DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction Chapter 5 Discusses Both Inflection and Derivation. It Also

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction Chapter 5 Discusses Both Inflection and Derivation. It Also 1 Introduction Chapter 5 discusses both inflection and derivation. It also showcases two views on the distinction between the two. The first view is called the dichotomy approach. The second view is the continuum approach. Below the main points of the chapter will be summarized. Inflectional Values - Inflectional affixes are called inflectional values (or inflectional feature values). For example, English verbs uses the affix -ed to express the inflectional value ‘past’, as in walked. - It is worth-noting that the term ‘value’ is not used to describe derivational affixes. Instead, derivation is described in terms of derivational meanings. - The reason for the distinction between ‘values’ and ‘meanings’ is that while derivational affixes, such as -er in walker, have a meaning, inflectional affixes do not have a clear meaning. They only have syntactic functions. - Different languages depict different amounts of inflectional complexity. For example, English is poor of inflectional morphemes, compared to other languages like Spanish, French, Italian, German, and Arabic. There are also languages that have no inflectional affixes (e.g. Vietnamese and Igbo). - Inflectional values can be grouped together into super-categories. If two values share a functional property and cannot co-occur in the same context, they belong to the same feature. For example, English present and past are two values that belong to the same 2 feature, which is tense. If a sentence has the present value on its matrix verb, it will not have the past value on the same verb. - Other features can have several inflectional values. For example, case can have the following inflectional values: nominative, accusative, and genitive. Also, number can have the values: singular, dual, paucal, and plural. - Some languages may have inflectional markers for their adjectives. For instance, English adjectives have inflectional markers of comparative and superlative degree (small, smaller, smallest). - In some languages, verbs may have passive voice inflection, which shows an unusual association of semantic roles and syntactic functions. Derivational Meanings - There is more diversity in derivational meaning than there is in inflectional values. We can use derivational affixes to make agent nouns (e.g. write (v.) and write-r (n.)) - Derivational morphemes usually change the word-class of the base lexeme. F a word is derived from a noun, it is called ‘denominal’. If it is derived from a verb, it is called ‘deverbal’. And if it derived from an adjective, it is called ‘deadjectival’. Derived Nouns - Agent nouns are derived from verbs, as in English (drink (v.) and drink-er (n.)). - Deadjectival nouns are derived from adjectives, as in Japanese (atarasi-i (adj.) ‘new’ and atarasi-sa (n.) ‘newness’). 3 Derived verbs - Deverbal verbs are derived from verbs, as in Korean (cwuk ‘die’ and ‘cwuk-i ‘kill’). Derived adjectives - Deverbal adjectives are derived from verbs, as in Basque (jan ‘eat’ and jan-garri ‘edible’). Properties of inflection and derivation - There are two views on the properties of inflection and derivation. - The first view (dichotomy approach): inflection and derivation represent two separate subsystems in morphology. - The second view (continuum approach): inflection and derivation exist on a continuum. Canonical inflection exists on the end of one side, and derivation exists on the end of the other side. However, there are intermediary types of both. - There are eleven properties that distinguish inflection from derivation (according to the dichotomy approach). These properties will be summarized below. 1. Relevance to syntax: inflection is relevant to syntax, but derivation is not. ‘Relevant to syntax’ means that the grammatical function or meaning expressed by a morphological pattern is involved in syntactic agreement or syntactic government. 2. Obligatoriness: Inflectional features are obligatorily expressed on all applicable word- forms. Derivational meanings are not obligatorily expressed. For example, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) has a case that must be expressed on subjects (nominative case) and objects (accusative case), and speakers of MSA do not have the option of dropping out the case. In contrast, -er can be added to verbs to derive nouns with the meaning of 4 agent (e.g. drink and drinker), but this does not mean that all nouns must express an agentive meaning. 3. Limitations on application: Inflectional values can be applied to their base without arbitrary limitations. But derivational affixations may be limited in an arbitrary way. Within inflectional values, verbal paradigms have word-forms that express all the tense=aspect-mood values that are relevant to the language. However, arbitrariness in common in derivation. For example, conceivable derived lexeme may lack semantic explanation. In English, we can use -ess in waitress, but not in *professoress. 4. Same concept as base: canonical inflected word-forms expressed the same concept as the base. But canonical derived lexemes express a new concept. For example, the inflected past form ‘walked’ does not expressed a different concept from walk. However, the derived form ‘musician’ expresses a different concept from ‘music’. 5. Abstractness: inflectional values express a relatively abstract meaning. However, derivational meanings are relatively concrete. 6. Meaning compositionality: canonical inflected word-forms have compositional meaning, but canonical derived lexemes have non-compositional meaning. 7. Position to base: canonical inflection is expressed at the periphery of words, but canonical derivation is expressed close to the root – not an absolute property 8. Base allomorphy: inflection induces less base allomorphy; derivation induces more base allomorphy – but the opposite can be found 5 9. Word-class change: canonical inflection does not change the word-class of the base, but derivation may change the base’s word class – this pattern strongly associates with the continuum view of inflection/derivation 10. Cumulative expression: inflected values may be expressed cumulatively, but derived values are not 11. Iteration: inflected values cannot be iterated while derived values can Dichotomy or continuum -the dividing line is not upon disagreement of the basic facts, but the importance of some sets of facts -some morphologists believe the difference between inflection and derivation is arbitrary -the eleven criteria above are used to judge the label of a morpheme Inherent and contextual inflection -a third choice to the continuum v. dichotomy debate is a tripartite approach -inflection is subdivided into inherent inflection and contextual inflection -inherent inflection: features relevant to syntax but containing additional information -inherent inflection includes locative, ablative and instrumental cases 6 -inherent inflection often shares some properties with derivation (see Dutch example); they tend to be closer to the root and more likely to induce allomorphy -contextual inflection: features assigned to a word due to the syntactic environment -contextual inflection includes structural cases (nominative, accusative, genitive) Inflection, derivation, and the syntax-morphology interface -the relationship to the theory results in different formal morphological structures Dichotomy: -different grammatical principles explain inflection and derivation -derivation is applied at the word level -inflection is applied post-lexically -referred to as the split-morphology hypothesis -problems with this approach: -inflectional suffixes that occur closer to the root than derivations -inherent inflections behaving like derivations ***I’m not sure how this is a problem, considering that words are processed in a cascade, and errors in words occur from input of multiple levels, not just one 7 Continuum: -inflection and derivation occur within the same structure -not consistent with split-morphology hypothesis -single component hypothesis: -syntax generates abstract structures containing morphosyntactic representations but no lexical information -the job of the morphological component is to provide word-forms whose inflectional values match (or don’t contradict) those of the morphosyntactic representation -does not explain all of the differences that tend to occur between inflections and derivations -new hypothesis from psycholinguists suggest that the rule application may depend on language dependent lexical processing .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • English Dative Alternation and Evidence for a Thematic Strategy in Adult SLA
    UCLA Issues in Applied Linguistics Title English Dative Alternation and Evidence for a Thematic Strategy in Adult SLA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/64d102q5 Journal Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(1) ISSN 1050-4273 Author Davies, William D Publication Date 1994-06-30 DOI 10.5070/L451005171 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California English Dative Alternation and Evidence for a Thematic Strategy in Adult SLA William D. Davies University of Iowa INTRODUCTION A body of recent work in second language acquisition is concerned with applying constructs from Chomsky's conception of Universal Grammar in both constructing an overall theory of SLA and explaining various phenomena in L2 learners (e.g., Flynn, 1984, 1987; Hilles, 1986; Phinney, 1987; White, 1985a, 1985b; papers in Flynn and O'Neil, 1988). A key linguistic construct that has received relatively little attention in SLA research is thematic roles—notions such as AGENT, THEME, GOAL, LOCATION, SOURCE, and others that are believed to contribute to semantic encoding and decoding. Although thematic roles (alternatively, thematic relations, semantic roles, case roles, 9-roles) have long been part of modem linguistic theory (cf. Gruber, 1965; Fillmore, 1968; Jackendoff, 1972), they have enjoyed increased popularity in the recent linguistic literature owing in part to their central role in Chomsky's (1981) government and binding (GB) theory, as embodied in the G-Criterion.^ Various formulations of the 9-Criterion have been proposed, but the simple formulation in (1) will suffice here. (1) e-Criterion (Chomsky 1981, p. 36): Each argument bears one and only one H-role, and each H-role is assigned to one and only one argument.
    [Show full text]
  • PUMICE: a Multi-Modal Agent That Learns Concepts and Conditionals
    PUMICE: A Multi-Modal Agent that Learns Concepts and Conditionals from Natural Language and Demonstrations Toby Jia-Jun Li1, Marissa Radensky2, Justin Jia1, Kirielle Singarajah1, Tom M. Mitchell1, Brad A. Myers1 1Carnegie Mellon University, 2Amherst College {tobyli, tom.mitchell, bam}@cs.cmu.edu, {justinj1, ksingara}@andrew.cmu.edu, [email protected] Figure 1. Example structure of how PUMICE learns the concepts and procedures in the command “If it’s hot, order a cup of Iced Cappuccino.” The numbers indicate the order of utterances. The screenshot on the right shows the conversational interface of PUMICE. In this interactive parsing process, the agent learns how to query the current temperature, how to order any kind of drink from Starbucks, and the generalized concept of “hot” as “a temperature (of something) is greater than another temperature”. ABSTRACT CCS Concepts Natural language programming is a promising approach to •Human-centered computing ! Natural language inter­ enable end users to instruct new tasks for intelligent agents. faces; However, our formative study found that end users would of­ ten use unclear, ambiguous or vague concepts when naturally Author Keywords instructing tasks in natural language, especially when spec­ Programming by Demonstration; Natural Language Pro­ ifying conditionals. Existing systems have limited support gramming; End User Development; Multi-modal Interaction. for letting the user teach agents new concepts or explaining unclear concepts. In this paper, we describe a new multi- INTRODUCTION modal domain-independent approach that combines natural The goal of end user development (EUD) is to empower language programming and programming-by-demonstration users with little or no programming expertise to program [43].
    [Show full text]
  • LINGUISTICS 221 Lecture #3 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES Part 1. an Utterance Is Composed of a Sequence of Discrete Segments. Is the Segm
    LINGUISTICS 221 Lecture #3 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES Part 1. An utterance is composed of a sequence of discrete segments. Is the segment indivisible? Is the segment the smallest unit of phonological analysis? If it is, segments ought to differ randomly from one another. Yet this is not true: pt k prs What is the relationship between members of the two groups? p t k - the members of this set have an internal relationship: they are all voiceles stops. p r s - no such relationship exists p b d s bilabial bilabial alveolar alveolar stop stop stop fricative voiceless voiced voiced voiceless SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES! Segments may be viewed as composed of sets of properties rather than indivisible entities. We can show the relationship by listing the properties of each segment. DISTINCTIVE FEATURES • enable us to describe the segments in the world’s languages: all segments in any language can be characterized in some unique combination of features • identifies groups of segments → natural segment classes: they play a role in phonological processes and constraints • distinctive features must be referred to in terms of phonetic -- articulatory or acoustic -- characteristics. 1 Requirements on distinctive feature systems (p. 66): • they must be capable of characterizing natural segment classes • they must be capable of describing all segmental contrasts in all languages • they should be definable in phonetic terms The features fulfill three functions: a. They are capable of describing the segment: a phonetic function b. They serve to differentiate lexical items: a phonological function c. They define natural segment classes: i.e. those segments which as a group undergo similar phonological processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Definiteness and Determinacy
    Linguistics and Philosophy manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Definiteness and Determinacy Elizabeth Coppock · David Beaver the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Defi- niteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a (weak) uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate (and thus denote an individual) or indeterminate (functioning as an existential quantifier). The latter option is observed in examples like `Anna didn't give the only invited talk at the conference', which, on its indeterminate reading, implies that there is nothing in the extension of `only invited talk at the conference'. The paper also offers a resolution of the issue of whether posses- sives are inherently indefinite or definite, suggesting that, like indefinites, they do not mark definiteness lexically, but like definites, they typically yield determinate readings due to a general preference for the shifting operation that produces them. Keywords definiteness · descriptions · possessives · predicates · type-shifting We thank Dag Haug, Reinhard Muskens, Luca Crniˇc,Cleo Condoravdi, Lucas
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2106.08037V1 [Cs.CL] 15 Jun 2021 Alternative Ways the World Could Be
    The Possible, the Plausible, and the Desirable: Event-Based Modality Detection for Language Processing Valentina Pyatkin∗ Shoval Sadde∗ Aynat Rubinstein Bar Ilan University Bar Ilan University Hebrew University of Jerusalem [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Paul Portner Reut Tsarfaty Georgetown University Bar Ilan University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract (1) a. We presented a paper at ACL’19. Modality is the linguistic ability to describe b. We did not present a paper at ACL’20. events with added information such as how de- sirable, plausible, or feasible they are. Modal- The propositional content p =“present a paper at ity is important for many NLP downstream ACL’X” can be easily verified for sentences (1a)- tasks such as the detection of hedging, uncer- (1b) by looking up the proceedings of the confer- tainty, speculation, and more. Previous studies ence to (dis)prove the existence of the relevant pub- that address modality detection in NLP often p restrict modal expressions to a closed syntac- lication. The same proposition is still referred to tic class, and the modal sense labels are vastly in sentences (2a)–(2d), but now in each one, p is different across different studies, lacking an ac- described from a different perspective: cepted standard. Furthermore, these senses are often analyzed independently of the events that (2) a. We aim to present a paper at ACL’21. they modify. This work builds on the theoreti- b. We want to present a paper at ACL’21. cal foundations of the Georgetown Gradable Modal Expressions (GME) work by Rubin- c.
    [Show full text]
  • Dative Shift) • Interactions Among Lexical Rules 2
    Grammar Development with LFG and XLE Miriam Butt University of Konstanz Last Time • LFG and XLE basics • C-structure and f-structure • Functional annotation • Unification/Consistency, Completenes and Coherence • Templates • XLE Walkthrough This Time: Lesson 3 1. Lexical Rules • Passive • English Dative Alternation (Dative Shift) • Interactions among Lexical Rules 2. Different types of functional equations/constraints Lexical rules (vs. Transformations) ! A feature that LFG is very well known for is the Lexical Rule. ! At the time LFG was invented, generalizations between certain types of sentences were thought of in terms of syntactic transformations. ! A famous example involved the passive. ! Linguistic Observation: active clauses are related to passive clauses via a generalizable rule. » Active: The tiger chased the cat. » Passive: The cat was chased by the tiger. Transformations ! For example, within Transformational Grammar the rule for the English passive looked something like this: NP1 V NP2 → NP2 AUX V by NP1 ! In our example: NP1 = the tiger NP2 = the cat V = chased Aux = was ! Over time, however, it was realized that this was not the best way to express what happens with passives across languages. Lexical rules ! Work by David Perlmutter and Paul Postal showed that the relationship between active and passive was best understood in terms of grammatical relations. ! In LFG terms, this was formulated in terms of a Lexical Rule: – OBJ → SUBJ – SUBJ → Adjunct or OBL-AG (OBL agent) ! Verbs which allow for the passive encode this rule as part of their lexical entry. Lexical rules ! Not all verbs allow for passivization. ! Passives are generally formed with agentive (di)transitive verbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: a Case Study from Koro
    Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro By Jessica Cleary-Kemp A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair Assistant Professor Peter S. Jenks Professor William F. Hanks Summer 2015 © Copyright by Jessica Cleary-Kemp All Rights Reserved Abstract Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro by Jessica Cleary-Kemp Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair In this dissertation a methodology for identifying and analyzing serial verb constructions (SVCs) is developed, and its application is exemplified through an analysis of SVCs in Koro, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. SVCs involve two main verbs that form a single predicate and share at least one of their arguments. In addition, they have shared values for tense, aspect, and mood, and they denote a single event. The unique syntactic and semantic properties of SVCs present a number of theoretical challenges, and thus they have invited great interest from syntacticians and typologists alike. But characterizing the nature of SVCs and making generalizations about the typology of serializing languages has proven difficult. There is still debate about both the surface properties of SVCs and their underlying syntactic structure. The current work addresses some of these issues by approaching serialization from two angles: the typological and the language-specific. On the typological front, it refines the definition of ‘SVC’ and develops a principled set of cross-linguistically applicable diagnostics.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject-Sharing and Index-Sharing
    Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject-Sharing and Index-Sharing Juwon Lee The University of Texas at Austin Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar University at Buffalo Stefan Muller¨ (Editor) 2014 CSLI Publications pages 135–155 http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2014 Lee, Juwon. 2014. Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject- Sharing and Index-Sharing. In Muller,¨ Stefan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st In- ternational Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University at Buffalo, 135–155. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Abstract In this paper I present an account for the lexical passive Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in Korean. Regarding the issue of how the arguments of an SVC are realized, I propose two hypotheses: i) Korean SVCs are broadly classified into two types, subject-sharing SVCs where the subject is structure-shared by the verbs and index- sharing SVCs where only indices of semantic arguments are structure-shared by the verbs, and ii) a semantic argument sharing is a general requirement of SVCs in Korean. I also argue that an argument composition analysis can accommodate such the new data as the lexical passive SVCs in a simple manner compared to other alternative derivational analyses. 1. Introduction* Serial verb construction (SVC) is a structure consisting of more than two component verbs but denotes what is conceptualized as a single event, and it is an important part of the study of complex predicates. A central issue of SVC is how the arguments of the component verbs of an SVC are realized in a sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Answers to Negative Yes/No-Questions in English Anders Holmberg Newcastle University
    The syntax of answers to negative yes/no-questions in English Anders Holmberg Newcastle University 1. Introduction This paper will argue that answers to polar questions or yes/no-questions (YNQs) in English are elliptical expressions with basically the structure (1), where IP is identical to the LF of the IP of the question, containing a polarity variable with two possible values, affirmative or negative, which is assigned a value by the focused polarity expression. (1) yes/no Foc [IP ...x... ] The crucial data come from answers to negative questions. English turns out to have a fairly complicated system, with variation depending on which negation is used. The meaning of the answer yes in (2) is straightforward, affirming that John is coming. (2) Q(uestion): Isn’t John coming, too? A(nswer): Yes. (‘John is coming.’) In (3) (for speakers who accept this question as well formed), 1 the meaning of yes alone is indeterminate, and it is therefore not a felicitous answer in this context. The longer version is fine, affirming that John is coming. (3) Q: Isn’t John coming, either? A: a. #Yes. b. Yes, he is. In (4), there is variation regarding the interpretation of yes. Depending on the context it can be a confirmation of the negation in the question, meaning ‘John is not coming’. In other contexts it will be an infelicitous answer, as in (3). (4) Q: Is John not coming? A: a. Yes. (‘John is not coming.’) b. #Yes. In all three cases the (bare) answer no is unambiguous, meaning that John is not coming.
    [Show full text]
  • Staged Approach for Grammatical Gender Identification of Nouns Using Association Rule
    Staged Approach for Grammatical Gender Identification of Nouns using Association Rule Mining and Classification Shilpa Desai1, Jyoti Pawar1, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya2 1 Department of Computer Science and Technology Goa University, Goa - India [email protected], [email protected] 2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering IIT-Bombay, Mumbai - India [email protected] Abstract. In some languages, gender is a grammatical property of the noun. Grammatical gender identification enhances machine translation of such languages. This paper reports a three staged approach for gram- matical gender identification that makes use of word and morphological features only. A Morphological Analyzer is used to extract the morpho- logical features. In stage one, association rule mining is used to obtain grammatical gender identification rules. Classification is used at the sec- ond stage to identify grammatical gender for nouns that are not covered by grammatical gender identification rules obtained in stage one. The third stage combines the results of the two stages to identify the gender. The staged approach has a better precision, recall and F-score compared to machine learning classifiers used on complete data set. The approach was tested on Konkani nouns extracted from the Konkani WordNet and an F-Score 0.84 was obtained. 1 Introduction Gender is a grammatical property of nouns in many languages3 including Indian language such as Sanskrit, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi and Konkani. In such lan- guages adjectives and verbs in a sentence agree with the gender of the noun. For example translation of \He is a good boy" and \She is a good girl" in Hindi is \vaha eka achchhaa laDakaa haai 4" and "vaha eka achchhii laDakii haai", respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Serial Verb Constructions: Argument Structural Uniformity and Event Structural Diversity
    SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTIONS: ARGUMENT STRUCTURAL UNIFORMITY AND EVENT STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Melanie Owens November 2011 © 2011 by Melanie Rachel Owens. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/db406jt2949 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Beth Levin, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Joan Bresnan I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Vera Gribanov Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii Abstract Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) are constructions which contain two or more verbs yet behave in every grammatical respect as if they contain only one.
    [Show full text]
  • Inflection, P. 1
    36607. MORPHOLOGY Prof. Yehuda N. Falk Inflection, p. 1 In flectional morphology expresses morphosyntactic properties of lexemes. For each lexical category (part of speech) there is a certain set of available properties; the forms specify the properties. The most straightforward way to model this is in terms of features and their vvvaluesvaluesalues. For nirkod expresses a particular set of properties associated נרקוד example, the Hebrew form with the lexeme RAKAD : the feature TENSE with the value FUTURE , the feature PERSON with the value 1, and the feature NUMBER with the value PLURAL . The textbook uses di Terent terminology: in flectional dimension instead of feature , and in flectional category instead of value . The term feature is also sometimes used for a feature-value combination, such as the phrase “the past tense feature”. The in flectional properties of a word can be represented as a fffeature-valuefeature-value (or attribute-valueattribute-value) representation: RAKAD TENSE FUT nirkod PERS 1 NUM PL This can also be written horizontally, and even abbreviated: 〈RAKAD , [ TENSE FUT , PERS 1, NUM PL ]〉 nirkod 1Pl.Fut A paradigm is a chart showing all the features and feature values for a particular lexeme. The expression of in flectional properties is called exponenceexponence. In the simplest case, there is a . זכרונות one-to-one relationship between properties and exponents. Note the word ZIKARON zixron+ot []NUM PL Zixron is the stem, and the su Ux -ot is the exponent of the [ NUM PL ] feature. טובות Not everything is that simple, though. Consider the adjective 36607. MORPHOLOGY Prof. Yehuda N. Falk Inflection, p.
    [Show full text]