Map** ‘when’-clauses in Latin American and Caribbean languages:
an experiment in subtoken-based typology

Abstract

Languages can encode temporal subordination lexically, via subordinating conjunctions, and morphologically, by marking the relation on the predicate. Systematic cross-linguistic variation among the former can be studied using well-established token-based typological approaches to token-aligned parallel corpora. Variation among different morphological means is instead much harder to tackle and therefore more poorly understood, despite being predominant in several language groups. This paper explores variation in the expression of generic temporal subordination (‘when’-clauses) among the languages of Latin America and the Caribbean, where morphological marking is particularly common. It presents probabilistic semantic maps computed on the basis of the languages of the region, thus avoiding bias towards the many world’s languages that exclusively use lexified connectors, incorporating associations between character $n$-grams and English when. The approach allows capturing morphological clause-linkage devices in addition to lexified connectors, paving the way for larger-scale, strategy-agnostic analyses of typological variation in temporal subordination.

Map** ‘when’-clauses in Latin American and Caribbean languages:
an experiment in subtoken-based typology

Nilo Pedrazzini The Alan Turing Institute (London, United Kingdom) [email protected]

1 Introduction

Across the 7000+ world’s languages recorded by the Glottolog database (Nordhoff and Hammarström 2011, Hammarström et al. 2023) there is great variation in how temporal relations between different eventualities can be encoded in a sentence or discourse unit. English has one main generic temporal subordinator, when, which is relatively underspecified with respect to the temporal semantic relation between the clause it introduces and its matrix clause, compared to semantically more precise connectors (e.g. after, before, or while). The number and scope of generic temporal subordinators can vary cross-linguistically from one (e.g. Italian quando), to two (e.g. German wenn/als) or several more (e.g. Pular nde/si/​bay/fewndo/tuma; Evans 2017; Pedrazzini 2023). Crucially, languages can additionally or exclusively encode when-clauses morphologically on the predicate, rather than using a lexified subordinator (cf. Spanish viendo ‘see.ger’ as opposed to cuando vio ‘when saw.3.sg’; Ukrainian pobačyvšy ‘see.ger’ as opposed to koly vyn pobačyv ‘when he saw’). Because of the very nature of competition, overarching semantic differences between subordination strategies within individual languages cannot be fully captured in terms of discrete, categorical variables, but they should be modeled as a continuum allowing for a degree of overlap, aiming to reveal broader patterns in a probabilistic, rather than a fully deterministic way. Previous studies (Haug and Pedrazzini 2023) have employed a ‘token-based approach’ (Levshina 2019, 2022) to explore the semantic ground covered by English when and induce cross-linguistically common semantic dimensions from parallel corpora. In Haug and Pedrazzini (2023), probabilistic semantic maps (Croft and Poole 2008; Wälchli and Cysouw 2012) of when were generated from a massively parallel corpus of 1400+ linguistic varieties (Mayer and Cysouw 2014), to capture systematic variation in the ways languages tend to divide the semantic space of English when by using different lexical items for its different meanings. One of the greatest limitations of a purely token-based typological approach to the study of temporal subordination in the world’s languages is that it does not allow to account for variation within the semantic space covered by non-lexified when-clauses cross-linguistically. That is, it will merely allow us to observe that particular subsets of when-occurrences are more likely to lack a parallel token in the target languages, without further identifying typologically widespread constructions (or gram types; Dahl and Wälchli 2016) within the semantic sub-space of non-lexified when-clauses.

While languages using predominantly or exclusively morphological means to express generic temporal subordination are relatively uncommon among European languages, non-lexified when-clauses are instead particularly frequent among Latin American languages, as evidenced by the plethora of areal studies on converbal, clause-bridging, and, especially, switch-reference morphology in the region (among others, van Gijn et al. 2011; van Gijn 2012, 2016; Overall 2014, 2016).

This paper zooms in on the languages of Latin American and the Caribbean, given the particular computational challenges posed by their common, extensive use of non-lexified when-clauses (exclusively so or in addition to lexified means). As in previous experiments, Mayer and Cysouw’s (2014) massively parallel corpus of New Testament translations is used, and probabilistic semantic maps are adopted as a base method to induce typologically relevant dimensions within the semantic space of when, since they allow capturing the gradience and overlap between different means in any given language, as well as the language-internal variation which is inherent to the very concept of competition. The goal of this paper is twofold:

• incorporate associations between character $n$-grams and English when for capturing differences among when-clauses that are expressed morphologically as well as lexically, and generate probabilistic semantic maps based on the parallel dataset thus refined. As detailed in Section 2, this method builds on Asgari and Schütze’s (2017) ‘SuperPivot’ approach, but with substantial changes to their pipeline. Crucially, it gets rid of the assumption that there should be at most one ‘pivot’ (i.e. a marker in a parallel language) per linguistic feature (e.g. ‘past’ in Asgari and Schütze’s 2017 example), reflecting instead the existing typological knowledge about the nature of generic temporal subordination as a phenomenon with great language-internal variation. The code to achieve this is released alongside this paper as a generalized tool, which starts from one or several lexical items in a source language and can be used to look for systematic cross-linguistic variation in a parallel dataset, both at the lexical and morphological level;

• generate probabilistic semantic maps that are built exclusively on the basis of the languages of the region, thus avoiding bias towards the many world’s languages that exclusively or predominantly use lexified connectors. The resulting maps and parallel data enriched with $n$-gram annotation are also released to facilitate future computational experiments.

2 Methods

Dataset creation

The Latin American and Caribbean parallel language data used in this experiment is a subset of Mayer and Cysouw’s (2014) massively parallel corpus. To identify Latin American and Caribbean varieties in the massively parallel corpus, a GeoJSON dataset was manually created using https://geojson.io/ to define the geographical region of interest. The approximate coordinates for each language variety in the dataset were taken from Glottolog and assigned to each New Testament translation based on its associated ISO 639-3 code. All varieties whose approximate coordinates were outside of the polygon defined by the GeoJSON dataset were filtered out from the corpus. The resulting data consisted of 335 varieties, representing approximately one-third of all the languages (1,005) recorded for Latin America and the Caribbean by Glottolog. Figure 1 shows the areal distribution of the languages in our dataset among all the languages with an ISO 639-3 code from the region.

Figure 1: Approximate areal distribution of the languages in the dataset (orange) among the languages listed by Glottolog for the region (blue).

Word alignment & semantic map**

SyMGIZA++ (Junczys-Dowmunt and Szał 2012) was used to align the English version of the New Testament to each of the translations in our dataset at the token level, achieving a one-to-one token alignment for each language (i.e. each English token corresponds to at most one token in the target language, in contrast to possible one-to-many or many-to-one alignments). The occurrences of English when and its parallels in all Latin American and Caribbean languages in the dataset were then extracted. The quality of the automatic alignment was evaluated based on a sample of 300 when-clauses manually aligned to the Huichol translation, against which automatic alignment achieved a precision of 0.66, recall of 1, and F1-score of 0.79.

Each instance of when and its parallel in every target language was treated as one usage point for when. Hamming distance was applied as a measure of dissimilarity between pairs of usage points, by counting the number of languages using two different words, as opposed to the same word, for the two usage points in each pair. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was then used to reduce the resulting Hamming-distance matrix to two dimensions, which were then treated as coordinates to plot the semantic map of when as shown in Figure 2. Each dot in the semantic map represents a context for when (i.e., a New Testament verse), and the farther apart two dots are, the more different their semantics is assumed to be, and the more likely they are to be encoded by different linguistic means cross-linguistically.

Figure 2: Unlabelled semantic map of when.

Benchmarking

As a form of evaluation of the methods and results, this experiment leveraged detailed typological and grammatical descriptions of the morphological system of one particular Latin American language, Huichol (or Wixárika). Huichol is among the several Latin American languages that show a clear division of labor between lexified and non-lexified when-clauses (Pedrazzini 2023). In particular, Huichol uses switch-reference marking, a morphological system for tracking referents in an ongoing discourse (Roberts 2017, 538). In a ‘canonical’ switch-reference system (cf. Haiman and Munro 1983, ix), a clause is marked to signal whether its subject is co-referential or not with the subject of another, usually adjacent, clause, even though switch-reference has now long been shown to serve a much broader purpose than merely signaling referential (non-)identity (cf. Stirling 1993; McKenzie 2012, 2015a, 2015b; Keine 2013). With subject co-reference, a same-subject marker is used (ss), else a different-subject marker is employed (ds). Switch-reference is overwhelmingly present in languages that allow and use clause chaining, which is the possibility of asyndetically stacking up several deranked verb forms (Stassen 1985; Croft 2002; Cristofaro 1998, 2019), that is, lacking marking of one or more tense, aspect, or mood distinctions compared to independent clauses in the same language, to signal their status as ‘medial’ clauses or ‘converbs’. Switch-reference marking is well-known to serve that purpose particularly commonly among South American languages (cf. van Gijn 2016). In other words, by capturing switch-reference markers, we also capture the morphological means (i.e. the $n$-grams, or most common morphemes) that signal subordination, in our case, specifically, temporal clauses. (b.) is a Huichol example of canonical switch-reference from our dataset, where switch-reference markers are used on the dependent verb to signal its subordinate status, where the English version has a when-clause in both cases.

Huichol/Wixárika (Uto-Aztecan)

• Hesüana me-’u’-axüa-cu müpaü ti-ni-va-ru-ta-hüave to.him 3.pl.sbj-vis-arrive.pl-ds thus distr-narr-3.pl.nsbj-pl-sg-say ‘When they came to him he said to them’ (Acts 20:18)

• Hesüana me-’u’-axüa-ca müme, müpaü me-te-ni-ta-hüave to.him 3.pl.sbj-vis-arrive.pl-ss men thus 3.pl.sbj-distr-narr-sg-say ‘When the men had come to him they said’ (Luke 7:20)

Huichol additionally has a lexified ‘when’ subordinator (quepaucua), in which case switch-reference marking is absent, as in (2).

Mericüsü quepaucua yemuri-sie m-a-ca-ne, teüteri yumüiretü me-ca-n-i-veiya-caitüni then when mountain-loc as2-pro-down-arrive.pfv, people many 3.pl.sbj-narr-narr-3.sg.obj-follow-ipfv ‘When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him’ (Matthew 8:1)

The concurrent presence of both a lexified connector and easily isolable morphemes for morphological subordination makes the language an ideal initial benchmark for experimenting with automatically detecting morphological and lexified markers of temporal subordination in the parallel corpus. As a form of evaluation for the character $n$-gram search system described below, the Huichol translation of the New Testament was enriched with annotation for different switch-reference markers. The markers were identified by using existing descriptions of Huichol switch-reference (i.e. Comrie 1983, 1982; Bierge 2017). The language has easily isolable switch-reference morphemes, namely -ku and -ka (spelled as -cu and ca in our dataset), for ‘different-subject’ and ‘same-subject’ marker, so the placeholders ds and ss were inserted before any word in the Huichol text ending with the respective forms, thus allowing the alignment model to capture the placeholders as dummy subordinators. Based on the annotated dataset, the location of ss and ds markers in the semantic map (Figure 3) can be compared with the location of morphological markers identified automatically via character $n$-gram search (Figure 4 in Section 3).

Figure 3: Probabilistic semantic map of when, showing the location of lexified subordinators and switch-reference markers in Huichol after direct annotation (used as benchmark).

N-gram search

Character $n$-grams were leveraged to identify potential morphological markers that are highly correlated with English when-clauses in our dataset, in addition to lexified means. As mentioned in the Introduction, the identification of potentially meaningful $n$-grams (i.e. those expressing a particular meaning of when) is based on the approach by Asgari and Schütze (2017), albeit with additional steps and different $n$-gram ranges. Similarly to Asgari and Schütze (2017), $\chi^{2}$ is used as a score of association between a ‘head pivot’ (in our case always when) and a character $n$-gram, and it is calculated based on how many times when is aligned to a word containing that $n$-gram, how many times it is aligned to other $n$-grams and the frequency of both when and the $n$-gram. The raw alignments by SymGIZA++ were used as a starting point to identify tokens on which the $n$-gram search should be carried out. The following steps were followed to subsequently refine the parallel dataset with potentially meaningful $n$-grams:

• a bespoke list of stopwords in English was established, based on their being either extremely frequent (Jesus, Herod, Peter, Paul) or very likely to introduce noise in a study on temporal subordination because of their distributional overlap with subordinators in terms of absolute position in a sentence (and, behold, then). $\chi^{2}$ was used to find highly associated forms and parallel forms with an associated $p$-value of $0$ were removed from the target language;

• associations were identified between when and all tokens aligned to when by SymGIZA++. Only tokens with the highest score and a $p$-value of $0$ were kept as they were and did not undergo the next steps;

• using spaCy’s (Honnibal and Montani 2017) English model en_core_web_sm, the English source text was automatically annotated for syntactic dependency to identify the head of the token when. This allowed for the verb of the when-clause to be extracted and the parallel verb in the translation to be identified. This choice was informed by the observation that languages marking subordination on the verb itself (i.e. non-lexified when-clauses) are much more likely to have an empty token <NOMATCH> aligned to English when rather than the verb itself, so that the latter must be included in the search for meaningful character $n$-grams associated with when;

• associations were identified between when and $n$-grams of any size between 2 and 9 for all remaining tokens aligned to either when or its head verb;

• the top-scoring 200 $n$-grams (by $\chi^{2}$) were then sorted by the number of times when was found to cooccur with the $n$-gram. The top-scoring 20 $n$-grams among the latter were then extracted as potentially meaningful $n$-grams;

• the 20 extracted $n$-grams were clustered to attempt capturing groups of $n$-grams that are likely to be allomorphs of the same morpheme. Clustering was done using DBSCAN after converting the list of $n$-grams to a matrix of TF-IDF features. DBSCAN was selected after comparison with several other clustering algorithms (i.e. K-Means, K-Means++, Agglomerative Clustering, and Gaussian Mixture Modelling).

• Each cluster of $n$-grams was assigned the placeholder label ngram_1…ngram_N, where N is the number of potentially meaningful $n$-gram clusters found for any given language.

Geostatistical interpolation

Ordinary Kriging was then used to interpolate the linguistic items (i.e. the parallel token, if any, to when, or the $n$-gram placeholder label) used in each data point by each language in the dataset, to look for semantically relevant cross-linguistic dimensions. The Kriging model was implemented using the PyKrige library (Müller et al. 2023), with a Gaussian variogram model, a single averaging bin for the variogram (nlag), and coordinates_type set to geographic. The optimal range, sill, and nugget values for the Kriging models were set through a trial-and-error calibration process. Different combinations of these parameters were tested, and the ones used to produce the maps presented in Section 3 were chosen based on the interpretability of the resulting contour maps, with particular attention to the map for Huichol, thanks to the additional automatic annotation performed on the language using external knowledge bases. The contour levels generated through Kriging were normalized between 0 and 1 to facilitate the interpretation of the relative intensity of a linguistic means in the semantic space so that the closer the contour level to 1, the more intense the concentration of the respective means in the area. In the maps in Section 3, contours are plotted at all levels between 0.8 and 1.

The advantage of employing a geostatistical approach, such as Ordinary Kriging, for map** language patterns is its ability to account for spatial autocorrelation (cf. Getis 2008), which facilitates the nuanced weighting of variables based on their prevalence and intensity across geographical space. While one linguistic means might be more widespread in terms of raw occurrence count in a given region of the semantic map, Kriging allows us to discern the spatial intensity of competing means. This, in turn, can clarify whether other means, despite being less prevalent overall, are more concentrated in that area and therefore more directly representative of the meaning associated with the respective space in the semantic map.

In the Kriging maps in Section 3, the placeholders for the $n$-grams are used instead of the actual list of $n$-grams.

3 Results

Huichol

Figure 4 shows the Kriging map generated from the Huichol data automatically refined with the $n$-gram search method. This can be compared with the labeled map in Figure 3, which, as explained in the previous section, is instead based on the Huichol data directly annotated with switch-reference markers as presented in typological descriptions of the language.

Figure 4: Kriging map of when for Huichol.

Kriging detected relatively clearly separate areas (i.e. contexts or usage points) for lexified means (quepaucua), clustering at the bottom right of the map, and non-lexified means, corresponding to ngram_1 and ngram_2 in the map and clustering at the top of the map. NOMATCH indicates the absence of a parallel to English when, which suggests either a misalignment or the usage of a non-subordinate construction (e.g. an independent clause or a prepositional phrase, e.g. ‘during dinner’). It is clear that the two automatically identified groups of $n$-grams, ngram_1 and ngram_2, in the Huichol map correspond to ds and ss markers respectively. The ngram_1 group includes u, su, usu, cusu, icusu, ricusu, ericusu, whereas ngram_2 includes ca, aca, eca, ieca, yaca, iyaca, xeiyaca, eiyaca, nieca, which match the known switch-reference markers -ku and -ka (spelled as -cu and ca in our dataset) for ds and and ss respectively (Comrie 1983).

Based on the Huichol results, automatic word-alignment combined with the $n$-gram search method achieves a precision of 0.90, recall of 0.99, and F1-score of 0.94, calculated upon comparison with another manually annotated random sample of 300 English-Huichol when-clauses with added switch-reference distinctions (i.e. English when was manually aligned to either quepaucua ‘when’, ds, or ss).

Switch-reference languages

A clear validation of our method comes from the Quechuan languages in our dataset. According to van Gijn (2016, 168-169), all Quechuan languages have switch-reference marking, albeit with some differences in the markers used and their semantic scope. A closer inspection of the maps reveals that all Quechuan languages in our dataset show, in fact, a clear division of labor between the bottom and top of the map. Most commonly, the former is a NOMATCH area, whereas the top areas are instead most clearly under the scope of switch-reference markers. This is clearly the case, for example, in Ambo-Pasco Quechua (Figure 5(a)), from Peru, where the ngram_1 group at the top of the map includes r, ar, ur, cur, ycur, aycur, car, all of which contain the distinctive -r ss marker of some Quechuan I subgroups (cf. van Gijn 2016, 168).

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 5: Kriging maps of when for three Latin American languages.

Another example is the map for Bolivar-North Chimborazo Highland Quichua (Figure 5(b)), from Ecuador. In this case, an ngram_1 Kriging area was detected alongside a potentially lexified subordinator ña. The $n$-gram group includes aca, paca, hpaca, shpaca, ushpaca, ashpaca, where the Quechuan II ss marker, /S/, spelled sh, can be discerned (van Gijn 2016, 171).

A similar split, where the top area of the map is dominated by a $n$-gram group, is also found outside of Quechuan. This is the case, for instance, of Cavineña (Figure 5(c)), a Pano-Tacanan language of the Amazonian plains of northern Bolivia, where ngram_1 includes u, su, tsu, atsu, aatsu, catsu, baatsu, acatsu, bacatsu, itsu, where the ss marker -tsu (cf. Guillaume 2008, 2011) can be seen.

The semantic maps for several other varieties from different language families show a division of labor similar to the Huichol one, between lexified means at the bottom of the map and $n$-gram groups (i.e. likely morphologically encoded when-clauses) at the top of the map, as in Chuy (Mayan, Guatemala; Figure 6(a)), Comaltepec Chinantec (Otomanguean, Mexico; Figure 6(b)), or Terena-Kinikinao-Chane (Arawakan, Bolivia; Figure 6(c)).

Beyond switch-reference

The integration of character $n$-grams to the semantic map of when was primarily driven by the aim of capturing morphological means of marking generic temporal subordination, which these examples from Latin American languages indicate as promising, especially in light of the known switch-reference markers captured in the maps. However, as mentioned in Section 1, there is great linguistic variation in the Latin American and Caribbean region and the new semantic maps helped capture more than just $n$-gram groups overlap** with the switch-reference markers in Huichol or Quechuan languages. Several languages, for instance, show an inverted pattern to the Huichol one, with a lexicalized means at the top of the map and an $n$-gram area at the bottom, as in Ticuna (Ticuna-Yuri, Western Amazon; Figure 6(d)) or Lomeriano-Ignaciano Chiquitano (Chiquitano, Bolivia; Figure 6(e)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

Figure 6: Kriging maps of when showing some of the systematic variation in the dataset.

Yet others only use one $n$-gram for both the bottom and top areas, as in Tabasco Chontal (Mayan, Mexico; Figure 6(f)), or only lexified means, as in San Mateo del Mar Huave (Huavean/Isolate, Mexico; Figure 6(g)), Nivaclé (Matacoan, Argentina and Paraguay; Figure 6(h)), Kaqchikel (Mayan, Guatemala; Figure 6(i)), Guerrero Amuzgo (Otomanguean, Mexico; Figure 6(j)), Pichis Ashéninka (Arawakan, Peru; Figure 6(k)), and Chamacoco (Zamucoan, Paraguay; Figure 6(l)).

4 Conclusion & Future Work

Summary and findings

This paper has presented probabilistic semantic maps of when-clauses based on a parallel corpus of New Testament translations in Latin American and Caribbean languages. The rationale behind this study was the observation that when-clauses in the Latin American region are often encoded morphologically (exclusively or predominantly so, i.e. in addition to lexified subordinators), which in previous token-based experiments (i.e. based only on full-token correspondences between languages) represented one of the main hurdles for the detection of systematic cross-linguistic variation in the expression of generic temporal subordination.

It built on previous approaches based on correspondences between a source word (English when) and character $n$-grams, using association measures to detect meaningful groups of $n$-grams that are likely to represent a particular morphological marker encoding temporal subordination in each target language. The approach has yielded results that are clearly helpful in identifying morphologically-encoded when-clauses in languages where switch-reference markers (same-subject or different-subject marking) are employed to mark a predicate as subordinate to their matrix clause. The identification of groups of $n$-grams as switch-reference markers in some of the languages in the corpus was achieved by consulting descriptive grammars and language-specific typological studies (e.g. on the Quechuan morphological system), but also because of the use of Huichol, a Mexican language with switch-reference morphology, as a point of reference to build a small benchmark and optimize hyperparameters during the generation of the semantic maps.

Future research

Future studies may want to experiment with different $n$-gram sizes and different association measures and Kriging parameters, as well as use languages other than Huichol as benchmarks for the calibration of the Kriging models. Languages showing an opposite pattern to that of Huichol (i.e. a lexified means where Huichol has a morphological means, and vice versa) would particularly benefit from a close-reading evaluation to ascertain whether the method did manage to capture morphologically-expressed when-clauses as accurately as their opposite pattern.

Finally, the semantic dimensions in the maps have not been fully analyzed, and future studies will take a systematic approach to identifying clusters of observations that are frequently co-expressed, whether morphologically or lexically, across the languages of the corpus, and will establish whether such clusters represent cross-linguistically relevant gram types.

Limitations

The main limitation of this experiment is that evaluation, including hyperparameter optimization for the Kriging models, was based on one particular language, Huichol, because of the well-studied subordination system and the presence of a lexified subordinator in addition to the widely employed morphological means (switch-reference). Moreover, not only is switch-reference only one of the several attested morphological means to convey generic temporal subordination cross-linguistically, but there are also major differences between switch-reference systems (both in terms of the set of markers available to a language, but also their range of functions). The hyperparameters tuning based on Huichol has likely introduced some bias towards languages that have a similar system (i.e. one lexified counterpart to English when alongside switch-reference morphology), potentially obscuring other relevant typological dimensions (e.g. systematic clause-bridging marking).

The $n$-gram approach identifies groups of character $n$-grams, but does not yet provide a straightforward way of selecting one particular set of characters as the representative morpheme from a series of potential allomorphs. A tentative solution could be extracting the shortest allomorph, or the allomorph representing the common denominator among all $n$-grams in a set. However, this has not been tested and we have simply numbered each group of $n$-grams while kee** track of what forms each group contains for subsequent easier retrieval and inspection, if needed.