this be done in XLE?

If not, next question: could this be done in XLE in the future?



The Larger Picture

To be in principle able to deal with such a construction in a linguisticallyreasonable manner in XLE is important because:



The Larger Picture


There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of grammararchitecture with respect to the interplay of morphology, syntax andprosody (cf. discussions within LFG on morphology, HPSGapproaches to clitics, Anderson’s books on morphology, etc.)



The Larger Picture



Samvelian (2005), for example, in an HPSG analysis of Persian Ezafeconcludes that the Ezafe is a phrasal affix (a “special” clitic becauseit is not promiscuous) simply because she does not seem to be able tointegrate prosodic postlexical information into the architecture —everything has to be done prelexically within the morphology.



The Larger Picture



Samvelian (2005), for example, in an HPSG analysis of Persian Ezafeconcludes that the Ezafe is a phrasal affix (a “special” clitic becauseit is not promiscuous) simply because she does not seem to be able tointegrate prosodic postlexical information into the architecture —everything has to be done prelexically within the morphology.

It would therefore be nice to have an alternative implementationdemonstrating the underlying architecture.


Tense/Aspect in Urdu

Tense/Aspect System of Urdu

1 large range of fine-grained temporal and aspectual distinctions





2 history: from 200 BCE to 1000 CE, a large part of the inflectionalmorphology got lost





2 history: from 200 BCE to 1000 CE, a large part of the inflectionalmorphology got lost

3 today: small number of morphemes in combination with only a fewauxiliaries and aspectual verbs



Present and Past Tense Reading

1 canonical uses of present and past tenses are not easy to identify





2 only one verb with a present and past paradigm (‘be’)






3 this morphology on other verbs is interpreted as subjunctive







4 therefore: combinations of main verb with the ‘be’ auxiliary to expresstense







4 therefore: combinations of main verb with the ‘be’ auxiliary to expresstense

5 odd situation in comparison to English, German, etc




1 Present Reading: main verb in the imperfect + auxiliary hOnA in thepresentnAdyA yasIn=kO mArtI hE

Nadya.F.Sg.Nom Yassin.Masc.Sg=Acc hit.Impf.F.Sg be.Pres.Sg’Nadya hits Yassin.’




1 Present Reading: main verb in the imperfect + auxiliary hOnA in thepresentnAdyA yasIn=kO mArtI hE

Nadya.F.Sg.Nom Yassin.Masc.Sg=Acc hit.Impf.F.Sg be.Pres.Sg’Nadya hits Yassin.’

2 Past Reading: main verb in the perfectnAdyA=nE yasIn=kO mArA

Nadya.F.Sg.Nom Yassin.M.Sg=Acc hit.Perf.M.Sg’Nadya hit Yassin.’



Present Tense Reading

CS 1: ROOT

S

KP

NP

N

nAdyA

KP

NP

N

yasIn

K

kO

VCmain

Vmain

V

mArtI

AuxTense

Vtns

hE

"nAdyA yasIn kO mArtI hE"

'mAr<[1:nAdyA], [16:yasIn]>'PRED

'nAdyA'PRED

namePROPER-TYPEPROPERNSEM

properNSYNNTYPE

+SPECIFICSEM-PROP

CASE nom, GEND fem, NUM sg, PERS 31

SUBJ

'yasIn'PRED

obl_NMORPHCHECK


properNSYNNTYPE

+SPECIFICSEM-PROP

CASE acc, GEND masc, NUM sg, PERS 316

OBJ

infl_MTYPE_VMORPH

-_RESTRICTEDCHECK

+AGENTIVELEX-SEM

ASPECT impf, MOOD indicative, TENSE presTNS-ASP

CLAUSE-TYPE decl, PASSIVE -, VFORM impf, VTYPE main33



Perfect

1 standard present perfect reading: main verb in the perfect and ’be’ inthe presentnAdyA=nE yasIn=kO dEkHA hE

Nadya,F.Sg=Erg Yassin.M.Sg.=Acc see-Perf.M.Sg be.Pres.3.Sg’Nadya has seen Yassin.’



Perfect

1 standard present perfect reading: main verb in the perfect and ’be’ inthe presentnAdyA=nE yasIn=kO dEkHA hE

Nadya,F.Sg=Erg Yassin.M.Sg.=Acc see-Perf.M.Sg be.Pres.3.Sg’Nadya has seen Yassin.’

2 past perfect reading: the main verb in the perfect and ’be’ in the pastnAdyA=nE yasIn=kO dEkHA tHA

Nadya.F.Sg=Erg Yassin.M.Sg=Acc see-Perf.M.Sg be-Past.M.Sg’Nadya had seen Yassin.’



Continuitive Reading

1 intense use of various ways of expressing a continuing action



Continuitive Reading

1 intense use of various ways of expressing a continuing action

2 complex continuitive, iterative and habitual expressions which seem tobuild on and interact with one another in a compositional manner



General Progressive Reading

1 progressive is a relatively recent innovation of Urdu





2 general progressive reading: main verb stem + progressive rah ’stay’+ present or past auxiliary





2 general progressive reading: main verb stem + progressive rah ’stay’+ present or past auxiliary

3 rah still means ’stay’ or ’live’, however in this case it is analyzed as anaspectual auxiliarynAdyA yasIn=kO mAr rah-I

Nadya.F.Sg.Nom Yassin.M.Sg=Acc hit stay-Perf.F.Sg

hE

be.Pres.3.Sg’Nadya is hitting Yassin.’




CS 1: ROOT

S

KP

NP

N

nAdyA

KP

NP

N

yasIn

K

kO

VCmain

Vmain

V

mAr

AuxAsp

AuxProg

Vprog

rahI

AuxTense

Vtns

hE

"nAdyA yasIn kO mAr rahI hE"


'nAdyA'PRED


properNSYNNTYPE

+SPECIFICSEM-PROP


SUBJ

'yasIn'PRED

obl_NMORPHCHECK


properNSYNNTYPE

+SPECIFICSEM-PROP


OBJ

infl_MTYPE_VMORPH

_AUXASP +, _RESTRICTED -CHECK

+AGENTIVELEX-SEM

ASPECT prog, MOOD indicative, TENSE presTNS-ASP

CLAUSE-TYPE decl, PASSIVE -, VFORM bare, VTYPE main33



Iteration and Longer Continuation with ’go’ and ’walk’

1 the main verb jA ’go’ normally functions as a main and a light verb ora passive auxiliary, here: jA functions as an aspectual auxiliary




1 the main verb jA ’go’ normally functions as a main and a light verb ora passive auxiliary, here: jA functions as an aspectual auxiliary

2 the action is considered to continue over a longer time spannAdyA mArtI jAtI hE

Nadya.F.Sg.Nom hit-Impf.F.Sg go-Impf.F.Sg be.Pres.3.Sg’Nadya keeps on hitting (over a very long time).’




CS 1: ROOT

S

KP

NP

N

nAdyA

VCmain

Vmain

V

mArtI

AuxAsp

AuxCont

Viter

jAtI

AuxTense

Vtns

hE

"nAdyA mArtI jAtI hE"

'mAr<[1:nAdyA]>'PRED

'nAdyA'PRED


properNSYNNTYPE

+SPECIFICSEM-PROP


SUBJ

infl_MTYPE_VMORPH


ASPECT impf, CONT +, ITERATIVE +, MOOD indicative, TENSE presTNS-ASP

CLAUSE-TYPE decl, LEX-SEM unerg, PASSIVE -, VFORM impf, VTYPE main16




But it gets even better......

1 You can also add the auxiliaries rah and cal to the constructionnAdyA yasIn=kO mArtI

Nadya.F.Sg.Nom Yassin.M.Sg=Acc hit-Impf.F.Sg

calI jA rahI hE

walk-Perf.F.Sg go stay-Perf.F.Sg be.Pres.3.Sg’Nadya keeps on hitting Yassin (over a very long time).’




CS 1: ROOT

S

KP

NP

N

nAdyA

KP

NP

N

yasIn

K

kO

VCmain

Vmain

V

mArtI

AuxAsp

AuxCont

Vcont

calI

Viter

jA

Vprog

rahI

AuxTense

Vtns

hE

"nAdyA yasIn kO mArtI calI jA rahI hE"


'nAdyA'PRED


properNSYNNTYPE

+SPECIFICSEM-PROP


SUBJ

'yasIn'PRED

obl_NMORPHCHECK


properNSYNNTYPE

+SPECIFICSEM-PROP


OBJ

infl_MTYPE_VMORPH


+AGENTIVELEX-SEM

ASPECT prog, CONT +, ITERATIVE +, MOOD indicative, TENSE presTNS-ASP

CLAUSE-TYPE decl, PASSIVE -, VFORM impf, VTYPE main33



Future Work

1 work is being continued in order to explore the entire feature system



Future Work

1 work is being continued in order to explore the entire feature system

2 also need a DURATION feature and need to explore full space ofcombinatorial possibilities (a first survey is in Butt 2008).


Documents

Urdu Grammar Report - uni-konstanz.de · 2019. 10. 2. · Urdu Grammar Group (Konstanz) Urdu Report ParGram 2008, California 7 / 34. Urdu Ezafe Urdu Ezafe - History The Ezafe is a