Cover not available
Article published In:
Asia-Pacific Language Variation
Vol. 9:2 (2023) ► pp.156–194

Directional constructions in Matukar Panau

A Bayesian approach to assessing variation

ORCID logo | Australian National University
| Australian National University
The Oceanic language Matukar Panau has three equivalent morphosyntactic strategies for describing the direction of the event represented by a verb, with a system of ten directional morphemes that can appear in each construction. This variation is explored using a corpus from Matukar Panau and analysed quantitatively with Bayesian regression analyses to assess what factors influence the choice of directional construction. Variables pertaining to the lexical verb and the directional morphemes are found to be the most important factors affecting the variation in the directional system. Sociolinguistic factors are shown to play a less significant role. The findings have implications for the grammaticalization of directional elements, as well as the typology of directional constructions in Oceanic languages.
Keywords: Bayesian regression, Oceanic, directionals, serial verbs, morphosyntactic variation, grammaticalization, lexicalization, corpus linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Matukar Panau language background
    • 1.2Matukar directional constructions
      • Directional constructions
      • SVC1 constructions
      • SVC2 constructions
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Corpus
    • 2.2Factors influencing directional construction choice
      • I.Internal variables
        • 1.Semantic type of directional morpheme
        • 2.Frequency of the directional morpheme as a main verb in the corpus
        • 3.Lexical semantics of the main verb
        • 4.Transitivity of the main verb
        • 5.Subject as speech act participant (SAP)
      • II.External variables
        • 6.Text genre
        • 7.Gender of the speaker
        • 8.Speaker age
        • 9.Speaker
    • 2.3Bayesian multinomial modelling
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Gloss abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 3.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 11 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.23005.dav
References (71)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2018). Serial verbs. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. & Essegbey, James (2013). Serialising languages: Satellite-framed, verb-framed or neither. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 2 (1), 19–38.Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle (collector) (2010). Matukar Panau Language Documentation. Collection DGB1 at [URL] [Open Access]. DOI logo
(2019). Variation in Matukar Panau kinship terminology. Asia-Pacific Language Variation, 5 (2), 138–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth, Danielle & Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2015). Directional constructions in Matukar Panau. Oceanic Linguistics, 51 (1), 206–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth, Danielle & Evans, Nicholas (2017). SCOPIC design and overview. In Danielle Barth & Nicholas Evans (Eds.), The Social Cognition Parallax Interview Corpus (SCOPIC): A Cross-linguistic Resource (pp. 1–21). University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle & Ross, Malcolm (In Press). Clause chaining in Matukar Panau (Oceanic). In Hannah Sarvasy & Alexandra Aikhenvald (Eds.), Clause chaining in the languages of the world. Oxford University Press.
Beavers, John, Levin, Beth & Tham, Shiao Wei (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46 (2), 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter (1995). Verb serialization and converbs – differences and similarities. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (Eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (pp. 137–188). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana (2010). The gradience of the dative alternation. In Lian-Hee Wee & Linda Ann Uyechi (Eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life (pp.161–185). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bürkner, Paul-Christian (2017a). brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80 (1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.11123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Bob, Gelman, Andrew, Hoffman, Matthew D., Lee, Daniel, Goodrich, Ben, Betancourt, Michael, Brubaker, Marcus, Guo, Jiqiang, Li, Peter, & Riddell, Allen (2017). Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. Journal of Statistical Software, 76 (1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L., & Utt, Tyler P. (2017). The Syntax and Semantics of Spatial Reference in Lamkang Verb. Himalayan Linguistics, 16 (1), 28–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupé, C. (2018). Modeling linguistic variables with regression models: Addressing non-Gaussian distributions, non-independent observations, and non-linear predictors with random effects and generalized additive models for location, scale, and shape. Frontiers in psychology, 9 1, Article 5131, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William (2008). On iconicity of distance. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (1), 49–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Terry (1987). Serial verbs in Paamese. Studies in Language, 11 (1), 35–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Serial verbs in Oceanic: A descriptive typology. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davey, Kira (2021). A quantitative study of directional constructions in Matukar Panau [Honours thesis, Australian National University]. Australian National University Open Research. [URL]
Dilley, Laura, Gamache, Jessica, Wang, Yuanyuan, Houston, Derek M., and Bergeson, Tonya R. (2019). Statistical distributions of consonant variants in infant-directed speech: evidence that /t/ may be exceptional. Journal of Phonetics, 751, 73–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark (1988). Verb serialization and “verbal-prepositions” in Oceanic Languages. Oceanic Linguistics. [URL]. DOI logo
Early, Robert (1993). Nuclear layer serialization in Lewo. Oceanic Linguistics, 32 (1), 65–93. [URL]. DOI logo
England, Nora C. (2011). A grammar of Mam, a Mayan language. University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Flego, Stefon & Forrest, Jon (2021). Leveraging the temporal dynamics of anticipatory vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in linguistic prediction: A statistical modeling approach. Journal of Phonetics, 88 (1): 101093. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne & Waugh, Linda R. (2016). Discourse pragmatics and the verb: The evidence from Romance. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Olson, Mike (1985). Clausehood and verb serialization. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (Eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause (pp. 17–60). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. (2010). Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Isabelle Bril (Ed.) Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics (pp. 27–101). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew & Rubin, Donald B. (1992). Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences. Statistical Science, 7 (4), 457–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Hinrichs, Lars (2018). Restricting the restrictive relativizer: constraints on subject and non-subject English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 309–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. (2010). Useful corpus-linguistics statistics. In Aquilinio Sánchez & Moisés Almela (Eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches (pp. 269–291). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Guajardo, Gustavo (2021). Co-occurrence Strength and Transitivity Effects on Spanish Clitic Case Variation With Reverse-Psychological Predicates. Frontiers in Psychology, 121:712959. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory (1988). Advanced VARBRUL analysis. In Kathleen Ferrara, Becky Brown, Keith Walters, & John Baugh Linguistic change and contact: NWAV-XVI (Texas Linguistic Forum 30) (pp. 124–136). University of Texas, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Halsey, Lewis G. (2019). The reign of the p-value is over: what alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum?. Biology letters, 15 (5), 20190174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamel, Patricia J. (1993). Serial Verbs in Loniu and an Evolving Preposition. Oceanic Linguistics, 31 (1), 111–132. [URL]. DOI logo
Haspelmath, Martin (2016). The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. Language and Linguistics, 17 (3), 291–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert (2002). Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica, 36 (3–4), 141–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemoine, Nathan P. (2019). Moving beyond noninformative priors: why and how to choose weakly informative priors in Bayesian analyses. Oikos, 128 (7), 912–928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia (2016). When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 27 (2), 235–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Comparing Bayesian and frequentist models of language variation: The case of help + (to) infinitive. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E. (2007). Sentences as combinations of clauses. In Timothy Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (pp. 372–420). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Laurel (2020). Comparing Constraints on Contraction Using Bayesian Regression Modeling. Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 3 1, 581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam (2013). Syntactic variation and change: The variationist framework and language contact. In Isabelle Léglise & Claudine Chamoreau (Eds.), The interplay of variation and change in contact settings (pp. 23–52). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Turning variation on its head: Analysing subject prefixes in Nkep (Vanuatu) for language documentation. Asia-Pacific Language Variation, 1(1), 78 – 108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild (2011). Directional verbs in Vaeakau-Taumako. Oceanic Linguistics, 50 (1), 120–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nalborczyk, Ladislas, Batailler, Cédric, Lœvenbruck, Hélène, Vilain, Anne, & Bürkner, Paul-Christian (2019). An introduction to Bayesian multilevel models using brms: A case study of gender effects on vowel variability in standard Indonesian. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62 (5), 1225–1242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicenboim, Bruno, and Vasishth, Shravan (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational Ideas – Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10 (11), 591–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew (2003). Grammatical categories and grammaticisation in the Oceanic verb complex. In Anastasia Riehl and Thess Savella (Eds.), Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, 19 1, (pp. 149–172).Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Hammarström, Harald (2017). The Trans New Guinea family. In Bill Palmer (Ed.) The languages and linguistics of the New Guinea Area : A comprehensive guide (pp. 21–156). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Ross, Malcolm (2004a). The grammaticalization of directional verbs in Oceanic languages. In Isabelle Bril & Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre (Eds.), Complex predicates in Oceanic languages: Studies in the dynamics of binding and boundness (pp. 297–329). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b). Demonstratives, local nouns and directionals in Oceanic languages: A diachronic perspective. In Gunter Senft (Ed.), Deixis and demonstratives in Oceanic languages (pp. 175–204). Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(2008). A history of metatypy in the Bel languages. Journal of Language Contact, 2 (1), 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Takia. In John Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley (Eds.), The Oceanic languages (pp. 216–248). Routledge.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Gawne, Lauren, Hoenigman, Darja, Miller, Julia C., Spronck, Stef, Rumsey, Alan, Carroll, Alice & Evans, Nicholas (2012). Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Language Documentation and Conservation, 6 1, 135–174. [URL]
Schokkin, Dineke (2013). Directionals in Paluai: Semantics, use, and grammaticalization paths. Oceanic Linguistics, 52 (1), 169–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, Dineke (2014). Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson, Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 487–533). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Heylen, Kris, & Geeraerts, Dirk (Eds.) (2018). Mixed-effects regression models in linguistics. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperlich, Wolfgang B. (1993). Serial verb constructions in Namakir of Central Vanuatu. Oceanic Linguistics, 32 (1), 95–110. [URL]. DOI logo
Tagliamonte, Sali A., & Baayen, R. Harald (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/ were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24 (2), 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., & Smith, Jennifer (2006). Layering, competition and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica, 23 (2), 341–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. MIT press.Google Scholar
Terrell, Tracy D., Tschirner, Erwin & Nikolai, Brigitte (2005). Picture File to accompany Kontakte: A Communicative Approach, 5th edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., & Trousdale, Graeme. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 19, 44.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Ravenzwaaij, Don, Cassey, Pete & Brown, Scott D. (2018). A simple introduction to Markov Chain Monte–Carlo sampling. Psychon Bull Rev, 251, 143–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan & Nicenboim, Bruno (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational ideas–Part I. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(8), 349–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan, Chen, Zhong, Li, Qiang & Guo, Gueilan (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PloS one, 8 (10), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vehtari, Aki, Gelman, Andrew & Gabry, Jonah (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat Comput, 27 1, 1413–1432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp. 95–195). University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2013). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica, 30 (3), 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar