Project B11:
Semantic roles, case relations, and cross-clausal reference in Tibetan
SFB 441
Subprojects
Project B11
  Annotation
  Corpora
  Tree views
  Field work
  Publications

Statistical evaluation

Figures:
Realisation of arguments
Distribution of arguments (the ten most frequent roles)
Sensitivity of roles for deletion or omission
Congruence patterns between antecedents and anaphoric elements
Reference relations for zero-anaphora (distance-sentitive)

Realisation of arguments

The annotation revealed that, despite great differences in grammar and style and in the length of the annotation, all texts showed a similar behaviour with respect to argument realisation: more than 40% of all arguments remained non-realised, see Fig. 1.

The texts differ, however, in how many non-realised arguments have an explicit antecedent in the preceding text. This difference is pragmatically conditioned and genre-sensitive: The TVP has many doctrinal passages which do not refer to specific human actors and thus the corresponding arguments remain unspecified even without having an antecedent.

Fig. 1:  Relation between expected and non-realised arguments (total)

database

OTC

%

TVP

%

LLV

%

expected arguments (real complements)

505

 

1795

 

1335

 

realised arguments

269

53

999

56

758

57

empty arguments

198

39

639

36

440

33

empty arguments with antecedent

156

(79)

421

(66)

333

(76)

empty arguments without antecedent

42

(21)

218

(34)

107

(24)

omitted arguments

39

8

157

9

133

10

omitted arguments with antecedent

21

(54)

27

(17)

33

(25)

demonstrative pronouns

12

 

123

 

105

 

demonstrative pronouns with antecedent

8

(67)

95

(77)

98

(93)

demonstrative pronouns without antecedent

4

(33)

28

(23)

7

(7)

other figures
Distribution of arguments (the ten most frequent roles)
Sensitivity of roles for deletion or omission
Congruence patterns between antecedents and anaphoric elements
Reference relations for zero-anaphora (distance-sentitive)

top


Distribution of arguments (the ten most frequent roles)

Fig. 2 shows the ten most common roles, with and without regard of valency. For all roles and abbreviations see our definition of arguments. Somewhat unexpected, the texts show quite a similar (in part even identical) distribution for the first five most frequent roles. Among the next frequent roles, one finds more variation, but still some similarities. The high frequency of location arguments is particularly noteworthy: if valency is disregarded, LCT constitutes the third-most frequent role in all three texts (OTC: 12,28%, TVP: 10,03, LLV: 13,00%), after eA (20,20%, 18,94%, 22,84%) and P (13,27%, 12,70%, 15,56%). If valency is regarded, it is even the most frequent role (12,28%, 10,07%, 13%) before eA2 (8,32%, 9,81%, 10,07%) and P2 (TVP 8,97%) or R (OTC 7,92%, LLV 9,32%). This reflects the frequent occurrence of motion, position and existence verbs, while the high number of omissions (see Fig. 3) reflects the overall pertinence of locations throughout longer chains of events.

Fig. 2 The ten most frequent roles in the texts

valency-sensitive

 

OTC

TVP

LLV

 

roles

absolute

%

roles

absolute

%

roles

absolute

%

1

LCT

62

12,28

LCT

180

10,03

LCT

173

13,00

2

eA2

42

8,32

eA2

176

9,81

eA2

134

10,07

3

R

40

7,92

P2

161

8,97

R

124

9,32

4

P2

35

6,93

R

106

5,91

P2

94

7,06

5

CONTdir

31

6,14

CONTdir

103

5,74

eA2+

93

6,99

6

eA2+

27

5,35

eA2+

102

5,68

CONTdir

77

5,79

7

eA3

26

5,15

A1+

76

4,23

eA3

77

5,79

8

P3

24

4,75

U1

63

3,51

P3

66

4,96

9

U1

23

4,55

Ep2

56

3,12

HEAD

59

4,43

10

A1+

22

4,36

eA3

55

3,06

ATR

52

3,91

valency-non-sensitive

 

OTC

TVP

LLV

 

roles

absolute

%

roles

absolute

%

roles

absolute

%

1

eA

102

20,20

eA

340

18,94

eA

304

22,84

2

P

67

13,27

P

228

12,70

P

207

15,55

3

LCT

62

12,28

LCT

180

10,03

LCT

173

13,00

4

A

42

8,32

U

126

7,02

R

124

9,32

5

R

40

7,92

A

106

5,91

CONTdir

77

5,79

6

U

39

7,72

R

106

5,91

A

63

4,73

7

CONTdir

31

6,14

CONTdir

103

5,74

EXST

61

4,58

8

Ep

13

2,57

EXST

84

4,68

HEAD

59

4,43

9

CONTind

12

2,38

Ep

57

3,18

ATR

52

3,91

10

AFCp

11

2,18

AFCp

54

3,01

U

47

3,53

other figures
Realisation of arguments
Sensitivity of roles for deletion or omission
Congruence patterns between antecedents and anaphoric elements
Reference relations for zero-anaphora (distance-sentitive)

top




Sensitivity of roles for deletion or omission

Fig. 3 gives an overview, which roles are most sensitive to non-realisation. These are clearly the most salient roles, above all those related to humanity, that is semantic agents [+ctr] (A, eA), recipients (R), and ceptors [–ctr] (receptors and perceptors, Ep2). The most prototypical agent (eA2) of a prototypical transitive transformative [+ctr] action is realised only in about 25 to 36% of all instances, in the case of higher valency (eA2+, eA3), the percentage is even lower. Self-controlled movers and similar [+ctr] non-ergative arguments (A1+, A2) are also likely to be deleted. recipients, and ceptors are treated somewhat different in the

Patients are much less likely to be non-realised. However, whenever a chain of events concerns one and the same patient, it has to be obligatorily deleted in all clauses following ist explicit mentioning. This yields a fairly high number of symmetric P < P relations (deleted Ps following a P-antecedent). Most arguments are obligatory arguments, only the locational arguments  (LCT, SRC) and the addressee (R) are frequently omissible. Fig. 2 also shows that the more salient arguments occur with a higher frequency than less salient arguments, particularly if one disregards the valency distinctions: patients and recipients are more frequent than subjects of low transitivity. The high frequency of location arguments is noteworthy. For all roles and abbreviations see our definition of arguments.

(If diacritics are not properly displayed, please select the UTF-8 charset on your browser.)

Fig. 3: Sensitivity of roles for deletion or omission (exp. = expected, real. = realised, del. = deleted, om. = omitted)

peripheral non-subject roles

document

OTC

TVP

LLV

realisation

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

ATR

1

1

100,00

0

–

48

48

100,00

0

–

52*

52

100,00

0

–

RST

0

–

 –

–

–

13

13

100,00

0

–

7

6

85,71

1

–

PST

0

–

–

–

–

14

11

78,57

2

1

4

4

100,00

0

–

bArg

6

4

66,67

2

–

26

25

96,15

1

–

3

3

100,00

0

–

PARA

4

4

100,00

0

–

10

10

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

AFCp2

11

10

90,01

1

–

54

38

70,37

16

–

22

21

95,45

1

–

AFCe2

0

–

–

–

–

10

6

60,00

4

–

0

–

–

–

–

PATH

5

3

60,00

2

–

1

1

100,00

0

–

1

1

100,00

0

–

CONTdir

31

26

83,87

4

1

103

96

93,20

7

–

83

65

78,31

18

–

CONTind

12

9

75,00

3

–

12

12

100,00

0

–

2

2

100,00

0

–

CTC

8

7

87,50

1

–

12

11

91,67

1

–

1

0

0,00

1

–

INSTR

6

5

83,33

1

–

20

18

90,00

2

–

1

1

100,0

0

–

SRC

2

2

100,00

0

0

20

17

85,00

0

3

16

11

68,75

0

5

CREL

0

–

 –

–

–

6

6

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

demA

6

6

100,00

0

0

2

2

100,0

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

LCT

63

51

80,95

3

9

180

119

66,11

11

50

173

87

50,29

15

71

peripheral subject roles

document

OTC

TVP

LLV

realisation

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

HEAD

1

1

100,00

0

–

48

27

56,25

21

–

59

15

25,42

44*

–

EXST1

0

–

–

–

–

3

3

100,00

0

–

11

11

100,00

0

–

EXST1+

3

3

100,00

0

–

40

34

85,00

6

–

50

40

80,00

10

–

primary non-subject roles

document

OTC

TVP

LLV

realisation

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

TAR

7

4

57,14

3

–

18

9

50,00

8

1

27

23

85,19

4

–

R

40

7

17,50

8

25

106

25

23,58

15

66

124

61

49,19

19

44

P2

35

27

77,14

8

–

161

129

80,12

32

–

94

88

93,62

6

–

P2+

7

4

57,14

3

–

24

17

70,83

7

–

47

27

57,45

20

–

P3

24

23

95,83

1

–

39

25

64,10

14

–

66

57

86,36

9

–

P3+

0

–

–

–

–

3

1

33,33

2

–

0

–

– 

–

–

P4

1

1

100,00

0

–

1

0

0,00

1

–

0

–

– 

–

–

primary subject roles [–ctr]

document

OTC

TVP

LLV

realisation

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

exp.

real.

% real.

del.

om.

EXST2

6

6

100,00

0

–

37

37

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

EXST2+

0

–

–

–

–

3

2

66,67

1

–

0

–

–

–

–

EXST3

0

–

–

–

–

1

1

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

U1

23

18

78,26

5

–

63

44

69,84

19

–

20

17

85,00

3

–

U1+

3

0

0,00

3

–

9

6

66,67

3

–

7

7

100,00

0

–

U2

13

7

53,85

6

–

54

23

42,59

29

2

18

11

61,11

7

–

U3

0

–

–

–

–

0

–

–

–

–

2

1

50,00

1

–

Ee2

0

–

–

–

–

10

6

60,00

4

–

0

–

–

–

–

Eg2

0

–

–

–

–

5

5

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

Ee3

0

–

–

–

–

0

–

–

–

–

1

1

100,00

0

–

Ep2

14

1

7,14

13

–

57

19

33,33

38

–

24

15

62,50

9

–

Ep2+

0

–

–

–

–

1

1

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

POSS

6

2

33,33

4

–

36

20

55,56

16

–

–

–

–

–

–

CU1

0

–

–

–

–

10

8

80,00

2

–

0

–

–

–

–

CU1+

0

–

–

–

–

1

1

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

CU2

0

–

–

–

–

3

3

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

CEXST1+

0

–

–

–

–

1

1

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

CA1+

0

–

–

–

–

1

1

100,00

0

–

0

–

–

–

–

CeA2

0

–

–

–

–

1

0

0,00

1

–

0

–

–

–

–

ME1

0

–

–

–

–

0

–

–

–

–

1

1

100,00

0