DOCSLIB.ORG

A Semantic Study of the Preposition “På” in Norwegian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Semantic Study of the Preposition “På” in Norwegian Life of på A semantic study of the preposition “på” in Norwegian Vilde Reichelt MA thesis in Linguistics LING4190 Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies University of Oslo November 2018 II Life of på A semantic study of the preposition “på” in Norwegian III © Vilde Reichelt 2017/18 Life of på Vilde Reichelt http://www.duo.uio.no/ Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo IV Abstract In this thesis I examine the lexical semantics of the Norwegian word på (eng. on) using a written translation corpus from Norwegian to English. My empirical data was collected from the written corpus OMC and an excerpt of the novel Sophie’s World in The English- Norwegian Parallel Corpus. The analysis comprised of two substudies. To test for my hypotheses, I studied noun phrases of the type ‘fur of the rabbit’ in translation from Norwegian, and the Norwegian prepositions av ‘of’, i ‘in’ and til ‘to’ in relation to på and the English translation of constructions that originally have på ‘on’ in Norwegian. The other substudy consists of both particle verbs of the type ‘believe in’ and verbs with preposition phrases ‘was on her way’. I explored nominalization of verbs and whether it give rise to a requirement for på, and what patterns there are for the semantic selection of prepositional elements. Occasionally the lexeme på functions as a complement to the verb, making it more specific, or else it appears in particle verbs as a grammatical function. Focusing on translation data from both Norwegian and English, the thesis investigates the different combinations of på and of, and the interchangeability within the Norwegian prepositions. I present prepositions in order to study semantic shades of meaning. I searched for patterns in på’s functional role and how the different structures are affected by connective meaning på has. I ask if it covers more and a wider use of meanings than the other prepositions and if the most flexible preposition is the most productive one. If not, what are the semantic differences between the three most frequent prepositions? I have hypothesized that of i and på, the most productive in terms of grammatical function and flexible meaning in Norwegian, is på. The goal is not to create a complete taxonomy of uses, but to explore whether på is an elsewhere case of the Norwegian prepositions. The project adopts theories from different syntactic- semantic frameworks in order to provide predictions on how language structures meaning at different levels. Throughout the thesis, different phrases from the corpus data is presented and compared. I propose semantic features for the four Norwegian prepositions and describe the verb- and noun phrase structures in which they belong. The substudies have shown that a preposition can be interpreted as both a lexical word and a functional particle depending on the construction it is in. I have observed the behavior of på in four environments as constituent to noun phrase, and the difference between verb phrases with på as adjunct and argument. I found that på is polysemous and can mean placed ‘on’, ‘in’, ‘at’ an activity or process, parts are connected by på via verbs and it can extend the time span of an action. V VI Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors Pritty Patel-Grosz and Andreas Sveen, whose guidance and feedback has meant a great deal to me as a student and a person. I have learned much more than I ever hoped for. My sincerest thanks to Piotr Garbacz for all of his time and wise words, for motivating and helping me believe in myself throughout this project. I am so grateful to Anne Helene for letting me share my thoughts and concerns, for reading my drafts when it meant the most. I will never forget. To Frida, Andrea, Ida and Maren for the good conversations at the study hall, it helped a lot. I was lucky to have Kai and Danielle as my proofreaders. Great thanks to my colleagues at Google, especially Linn Iren, André and Per Erik. I appreciate every advising conversation and patient attention you have given me when it was at its worst. Thanks for the summer swims at Tjuvholmen, Svein! To the people at the Text Laboratory, for the supportive company, to Rolf Theil, Helge Lødrup and Patrick Grosz for valuable lessons and inspiration, I am thankful. I wish to express my sincere recognition to Leiv Inge Aa for all his work on “på”, and a nice email correspondence in autumn 2017. To all my friends and family, I am so glad you’ve waited for me. Thank you mamma, for making sure I enjoy the summer, the food and wine, and every part of my 25th year as a human being. And last but not least, dearest Sigbjørn, for all the encouragement and love, for making all the days feel worth it. Thank you! VII Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The preposition på ....................................................................................................... 2 1.2 The particle på ............................................................................................................. 4 1.3 The adverbial på .......................................................................................................... 6 2 Background ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Etymology and change ................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Lexicography and use .................................................................................................. 9 3 Lexical semantics ............................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Neo-constructionism .................................................................................................. 14 3.2 Main hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 17 3.3 Terminology .............................................................................................................. 19 3.3.1 Figure and Ground ............................................................................................. 20 3.3.2 AxPart ................................................................................................................. 22 3.3.3 KP ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.3.4 Aktionsart ........................................................................................................... 24 3.3.5 Compositionality ................................................................................................ 25 4 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 26 4.1 The Oslo Multilingual Corpus ................................................................................... 27 4.2 Sophie’s World by Jostein Gaarder ........................................................................... 28 4.3 Description models and annotation guidelines .......................................................... 29 4.4 Searching the corpus .................................................................................................. 33 4.5 Sorting the data .......................................................................................................... 36 4.5.1 N+P+N ............................................................................................................... 38 4.5.2 V+P+N ............................................................................................................... 41 5 Empirical analysis ............................................................................................................ 43 5.1 Noun Phrases ............................................................................................................. 46 5.1.1 Av vs. på ............................................................................................................. 48 5.1.2 I vs. på ................................................................................................................ 56 5.1.3 Til vs. på ............................................................................................................. 61 5.2 Verb Phrases .............................................................................................................. 66 5.2.1 Particle verb ........................................................................................................ 70 5.2.2 Verb with a PP argument ................................................................................... 81 6 Interpretation of findings .................................................................................................. 85 VIII 6.1.1 (H1) på is synchronically an “elsewhere case” .................................................. 86 6.1.2 (H2) a lexical semantic component to the P distribution ................................... 88 6.1.3 (H3) på is the most productive P ........................................................................ 90 7 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 92 7.1 Restrictions on the corpus material ........................................................................... 92 7.2 Further Research .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Origins of Grammatical Forms and Evidence from Latin1
    Origins of Grammatical Forms and Evidence from Latin1 Brigitte L. M. Bauer The University of Texas at Austin, U.S.A. [email protected] Analyses of grammaticalization in Indo-European languages tend to focus on Germanic and Romance forms, for which we generally are able to identify the original autonomous composing elements. By contrast, in early Indo- European languages we find many inflected formations or other grammatical elements that are opaque. The question then is: are these forms opaque (1) because of the length of their existence; or (2) because the composing elements in origin were not autonomous lexical forms, but rather of a different type? We may never be able to fully answer that question. Yet comparison of phenomena of grammaticalization in different stages of Latin will help clarify certain aspects of it. This article compares manifestations of grammaticalization in the transition from Latin to Romance with earlier formation processes in Latin and Indo-European. I will submit that the instances of grammaticalization that we find in the later stages of Latin and that resulted in a number of new grammatical forms in Romance, reflect a major linguistic innovation. While the new grammatical forms are created out of lexical or mildly grammatical autonomous elements, earlier processes seem to primarily involve particles with a certain semantic value, and freezing. This fundamental difference explains why the attempts of early Indo-Europeanists such as Franz Bopp at tracing the lexical origins of Indo-European inflected forms were unsuccessful and strongly criticized by the Neo-Grammarians. 1. Introduction Over the last thirty or so years the study of grammaticalization has been one of the hotbeds of historical linguistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct prim, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howeil Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor Ml 48106-1346 USA 313 761-4700 800 521-0600 Order Number 0105209 Topics on a categorlal theory of Chinese syntax Sheu, Ying-yu, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory
    An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory Hilda Koopman Dominique Sportiche Edward Stabler 1 Morphology: Starting with words 1 2 Syntactic analysis introduced 37 3 Clauses 87 4 Many other phrases: first glance 101 5 X-bar theory and a first glimpse of discontinuities 121 6 The model of syntax 141 7 Binding and the hierarchical nature of phrase structure 163 8 Apparent violations of Locality of Selection 187 9 Raising and Control 203 10 Summary and review 223 iii 1 Morphology: Starting with words Our informal characterization defined syntax as the set of rules or princi- ples that govern how words are put together to form phrases, well formed sequences of words. Almost all of the words in it have some common sense meaning independent of the study of language. We more or less understand what a rule or principle is. A rule or principle describes a regularity in what happens. (For example: “if the temperature drops suddenly, water vapor will condense”). This notion of rule that we will be interested in should be distinguished from the notion of a rule that is an instruction or a statement about what should happen, such as “If the light is green, do not cross the street.” As linguists, our primary interest is not in how anyone says you should talk. Rather, we are interested in how people really talk. In common usage, “word” refers to some kind of linguistic unit. We have a rough, common sense idea of what a word is, but it is surprisingly difficult to characterize this precisely.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies in Historical Linguistics and Language Change Grammaticalization, Refunctionalization and Beyond
    Studies in Historical Linguistics and Language Change Grammaticalization, Refunctionalization and Beyond Edited by Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen and Mar Garachana Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Languages www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Studies in Historical Linguistics and Language Change Studies in Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Grammaticalization, Refunctionalization and Beyond Special Issue Editors Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen Mar Garachana MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade Special Issue Editors Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen Mar Garachana Utrecht University Barcelona University The Netherlands Spain Editorial Office MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Languages (ISSN 2226-471X) from 2018 to 2019 (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages/ special issues/Lingustics LanguageChange) For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Article Number, Page Range. ISBN 978-3-03921-576-8 (Pbk) ISBN 978-3-03921-577-5 (PDF) Cover image courtesy of Bob de Jonge. c 2019 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. Contents About the Special Issue Editors ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence from Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking
    fpsyg-11-00186 February 13, 2020 Time: 18:19 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 14 February 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00186 Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking Ferdy Hubers1†, Theresa Redl1,2*†, Hugo de Vos3, Lukas Reinarz4 and Helen de Hoop1 1 Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 2 Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 3 Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands, 4 Department of Physics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany Speakers of a language sometimes use particular constructions which violate prescriptive grammar rules. Despite their prescriptive ungrammaticality, they can occur rather frequently. One such example is the comparative construction in Dutch and similarly in German, where the equative particle is used in comparative constructions instead of the prescriptively correct comparative particle (Dutch beter als Jan and German besser wie Jan “lit. better as John”). In a series of three experiments Edited by: using sentence-matching and eye-tracking methodology, we investigated whether M. Teresa Espinal, Autonomous University of Barcelona, this grammatical norm violation is processed as grammatical, as ungrammatical, or Spain whether it falls in between these two. We hypothesized that the latter would be the Reviewed by: case. We analyzed our data using linear mixed effects models in order to capture Gosse Bouma, University of Groningen, Netherlands possible individual differences. The results of the sentence-matching experiments, which Katharina Spalek, were conducted in both Dutch and German, showed that the grammatical norm Humboldt University of Berlin, violation patterns with ungrammatical sentences in both languages. Our hypothesis Germany was therefore not borne out.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek and Mandarin Utterance Particles David Stifler 2007-2008
    Greek and Mandarin Utterance Particles David Stifler 2007-2008 Greek and Mandarin Utterance Particles: A Comparative Analysis David Stifler1 1. Introduction 1.1 What are particles? The word “particle” is frequently used to describe various kinds of morphemes in numerous languages. It often appears as a catch-all term serving to label any class of morpheme that does not seem to fit into what are traditionally understood to be the major categories—noun, verb, adjective, and so on. (Dobson 1974:4)2 Many interjections (among other classes) in English could be considered particles, such as the sentence-final Canadian eh or American huh, the word now or well at the beginning of a declarative sentence (usually followed by a comma in written transcriptions), or the so-called “filler” like. One would be hard-pressed to come up with a satisfactory gloss for the first word in the sentence Now, I think you’ve got the wrong idea, or the final word in the sentence Wife on your case again, eh?, but no speaker (at least, no native 1* I wish to thank my numerous professors, including those of Chinese (Jiang Laoshi, Li Laoshi, Kong Laoshi, Shi Laoshi, Zhou Laoshi and all of my Beijing instructors) and Greek (William Turpin, Rosaria Munson, Deborah Beck, John Bauschatz, and Grace Ledbetter) and Linguistics (especially my advisor, Jason Kandybowicz). I also owe a lot to the moral support of my friends, especially Sally O’Brien and Lauren Rile Smith, as well as the productive discourse I have had with many of them, especially James “Kit” Digges La Touche, Katie Bates, and Dan “Venger” Jamison.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Change in the Syntax of Māori - a Corpus-Based Study
    Aspects of change in the syntax of Māori - a corpus-based study BY KARENA GWEN KELLY A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Victoria University of Wellington (2015) i ABSTRACT In the current climate of Māori language revitalisation, there is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that not only the vocabulary, but also the syntax of modern Māori is markedly different from its traditional roots, and that it shows significant influence from English syntax. However, syntactic change in Māori has not hitherto been rigorously studied. This thesis aims to provide material evidence of change in Māori syntax, through a corpus-based study of grammatical change in te reo Māori over the period of contact with English. My methodology involved the compilation and comparison of two synchronic corpora representing the two ends of the contact period to provide a diachronic perspective on the language. Each corpus consists of approximately 102,000 running words of material written originally in Māori. The early corpus contains items published pre-1900. The modern material was written post-1990. The thesis is not only an exploration of the possibility of documenting syntactic change through the use of such corpora, but also tests whether it is possible to do this using corpora significantly smaller than the multi-million word corpora typical in corpus linguistics. The scope of this methodology is tested by examining three distinct types of grammatical features: a grammatical particle (the preposition mō), a pair of semantically related lexemes that appear to be undergoing a process of grammaticalisation (the verbs taea and āhei), and a widespread grammatical construction (certain types of relative clauses).
    [Show full text]
  • A Description of Preverb and Particle Usage In
    A DESCRIPTION OF PREVERB AND PARTICLE USAGE IN INNU-AIMÛN NARRATIVE by ©Jane Bannister Bachelor of Arts Memorial University of Newfoundland (2000) A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Linguistics Memorial University of Newfoundland April 2004 St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada ABSTRACT Sentences with multiple preverbs and/or particles are examined in this thesis. The data sentences were collected from the first 18 stories of the Labrador Innu Text Project. Chapter 1 is an introduction to Innu-aimun grammar, with sections on previous research into word ordering, especially preverb ordering. Chapter 2 describes the patterning, use and co-occurrence of the ten most common preverbs in the data sentences. Preverbs are subdivided into modal preverbs, temporal preverbs, aspectual preverbs and other preverbs. Chapter 3 discusses 28 common particles in the data. These particles are also divided into smaller groups, including complementizers, focus particles, negative particles, adverbs, temporal and aspectual particles, particles of speaker opinion and particles with changed forms. Both chapters 2 and 3 include discussion of regular patterns of ordering of preverbs or particles. Chapter 4 is an analysis of the use of the independent or conjunct orders following negative particles. Optimality Theory is used to explain Innu data, and sentences are analyzed based on Brittain (2001, 1997). A general thesis conclusion ends chapter 4. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to the many people who have helped me create and finish this thesis. Thanks to my supervisor Phil Branigan, for sensible suggestions and a calming demeanor.
    [Show full text]
  • 51 on the Periphery of the Parts of Speech System Rakhim Z. Muryasov
    On the periphery of the parts of speech system Rakhim Z. Muryasov DOI: 10.18355/XL.2019.12.04.05 Abstract The article is devoted to the consideration of the periphery of the parts of speech system. The theory of parts of speech, constituting the core of the theory of grammatical structure and serving as the basis for describing the linguistic system as a whole, is an area of controversial debates in the context of various linguistic paradigms. The internal contradictions inherent in the language system do not allow developing integrated, logically consistent criteria for the classification of lexis, covering all categories of words. The functional-semantic and formal heterogeneity of lexical categories does not make it possible to include them into “the Procrustean bed,” a scheme recommended by various linguistic schools. The most contradictory classifications are the ones of the so-called synsemantic, functional words which are characterized by a high degree of categorical interpenetration. The determination of the categorical status of this kind of words is possible only on the basis of semantic and pragmatic features of discourse, as well as when taking into account presupposition factors. Key words: auto-and synsemantic parts of speech, prepositions, conjunctions, particles, interjections, onomatopoeic words Introduction 1.1. The Problem Statement Parts of speech, making the fundamental category of the language system, have been the object of contradictory discussions for centuries and remain one of the controversial issues at present (Simsek, Elciyar, Kizilhan, 2019). The classification of parts of speech is based on a number of criteria: semantic (the generalized lexical meaning), morphological (the combination of grammatical categories with the corresponding paradigms), and syntactic (functions of words in a sentence) (Valeeva, Aitov, Bulatbayeva, 2016; Sum, Kwon, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Correlation of Form, Use and Meaning of German Ge-Prefixed
    a journal of Pross, Tillmann and Antje Roßdeutscher. 2019. Towards a correlation of form, general linguistics Glossa use and meaning of German ge-prefixed predicative participles. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1): 93. 1–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.753 RESEARCH Towards a correlation of form, use and meaning of German ge-prefixed predicative participles Tillmann Pross and Antje Roßdeutscher University of Stuttgart, DE Corresponding author: Tillmann Pross ([email protected]) We argue for a split semantics of German predicative participle constructions, depending on whether or not the formation of the participle involves prefixation with the dedicated morpheme ge-. Against the background of the analysis of participles of German be-prefixed verbs proposed in Pross (2019), and using the licensing of superlative constructions and ung-nominalizations as tests, we show that ge-prefixed participles denote a result relation between a property of an event and an individual. In contrast, be-prefixed participles, like adjectives, denote properties of individuals. We cast the distinction between event properties and individual properties in a compositional semantics of ge-and be-prefixed participles and show how the resulting semantic distinction allows to predict the distinction between target and resultant state participles drawn in Kratzer (2000) without using the questionable immer noch ‘still’ test. Keywords: German; Lexical Semantics; Adjectival Passive; Predicative Participle; Stativity; Target State; Resultant State 1 Introduction 1.1 Goals of the paper This paper is about German participles. More specifically, its focus is the analysis of predicative uses of German participles, the formation of which requires prefixation of the base verb with a dedicated morpheme ge- as in (1-b).
    [Show full text]
  • Scope of Linguistic Influence: Does a Classifier System Alter Object Concepts?
    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 136, No. 3, 485–501 0096-3445/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.485 Scope of Linguistic Influence: Does a Classifier System Alter Object Concepts? Henrik Saalbach Mutsumi Imai Max Planck Institute for Human Development Keio University at Shonan-Fujisawa Whether and to what extent conceptual structure is universal is of great importance for understanding the nature of human concepts. Two major factors that might affect concepts are language and culture. The authors investigated whether these 2 factors affect concepts of everyday objects in any significant ways. Specifically, they tested (a) whether the system of grammatical categorization by classifiers influenced the conceptual structure of speakers of classifier languages, and (b) whether Westerners organized object concepts around taxonomic relations whereas Easterners organized them around thematic relations, as proposed by R. E. Nisbett (2003). The relative importance of 3 types of relations—taxonomic, thematic, and classifier—for Chinese and German speakers was tested using a range of tasks, including categorization, similarity judgment, property induction, and fast-speed word–picture matching. Some support for linguistic relativity as well as for the cultural-specific cognition proposal was found in some tasks, but these effects were miniscule compared with the importance of taxonomic and thematic relations for both language–culture groups. The authors conclude that the global structure of everyday object concepts is strikingly similar across different cultures and languages. Keywords: concepts, linguistic relativity, culture-specific cognition, classifiers, thematic relations Language labels and refers to categories. Object categories are classifier grammar system categorizes nouns into more than 100 referred to by nouns, but in many languages, nouns are further semantic categories (Craig, 1986; Grinevald, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Normalization of Myanmar Grammatical Categories for Part-Of-Speech Tagging
    International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 36– No.1, December 2011 Normalization of Myanmar Grammatical Categories for Part-of-Speech Tagging Phyu Hninn Myint Tin Myat Htwe Ni Lar Thein University of Computer Studies University of Computer Studies University of Computer Studies Yangon Yangon Yangon Myanmar Myanmar Myanmar ABSTRACT member of the Tibeto-Burman language family, which is a In this paper, we analyze the syntactic structure of Myanmar subfamily of the Sino-Tibetan family of languages. The grammatical categories to be able to use in tagging Myanmar language uses the Myanmar script, derived from the Old Mon text with standard Part-of-Speech (POS) tags. In Myanmar script and ultimately from the Brāhmī script [4]. lexicon, all words are annotated with basic tags and these words The basic word order of the Myanmar language is subject- can be called as stem words or root words. The Myanmar POS object-verb. Pronouns in Myanmar vary according to the gender tagged corpus creation, which has been proposed in [11], used and status of the audience. Myanmar is monosyllabic (i.e., every basic POS tagging for each word. Therefore, all words in this word is a root to which a particle but not another word may be corpus have been tagged with only basic tags as in lexicon. For prefixed). Sentence structure determines syntactical relations standard POS tagging, normalization step is needed to form and verbs are not conjugated. Instead they have particles more meaningful words and annotate some words with more suffixed to them. For example, the verb "to eat," (-sar) is appropriate finer POS tags and categories.
    [Show full text]