Past, Present, Future: A Computational Investigation of the Typology of
Tense in 1000 Languages
Ehsaneddin Asgari1,2 and Hinrich Schütze1
1

2

Center for Information and Language Processing, LMU Munich, Germany
Applied Science and Technology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA,
inquiries@cislmu.org

arXiv:1704.08914v2 [cs.CL] 14 Sep 2017

Abstract
We present SuperPivot, an analysis
method for low-resource languages that
occur in a superparallel corpus, i.e., in a
corpus that contains an order of magnitude more languages than parallel corpora
currently in use. We show that SuperPivot
performs well for the crosslingual analysis
of the linguistic phenomenon of tense.
We produce analysis results for more than
1000 languages, conducting – to the best
of our knowledge – the largest crosslingual computational study performed to
date. We extend existing methodology for
leveraging parallel corpora for typological
analysis by overcoming a limiting assumption of earlier work: We only require
that a linguistic feature is overtly marked
in a few of thousands of languages as
opposed to requiring that it be marked in
all languages under investigation.

1

Introduction

Significant linguistic resources such as machinereadable lexicons and part-of-speech (POS) taggers are available for at most a few hundred languages. This means that the majority of the
languages of the world are low-resource. Lowresource languages like Fulani are spoken by tens
of millions of people and are politically and economically important; e.g., to manage a sudden
refugee crisis, NLP tools would be of great benefit. Even “small” languages are important for
the preservation of the common heritage of humankind that includes natural remedies and linguistic and cultural diversity that can potentially
enrich everybody. Thus, developing analysis
methods for low-resource languages is one of the
most important challenges of NLP today.

We address this challenge by proposing a new
method for analyzing what we call superparallel
corpora, corpora that are by an order of magnitude
more parallel than corpora that have been available
in NLP to date. The corpus we work with in this
paper is the Parallel Bible Corpus (PBC) that consists of translations of the New Testament in 1169
languages. Given that no NLP analysis tools are
available for most of these 1169 languages, how
can we extract the rich information that is potentially hidden in such superparallel corpora?
The method we propose is based on two hypotheses. H1 Existence of overt encoding. For
any important linguistic distinction f that is frequently encoded across languages in the world,
there are a few languages that encode f overtly
on the surface. H2 Overt-to-overt and overt-tonon-overt projection. For a language l that encodes f , a projection of f from the “overt languages” to l in the superparallel corpus will identify the encoding that l uses for f , both in cases
in which the encoding that l uses is overt and in
cases in which the encoding that l uses is nonovert. Based on these two hypotheses, our method
proceeds in 5 steps.
1. Selection of a linguistic feature. We select a
linguistic feature f of interest. Running example:
We select past tense as feature f .
2. Heuristic search for head pivot. Through
a heuristic search, we find a language lh that contains a head pivot ph that is highly correlated with
the linguistic feature of interest.
Running example: ”ti” in Seychelles Creole
(CRS). CRS “ti” meets our requirements for a
head pivot well as will be verified empirically in
§3. First, ”ti” is a surface marker: it is easily
identifable through whitespace tokenization and it
is not ambiguous, e.g., it does not have a second
meaning apart from being a grammatical marker.
Second, ”ti” is a good marker for past tense in

terms of both “precision” and “recall”. CRS has
mandatory past tense marking (as opposed to languages in which tense marking is facultative) and
”ti” is highly correlated with the general notion of
past tense.
This does not mean that every clause that a linguist would regard as past tense is marked with
”ti” in CRS. For example, some tense-aspect configurations that are similar to English present perfect are marked with ”in” in CRS, not with ”ti”
(e.g., ENG “has commanded” is translated as “in
ordonn”).
Our goal is not to find a head language and a
head pivot that is a perfect marker of f . Such a
head pivot probably does not exist; or, more precisely, linguistic features are not completely rigorously defined. In a sense, one of the significant
contributions of this work is that we provide more
rigorous definitions of past tense across languages;
e.g., ”ti” in CRS is one such rigorous definition
of past tense and it automatically extends (through
projection) to 1000 languages in the superparallel
corpus.
3. Projection of head pivot to larger pivot
set. Based on an alignment of the head language
to the other languages in the superparallel corpus,
we project the head pivot to all other languages
and search for highly correlated surface markers,
i.e., we search for additional pivots in other languages. This projection to more pivots achieves
three goals. First, it makes the method more robust. Relying on a single pivot would result in
many errors due to the inherent noisiness of linguistic data and because several components we
use (e.g., alignment of the languages in the superparallel corpus) are imperfect. Second, as we
discussed above, the head pivot does not necessarily have high “recall”; our example was that
CRS “ti” is not applied to certain clauses that
would be translated using present perfect in English. Thus, moving to a larger pivot set increases
recall. Third, as we will see below, the pivot set
can be leveraged to create a fine-grained map of
the linguistic feature. Consider clauses referring
to eventualities in the past that English speakers
would render in past progressive, present perfect
and simple past tense. Our hope is that the pivot
set will cover these distinctions, i.e., one of the
pivots marks past progressive, but not present prefect and simple past, another pivot marks present
perfect, but not the other two and so on. It is

beyond the scope of this paper to verify that we
can produce such an analysis for all linguistic features, but a promising example of this type of map,
including distinctions like progressive and perfective aspect, is given in §4.
Running example: We compute the correlation
of “ti” with words in other languages and select the
100 highest correlated words as pivots. Examples
of pivots we find this way are Torres Strait Creole “bin” (from English “been”) and Tzotzil “laj”.
“laj” is a perfective marker, e.g., “Laj meltzaj -uk”
‘LAJ be-made subj’ means “It’s done being built”
(Aissen, 1987).
4. Projection of pivot set to all languages.
Now that we have a large pivot set, we project the
pivots to all other languages to search for linguistic devices that express the linguistic feature f . Up
to this point, we have made the assumption that it
is easy to segment text in all languages into pieces
of a size that is not too small (individual characters of the Latin alphabet would be too small) and
not too large (entire sentences as tokens would be
too large). Segmentation on standard delimiters
is a good approximation for the majority of languages – but not for all: it undersegments some
(e.g., the polysynthetic language Inuit) and oversegments others (e.g., languages that use punctuation marks as regular characters).
For this reason, we do not employ tokenization
in this step. Rather we search for character ngrams (2 ≤ n ≤ 6) to find linguistic devices that
express f . This implementation of the search procedure is a limitation – there are many linguistic
devices that cannot be found using it, e.g., templates in templatic morphology. We leave addressing this for future work (§7).
Running example: We find “-ed” for English
and “-te” for German as surface features that are
highly correlated with the 100 past tense pivots.
5. Linguistic analysis. The result of the previous steps is a superparallel corpus that is richly annotated with information about linguistic feature
f . This structure can be exploited for the analysis
of a single language li that may be the focus of
a linguistic investigation. Starting with the character n-grams that were found in the step “projection of pivot set to all languages”, we can explore
their use and function, e.g, for the mined n-gram
“-ed” in English (assuming English is the language
li and it is unfamiliar to us). Many of the other
1000 languages provide annotations of linguistic

feature f for li : both the languages that are part of
the pivot set (e.g., Tzotzil “laj”) and the mined ngrams in other languages that we may have some
knowledge of (e.g., “-te” in German).
We can also use the structure we have generated for typological analysis across languages
following the work of Michael Cysouw. He
has pioneered a new methodology for typology
((Cysouw, 2014), §5). We do not contribute any
innovations to typology in this paper, but our
method is a significant advancement computationally over Cysouw’s work because we overcome
many of his limiting assumptions. Most importantly, our method scales to thousands of languages as we demonstrate below whereas Cysouw
worked on a few dozen.
Running example: We sketch the type of analysis that our new method makes possible in §4.
The above steps “1. heuristic search for head
pivot” and “2. projection of head pivot to larger
pivot set” are based on H1: we assume the existence of overt coding in a subset of languages.
The above steps “2. projection of head pivot to
larger pivot set” and “3. projection of pivot set
to all languages” are based on H2: we assume
that overt-to-overt and overt-to-non-overt projection is possible.
In the rest of the paper, we will refer to the
method that consists of steps 1 to 5 as SuperPivot:
“linguistic analysis of SUPERparallel corpora using surface PIVOTs”.
We make three contributions. (i) Our basic hypotheses are H1 and H2. (H1) For an important
linguistic feature, there exist a few languages that
mark it overtly and easily recognizably. (H2) It
is possible to project overt markers to overt and
non-overt markers in other languages. Based on
these two hypotheses we design SuperPivot, a new
method for analyzing highly parallel corpora, and
show that it performs well for the crosslingual
analysis of the linguistic phenomenon of tense.
(ii) Given a superparallel corpus, SuperPivot can
be used for the analysis of any low-resource language represented in that corpus. In the supplementary material, we present results of our analysis for three tenses (past, present, future) for 11631
languages. An evaluation of accuracy is presented
in Table 3.2. (iii) We extend Michael Cysouw’s pioneering work on typological analysis using paral-

1. Selection of a linguistic feature. The linguistic
feature of interest f is selected by the person who
performs a SuperPivot analysis, i.e., by a linguist,
NLP researcher or data scientist. Henceforth, we
will refer to this person as the linguist.
In this paper, f ∈ F = {past, present, future}.
2. Heuristic search for head pivot. There are
several ways for finding the head language and the
head pivot. Perhaps the linguist knows a language
that has a good head pivot. Or she is a trained typologist and can find the head pivot by consulting
the typological literature.
In this paper, we use our knowledge of English
and an alignment from English to all other languages to find head pivots. (See below for details
on alignment.) We define a “query” in English
and search for words that are highly correlated to
the query in other languages. For future tense, the
query is simply the word “will”, so we search for
words in other languages that are highly correlated
with “will”. For present tense, the query is the
union of “is”, “are” and “am”. So we search for
words in other languages that are highly correlated
with the “merger” of these three words. For past
tense, we POS tag the English part of PBC and
merge all words tagged as past tense into one past
tense word.2 We then search for words in other
languages that are highly correlated with this artificial past tense word.
As an additional constraint, we do not select the
most highly correlated word as the head pivot, but
the most highly correlated word in a Creole language. Our rationale is that Creole languages are
more regular than other languages because they
are young and have not accumulated “historical
baggage” that may make computational analysis
more difficult.
Table 1 lists the three head pivots for F .
3. Projection of head pivot to larger pivot set.
We first use fast align (Dyer et al., 2013) to align

1
We exclude six of the 1169 languages because they do
not share enough verses with the rest.

2
Past tense is defined as tags BED, BED*, BEDZ,
BEDZ*, DOD*, VBD, DOD. We use NLTK (Bird, 2006).

lel corpora by overcoming several limiting factors.
The most important is that Cysouw’s method is
only applicable if markers of the relevant linguistic
feature are recognizable on the surface in all languages. In contrast, we only assume that markers
of the relevant linguistic feature are recognizable
on the surface in a small number of languages.

2

SuperPivot: Description of method

the head language to all other languages in the corpus. This alignment is on the word level.
We compute a score for each word in each language based on the number of times it is aligned
to the head pivot, the number of times it is aligned
to another word and the total frequencies of head
pivot and word. We use χ2 (Casella and Berger,
2008) as the score throughout this paper. Finally,
we select the k words as pivots that have the highest association score with the head pivot.
We impose the constraint that we only select
one pivot per language. So as we go down the
list, we skip pivots from languages for which we
already have found a pivot. We set k = 100 in this
paper. Table 1 gives the top 10 pivots.
4. Projection of pivot set to all languages.
As discussed above, the process so far has been
based on tokenization. To be able to find markers
that cannot be easily detected on the surface (like
“-ed” in English), we identify non-tokenizationbased character n-gram features in step 4.
The immediate challenge is that without tokens,
we have no alignment between the languages anymore. We could simply assume that the occurrence of a pivot has scope over the entire verse.
But this is clearly inadequate, e.g., for the sentence “I arrived yesterday, I’m staying today, and
I will leave tomorrow”, it is incorrect to say that
it is marked as past tense (or future tense) in its
entirety. Fortunately, the verses in the New Testament mostly have a simple structure that limits the
variation in where a particular piece of content occurs in the verse. We therefore make the assumption that a particular relative position in language
l1 (e.g., the character at relative position 0.62) is
aligned with the same relative position in l2 (i.e.,
the character at relative position 0.62). This is
likely to work for a simple example like “I arrived
yesterday, I’m staying today, and I will leave tomorrow” across languages.
In our analysis of errors, we found many cases
where this assumption breaks down. A wellknown problematic phenomenon for our method
is the difference between, say, VSO and SOV languages: the first class puts the verb at the beginning, the second at the end. However, keep in
mind that we accumulate evidence over k = 100
pivots and then compute aggregate statistics over
the entire corpus. As our evaluation below shows,
the “linear alignment” assumption does not seem
to do much harm given the general robustness of

our method.
One design element that increases robustness is
that we find the two positions in each verse that are
most highly (resp. least highly) correlated with the
linguistic feature f . Specifically, we compute the
relative position x of each pivot that occurs in the
verse and apply a Gaussian filter (σ = 6 where the
unit of length is the character), i.e., we set p(x) ≈
0.066 (0.066 is the density of a Gaussian with σ =
6 at x = 0) and center a bell curve around x. The
total score for a position x is then the sum of the
filter values at x summed over all occurring pivots.
Finally, we select the positions xmin and xmax with
lowest and highest values for each verse.
χ2 is then computed based on the number of
times a character n-gram occurs in a window of
size w around xmax (positive count) and in a window of size w around xmin (negative count). Verses
in which no pivot occurs are used for the negative
count in their entirety. The top-ranked character ngrams are then output for analysis by the linguist.
We set w = 20.
5. Linguistic analysis. We now have created a
structure that contains rich information about the
linguistic feature: for each verse we have relative
positions of pivots that can be projected across languages. We also have maximum positions within
a verse that allow us to pinpoint the most likely
place in the vicinity of which linguistic feature f
is marked in all languages. This structure can be
used for the analysis of individual low-resource
languages as well as for typological analysis. We
will give an example of such an analysis in §4.
6. Hierarchical clusterings of markers and
languages. As an additional evaluation, we
worked on hierarchical clusterings of past, present
and future pivots. As detailed in §2.4, we represent each verse by a vector of length 100 showing which pivot markers are used to express this
verse. The other way of looking at these data is
that for each marker we have an occurrence distribution over verses and we may exploit these
data to demonstrate the distance between markers. For the purpose of comparing two markers,
we propose calculation of the Jensen-Shannon divergence between the normalized occurrence distribution over verses:
Dmpi ,mpj = JSD(mˆpi , mˆpj ),
where mˆpi and mˆpi , are the normalized occurrence distributions over verses. We compare the
obtained distance between markers with genetic

distance of their corresponding languages using
WALS information (Dryer et al., 2005). For visualization purposes, we perform Unweighted Pair
Group Method with Arithmetic Mean (UPGMA)
hierarchical clustering on the pairwise distance
matrix of the marker for each tense separately
(Johnson, 1967).
In addition to clustering of pivot markers for
each tense separately, we performed the same
comparison for all top markers of 1107 languages3
and take the average distances of languages in
past, present, and future marking. This allows
us to compare the average tense behavior of languages.
1
Dli ,lj = (JSDpast +JSDpresent +JSDf uture ),
3

3

Data, experiments and results

3.1

Data

We use a New Testament subset of the Parallel
Bible Corpus (PBS) (Mayer and Cysouw, 2014)
that consists of 1556 translations of the the Bible
in 1169 unique languages. We consider two languages to be different if they have different ISO
639-3 codes.
The translations are aligned on the verse level.
However, many translations do not have complete
coverage, so that most verses are not present in at
least one translation. One reason for this is that
sometimes several consecutive verses are merged,
so that one verse contains material that is in reality not part of it and the merged verses may then
be missing from the translation. Thus, there is a
trade-off between number of parallel translations
and number of verses they have in common. Although some preprocessing was done by the authors of the resource, many translations are not
preprocessed. For example, Japanese is not tokenized. We also observed some incorrectness and
sparseness in the metadata. One example is that
one Fijian translation (see §4) is tagged fij hindi,
but it is Fijian, not Fiji Hindi.
We use the 7958 verses with the best coverage
across languages.
3.2

Experiments

1. Selection of a linguistic feature. We conduct
three experiments for the linguistic features past
tense, present tense and future tense.
3

We exclude languages that have fewer than 7000 verses
in common with the pivot language to ensure quality of
marker.

2. Heuristic search for head pivot. We use the
queries described in §2 for finding the following
three head pivots. (i) Past tense head pivot: “ti”
in Seychellois Creole (CRS) (McWhorter, 2005).
(ii) Present tense head pivot: “ta” in Papiamentu
(PAP) (Andersen, 1990). (iii) Future tense head
pivot: “bai” in Tok Pisin (TPI) (Traugott, 1978;
Sankoff, 1990).
3. Projection of head pivot to larger pivot set.
Using the method described in §2, we project each
head pivot to a set of k = 100 pivots. Table 1 gives
the top 10 pivots for each tense.
4. Projection of pivot set to all languages. Using the method described in §2, we compute highly
correlated character n-gram features, 2 ≤ n ≤ 6,
for all 1163 languages.
See §4 for the last step of SuperPivot: 5. Linguistic analysis.
3.3

Evaluation

We rank n-gram features and retain the top 10, for
each linguistic feature, for each language and for
each n-gram size. We process 1556 translations.
Thus, in total, we extract 1556 × 5 × 10 n-grams.
Table 3.2 shows Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR)
for 10 languages. The rank for a particular ranking of n-grams is the first n-gram that is highly
correlated with the relevant tense; e.g., character
subsequences of the name “Paulus” are evaluated
as incorrect, the subsequence “-ed” in English as
correct for past. MRR is averaged over all n-gram
sizes, 2 ≤ n ≤ 6. Chinese has consistent tense
marking only for future, so results are poor. Russian and Polish perform poorly because their central grammatical category is aspect, not tense. The
poor performance on Arabic is due to the limits
of character n-gram features for a “templatic” language.
During this evaluation, we noticed a surprising
amount of variation within translations of one language; e.g., top-ranked n-grams for some German
translations include names like “Paulus”. We suspect that for literal translations, linear alignment
(§2) yields good n-grams. But many translations
are free, e.g., they change the sequence of clauses.
This deteriorates mined n-grams. See §7.
Hierarchical clusterings of markers. Hierarchical clusterings of past, present and future pivots
using JSD between the normalized occurrence distribution over verses are shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 for past, present, and future

head pivots

past
code language
pivot
CRS Seychelles C.
ti
GUX Gourmanchéma den
MAW Mampruli
daa
GFK Patpatar
ga
YAL Yalunka
yi
TOH Gitonga
di
DGI Northern Dagara tι
BUM Bulu (Cameroon) nga
TCS Torres Strait C. bin
NDZ Ndogo
giὶ

present
code language
pivot
PAP Papiamentu
ta
NOB Norwegian Bokmål er
HIF Fiji Hindi
hei
AFR Afrikaans
is
DAN Danish
er
SWE Swedish
är
EPO Esperanto
estas
ELL Greek
ίναι
HIN Hindi
haai
NAQ Khoekhoe
ra

future
code language
pivot
TPI Tok Pisin
bai
LID Nyindrou
kameh
GUL Sea Island C. gwine
TGP Tangoa
pa
BUK Bugawac
oc
BIS Bislama
bambae
PIS Pijin
bae
APE Bukiyip
eke
HWC Hawaiian C. goin
NHR Nharo
gha

Table 1: Top ten past, present, and future tense pivots extracted from 1163 languages. C. = Creole
language
Arabic
Chinese
English
French
German
Italian
Persian
Polish
Russian
Spanish
all

past
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.77
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.88

present
0.39
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.79

future
0.77
0.87
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.58
0.62
1.00
0.88

all
0.72
0.29
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.86
0.67
1.00
0.85

Table 2: MRR results for step 4. See text for details.
tenses respectively. In addition to markers clusterings, the average tense behavior clustering of
1107 languages is depicted in Figure 4. In these
figures languages are colored based on their language families using WALS (Dryer et al., 2005),
languages without family information on WALS
are uncolored. We observed that most of pivot past
and future markers belong to Niger Congo family and present markers are mostly within IndoEuropean family. It can be seen that in many
cases languages with the same family behave accordingly in tense marking. For instance, in past
tense marking Oto-Manguean languages use almost the same marker of ni with small writing
variations (Figure 1). Although Tezoatlán Mixtec
did not have a record on WALS, since its marker
is the same as other Oto-Manguean languages and
works almost identical to ni in Oto-Manguean languages, we may guess this language is also OtoManguean, which turned out to be true when we
performed further searches.4 There were many of
such cases for which we could guess the family of
language based on their tense marking similarities
in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
We use normalized JSD (0 ≤ JSD ≤ 1)
4

https://www.ethnologue.com/language/mxb

for comparison of each pair of languages/markers;
this allows us to investigate whether a simple
threshold of 0.5 accurately predicts whether two
languages are genetically related or not. The results are summarized in Table 3.3. Although the
average tense marking divergence has a low recall, it expresses a high precision of 0.36, where
1
the random chance is 103
≈ 0.01. Thus, it means
that if divergence of tense marking is low the languages are very likely to be genetically related.
This conclusion is supported by Figure 4 where
many small clusters of nodes have the same color.
This suggests that our method may help in completion of WALS.

4

A map of past tense

To illustrate the potential of our method we select
five out of the 100 past tense pivots that give rise
to large clusters of distinct combinations. Starting
with CRS, we find other pivots that “split” the set
of verses that contain the CRS past tense pivot “ti”
into two parts that have about the same size. This
gives us two sets. We now look for a pivot that
splits one of these two sets about evenly and so
on. After iterating four times, we arrive at five pivots: CRS “ti”, Fijian (FIJ) “qai”, Hawaiian Creole
(HWC) “wen”, Torres Strait Creole (TCS) “bin”
and Tzotzil (TZO) “laj”.
Figure 5 shows a t-SNE (Maaten and Hinton,
2008) visualization of the large clusters of combinations that are found for these five languages,
including one cluster of verses that do not contain
any of the five pivots.
This figure is a map of past tense for all 1163
languages, not just for CRS, FIJ, HWC, TCS and
TZO: once the interpretation of a particular cluster has been established based on CRS, FIJ, HWC,
TCS and TZO, we can investigate this cluster in
the 1164 other languages by looking at the verses

accuracy
precision
recall
TNR

avg tense
696
( 1107
lang. - 103 fam.)
0.93
0.36
0.01
0.99

past
55
( 100
lang. - 15 fam.)
0.55
0.18
0.59
0.55

present
70
( 100
lang. - 17 fam.)
0.81
0.75
0.37
0.96

Arawakan

Oto-Manguean
future
44Mayan
( 100
lang. - 16 fam.)
Niger-Congo
0.58unknown
0.16Indo-European
Khoe-Kwadi
0.61Mande
0.58Tupian
Algic

Austronesian
Table 3: Language family similarity prediction results based on coordinated marking
of verses. Only
Guaicuruan
Misumalpan
languages with records on WALS are included in this evaluation. TNR: true negative
rate.
Eastern Sudanic

ne
>
e
i
ge cu > k > ya > s
a
a
en > n
N uer eha w a am okw
N N awa al S a > io > te
D n tr a m g o a )
Ce any nai > gand
K w a k a o (U y a
N ng a >
ala
La ang g > k
Kw unga > qai ogi
ën
T ian
>
>h
Fij onquin ccan
a
Alg aram ka
S
>
ri
o
i
M a ba > s
kon
Yoru > ka
in >
io
Kwa rian Pidg
Nige we
>
Igbo í > so
Mocov > oko
Kumam ga
>
i³
Madak
zatec > qu
Huautla Ma
Kuranko > ya
Urdu > ‫ﻧﮯ‬
Hindi > ne
Chol > tsi
Tzotzil > laj
Lacandon > caj
Sirionó > que
Kriol > bin
Konni >
die
Tezoat
lá
Atatlá n Mixtec >
ni
Yoso huca Mixte
n
c > ni
d
úa
Peño
les M Mixtec >
ni
San
ixtec
> ní
Oco Miguel
So tepec El Gra
nde
Mix
A uthe
Mixte
tec
Ch frikaan rn Pue
> nī
c>
ava
bla
ni
s>
Mix
het
N a can
tec
o
m
>y
>n
Bu a (
a
ì
N
lu
a
To
m
(C
Ma rres ame ibia)
G m p S tra ro o > g e
S our ruli it Cr n) > n
e
P es m a >
g
Ya atp elw nch daa ole > a
a a
é
l
bin
N
u
W o n ta r C r m a
C es rthe ka > > g eole > d
h u te r
a
e
F
y
n
n
j > rn
re
D i
nc
ix K a a g
h>
nj ar
ob a
ti
al > t
ɩ
>
jix

Eskimo-Aleut

ax
m a
l> k
ya
'a >
>
ob e
da
nj ra'a e
Di
'a a
Q Kw > v ué ú e
m d
o
l
Ixi cob a > li >
Yo aka h Fa
n
M u t > to > fu
So opi lma i
d
Ch am pu a >
g
T on
nọ ehm
Git Ika > k > k
ju
ma
E ka em > w
Kas uri > ra a
Tup u > nax
Sus > giì
yaa
go
Ndo hana) > i > bi
(G
m
Buli taro Oto > bi
bi
Queré ital Otomi
tomi >
Mezqu de México O
Estado dgin > wen
Pi
i'i
wa
Ha
beè
Gokana >
Naro > kò
Tzeltal > la
North Alaskan Inupiatun > tavra

fC
o

ng

o)

>

ma

Tikar > ɓe
Ozumacín Chinantec > maˊ
Tektiteko > tuq
Mazatlán Mix
e > najty
Dyula > tun
Ba
mb
Luo (K ara > tun
en
Moris ya and Tanz
yen >
ania) >
S
ti
ne
o
u
th
Mob ern Bobo
M ada
Ba a > din
ré >
m ane
Fare fut > lɛ
fa
Krio re > d
Ja > bin aa
Na maic
a
w
S ra d m n C re
Sa nan > da ole En
in
T
glis
M Hait t Lu ong
h>
did
M aya ian cian o > b
n
C
a
M y a g n a re o C re e n
ole
> le
M on ng
F re
B o a n o (D n a > d a i > te
nc
g
h>
K kob se em dai
té
G on a ng oc
ar ko ru > > m ratic
if u m
Re
na ba ben a
pu
> > le
bli
áb
co
a

ne
>
e
i
ge cu > k > ya > s
a
a
en > n
N uer eha w a am okw
N N awa al S a > io > te
D ntr am go a)
Ce any nai > gand
w
a
K ak o (U ya
N ng a >
ala
a
g
L an g > k
Kw unga > qai ogi
ën
T ian
>
>h
Fij onquin ccan
a
Alg aram ka
S
>
ori
Ma ba > si
ru
kon
Yo o > ka
in >
Kwai ian Pidg
Niger we
>
Igbo
ví > so
Moco > oko
Kumam ga
>
Madak
atec > qui³
Huautla Maz
Kuranko > ya
Urdu > ‫ﻧﮯ‬
Hindi > ne
Chol > tsi
Tzotzil > laj
Lacandon > caj
Sirionó > que
Kriol > bin
Konni >
die
Tezoatlán
Mixtec
Atatláh
> ni
Yoso uca Mixte
Peño ndúa Mixt c > ni
ec >
le
ni
San s Mixte
c > ní
M
Oco iguel
Sou tepec El Gra
nde
Mix
the
A
Mixte
tec
Ch frikaan rn Pue
> nī
c>
av
bla
ni
s
Mix
N a acan > het
te
c>
Bu ma (N o > y
nì
To lu (C am a
Ma rres ame ibia)
>
S
ro
m
G
ge
o
p tra
Se ourm ruli it Cre n) > n
>
P s
g
a
Ya atp elw nch daa ole > a
a a
é
bin
W No lun tar Cre ma
C es rthe ka > > g ole > d
hu te r
a
Fre en
j > rn n D y i
nc
ix Ka ag
h>
njo ar
a
ti
ba >
l > tɩ
jix

Arawakan
Oto-Manguean
Mayan
Niger-Congo
unknown
Indo-European
Khoe-Kwadi
Mande
Tupian
Algic
Austronesian
Guaicuruan
Misumalpan
Eastern Sudanic
Eskimo-Aleut

Figure 1: Clustering of 100 pivot past tense markers. Each node is colored based on its family information. Languages with no record on WALS remained white. This clustering is based on JSD of markers
in marking 5960 verses in bible. We observed that most of pivot past and future markers belong to Niger
Congo family and present markers are mostly within Indo-European family. It can be seen that in many
cases languages with the same family behave accordingly in tense marking. For instance, in past tense
marking Oto-Manguean languages use almost the same marker of ni with small writing variations (Figure 1). Although Tezoatlán Mixtec did not have a record on WALS, since its marker is the same as other
Oto-Manguean languages and works almost identical to ni in Oto-Manguean languages, we may guess
this language is also Oto-Manguean, which turned out to be true when we performed further searches.
Tikar > ɓe
Ozumacín Chinantec > maˊ
Tektiteko > tuq
Mazatlán Mixe
> najty
Dyula > tun
Bambar
Luo (Ke a > tun
nya
and Tan
Moris
zania)
yen >
> ne
Sout
hern ti
Mob
Bobo
Madar
Baf a > din
é>m
Far ut > lɛ
ane
ef
Kri are >
da
o
a
Ja > bin
Na maica
w
Sra dm n Cre
Sa nan > da ole En
in
T
glis
M Ha t L on
h>
g
it
u
did
Ma ayan ian C cian o > b
M ya gna reo Cre en
ole
> le
M on ng
Fre
Bo an o (D na > dai > te
nc
g
h>
K kob se em dai
té
G onk aru ng > ocra
ar o
ifu m > b ma tic R
na ba en
ep
>
u
b
lic
áb le
of
a
Co
ng
o)
>
ma
>

that are members of this cluster. This methodology supports the empirical investigation of questions like “how is progressive past tense expressed
in0.93language X”? We just need to look up the cluster(s) that correspond to progressive past tense,
look up the verses that are members and retrieve
the text of these verses in language X.
0.93

To give the reader a flavor of the distinctions
that are reflected in these clusters, we now list phenomena that are characteristic of verses that contain only one of the five pivots; these phenomena
identify properties of one language that the other
four do not have.
CRS “ti”. CRS has a set of markers that can be
systematically combined, in particular, a progressive marker “pe” that can be combined with the

ax
m a
l> >k
ya
>
b'a e
a
njo a'a
Did
'a ar e
Q Kw > v ué ú e
m d
o
Ixil cob a > li >
Yo aka Fa
n
M uth > to > fu
So opi lma i
d
Ch am pu a >
T ong nọ ehm
Git Ika > k > k
ju
ma
a
k
E
m> w
Kaseuri > ra
Tup u > naxa
Sus > giì
yaa
go
Ndo hana) > i > bi
(G
Buli étaro Otom > bi
omi
Quer
mi > bi
uital Ot
Mezq de México Oto
Estado gin > wen
Pid
Hawai'i
beè
Gokana >
Naro > kò
Tzeltal > la
North Alaskan Inupiatun > tavra

past tense marker “ti”. As a result, past progressive sentences in CRS are generally marked with
“ti”. Example: “43004031 Meanwhile, the disciples were urging Jesus, ‘Rabbi, eat something.”’
“crs bible 43004031 Pandan sa letan, bann disip ti
pe sipliy Zezi, ‘Met! Manz en pe.”’
The other four languages do not consistently use
the pivot for marking the past progressive; e.g.,
HWC uses “was begging” in 43004031 (instead of
“wen”) and TCS uses “kip tok strongwan” ‘keep
talking strongly’ in 43004031 (instead of “bin”).
FIJ “qai”. This pivot means “and then”. It
is highly correlated with past tense in the New
Testament because most sequential descriptions
of events are descriptions of past events. But
there are also some non-past sequences. Example:

ll
ne
ua
> yi
id
s a > n d iv a k
in
au
H u n jo ili ( i > m
h
se
V a Dil
>
Sw tun wẹ ole
Te n > Cre
Gu itian wh
h
a
aw
Ha > m
>m n
a
W ra u k > m a
Pa ana ezali
y
>
a
a
W gala
>d
Lin que
ው
s
>ነ
Ba aric
h
ndi
Am ani >
i
>n
w
M
nde o
o
k
Ma
> nd
olo
Pog i > ni
ni
d
da >
Run
rwan
es
Kinya dietsch >
Plaut
er
>
dic
Icelan
> on
Finnish
> on
Estonian
Sami > lea
Northern
Polish > jest
Latin > est
Czech > je
Gheg Albanian > është
English > is
Modern Greek (1453
-) > είναι
Slovak > je
Romania
n > este
Albanian
> është
Low Sa
xon >
es
Germ
an > is
t
Weste
rn Fris
Faro
ian >
ese
is
> er
Fren
c
Mid h > est
Fle dle En
glis
Spa mish
h (1
>
100
is
Vale nish >
-150
0) >
Ru ncian es
is
s
>é
Old sian
s
An Sla > ес
ть
vo
cie
nic
Ira
nt
G
>
re e
ес
As nian
Vla syria Per k (to ть
14
St x R n N sian
eo
> ‫ ت‬53)
L and om
>ε
M atvia ard ani -Ara ‫اﺳ‬
στ
ma
ιν
B u a la y n > L a > s
ic
i
tvia
l
>
N u (C (ma ir
n
or
>
w a m c ro l
ir
eg e
a
ia r o o n g u
n
N n) > age
yn
or ne ) > a
sk
da
>
er

g
an

ua

ge

)>

ni

Indo-European
Khoe-Kwadi
Mande
Uralic
Central Sudanic
Austro-Asiatic
Austronesian
Chibchan
Afro-Asiatic

er
>
ål
is k m
>
o
ns n B
a
a
i
a
er r
r ik e g
A f o rw h >
ä
as
n
N nis h > est
ɗo
Da edis to >
e>
Sw eran ndï ulfuld
p y> aF
s
a
E ba aw
ĕ
>k
M am n > g
ch
ren
Ad enia
le F
‫ﭤو‬
ú
m
reo
Ar hi > p > k
nC
ey
d
d
te
ia
in
c
u
>
S
K
Lu
in
idg
int
Sa
nP
eria
> ta
Nig
ano ) > là
vac
a
Cha (Nigeri
a
> da
M ad
glish
> in
le En
Mam nd Creo
la
Is
a
Se
ko
>
ra
Naro
ibia) >
(Nam
Nama
‫ﻣﯽ‬
Dari >
be
Dyula >
> bɛ
Bambara
Zarma > ga
Yucateco > ku
Sango > yeke

Ch

M

ni
)>
ge
ua
ng
l la
ne
ua
> yi
a
n divid k
s
> n
a
au
H unjo ili (i i > m
se
V ah Dil
>
Sw tun wẹ ole
Te n > Cre
Gu itian wh
wh
a
Ha > m
ma n
>
a
W rauk > ma
Pa ana ezali
y
>
a
Wa gala
>d
Lin que
ው
s
>ነ
Ba aric
h
ndi
Am ani >
> ni
Mw
onde
Mak > ndo
olo
Pog > ni
ni
di
Run wanda >
ar
ny
h > es
Ki
ietsc
Plautd
er
dic >
Icelan
> on
h
nis
Fin
n > on
Estonia
Sami > lea
Northern
Polish > jest
Latin > est
Czech > je
Gheg Albanian > është
English > is
Modern Greek (1453-)
> είναι
Slovak > je
Romania
n > este
Albania
n > ësh
të
Low Sa
xon >
es
Germ
an
Wester > ist
n Frisi
Faro
an >
es
is
Fren e > er
ch >
Mid
est
Fle dle Eng
lish
Spa mish
(110
> is
0-15
Vale nish >
00)
es
n
cia
> is
Ru
n>
s
és
Old sian
An Sla > ес
ть
v
c
Ira ient onic
As nian Gree > есть
s
k
Vla yri Pers
(to
14
Sta x R an N ian
5
3)
eo
>‫ت‬
nd om
L
>ε
M atvia ard ani -Ara ‫اﺳ‬
στι
ma
ν
Bu alay n > La > s
ic
lu
(m ir tvia i
>
N
n
o r (C a a c
>
ro
w
ir
la
eg m e
ia roo ngu
n
n
a
)
N
yn > n ge)
>
or
e
ad
sk
a
>
er

Sino-Tibetan
Cariban
Arawakan
Mayan
Basque
Songhay
Niger-Congo
unknown
Indo-European
Khoe-Kwadi
Mande
Uralic
Central Sudanic
Austro-Asiatic
Austronesian
Chibchan
Afro-Asiatic

in

es

e

>

sī

tlhIngan-Hol > oh
Cameroon Mam
bila > né
Rinconada
Bikol > do
Batak To
ba > do
Batak
Simalun
gu
Maith
n
> do
ili > अ
छ
Carib
bean
Hindu
Urdu
stani
> ‫ﮨﮯ‬
> hai
Hind
i>h
aai
Ma
ra
Djim thi > आ
ह
ini S
Ve
e
n
n
g
o
o>
ufo
Wa
>y
ima lùu
ɛn
H
>
ir
Ca i Motu hano
na
>
P a béca
re c
r > be
ís
rä
Vie > aty
J a tn a m o
G o ra i > e s e
Ikw urm jing > là
Ig e r a n
Tu bo e > ché
pu > b bụ m a
ri
>
u
tie
Na > d
iñ
n

in

Papiamento > ta
Fiji Hindi > hei

Figure 2: Clustering of 100 pivot present tense markers. Each node is colored based on its family
information. Languages with no record on WALS remained white. This clustering is based on JSD of
markers in marking 6590 verses in bible. It can be seen that in many cases languages with the same
family behave accordingly in tense marking.
tlhIngan-Hol > oh
Cameroon Mamb
ila > né
Rinconad
a Bikol >
do
Batak Tob
a
>
do
Batak
Simalu
ngun >
Maith
do
ili > अछ
Carib
bean
Hind
Urdu
ustan
>
i > ha
Hindi ‫ﮨﮯ‬
i
> ha
Mar
ai
at
Djim hi > आ
Ven ini Sen ह
go
oufo
>
Wa
> yɛ
ima lùu
n
Hir
>
Ca i Motu hano
na
>
P a béca
rec
r > be
ís
rä
Vie > aty
Ja tnam o
Go rai > ese
Ikw urm jing > là
Ig ere anc
hé
Tu bo
>
ma
p
uri > bu bụ
>
tie
Na > d
iñ
n
Ch
in
es
e
>
sī

in

a tense-marked clause in HWC.
While preparing this analysis, we realized that
HWC “wen” unfortunately does not meet one of
the criteria we set out for pivots: it is not unambiguous. In addition to being a past tense marker
(derived from standard English “went”), it can also
be a conjunction, derived from “when”. This ambiguity is the cause for some noise in the clusters
marked for presence of HWC “wen” in the figure.
TCS “bin”. Conditionals is one pattern we
found in verses that are marked with TCS “bin”,
but are not marked for past tense in the other four
languages. Example: “tcs bible 46015046 Wanem
i bin kam pas i da nomal bodi ane den da spiritbodi i bin kam apta.” ‘what came first is the
normal body and then the spirit body came after’, “eng newliving 46015046 What comes first
is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes
later.” Apparently, “bin” also has a modal aspect
in TCS: generic statements that do not refer to
specific events are rendered using “bin” in TCS
whereas the other four languages (and also English) use the default unmarked tense, i.e., present
tense.
TZO “laj”. This pivot indicates perfective aspect. The other four past tense pivots are not perfective markers, so that there are verses that are
marked with “laj”, but not marked with the past
tense pivots of the other four languages. Example: “tzo huixtan 40010042 . . . ja’ch-ac’bat ben-

Papiamento > ta
Fiji Hindi > hei

0.39

M

“eng newliving 44009016 And I will show him
how much he must suffer for my name’s sake.”
“fij hindi 44009016 Au na qai vakatakila vua na
levu ni ka e na sota kaya e na vukuqu.” This
verse is future tense, but it continues a temporal sequence (it starts in the preceding verse) and therefore FIJ uses “qai”. The pivots of the other four
languages are not general markers of temporal sequentiality,
so they are not used for the future.
0.39
HWC “wen”. HWC is less explicit than the
other four languages in some respects and more
explicit in others. It is less explicit in that not
all sentences in a sequence of past tense sentences
need to be marked explicitly with “wen”, resulting
in some sentences that are indistinguishable from
present tense. On the other hand, we found many
cases of noun phrases in the other four languages
that refer implicitly to the past, but are translated as a verb with explicit past tense marking in
HWC. Examples: “hwc 2000 40026046 Da guy
who wen set me up . . . ” ‘the guy who WEN set
me up’, “eng newliving 40026046 . . . my betrayer
. . . ”; “hwc 2000 43008005 . . . Moses wen tell us
in da Rules . . . ” ‘Moses WEN tell us in the rules’,
“eng newliving 43008005 The law of Moses says
. . . ”; “hwc 2000 47006012 We wen give you guys
our love . . . ”, “eng newliving 47006012 There is
no lack of love on our part . . . ”. In these cases, the
other four languages (and English too) use a noun
phrase with no tense marking that is translated as

er
>
ål
is km
>
s
Bo
an ian
ika eg
er r
s
Afr orw h >
ä
n
N nis h > esta
ɗo
Da edis to >
e>
Sw eran ndï ulfuld
>
F
p
Es bay awa gĕ
> ka
M am n >
nch
Ad enia
Fre
‫ﭤو‬
ú
ole
Arm hi > p > k
Cre
d
an
dey
Sin Kute t Luci gin >
id
in
Sa ian P
er
> ta
no
Nig
) > là
vaca
Cha (Nigeria
da
a
sh >
Mad
Engli
> in
eole
Mam
d Cr
Islan
a
Se
> ko
ra
Naro
ibia) >
(Nam
Nama
‫ﻣ‬
‫ﯽ‬
>
Dari
be
Dyula >
> bɛ
Bambara
Zarma > ga
Yucateco > ku
Sango > yeke

si
>
o an n
i
nk n
a
ra i > > n k e
ba
K u o n n r u li b a h
a>
K m p > na
ém
k
a
M a ju s i > n c h
E k M o s rm a ta
a
>
u
>g
ŋ
G o nga ba ʋn
> ja
m
w
o
Ts nko re > isaala
o
a
S
K re f
ng ɩ
a
lu
F
a
>s
mu
v
> ta
Tu saal > pa
yua inea)
a
Pa ngoa Daw >
Gu
ew
Ta ng
o
aN
Hm (Papu u
o
Kara yen > p > lə
)
s
Mori (Nigeria > go
a
in
Mad an Pidg
ri
Nige go
> ya
Arhe
>
kpelaKrio
-O
North
wahn
Ivbie
glish >
Kriol En
e
liz
Be
e
Lote > lap
> zi
Tampulma
> cua
orado Mixtec
San Juan Col
Huastec > ne
Chuj > ol
Tsimané > ra
Quiché > na
Tabasco Chontal >
xe
Kamwe > dzə
gə
Naro > gh
a
Chayuc
o Mixte
c > cua
Sio > m
a
Hiri M
otu >
do
Vlax
Rom
a
Iraya
ni > ka
Sea > batay
Is
Sain land C
Tha t Lucia reole En
n
i
glish
Cre
G e > จะ
> gw
ole
n>
Fre
ine
nch
Sa la
> ka
s
y
M a ak >
Sta 'anya gen
Ce nda n >
sag
rd
B n tr
M
Ind iatah al Ma alay ar
>a
En one Bid lay
Bu glis sian ayuh > ka kan
lg a h >
>
>
P a ri
re
ak
w
a
a
ill
B p ia n
n
V aba m e > щ
J a ie t n M a n t o е
r a a m la
>
i> e y
lo
>
s
či e
> nan
s ẽ ti

Khoe-Kwadi
Torricelli
Mande
Tai-Kadai
Austro-Asiatic
Austronesian
Afro-Asiatic
Hmong-Mien

Lashi > wa
Achang > das
Zaiwa > râ
Mün Chin >
khai
Tedim Ch
in > ding
Siyin
Ch
in
> tu
Zo
u
>
di
Mak (N ng
Hakh igeria) > di
ng
a Ch
in
Fala
> lai
Ng m Chin
Tum awn Ch > ding
in >
a-Iru
tuk
Sua m u >
a
Ce u > ab pi
Ng rma > o
ka
Ma iemb
oo
la
Iw y (m n > g
a
a
e
Ar l > a crola
o
ng
K u p -L to b
ua
ge
K ot oke
)>
Bw uw > eb p >
aka
ole
n
W an aa > a
es ab
v
W M a t-C w a e
S o est ske ent na >
ra
u e ly
t
h e rn K n e s l L i k a n
rn a n > m b i
B o jo d e r a >
ba
eh
kɔ
l
ŋ
>
ad oj
ar
é
>
na

i
se
li >
Di
u n a k ta k
t
Te > t > ḓo > ќе
k >
a
W arau da nian
P Ven edo
c
ta
ɛ
M a ko > > ny ge
K a enya > pa ng
D h u a tu ru
ll
K a an > ska a
>
s
h
Ne dish iga >
e
y
Sw th Giz o > a e
n
u
a
a
o
c
S
mb
ava > ba
h
C
a
lam > bae
h
is
B
am e
Pijin rou > k
d
i
Nyin in > ba
Pis
k
o
T
> tem
Malê
ac > oc
Bugaw
> eke
Bukiyip
> la
Mengen
nch > pou
Creole Fre
Seselwa
> goin
Hawai'i Pidgin
sal
>
Afrikaans
Bekwarra > ba

bo

si
>
o an
in
nk n
a
ra i > > n k e
ba
Ku onn ruli bah
a>
K m p > na
ém
k
a
M aju si > nch
Ek Mos rma ta
a
>
u
>g
ŋ
G o nga ba ʋn
> ja
m
w
o
Ts nko re > isaala
Ko refa g S
n
Fa ulu > sɩ
a
m
v
> ta
Tu saal > pa
yua
a
a
nea)
>
a
P
go
Gui
aw
Tan ng D
New
o
Hm (Papua u
a
po
ar
>
K
n
) > lə
isye
Mor (Nigeria > go
a
in
Mad
Pidg
rian
Nige go
> ya
-Arhe
>
Krio
-Okpela
North
wahn
Ivbie
glish >
Kriol En
Belize
e
Lote > lap
a > zi
pulm
cua
Tam
ado Mixtec >
San Juan Color
Huastec > ne
Chuj > ol
Tsimané > ra
Quiché > na
Tabasco Chontal >
xe
Kamwe > dzəgə
Naro > gha
Chayuc
o Mixtec
> cua
Sio > ma
Hiri Mo
tu > do
Vlax
Rom
ani >
Iraya
ka
Sea > batay
Is
Saint land C
reol
Luci
Tha
an C e Englis
Ge i > จะ
reol
h>
n>
gwin
e Fre
e
nch
Sa la
> ka
s
y
M a ak >
Sta 'any gen
Ce nda an >
Bia ntra rd M saga
r
Ind tah l Ma alay
En one Bid lay > > ak
an
ka
Bu glis sian ayuh
lg h
Pa ari > w > ak > re
an
ill
B pia an
V aba m e > щ
Ja ietn Ma nto е
ra am la
>
i> e y
lo
či se > na
>
sẽ nti

Sino-Tibetan
Oto-Manguean
Mayan
Mosetenan
Niger-Congo
unknown
Kuot
Indo-European
Khoe-Kwadi
Torricelli
Mande
Tai-Kadai
Austro-Asiatic
Austronesian
Afro-Asiatic
Hmong-Mien

M

Figure 3: Clustering of 100 pivot future tense markers. Each node is colored based on its family
information. Languages with no record on WALS remained white. This clustering is based on JSD of
markers in marking 5733 verses in bible. It can be seen that in many cases languages with the same
family behave accordingly in tense marking.

5

Related work

Our work is inspired by (Cysouw, 2014; Cysouw
and Wälchli, 2007); see also (Dahl, 2007; Wälchli,
2010). Cysouw creates maps like Figure 5 by
manually identifying occurrences of the proper
noun “Bible” in a parallel corpus of Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ texts. Areas of the map correspond
to semantic roles, e.g., the Bible as actor (it tells
you to do something) or as object (it was printed).
This is a definition of semantic roles that is complementary to and different from prior typological research because it is empirically grounded in
real language use across a large number of languages. It allows typologists to investigate traditional questions from a radically new perspective.
The field of typology is important for both theoretical (Greenberg, 1960; Whaley, 1996; Croft,
2002) and computational (Heiden et al., 2000;
Santaholma, 2007; Bender, 2009, 2011) linguis0.31

Lashi > wa
Achang > das
Zaiwa > râ
Mün Chin >
khai
Tedim Chin
> ding
Siyin Chi
n > tu
Zou >
din
Mak (N g
Hakh igeria) > din
a
Ch
in > lai g
Fala
Nga m Chin
Tum wn Chi > ding
n
a-Ir
umu > tuk
Sua
> ap
i
Ce u > ab
Ng rma > o
ka
Ma iemb
oo
la
Iwa y (ma n > g
e
Aro l > a crola
ng
Ku p-L tob
ua
ge
K ot oke
)>
Bw uw > eb p >
aka
ole
n
W an aa > a
es ab
w ve
W Ma tC
a
So este ske entr na >
uth rn lyn al
ka
er Ka es > Lim ni
n
b
Bo njo der a >
bo bal eh
kɔ
ŋ
M >o
ad j
ar
é
>
na

dición yu’un hech laj spas . . . ” (literally “a blessing . . . LAJ make”), “eng newliving 40010042
. . . you will surely be rewarded.” Perfective aspect
and past are correlated in the real world since most
events that are viewed as simple wholes are in the
past. But future events can also be viewed this way
as the example shows.
Similar maps for present and future tenses are
0.31
presented in the Figure 6 and Figure 7.

i
se
i>
Dil
n
k
tu k
Te > ta > ta ḓo > ќе
a uk >
W ara da nian
P Ven edo
c
ta
ɛ
M a ko > > ny ge
K a enya > pa ng
D hua turu
ll
K a an > ska a
>
s
h
Ne dish iga >
e
y
Sw th Giz o > a e
n
u
So vaca bamba
a
Ch ma > e
la
Bis ijin > ba kameh
>
P
rou
i
nd
yi
N
> ba
Pisin
Tok
> tem
Malê
oc
wac >
Buga
> eke
ip
kiy
Bu
> la
Mengen
ch > pou
Creole Fren
Seselwa
n > goin
Hawai'i Pidgi
Afrikaans > sal
Bekwarra > ba

tics. Typology is concerned with all areas of linguistics: morphology (Song, 2014), syntax (Comrie, 1989; Croft, 2001; Croft and Poole, 2008;
Song, 2014), semantic roles (Hartmann et al.,
2014; Cysouw, 2014), semantics (KoptjevskajaTamm et al., 2007; Dahl, 2014; Wälchli and
Cysouw, 2012; Sharma, 2009) etc. Typological information is important for many NLP tasks including discourse analysis (Myhill and Myhill, 1992),
information retrieval (Pirkola, 2001), POS tagging (Bohnet and Nivre, 2012), parsing (Bohnet
and Nivre, 2012; McDonald et al., 2013), machine
translation (Hajič et al., 2000; Kunchukuttan and
Bhattacharyya, 2016) and morphology (Bohnet
et al., 2013).
Tense is a central phenomenon in linguistics
and the languages of the world differ greatly in
whether and how they express tense (Traugott,
1978; Bybee and Dahl, 1989; Dahl, 2000, 1985;
Santos, 2004; Dahl, 2007; Santos, 2004; Dahl,
2014).
Low resource. Even resources with the widest
coverage like World Atlas of Linguistic Structures
(WALS) (Dryer et al., 2005) have little information for hundreds of languages. Many researchers
have taken advantage of parallel information for
extracting linguistic knowledge in low-resource
settings (Resnik et al., 1997; Resnik, 2004; Mihalcea and Simard, 2005; Mayer and Cysouw, 2014;

107 Language based on their average divergence in past, present, and future markings

Ce

Piapoco
Kobon
Kalam
Tai
Kaqchikel
Turkish
Minica Huitoto
Caquinte
Kein
Northern Puebla Nahuatl
Cotabato Manobo
Central Tunebo
Muinane
Gofa
Cashibo-Cacataibo
Avaric
Kuman (Papua
New Guinea)
Highland Oaxaca
Chontal
Daga
Saniyo-Hiy
Border Kunaewe
Northern
Adamawa Pastaza Quichua
Tezoatlán Fulfulde
Mixtec
Peñoles Mixtec
Limos Kalinga
San Blas
Kuna
Mbay
Yuracar
Central e
Highlan Aymara
Western d Puebla Nahuat
Bolivia
Coptic
n Guaranl
í
Pisaﬂo
Karam res Tepehua
ojong
Jola-Fonyi
San Migue
l El Grand
Atatlá
e Mixte
Jamilt huca Mixte
c
Karka epec Mixte c
c
Akha r-Yuri
Saram
accan
Diuxi-Tila
Pwo North
ntong
o
Mixte
Easte
ern Karen
c
Chic rn Bru
Tzot hicapan Zapo
tec
Cabé zil
car
Mos
Mey kona
Mara ah
Ama thi
tlán
Sant
Zapo
Coa a María tec
Russ tecas AltaQuiegola
s Zapo ni Zapo
Old ian
Slav
tec
tec
Slov onic
Mad enian
Wuv ak
Yag ulu-Aua
Siri ua
Pila onó
Mü gá
Mat n Chin
Kac u Chi
Lea hin n
Ma lao Chi
Aka cushi nantec
wai
San
o
Car Juan
Iba ibbeanAtzing
Jav o Pop
Cho n
ane
olo
l
se
Me
ca
Cer ngen
Ne ma
Lan han
Ku go (Ug
Yuc mam and
a)
Lac ateco
Sap andon
Ce osa
Mo ntral
Ten cov Sama
Ma ang í
Easte ori o Oto
mi
Mo rn
Ur ose Highla
Fij du Cree nd
Oto
Tu ian
mi
Hindngag
Ly i
Ka élé
So pin
Fo utherngamara
Sa n
Nu ng
ni i
Sa n Ma
Bu ngo rtín
Itu
Ge glere
ny
Ya n
oso
M be
Tri
qu
Bu aposm
i
M gawa Bu
Qu alê c ang
Bu ich
Bu kiy é
Ivb mb ip
Am ie Noita Ar
ba
M
rth apesh
-O
To angg i
kp
Ac l
a Bu
ela
Po hi
-A
an
rhe
Ub qomc
g
Ar ir
hi'
Ch ifa
Ku am ma
Nd ke ac -M
Ira o le oco iniaﬁ
a
Bo ya
Ch lin
M am ao
Ko or or
Sa re o ro
Ta rang an
No gaba an
i
M
Su an rther wa Man
ob
Sa lka darin n Kh
o
W te
Ch mer
A ip ré-M
in
K pi i
es
aw
e
A wai nayé
é
M lgon o
w
H Daw ag qu
Sa ua aw ha in
Ya nu utla a vul
N no má M
az
Ze do m
atec
H m ng ám
an ba a i
un
oo

Southern Rincon Zapotec
Zacatlán-Ahuacatlán-Tepetzintla Nahuatl
Tena Lowland Quichua
Guahibo
Tuyuca
Kafa
Nalca
Samberigi
Matsés
Yongkom
Guerrero Amuzgo
Camsá
Aruamu
Yatee Zapotec
Muna
Wiru
Angor
Ewage-Notu
Makasar
Iduna
Kumyk
Popoloca
Tlalcoyalco
Inga
San Marcos
Wayuu
Bargam
Murui Huitoto
Mian
Dawro
Wolaytta
Nahuatl
Huasteca Nahuatl
Western
a
Central Huastec a Nahuatl
HuastecKagayanen
Eastern
ca
d Popolu
Highlan
Bimin
Bora
)
New Guinea
ahua
Awa (Papua Cashin apra
shi-Sh
Cando Biangai
min
Oksap
biano
Guam
rn Kayah
Weste Quechua
ui
Ancash Salt-Y
hucos
sheq
Tama ano
ern Conc
South
Kam uer
Cuaiq
Awa- ahuita
ia
Chay
Wask le
Ame
hua
Tepe n
uetla
Goli a
t Tann e
hwes
Sout Koreguajeo
Cub a
ueng
atsig
Nom Ngalumga
urun
Surs Patep

Hueh

Iamalele
Olo
r
aapo
bú-K
Uru Bedjond
rinã
Apu n
iatu
Inup Fasu
skan
ha
aata
th Ala
Nor
Ang chua i
Que oran
Wa ran
Martín
assa
San
Tab -Kasa i
Jola gga s
Ban Nia
ﬁan
Mu ama
Bun yle
Kab ra
Keapaiba
Cu tsa
bak
Rik Chin a
ung lim
Zot Mo teco
an
Uspan
l Bla
an
ada Bla ion
ron
nik
Ko angani
Ma ona c
Sar
Pam abi
Ar ní
an ara
adi Gu Tabo
Ch ayan
potec ac
agu
rí ZaTotonberá
Par
i
uie
-Q rez Em dib
ani Juá ern Da ec
uit
zat a
ioq c De rth
aw
Qu epe No
la Ma
aut 'Auhelichʼin lí
Xicot
Ay
Gw xaka er
Ma Carri ay
ern isn tec
uth Gü po
So tés Za tec
e
po
am
Lh ncón a Za Alun eo
chí Ri Taba
Mekarik a
Wi
M aiv
ok
Or potectec
n Za po ní
tlá Za
ua ec Guaranasi
ara
tep
Miaholo livian Ka um cana
rah
Oz Bo
Ta Ta veharo
rn
al
ina
ste
ntr
M Ka nob ec
Ea
Ce
tak
Ba NoboMixt ec
ixt bu
c
pe M Sa m
se o
ote úa
Ka or yo
Oc sond
ug
Yo
na ya
Si Do asauun
m
Ka upiat hua o
In ec ob a
ka Qu ác ár l
as o Ch biku Ho ai
Al uc
m ne
st án
Na ga Thines e
es ili
rn tlhIn
o Hu
a Chnam D i
uthe
kk et tun Jara jin
So
Ha Vi Te
Pi in
Ch in é
lam n Ch an h
Fa Siyi im yu c
Ts da ste ir
Bi ua ng ju
H Sa ga ay
N al k
atah
sa
Bi
lM
ra Sa
nt
we
rth na
No Pa

St
an
da
rd
Bu M
Nam
gi al
To ne ay
Bw a (N Ta Tb belo se
an am ba oli
ab ib ru
w ia
N an )
Ala U apu a
Ea
ng ma
cis ste
To
an
k Pi Iw
co rn
al
Ha León Tawb Ku sin
wa Zo ui ot
i'i qu d
Pi
W
Ti dg e
es
Ni tern Q'an Nacunain
ge Ka jo ro
ria nj b'a
n Pi ob l
To No Mad Gi Tz dgin al
rre rth a
elt
s St ern (Nigekyod al
rai Da ria e
t Cr ga )
ra
Ka Patpa eole
ing tar
Qa ang
Plap Ta
Es
Kr qe
tad
o Krmpulm iol t
o de
um
Nd en a
M Méx
og
Se Qu ezqu ico
sel eré ita Ot Ixi o
wa tar l Ot om l
Cr o
eo Ot omi i
le
om
Ch Fr
av en i
ac
Ta anoch
ng
oa
Gi Chuj
ton
Kw Chopga
ara i
Djim
'ae
ini Ma Ika
Seno kaa
ufo
San
Ba
ba Igb
Jua
Ma o
n Co
Yo lay
lor Ma rub
Go ado mp a
urm Mi rul
anc xte i
Bu
lu (CaAfrik hém c
me aans a
roo
Ko n)
Ek nni
Ku ajuk
ran
Bu Mandi ko
li (Gh nka
Yal ana)
unk
Sus a
Hir Tupuriu
i Mo
YocUrak Law
tu
obo
ué Didoi'
Zai a
Las wa
Ma hi
Kah ru
Sou
ua
ther
Hau
n Pue South sa
bla
Fal
Mix i
tec
Tim
ugo Konso
n
Yan Murut
Kan esha
kan '
Nya aey
nko
Nyo le
Southea
Kut ro
Sho u
stern
na
Pueb
la NahLenje
Trin uatl
Igna itario
cian
Mac
o
higu
enga
Sout
zulu
Huam
Nort h Ndebele
alíes
h Ndeb
Marg -Dos de
ele
os-Yarow Mayo
Gusi
ilca-L Huánuco Tharakai
South auricocha Quechua
North Bolivian Quechua
Quec
Boliv
Huall
aga Huán ian Quec hua
North uco Quec hua
Junín
Quec hua
Kamb hua
aata
Tatar
Bashk
Kara-Kalpa ir
Karachay-B
k
alkar
Uzbek
Chuva
sh
Easter
Southe n Mari
rn Altai
South Azerba
Azerba ijani
ijani
Fr

c
te
an
in
qw Ch e
Ira sila
U uo nzim
K oo
o
Kisi
K enger rn
atin
N ue he
o d Ch
N ut inya
So gr k e atin an
Ti du uy a Ch ighl
U um al H
M op rn ese
tal
on
N ste ur e
Ea ad es o Ch
M lin sc ra
Ba ba faan jára in
Ta Na aja Ch
ta
Gu wm ese
Ba rm tak
n Ag
Bu lan irí
ya
ga
Ba ka
Ba oreo l Ca
Ay ntra
a

an

Ce ac
M g an
De mo arí
Sa um nte o
Pa vá ga
Xa lan
a
ay
Ba an e
Gb
Us on
st
No m we
Ki rth a
No wa
Ku ossi gam
M an l
Ng saa al
Ku asa
Pa cham
Nt mobaarra
Bi kw
Be zi
tho
Lo ko ern So
Ka uth
So pedi a
Se an
Tsw ula
ngo
Dy mbara axa
Ba asong n
glish
En
Xa meniayen
nch
ole
Ar ris
Fre
Cre
Mo io
ole
nd
Kr Isla
n Cre
Sea fut
cia
Ba nt Lu
ål
Sai
km sk
te
Vu ar
n Bo nor
Tik rwegia n Ny
No rwegia
No nish
Da glish mani
En x Ro
Vla edish
)
0)
Sw anian anian (1453- 150
Alb eg Alb ek (1100Gh dern Gre lish
Mo dle Eng ole lish
Midtian Creol Eng
Hai ize Kri
Bel ba
Mo efare
Far da
Ven iamento
Pap ndrou p
Nyi p-Loke
Aro am
Mananyan r
Ma' u-Gudu
Mof we
Irig abí
yah
Kay au Ken
bila
Wah imba
Tsik eroon Mam
Cam a
Zarm
Suau o
Ninz rib
Dog
aré
Iu Mien
Mad
Lobi hern Bobo
Sout a
Hang
Zou (Nigeria)
Mak Chin
Tedimngkabau
Mina
anu
Term a Chin
Hakh krou
Adiou
Hdi
Jur ModoChinese
Min Nan
g Daw
Hmon
Gun
Wa
ge)
Parauk (macrolangua
Malay se
Javane se
Achine Senoufo
ic of Congo)
ratic Republ
Supyire
Mono (Democ
ng
Mangse

Koorete
Galibi Carib
Cheroke
e
Arabela
Ossetic
Russia Buriat
Oirat
Khakas
Chimborazo
Lelemi
Highland
Cañar Highland Quichua
Quichua
Ayacucho Quechua
Cusco Quechua
Ajyíninka Apurucayali
Ucayali-Yurúa
Ashéninka
Pichis Ashéninka
Huichol
Ama (Papua New
Guinea)
Chachi
Woun Meu
Alamblak
Mayo
Gwahatike
Gumuz
Northern Paiute
Naasioi
Southern Pastaza Quechua
Telugu
Kamula
Fore
Mountain Koiali
Kwoma
Lambayeque Quechua
Sharanahua
Yaminahua
Northern Oaxaca Nahuatl
Sukuma
Achuar-Shiwiar
Chuave
Asháninka
Awiyaana
Kosena
Páez
Eastern Tamang
Kyrgyz
Shuar
Kazakh
Quechua
Huaylas Ancash Quechua
Ancash
Quechua
Northern Conchucos
Eastern Apurímac Quechua
Huaylla Wanca Imbongu
Bo-Ung
gu
Umbu-Un
Kube
iawari
Somba-S
Borong
Mape
Rawa
amane
Guhu-S Nabak
Korafe-Yegha
Yareba
uha
Yawey t
Selepe
m
Aekyo
Yipma
g
Henen
Angal Punjabi
bisa
Huam o
Yopn
Haya
tec
chi Zapo tec
Yatza
Zapo
ocho Iatmul
Zoog
gana
Keya Kaili
Ledo neña
Cavi ufa
Usar tec
Zapo a
YalálagAguarun i
Bauz o
Gam
wa
Ojib
eta
kwe
Mar Limbu
nal
ka Pajo
énin Tepehuane
Ash
n
Mix
NortherJuquila Yaqui
wa
Ojib a
Severn Tepehuan
ilco
ehu
Tep
hich
Tlac stern Zapoteca
ey Kew
thea
Sou a Vall West Kewa
t
olul
Eas niboa
Tlac
-Co Cor
tern
a
Wes
esa
Shipibo
ta Ter ar Corga
San El Nay pan a
Pam ann
er-B Boo
Ham
ian
Zyr a
w
Komi-Durum
Hebre o
ong
Ko saaba
Ma dhi
Sin ayo
-M í
san Apala ú
Yes
ruk
ndu ka
Mu Din ri
estern Laaifor
thw
Bir u
Sou
lba Buam na
Ma
Ba ng
nya re
Ke äbe
Ng tonac
To Yele
tla
ga
too ri
Papan
Da kae 'di
ara
at
Am Ma
alé
ng ec
Da zat fán
Ma Co ís
az
rec
Dí
Pa arim
De
nh
Te Bomuer
apa
rri
Jal
Ca gon
Do no
So Tucabiyè r
ro
Ka me
To
Kh a
al echuren
ntr
Ce a Qu Ka lian
arc aw go he
jam S'g Mon Apacomo
se
Ca
lh n
Ha ester rn OrAkoo ese
gu lde
W ste
Ea
rtu lfu pi
Po n Fu Ho
lee
ria
Se tec i
ge
po arh
Ni
a Za sg ge
itl tti ra do
M Chha t Gu lora hua
t Be CoQuec rnta a
ba
ra ar a
d
Se
an Ar m ay
wl n hu
ala
Lo ester Tara t Gb ng ya
po W and hwes Li Seco atl a
hu hu a
Na
wl ut
Lo So
n Na na an n
cá pa ay ria n
oa Ca W ga lia ne
Ita Bi a
ich
Hun
ss
M
Bi turu u
ul i
NyaKag an
w de
M an ba
N Su an
ni c
ai bi n
kr ra ia
U A rg
rd eo
da G
an
St

Lahu
Achang na Peñasco Mixtec
Magdale
Kouya
Miyobe
Mbyá Guaraní
Eastern Karaboro
Waama
Mündü
Nigeria Mambila
Konkomba
Kamwe
Tojolabal
Obo Manobo
Nakanai
Dan
Kara (Papua New Guinea)
Guinea Kpelle
Baatonum
Tsonga
Romanian
Croatian
Kutep
Japanese

da

an

aní
Pisaﬂore
Karamojos Tepehua
Jola-Fon ng
San Mig yi
Atatláhu uel El Gra
Jamiltep ca Mixtec nde Mixtec
Karkar- ec Mixtec
Akha Yuri
Sarama
Diuxi-Tccan
Pwo Norilantongo
Eastern thern Kar Mixtec
en
Chichi Bru
Tzotzil capan Zap
otec
Cabéca
Mosko r
Meyah na
Marath
Amatlá i
n Zap
San
Co ta María otec
Russiatecas Alt Quieg
as Za olani Za
Old an
potec
potec
Sla
Slovenvonic
Madak ian
Wuvu
Yagu lu-Au
a
Siriona
Pilag ó
Mün á
Matu Chin
Kach Chin
Leala in
Mac o Ch
Akawushi inante
c
San aio
Ca Juan
IbanribbeanAtzingo
Java Po
Ch
nese poloc
Menol
a
Ce gen
Ne rma
Langhan
Ku o (U
Yu mam gand
a)
Lacacateco
Sa nd
Centposa on
M ral
Te ocov Sama
M nang í
Ea aori o Oto
mi
M stern
Urdoose Highl
Fijia u Cree and
Oto
Tu n
mi
Hin ngag
Ly di
K élé
So apinga
Fo uthe mar
rn
Sa n
Nun angi
Sa n Mar
i
Bugngo tín
Itun
Gen lere
yo
Yab
so
Triq
M em
Bug apos
ui
M aw B
Q alê ac uang
B uich
B ukiy é
Iv um ip
Ambie Nbita A
M ba orth rape
-O sh
T anggi
kp
Achol
aB
el
a-A
P
ua
i
ng
U oqom
rhe
A bir ch
i'
C rifa
K ham m
N uk ac a-M
Iray do ele oco inia
ﬁa
B a
Ch olin
M am ao
K o o
S ore ro rro
Tagaran an
No ab gan
aw i
Su Man rther a Man
ob
S lka darin n K
o
W ater
Ch hmer
A ip éin
K pin i Maw
es
A w ay
e
é
M lgo aio é
w n
H Daw ag qu
S ua aw h in
Ya anu utla a avu
l
N n m M
Z d om á
az
ate
H em ong ám
an ba a i
c
un
oo

St

Sta
nd
ard
Bu M
g a
To ine lay
Bw a (N T Tb belo se
an am aba oli
ab ib ru
w ia
Nap an )
Ala U u a
Eas
ng m a
sc tern Tok Iw an
o
P al
HawLeó Taw Ku isin
n
ai'i Zo buid ot
P qu
Tic idg e
Q'a
u in
n N na
an job'aaro
jo
idg bal l
ltalin
de
Nam

Mansaka
Ata Manobo
Botolan Sambal
Namiae
Barai
Tereno
Tlahuitoltepec Mixe
Texmelucan Zapotec
Totontepec Mixe
Batad Ifugao
Teutila Cuicatec
Kyaka
Karajá
Nepali (individual language)
Chipaya

Southern Rincon Zapotec
Zacatlán-Ahuacatlán-Tepetzintla Nahuatl
Tena Lowland Quichua
Guahibo
Tuyuca
Kafa
Nalca
Samberigi
Matsés
Yongkom
Guerrero Amuzgo
Camsá
Aruamu
Yatee Zapotec
Muna
Wiru
Angor
Ewage-Notu
Makasar
Iduna
Kumyk
Popoloca
Tlalcoyalco
Inga
San Marcos
Wayuu
Bargam
o
Murui Huitot
Mian
Dawro
Wolaytta
Nahuatl
Huasteca Nahuatl
Western
teca
Central Huas teca Nahuatl n
Huas Kagayane
Eastern
Popolucain
Highland
Bim
Bora
Guinea)
ua New inahua
Cash apra
Awa (Pap
i-Sh
Candosh Biangai
in
Oksapm
ano
Guambi ah
Kay
WesternQuechua i
Ancash Salt-Yueq
chucos
Tamashano
n Con
Souther
Kam r
uaique
Awa-C yahuita
Cha
Waskia
Amelea
ehu
etla Tep lin
Go
Huehu
na
est Tanuaje
Southw reg
Ko
Cubeo
ga
tsiguen m
Noma Ngalurunga
SursuPatep
le
IamaleOlo
aapor
ú-K nd
Urub Bedjo nã
Apuri
piatun
su
an Inu Fa
Alask
ataha
North
Anga echua i
ran
ín Qu Wao ran
Mart
ssa
San
Tabala-Kasa i
Jo ngga
Ba Nias
an
Muﬁ ma
Bunabyle
Ka ara
Keap iba
Cu
aktsa
Rikb China
ng im
Zotu Mol teco
an n
Usp Blaa n
al
aa
onad i Bl ion
Kor ranganManik ona
Sa
Pamrabic
A raní
dian GuaTabo
c
Chaayan
pote nac
gu
í Za to rá
Para
uier To be i
-Q árez Em ib
tani e Ju thern Dadatec
a
oqui ec D Nor
Mazelaw
Qui otep
utla uh hʼin í
Xic
Aya 'A Gwic akal er
MaxCarri ay
rn üisn ec
uthe s G ot
So mté n Zapapotecne
Lha có Z lu
hí Rin baa A ekeoik
Ta
M
Wic
Mar iva
ka ec
Oroapot ec
n Z apot ní
atlá c Z ra i
hu tepe n GuaKanas ara
Miazolo ivia
um a
ah acan a
O Bol
Tar T aveh o
in ar
tern
tral
M ak Konob c
Eas
te
Cen
Bat Nob Mix tec u
ix
c
M ab
tepedúa S asemro
K go o
Oco on
au yay
Yos
Sin Do asau n
tu a
Kamupia hu obo
a
ec
a In Qu Chác uár ol
bik -H hai
lask uco
an
e
t A uán
NamIng Tines e i
wes H
h es il
ern tlh
C
rth ao
am D i
uth
ka ietn un ra
No Pan
So
Ja ijin
Hak V Tet
P in
Ch hin
am C ané h
Fal iyin sim ayu ec
S T id st gir
B ua an aju
tah H S Ng alay k
Bia
M asa
al S
ntr
Ce
0.02

Gilbertese
Bariai
Tamil
Sio
Burarra
Tinputz
Bambam
Kono (Sierra
Leone)
Pinotep
Toraja- a Nacional Mixtec
Ngawn Sa'dan
Tachel Chin
hit
Ambulas
Merey
Chortí
Timne
Tawal
South a
Ramoern Samo
aaina
Kekc
Chuu hí
Kuan kese
Serbi ua
Mars an
Mbu hallese
Juku ko
Kuw n Takum
Chumaataay
Shill burung
Silac uk
Lach ayoapan
Isthm ixío Zapo Mixtec
Izer us Zapo tec
tec
Gud e
Wes e
Mun tern Pen
an
Dii dani
May
Gap oyao
Kim apaiwa Ifugao
Mo ré
Sou tu
Anu thern Biri
Mu fo
for
Cac yang
Me ua
Comlpa
Gok altepec
Chi
Kupanana
nan
Hel
tec
ong g Malay
Tob
Pop a
Kw ti'
Ny anyam
We abwa a
Ka stern
Ga diwéu Bukid
non
Ag ro
Ma
Tak uacate
nob
co
o
Tep ia
Ma eux
Ya m ila Cu
ica
Bu wa
tec
Ch hid
Muiquitan
o
Ka rle
Es daz
Öm e Ejj an Du
sun
Me ie a
Ce nta
Mo ntral wai
Up pán Bonto
Ta per Ma
k
Go laa Ne ya
Tu ron ndig caxa
To
Do wa talo
ton
Ga bu li Ifu
ac
gao
Zu rifun
Qu lgo a
Ad iot -Gem
Bo ele epec ze
Ch k
Bu koba
ina
Ka sa ru
nte
Sa mb
c
Ar n M era
os ate
Ka i
o De
M ya
lM
Pa anggpó
ar
Th rkwa ara
Hu
i
Ab ad
av
Ro au o Ch
e
De tok
in
Sa lo as
Iy r
Iy ojwa
W o'w 'ja
Ow ol uj Ch
Di a of wa or
Ch ot
M tam
or e
M as m
ote
La am ana ari
Be m ar
Ve te- a (T a Se
Be
no
og
ng
Na
W wd o ndi o) ufo
Ch ap m
Nor ay ish
an
In Lush theauco a
M
Si do
N ss ne ai stern ixte
Ep gi ala sia
Din c
n
W en em
ka
D ar a boon
U en is
W ab Mya
es et
t-C o
en
tra
l Li
m
ba

n
ﬁa be ia
ala
Ba m edonian
sa
Be ac ar
Si
sh
g
di
M lg a
Bu gl ulun a Kur
ni
Va m monern
sta
Tu ta
du
Pa orth ola
N dh thili di Hin
ia)
A ai Hin an
an
M ji be
nz
Fi rib ito
d Ta
a
Ca ísk
M ri angngna ya an
Da ay an en e o
tec
M ay (K nd ng
M o aa To
inan
) ish
Lu m an
No an iteko an Chixe voireEngl
Sr kt iap M e d'I le
Te ch us ôt eo c
So hm a (C Cr ria
Ist ur an Sy abic
To maic al Ar ni
Ja assictian ma
Cl yp Ro
Eg
c
ixe
hi
M
Sintead h
nte
ina
Aw els atlán
aic
W az ati ín Ch
ram
M jar ac
o-A
Gu um
Oz sh
n Ne
Iri syria ba
no
As lam
ati
Ni wo
d Ch
Lu e
lan
gh atino
Ew golo
Po sque rn Hi Ch asy
tut
Ba ste tepec lag
kti
We tal u Ma
n Inu
Ta tea
a
Pla hé alam nadia
ech
rep
Ac lay rn Ca
Ma ste a
d Pu
a ghlan
Ea mb
Ko repech Hi dham
Pu stern O'o
We no
ho
To masa
tl
Ma e
Es jam Nahua
An errero
Gu 'kmaq
Mi nnada
c
Ka ghur
ona
Uy wol Tot
Fai hland
c
Hig efol
Tel no Zapote
Da os
nya
Cajon
nka
Ma rlpiri
Wa
Au una
Yuc
Nii i
na
Tw rth Tan
No ne
a
Sia anakain onac
Um utla Tot
tec
Coy ya
nan
Erz ana Chi
Lal ite
Kan ke-Yate
Ino toat
Wan auz
Gag
pele
Sek rayu
Guinea)
Gua tujil
ua New
Tz'u de (Pap
Mensa
Xho it
atec
Itaw aan
Maz
Mab u-Yalanji Tecóatl
)
Kuk
uage
Jerónimo
San ali
al lang
Benga (individu
Oriy wake
Mau ave
Ank e
ea)
Guin
Terib
New
nga
Kwa a (Papua
Maiw lona Atta
Pamp (Ethiopia)
Male a
Girawpan Zapotec
Choa ya
Nkon
li
Soma ia
Saam cian
Valen lynes
Maske Grebo c
c
Northern
Zapote
adas Zapote
go Albarr
Mixtepec
Santo Domin
Bribri Zapotec
Ocotláni Naga
Angam n
Cheche
Triqui
Copala
Amanab Chinantec
Palantla ala-Rano-Atchin
Uripiv-Wa
Tumbuk
Waima
Matal
Iyo
Amuzgos Amuzgo
San Pedro
Pele-Ata
Siona
Yine
Keley-I Kallahan
Sabaot
Lhomi

Te
te
lc
in A
go
Ira Es N mha
ni pe ah ric
Lo an Pe ra uatl
nt
Pl Ic w Sa rsia o
W
au el xo n
es
an
tern Fatdie di n
ro tsc c
Fl Frisi es h
G em an e
Sw er ish
M ab man
rd La altese ian
tv
Es Latv ian
to
Li Fi ni ian
thua nn an
ish
Po nian
Cz lish
Sl
ec
Ba ov h
Co
An
va
atl Fr ria ak
cie
án en n
Sw
nt
Gr
ah
Ny Mix ch
ili
ee
k (to Sp anja e
(in
an
div No
14 ish
idu rth
al ern La 53)
lan Sa tin
gu mi
ag
Ki
gir Digoe)
Go yama
go
Ku VuPular
ps
njo
Ki
Ki ab
Malanyarw ku iny
yu
wi anda
Se
Ca
Ru na
sig Be
ura mb Po Kw ndi
n Du a
ko ere
ma (Zam mo
gat bia
Ag )
Ma
asi Ma Ilo ta
na
ko
Fu kond
lfu e
Ina He lde
bak he
no
Ki n
Rin Ba Seim sar
con tak
ada To at
We
Ma Bik ba
ste
cha ol
Me rn Nig
me
Tep nde (Si er Mochi
Fulfu
eto
err
tutl
a Cha Leonelde
ina
nte )
Eﬁ c
Alu k
r
Ga
Mb Teso
Coa
Par unda
ana
tzospa
Gu n
n Mix
lay
Sw tec
Yam ati
Bro
oke
Bim ba
's Poi
nt PalMaran a
awa ao
Eas Pangas no
tern
Boninan
Pili tok
Tag pino
Mongo
alog
Ceb ndow
Hili uano
War
Kin gaynon
Mat ay (Phi aray-A
igsa
lipp
ines
lug
Cen Manobo)
tral
Mas Biko
bate l
Agu
san Mannyo
Agu obo
tayn
Wichí
Lham Caluyanuen
Bata
tés Noc n
Piapoco
k Sima
lung ten
Bata
Kobon
k Ang un
Bata kola
k Dair
Kalam
Mapudun
i
Ngam gun
NyakTai
yusa-Ngobay
Kaqchikel
nde
Obol
Turkish
Ikwereo
WaffHuitoto
Minica
a
Agarabi
Caquinte
Tuma Huli
-Irum
Kein
Benab u
ena
Aleka
Northern
Anggu
no Puebla Nahuatl
ruk Yali
Cotabato
Manobo
Sirian
Desan o
Central
Guana o Tunebo
Muinane
Piratap no
Barasana-Eduuyo
Gofa
ria
Carapa
na
Cashibo-C
Kire
acataibo
Waimah
Avaric
a
Macuna
Yau (Morob
Kuman (Papua
e Provinc
Numang e)
New Guinea)
gang
Highlan
d Oaxaca Chontal
Siroi
Daga
Koya
Sinhalese
Saniyo
Dedua -Hiyewe
Border
Suena Kuna
Zia
Northe
Tatuyo rn Pastaz
Adam
Timbe
Imbabura Highland
awa Fulful a Quichua
Quichua
Tezoa
tlán Mixte de
Hanga Hundi
Peñol
Binumarien
es Mixtec c
Kunimaipa
Limo
Aneme
s Kalinga
Wake
San
Safeyoka
Blas
South
Tairora Kuna
Mbay
North Tairora
Yurac
Guayabero
are
Weri
Central
Urarina
Aymara
Highland
Mag-antsi
Ayta
Pueb
WestKandawo
ern Boli la Nahuatl
Chiquihuitlán Mazatec
vian Guar
CopticFolopa

Luang
Bola
Avokaya
Wandala
Sundanese
Kenga
Kaiwá
Galela
Nadëb
Mbula
Sepik Iwam
Halia
Mokole
Lukpa
Wè Northern
Lote
South Giziga
Lampung Api
Bislama
Gumatj
Djambarrpuyngu
Central Mazahua
Duri

Barbacoan
Sino-Tibetan
Quechuan
Cariban
Mangrida
Arawakan
Altaic
Lower Sepik-Ramu
Oto-Manguean
Jivaroan
Nadahup
Yele
Mayan
Basque
Songhay
Cahuapanan
Matacoan
Na-Dene
Camsá
Teberan-Pawaian
Tacanan
Urarina
Mixe-Zoque
Macro-Ge
Zaparoan
Mosetenan
Niger-Congo
Tarascan
Awin-Pare
Waorani
unknown
Karkar-Yuri
Kuot
Left May
Peba-Yaguan
Tol
Trans-New Guinea
Guahiban
Huitotoan
West Bougainville
Yanomam
Nakh-Daghestanian
Huavean
Uru-Chipaya
Indo-European
East Bird's Head
Tucanoan
Baining-Taulil
Khoe-Kwadi
Oksapmin
Totonacan
Choco
Torricelli
Mande
Tai-Kadai
Tupian
Uralic
Ticuna
Araucanian
Candoshi
Kordofanian
Ok
Arauan
Sepik
Yawa
Central Sudanic
Yuracare
Pama-Nyungan
Yareban
Austro-Asiatic
Cofán
Gumuz
Algic
Austronesian
Guaicuruan
Senagi
Tequistlatecan
Paezan
Iroquoian
Chibchan
Korean
Zamucoan
Japanese
Kartvelian
Sulka
Border
Harakmbet
Dravidian
West Papuan
Misumalpan
Uto-Aztecan
Panoan
East Bougainville
Nambikuaran
Dagan
Chiquito
Eastern Sudanic
Afro-Asiatic
Dogon
East Geelvink Bay
Hmong-Mien
Cacua-Nukak
Eskimo-Aleut

Figure 4: Clustering of 1107 languages based on the average Jensen-Shannon divergence in past,
present, and future marking of their respective top markers. Each node is colored based on its family information. Languages with no record on WALS remained white. It can be seen that many small
clusters of nodes have the same color, which together with our quantitative evaluation supports that if
divergence of tense marking is low the languages are very likely to be genetically related.
Christodouloupoulos and Steedman, 2015; Lison
and Tiedemann, 2016).
5.1

Parallel corpora and annotation
projection

In general, parallel corpora are a resource of immense importance in natural language processing at least since Brown et al. (1993)’s work on
machine translation and they are widely used.
In addition to machine translation, other applications include typology (Asgari and Mofrad, 2016;
Malaviya et al., 2017) and paraphrase mining
(Bannard and Callison-Burch, 2005).
Annotation projection is a specific use of paral-

c
te
an
hin
qw C
e
Ira sila o im
i
U u nz
K oo ge
o
Kis
in
n
K en
hat
N uer ther a
o dC
N ou ny
S ri k ye hatin lan
Tig du mu a C igh
U u al H
M op rn se
tal
N aste ure e hon
E ad es C
M alin co nra a
B abas aa ár hin
T Naf ajaj C
u
m
e
ta
G aw es k
Ag
B urm ta
an
B alan rí
B akai o agay
B ore al C
Ay entr
C aca
M
n
Deg oa arí
Samaum te o
P aván ga
X alan
ya
ba
B san ne
U oo
tG
N im wes
K orth aa
N uw
K ossi am
M gang l
N usaa l
K asaa m
Pa tcha a
N ob ra
Bim war
ek
B i
tho
Lozako rn So
K uthe
So pedi a
Se wan
Ts yula ra ango
ba ax
D
h
Bam songian
glis
En
Xaa en yen
ch
ole
Armoris
Fren
Cre
M
ole
nd
Krioa Isla
Cre
Se afut
cian
B int Lu
ål
Sa
km sk
te
Vu kar ian Bo ynor
Ti weg ian N
Nor weg
Nor ish
Dan glish mani
En x Ro
Vla edish
3-) 00)
Sw banian banian
(145 15
Al eg Al eek (1100Gh ern Gr glish

lel corpora: a set of labels that is available for L1
is projected to L2 via alignment links within the
parallel corpus. L1 labels can either be obtained
through manual annotation or through an analysis module that may be available for L1 , but not
for L2 . We interpret label here broadly, including, e.g., part of speech labels, morphological tags
and segmentation boundaries, sense labels, mood
labels, event labels, syntactic analysis and coreference. We can only cite a small subset of papers using annotation projection published in the last two
decades: McEnery and Xiao (1999), Ide (2000),
Yarowsky et al. (2001), Xiao and McEnery (2002),
Diab and Resnik (2002), Hwa et al. (2005), Muk-

Mod dle En eole glish
Mid an Cr iol En
Haitilize Kr
Be a
Mob are
Farefnda
Ve mento
Papiaindrou ep
Ny -Lok
Arop am
Man nyan r
Ma'a Gudu
Mofu-e
Irigwyabí
ah
Ka hau Keny
Wa
ba
mbila
Tsikimroon Ma
Came a
Zarm
Suauzo
Nin b
Dogri en
é
Iu Mi
Madar
Lobi rn Bobo
the
Sou
Hanga
Zou (Nigeria)
Mak Chin
Tedim kabau
Minangu
Terman
Chin
Hakha rou
Adiouk
Hdi
do
Jur Mo Chinese
Min NanDaw
Hmong
Gun
Wa
e)
Parauk (macrolanguag
Malay
Javanese
o)
AchineseSenoufo
blic of Cong
Supyire
ocratic Repu
Mono (Dem
Mangseng
Lahu
c
Achang
Peñasco Mixte
Magdalena
Kouya
Miyobe
ní
Mbyá Guara ro
Eastern Karabo
Waama
Mündü
a
Nigeria Mambil
Konkomba
Kamwe
Tojolabal
Obo Manobo
Nakanai
Dan
Kara (Papua New Guinea)
Guinea Kpelle
Baatonum
Tsonga
Romanian
Croatian
Kutep
Japanese

Luang
Bola
Avokaya
Wandala
Sundanese
Kenga
Kaiwá
Galela
Nadëb
Mbula
Sepik Iwam
Halia
Mokole
Lukpa
Wè Northern
Lote
South Giziga
Lampung Api
Bislama
Gumatj
Djambarrpuyn
Central Mazah gu
ua
Duri
Gilbertese
Bariai
Tamil
Sio
Burarra
Tinputz
Bambam
Kono (Sier
Pinotepa ra Leone)
Toraja-SaNacional Mixt
ec
Ngawn 'dan
TachelhitChin
Ambulas
Merey
Chortí
Timne
Tawala
Souther
n
Ramoaa Samo
Kekchí ina
Chuuke
Kuanua se
Serbia
Marsh n
Mbukoallese
Jukun
Kuwa Takum
Chum ataay
Shillukburung
Silaca
Lachi yoapan
Isthmuxío ZapotMixtec
Izere s Zapot ec
ec
Gude
Weste
rn Pe
Mund
ani nan
Di
Ma i
Gapayoyao
Kimr paiwa Ifugao
Motu é
South
Anu ern

Verses marked in CRS

Verses marked in FIJ

crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti tcs:bin
crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin
no_marker

Verses marked in HWC

crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti tcs:bin
crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin
no_marker

Verses marked in TCS

crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti tcs:bin
crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin
no_marker

Verses marked in TZO

crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti tcs:bin
crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin
no_marker

Verses not marked in neither of languages

crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti tcs:bin
crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin
no_marker

crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti tcs:bin
crs:ti hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai hwc:wen tcs:bin tzo:laj
crs:ti fij:qai tcs:bin
no_marker

Figure 5: A map of past tense based on the largest clusters of verses with particular combinations of
the past tense pivots from Seychellois Creole (CRS), Fijian (FIJ), Hawaiian Creole (HWC), Torres Strait
Creole (TCS) and Tzotzil (TZO). For each of the five languages, we present a subfigure that highlights
the subset of verse clusters that are marked by the pivot of that language. The sixth subfigure highlights
verses not marked by any of the five pivots.

Verses marked in AFR

Verses marked in ISL

pap:ta
rro:hanona
pap:ta rro:hanona
afr:is isl:er pap:ta rro:hanona urd:
urd:
afr:is pap:ta rro:hanona
no_marker

Verses marked in PAP

pap:ta
rro:hanona
pap:ta rro:hanona
afr:is isl:er pap:ta rro:hanona urd:
urd:
afr:is pap:ta rro:hanona
no_marker

Verses marked in RRO

pap:ta
rro:hanona
pap:ta rro:hanona
afr:is isl:er pap:ta rro:hanona urd:
urd:
afr:is pap:ta rro:hanona
no_marker

Verses marked in URD

pap:ta
rro:hanona
pap:ta rro:hanona
afr:is isl:er pap:ta rro:hanona urd:
urd:
afr:is pap:ta rro:hanona
no_marker

Unmarked Verses

pap:ta
rro:hanona
pap:ta rro:hanona
afr:is isl:er pap:ta rro:hanona urd:
urd:
afr:is pap:ta rro:hanona
no_marker

pap:ta
rro:hanona
pap:ta rro:hanona
afr:is isl:er pap:ta rro:hanona urd:
urd:
afr:is pap:ta rro:hanona
no_marker

Figure 6: A map of present tense based on the largest clusters of verses with particular combinations
of the past tense pivots from Papiamento (PAP), Waima (RRO), Afrikaans (ARF), Urdu (URD) and
Icelandic (ISL). For each of the five languages, we present a subfigure that highlights the subset of verse
clusters that are marked by the pivot of that language. The sixth subfigure highlights verses not marked
by any of the five pivots.

Verses marked in KLV

msa:akan
quc:na
tpi:bai
tte:kani
klv:dereh msa:akan quc:na tpi:bai tte:kani
quc:na tpi:bai
no_marker

Verses marked in QUC

msa:akan
quc:na
tpi:bai
tte:kani
klv:dereh msa:akan quc:na tpi:bai tte:kani
quc:na tpi:bai
no_marker

Verses marked in TTE

msa:akan
quc:na
tpi:bai
tte:kani
klv:dereh msa:akan quc:na tpi:bai tte:kani
quc:na tpi:bai
no_marker

Verses marked in MSA

msa:akan
quc:na
tpi:bai
tte:kani
klv:dereh msa:akan quc:na tpi:bai tte:kani
quc:na tpi:bai
no_marker

Verses marked in TPI

msa:akan
quc:na
tpi:bai
tte:kani
klv:dereh msa:akan quc:na tpi:bai tte:kani
quc:na tpi:bai
no_marker

Unmarked Verses

msa:akan
quc:na
tpi:bai
tte:kani
klv:dereh msa:akan quc:na tpi:bai tte:kani
quc:na tpi:bai
no_marker

Figure 7: A map of future tense based on the largest clusters of verses with particular combinations
of the past tense pivots from Bwanabwana (TTE), Tok Pisin (TPI), Quiché (QUC), Malay (MSA) and
Maskelynes (KLV). For each of the five languages, we present a subfigure that highlights the subset of
verse clusters that are marked by the pivot of that language. The sixth subfigure highlights verses not
marked by any of the five pivots.

erjee et al. (2006), Padó and Lapata (2009), Das
and Petrov (2011), de Souza and Orăsan (2011),
Nordrum (2015), Marasović and Frank (2016) and
Agić et al. (2016).
Of particular relevance is work that projects
tense: Spreyer and Frank (2008), Xue et al.
(2013), Loaiciga et al. (2014), Zhang and Xue
(2014) and Friedrich and Gateva (2017).
In contrast to this previous work, the labels we
project in this paper are not the result of human annotation nor the result of the annotation computed
by an NLP analysis module. Instead we interpret
words in L1 as annotation labels (words like CRS
“ti” and TZO “laj”) and project these word annotation labels to another language L2 .

allel corpus, i.e., in a corpus that contains an order of magnitude more languages than parallel
corpora currently in use. We showed that SuperPivot performs well for the crosslingual analysis of the linguistic phenomenon of tense. We
produced analysis results for more than 1000 languages, conducting – to the best of our knowledge
– the largest crosslingual computational study performed to date. We extended existing methodology for leveraging parallel corpora for typological
analysis by overcoming a limiting assumption of
earlier work. We only require that a linguistic feature is overtly marked in a few of thousands of languages as opposed to requiring that it be marked in
all languages under investigation.

6

8

Discussion

Our motivation is not to develop a method that can
then be applied to many other corpora. Rather,
our motivation is that many of the more than 1000
languages in the Parallel Bible Corpus are lowresource and that providing a method for creating the first richly annotated corpus (through the
projection of annotation we propose) for many of
these languages is a significant contribution.
The original motivation for our approach is
provided by the work of the typologist Michael
Cysouw. He created the same type of annotation
as we, but he produced it manually whereas we use
automatic methods. But the structure of the annotation and its use in linguistic analysis is the same
as what we provide.
The basic idea of the utility of the final outcome of SuperPivot is that the 1163 languages all
richly annotate each other. As long as there are a
few among the 1163 languages that have a clear
marker for linguistic feature f , then this marker
can be projected to all other languages to richly
annotate them. For any linguistic feature, there is
a good chance that a few languages clearly mark
it. Of course, this small subset of languages will
be different for every linguistic feature.
Thus, even for extremely resource-poor languages for which at present no annotated resources
exist, SuperPivot will make available richly annotated corpora that should advance linguistic research on these languages.

7

Conclusion

We presented SuperPivot, an analysis method for
low-resource languages that occur in a superpar-

Future directions

There are at least two future directions that seem
promising to us.
• Creating a common map of tense along the
lines of Figure 5, but unifying the three tenses
• Addressing shortcomings of the way we
compute alignments: (i) generalizing character n-grams to more general features, so
that templates in templatic morphology, reduplication and other more complex manifestations of linguistic features can be captured;
(ii) use n-gram features of different lengths
to account for differences among languages,
e.g., shorter ones for Chinese, longer ones for
English; (iii) segmenting verses into clauses
and performing alignment not on the verse
level (which caused many errors in our experiments), but on the clause level instead; (iv)
using global information more effectively,
e.g., by extracting alignment features from
automatically induced bi- or multilingual lexicons.

Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge financial support from
Volkswagenstiftung and fruitful discussions with
Fabienne Braune, Michael Cysouw, Alexander
Fraser, Annemarie Friedrich, Mohsen Mahdavi
Mazdeh, Mohammad R.K. Mofrad, Yadollah
Yaghoobzadeh, and Benjamin Roth. We are indebted to Michael Cysouw for the Parallel Bible
Corpus.

References
Željko Agić, Anders Johannsen, Barbara Plank,
Héctor Alonso Martı́nez, Natalie Schluter, and Anders Søgaard. 2016. Multilingual projection for
parsing truly low-resource languages. Transactions
of the Association for Computational Linguistics
4:301–312.
Judith L. Aissen. 1987.
Springer.

Tzotzil Clause Structure.

Joan L Bybee and Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation
of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the
world. John Benjamins Amsterdam.
George Casella and Roger L. Berger. 2008. Statistical
Inference. Thomson.
Christos Christodouloupoulos and Mark Steedman.
2015. A massively parallel corpus: the bible in
100 languages. Language resources and evaluation
49(2):375–395.

Roger W Andersen. 1990. Papiamentu tense-aspect,
with special attention to discourse. Pidgin and creole tense-mood-aspect systems pages 59–96.

Bernard Comrie. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. University of Chicago press.

Ehsaneddin Asgari and Mohammad R. K. Mofrad.
2016. Comparing fifty natural languages and twelve
genetic languages using word embedding language
divergence (WELD) as a quantitative measure of
language distance. In Workshop on Multilingual and
Cross-lingual Methods in NLP. pages 65–74.

William Croft. 2001. Radical construction grammar:
Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford
University Press on Demand.

Colin Bannard and Chris Callison-Burch. 2005. Paraphrasing with bilingual parallel corpora. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for
Computational Linguistics, pages 597–604.
Emily M Bender. 2009. Linguistically naı̈ve!= language independent: why nlp needs linguistic typology. In Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Workshop
on the Interaction between Linguistics and Computational Linguistics: Virtuous, Vicious or Vacuous?.
Association for Computational Linguistics, pages
26–32.
Emily M Bender. 2011. On achieving and evaluating
language-independence in nlp. Linguistic Issues in
Language Technology 6(3):1–26.
Steven Bird. 2006. Nltk: the natural language toolkit.
In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL on Interactive presentation sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 69–72.
Bernd Bohnet and Joakim Nivre. 2012. A transitionbased system for joint part-of-speech tagging and
labeled non-projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical
Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning. Association
for Computational Linguistics, pages 1455–1465.
Bernd Bohnet, Joakim Nivre, Igor Boguslavsky,
Richárd Farkas, Filip Ginter, and Jan Hajič. 2013.
Joint morphological and syntactic analysis for richly
inflected languages. Transactions of the Association
for Computational Linguistics 1:415–428.
Peter F Brown, Vincent J Della Pietra, Stephen A Della
Pietra, and Robert L Mercer. 1993. The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational linguistics 19(2):263–311.

William Croft. 2002. Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.
William Croft and Keith T Poole. 2008. Inferring
universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical
linguistics 34(1):1–37.
Michael Cysouw. 2014. Inducing semantic roles. Perspectives on semantic roles pages 23–68.
Michael Cysouw and Bernhard Wälchli. 2007. Parallel texts: using translational equivalents in linguistic
typology. STUF-Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(2):95–99.
Östen Dahl. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Basil
Blackwell.
Östen Dahl. 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages
of Europe. Walter de Gruyter.
Östen Dahl. 2007. From questionnaires to parallel corpora in typology. STUF-Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(2):172–181.
Östen Dahl. 2014. The perfect map: Investigating the
cross-linguistic distribution of tame categories in a
parallel corpus. Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Contents Analysis. Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech. Linguae & litterae 28:268–
289.
Dipanjan Das and Slav Petrov. 2011. Unsupervised
part-of-speech tagging with bilingual graph-based
projections. In The 49th Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics: Human
Language Technologies, Proceedings of the Conference, 19-24 June, 2011, Portland, Oregon, USA.
pages 600–609.
José Guilherme Camargo de Souza and Constantin
Orăsan. 2011. Can projected chains in parallel
corpora help coreference resolution?
In Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium. Springer, pages 59–69.

Mona T. Diab and Philip Resnik. 2002. An unsupervised method for word sense tagging using parallel
corpora. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, July 6-12, 2002, Philadelphia, PA, USA.. pages
255–262.
Matthew S Dryer, David Gil, Bernard Comrie, Hagen
Jung, Claudia Schmidt, et al. 2005. The world atlas
of language structures. Oxford University Press.
Chris Dyer, Victor Chahuneau, and Noah A. Smith.
2013. A simple, fast, and effective reparameterization of IBM model 2. In Human Language Technologies: Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Proceedings, June 9-14, 2013, Westin Peachtree
Plaza Hotel, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. pages 644–648.
Annemarie Friedrich and Damyana Gateva. 2017.
Classification of telicity using cross-linguistic annotation projection. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language
Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, Denmark, pages 2549–2555.

Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Martine Vanhove, and Peter Koch. 2007. Typological approaches to lexical
semantics. Linguistic typology 11(1):159–185.
Anoop Kunchukuttan and Pushpak Bhattacharyya.
2016. Faster decoding for subword level phrasebased smt between related languages. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1611.00354 .
Pierre Lison and Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. Opensubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from
movie and tv subtitles. In Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Language Resources
and Evaluation.
Sharid Loaiciga, Thomas Meyer, and Andrei PopescuBelis. 2014. English-french verb phrase alignment
in europarl for tense translation modeling. In The
Ninth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. EPFL-CONF-198442.
Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008.
Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine
Learning Research 9(Nov):2579–2605.

Joseph H Greenberg. 1960. A quantitative approach
to the morphological typology of language. International journal of American linguistics 26(3):178–
194.

Chaitanya Malaviya, Graham Neubig, and Patrick Littell. 2017. Learning language representations for typology prediction. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language
Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, Denmark, pages 2519–2525.

Jan Hajič, Jan Hric, and Vladislav Kuboň. 2000. Machine translation of very close languages. In Proceedings of the sixth conference on Applied natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7–12.

Ana Marasović and Anette Frank. 2016. Multilingual modal sense classification using a convolutional
neural network. In Workshop on Representation
Learning for NLP. pages 111–120.

Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath, and Michael
Cysouw. 2014. Identifying semantic role clusters
and alignment types via microrole coexpression tendencies. Studies in Language. International Journal
sponsored by the Foundation ?Foundations of Language? 38(3):463–484.
Serge Heiden, Sophie Prévost, Benoit Habert, Helka
Folch, Serge Fleury, Gabriel Illouz, Pierre Lafon,
and Julien Nioche. 2000. Typtex: Inductive typological text classification by multivariate statistical
analysis for nlp systems tuning/evaluation. In Maria
Gavrilidou, George Carayannis, Stella Markantonatou, Stelios Piperidis, Gregory Stainhaouer (éds)
Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. pages p–141.
Rebecca Hwa, Philip Resnik, Amy Weinberg, Clara
Cabezas, and Okan Kolak. 2005. Bootstrapping
parsers via syntactic projection across parallel texts.
Natural language engineering 11(03):311–325.
Nancy Ide. 2000. Cross-lingual sense determination:
Can it work?
Computers and the Humanities
34(1):223–234.
Stephen C Johnson. 1967. Hierarchical clustering
schemes. Psychometrika 32(3):241–254.

Thomas Mayer and Michael Cysouw. 2014. Creating a massively parallel bible corpus. Oceania
135(273):40.
Ryan T McDonald, Joakim Nivre, Yvonne QuirmbachBrundage, Yoav Goldberg, Dipanjan Das, Kuzman
Ganchev, Keith B Hall, Slav Petrov, Hao Zhang, Oscar Täckström, et al. 2013. Universal dependency
annotation for multilingual parsing. In ACL (2).
pages 92–97.
Tony McEnery and Richard Xiao. 1999. Domains, text
types, aspect marking and english-chinese translation. Languages in Contrast 2(2):211–229.
John H McWhorter. 2005. Defining creole. Oxford
University Press.
Rada Mihalcea and Michel Simard. 2005. Parallel
texts. Natural Language Engineering 11(03):239–
246.
Amitabha Mukerjee, Ankit Soni, and Achla M Raina.
2006. Detecting complex predicates in hindi using
pos projection across parallel corpora. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiword Expressions:
Identifying and Exploiting Underlying Properties.
Association for Computational Linguistics, pages
28–35.

John Myhill and Myhill. 1992. Typological discourse
analysis: Quantitative approaches to the study of
linguistic function. Blackwell Oxford.
Lene Nordrum. 2015. Exploring spontaneous-event
marking though parallel corpora: Translating english ergative intransitive constructions into norwegian and swedish.
Languages in Contrast
15(2):230–250.
Sebastian Padó and Mirella Lapata. 2009. Crosslingual annotation projection for semantic roles.
J. Artif. Intell. Res. 36:307–340.
https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2863.
Ari Pirkola. 2001. Morphological typology of languages for ir. Journal of Documentation 57(3):330–
348.
Philip Resnik. 2004. Exploiting hidden meanings: Using bilingual text for monolingual annotation. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing pages 283–299.
Philip Resnik, Mari Broman Olsen, and Mona Diab.
1997. Creating a parallel corpus from the book of
2000 tongues. In Proceedings of the Text Encoding
Initiative 10th Anniversary User Conference (TEI10). Citeseer.
Gillian Sankoff. 1990. The grammaticalization of tense
and aspect in tok pisin and sranan. Language Variation and Change 2(03):295–312.
Marianne Elina Santaholma. 2007. Grammar sharing
techniques for rule-based multilingual nlp systems.
Proceedings of the 16th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NODALIDA) .
Diana Santos. 2004. Translation-based corpus studies: Contrasting English and Portuguese tense and
aspect systems. 50. Rodopi.
Devyani Sharma. 2009. Typological diversity in new
englishes. English World-Wide 30(2):170–195.
Jae Jung Song. 2014. Linguistic typology: Morphology
and syntax. Routledge.
Kathrin Spreyer and Anette Frank. 2008. Projectionbased acquisition of a temporal labeller. In IJCNLP.
pages 489–496.
Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1978. On the expression of
spatio-temporal relations in language. Universals of
human language 3:369–400.
Bernhard Wälchli. 2010. The consonant template in
synchrony and diachrony. Baltic linguistics 1.
Bernhard Wälchli and Michael Cysouw. 2012. Lexical
typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50(3):671–
710.
Lindsay J Whaley. 1996. Introduction to typology: the
unity and diversity of language. Sage Publications.

RZ Xiao and AM McEnery. 2002. A corpus-based approach to tense and aspect in english-chinese translation. In The 1st International Symposium on Contrastive and Translation Studies between Chinese
and English.
Nianwen Xue, Yuchen Zhang, and Yaqin Yang.
2013.
Distant annotation of chinese tense
and modality.
In Workshop on Annotation of
Modal Meaning in Natural Language (WAMM).
Association for Computational Linguistics,
pages 47–55.
http://aclanthology.coli.unisaarland.de/pdf/W/W13/W13-0307.pdf.
David Yarowsky, Grace Ngai, and Richard Wicentowski. 2001. Inducing multilingual text analysis
tools via robust projection across aligned corpora.
In Proceedings of the first international conference
on Human language technology research. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1–8.
Yuchen Zhang and Nianwen Xue. 2014. Automatic inference of the tense of chinese events using implicit
linguistic information. In Proceedings of the 2014
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Doha, Qatar, pages 1902–
1911. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1204.

