DOCSLIB.ORG

The Faculty of Humanities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Faculty of Humanities The Faculty of Humanities Department of Linguistics Self-Evaluation Report December 2011 Executive Summary A short summary of the main strengths and weaknesses that were pointed out in the self- evaluation process. The Department of Linguistics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem consists of two programs (‘tracks’), each with its own scientific and pedagogical approach. This structure is the result of the merge of two programs, the Linguistics Department (now the ‘Structural track’) and the linguistics track of the Department of English Language and Literature (now the ‘Generative track’), both of which house faculty members with diverse specializations who work in a number of theoretical and methodological frameworks. Since the merge is very recent (since 2008) these two tracks are at present very much autonomous within the department in terms of programs of study, the setting of goals and learning outcomes, evaluation processes, and – in principle – hiring; moreover, they are quite different in terms of academic culture. This diversity is one of our main strengths: nowhere in Israel does this combination of theoretical and methodological approaches exist, and it is also rare abroad, where departments tend on the whole to be either generative or non-generative. We strongly feel that the unique make-up of our department, with a cadre of linguists who specialize in careful descriptive analysis of specific languages, as well as in typological, historical and comparative treatment of several languages, on the one hand, and linguists working in more cognitively and formally oriented frameworks, on the other, provides the basis for the development of an extremely strong department offering a wide range of opportunities to students with varying academic interests. This should in principle allow us to develop an outstanding program of study with real choices for students, managed in a spirit of cooperation, but without blurring the true differences between varying methodologies. Such a department will be able to attract outstanding students of all kinds. It is important to stress that this situation is still relatively new. As such, we have not yet been able to realize the full potential made available by the new make-up of the department. We have not yet fully developed a common language, as we are still in the process of trying to determine which forms and what scope of cooperation between the two tracks would most benefit the education of our students. Nevertheless, some progress has already been made in the direction of developing a shared language. We have a common departmental seminar, where weekly guest lectures are sponsored alternately by the two tracks. In the Interdisciplinary Forum for the Study of Language, under the joint aegis of the department and the School of Language Sciences, lectures are given which appeal to linguists of both tracks and initial discussions of topics of common interest have taken place in this context. Our department has also founded the 2 first graduate student conference in Linguistics in Israel. Last year, two of our graduate students, one from each track, organized the first meeting of the Israel Graduate Student Conference on Diverse Approaches to Linguistics (IGDAL), which has as its goal to provide a forum for students working on topics in linguistics in all formal frameworks. This conference is projected to convene yearly from now on. Another point of strength of our department is the large number of scholars who engage in research on Afroasiatic languages, including Modern Hebrew, dialects of Aramaic, Arabic, Akkadian, as well as Ancient Egyptian and Coptic, bringing theory and description together. In addition, with the emerging joint academic discourse between members of our department, and those of the Department of Hebrew Language, we probably represent the largest group of linguists actively working on Modern Hebrew anywhere. All of our tenure-track faculty members hold PhDs from prestigious institutions in Israel and abroad and are leading scholars in their respective fields. A number are members of the Israeli Academy of Sciences, and we have no less than five Israel Prize recipients among our teachers and emeriti. Our teachers are regularly invited to hold guest professorships and teach at elite linguistics summer schools. Faculty members play an active role in teaching undergraduate and graduate students and in directing research students; all are also intimately involved in the daily running of the Department. At the moment they are backed up by a small number of high quality junior teachers and efficient and friendly administrative staff. Despite the heavy teaching load and many hours of service in faculty committees and other administrative tasks, the level of teaching and research is high as is evidenced from the data collected for this report. Research is a central component of the Department's activity. The research produced by members of the Department is distinguished not only by its quality but also by its diversity. This diversity is one of the key strengths of the Department. Faculty members publish their research in leading scientific journals and prestigious academic publishers. They also collaborate nationally and internationally in a variety of research projects and publications and serve on international editorial boards. Faculty members regularly attend major conferences and organize conferences and seminars that bring colleagues from Europe and the United States to Jerusalem. In addition to the contribution this makes to the exchange of ideas and academic cooperation, it also enables graduate students, who do not have the financial means to attend conferences abroad, to be exposed to cutting-edge research in the discipline. Faculty members are continuously engaged in seeking research funds that allow them to produce serious research, to train students as assistants, and to help fund graduate students. While funding sources in our field are quite limited, over the past five years the members of the faculty have been successful in raising considerable research funds. The academic quality of our students is reflected in part by their acceptance to prestigious 3 graduate programs, often with full funding, outside of Israel. In recent years, our students have been accepted to PhD programs in the United States, Germany, Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom, and Australia, often at high-ranking universities with prominent linguistics programs. Many of them have gone on to tenure-track positions at excellent institutions. On the other hand, we foresee considerable problems for the continued existence of our department in its current form. The relatively small number of senior staff members (with the prospective retirement, in 5 years or less, of 2 members) and the low likelihood of significant increase within the foreseeable future, due to general institutional economic constraints, prevent the elaboration of the academic program to additional significant fields of research and instruction. This state of affairs dictates a policy of hiring adjunct teachers to cover specific academic needs on a temporary basis, with the evident academic consequences. The desire to supply a rich program and the number of students taking the various courses necessitates more than the expected flexibility on the part of some senior staff members. This is evident in cases where they teach more than the expected teaching load (e.g. 8 weekly hours in place of 6). Regarding the administrative staff, the fact that one person provides extensive secretarial services to 3 different departments (Linguistics, Roman and Latin American Studies and Studies of Central and Eastern Europe), with the particular needs of each academic program, constitutes a major burden on even the most dedicated and efficient secretary. It would be beneficial if a larger administrative staff were to serve the respective departments. A short description of the actions the Institution, the Parent Unit and the Department are going to take in order to improve the weak points that were found. The department has repeatedly alerted the Faculty about the critical situation that the department has reached in terms of manpower, but, unfortunately, the Faculty of Humanities has not had the means to allocate teaching positions and funds for junior and adjunct teaching staff. We take our responsibilities in developing and maintaining excellent programs of study and promoting outstanding innovative research very seriously, and we are confident that our dedicated and dynamic faculty members will do their utmost to address the weak points found in this evaluation process. A brief statement as to the extent which the Study Program has achieved its mission and goals and whether the outcomes comply with its mission statement. Are the Institution, Parent Unit and Department satisfied with the outcomes of the Study Program? The members of the Department of Linguistics feel that the programs of study have achieved their stated mission and goals for most students. This is clearly the case with excellent, good, and average students. On the whole, we are very proud of our students and their 4 achievements. In their linguistic work, from undergraduate seminar papers to PhD theses, our students consistently show the ability to conduct high-quality – and often innovative – linguistic research. An objective evaluation of their quality is to be found in the fact that undergraduate papers and MA theses often develop into articles published
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Infinitive in Biblical Hebrew
    BHLaP 2 June 26-28, 2018 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Infinitive in Biblical Hebrew Edit Doron, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1. Introduction Biblical Hebrew (BH) verbal forms manifest rich inflection within the finite (Fin) clause, encoding the functional categories of temporality (T), mood (Mood), grammatical aspect (Asp), and modality (Mod). These categories have been widely discussed in the literature, and their relative role is still under debate (recently Hatav 1997, 2008, Joosten 2002, Cook 2006, 2012 and others). In particular, Asp and Mod have proven hard to disentangle in the morphology of the BH verb. The present work will reflect this by assuming that these two categories are composed together as Asp/Mod (AM) in the inflection of the verb. Objectives of the paper are to show that: I. The same functional categories which determine the inflection of the BH finite verb also determine the feature specification of the BH infinitive. (In particular, the functional categories of the BH infinitive are clausal rather than nominal (section 4).) II. BH has a single infinitive combined with different inflectional categories, yielding the so-called Infinitive Absolute and Infinitive Construct, which, together with the finite (Fin) verb, gives rise to 4 clause types: Fin, Poss-inf, PRO-inf, and Nom-inf. III. These clause types are classified by their highest functional projection TFin, T, AM, Mood, which accounts for their distribution. IV. There is a concomitant 4-way alternation of attachment options of subject and object clitics to the verb: [+Scl+Ocl], [+Scl−Ocl], [−Scl+Ocl], [−Scl−Ocl]. The examples in (1) illustrate, using the same verb remember, the Fin and infinitival clause types in their typical functions.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Doron, Edit, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef, and Moshe Taube
    Doron, Edit, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef, and Moshe Taube (eds.). 2019. Linguistic Contact, Continuity and Change in the Genesis of Modern Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1. Introduction Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef, and Moshe Taube 1.1 Hebrew and the question of language continuity This volume discusses empirical and theoretical issues having to do with the emergence of Modern Hebrew (MH) and with phenomena in other languages which shed light on the special case of Hebrew. The emergence of MH is an unprecedented phenomenon in that it is the only documented case of a language which had no native speakers for over a millennium and subsequently became the native language of an entire society (see the historical overview in 1.3 below). Despite the fact that Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language in the 3rd century CE, the language continued to be used, not only as a sacred liturgical language used in rote, but as a written language which produced new texts over the ages in both religious and secular matters. Today MH is the native language of the majority of speakers in Israel and is estimated to have over 9 million speakers around the world. It is developing as any other language in a multi-cultural setting and is thus not inherently different from any other spoken language. However, the history of the language over the ages is unique in many respects. The research reported in this volume probes issues which can further our understanding of the nature of Hebrew over the ages and the relation of MH to the Hebrew of earlier stages.
    [Show full text]
  • Quo Vadis Morphology? MMM10 On-Line Proceedings
    Quo vadis morphology? MMM10 On-line Proceedings Edited by: Jenny Audring Francesca Masini Wendy Sandler UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN | UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA | UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA Quo vadis morphology? MMM10 On-line Proceedings Edited by: Jenny Audring Francesca Masini Wendy Sandler On-line Proceedings of the Tenth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM10) Haifa, Israel, 7-10 September 2015 UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN | UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA | UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA The MMM Permanent Committee Jenny Audring (Leiden University) Geert Booij (Leiden University) Nikos Koutsoukos (Université catholique de Louvain) Francesca Masini (University of Bologna) Angela Ralli (University of Patras) Sergio Scalise (University of Bologna) on-line proceedings of the mediterranean morphology meetings ISSN: 1826-7491 MMM10 Online Proceedings iii Table of contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... v Abstracts ......................................................................................................................................... vi Suspended affixation with derivational suffixes and lexical integrity Faruk Akkuş .................................................................................................................................... 1 The Semitic templates from the perspective of reciprocal predicates Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal .......................................................................................................... 16
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction
    VOICE THAT FEELS MODERN: 1 ALTERNATIONS OF PERCEPTION VERBS IN HEBREW BAR AVINERI The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1 Introduction This work discusses a sub-class of perception verbs in Modern Hebrew, namely li-rʾot ‘see’, li- šmoʾa ‘hear’, le-hargiš ‘feel’ and le-hariax ‘smell’. These verbs reveal an intricate array of alternations: morphological, syntactic, and semantic. Morpho-syntactically, their experiencer argument alternates between nominative and dative marking. This alternation is accompanied by a voice alternation between active and middle voice, which is morphologically marked by the verbal form. In addition, all these verbs can embed two types of clauses, a small clause and a finite clause. Together, the alternation yields four different constructions, which might seem redundant. Semantically, however, each construction shows different properties, arising systematically for all the verbs in the class. From a diachronic perspective, the systematic alternation for this group of verbs emerged in Hebrew gradually, with respect to the sensory modality lexicalized by the verbs. The examination of the synchronic alternations of this class of perception verbs in Modern Hebrew and their historical development throws light on the interrelations between morphology, syntax and semantics, and in particular – on the function of voice in the field of perception. The literature on perception verbs typically divides perception verbs into two subclasses and describes them separately. Viberg (1983) classifies perception verbs into experiencer-based verbs and source-based or phenomenon-based verbs, and the terminology of Levin (1993) for English distinguishes between see-verbs and stimulus-subject-perception-verbs. The two 1 I express my deepest gratitude to Edit Doron.
    [Show full text]
  • Halbert Centre for CANADIAN STUDIES
    Halbert Centre FOR CANADIAN STUDIES Fall 2019 Farewell to Ralph Halbert WE MOURN THE LOSS OF THE HALBERT CENTRE’S FOUNDER With great sorrow, we say good- Ralph’s legacy of building bye to Canadian philanthropist bridges between Canada and Dr. Ralph Halbert, who passed Israel through higher education away on December 4, 2018. will continue to live on through the Halbert Centre’s activities. More than 30 years ago, Ralph “It has taken the world 25 years and his beloved wife, Roz, to catch up with Ralph Halbert’s helped to establish what would vision,” Prof. Janice Stein, become the Halbert Centre for founding director of the Munk Canadian Studies at the Hebrew School of Global Affairs and University of Jerusalem. Ralph Public Policy at the University and Roz wanted to facilitate of Toronto, and chair of the closer academic ties between Halbert Networks Program, told Canadian and Israeli academics the Globe and Mail. “His great through collaborative research achievement was to bring and teaching. Since its founding, together networks of scholars.” the Halbert Centre has enabled hundreds of Canadian and Ralph will be missed by many at Israeli scholars to develop rich value; central to his vision the Hebrew University, and in and productive academic was the deepening of Canadian- Israel and Canada, who had the relationships and networks. Israeli academic ties. In addition good fortune to know him and to his foundational support of to experience his good will, Ralph was a devoted and the Halbert Centre, Ralph served graciousness, deep commitment effective friend of the Hebrew as Chairman of the Hebrew to academic excellence, and University for decades.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE OPHIRA GAMLIEL Updated: 15/12/2014
    CURRICULUM VITAE OPHIRA GAMLIEL Updated: 15/12/2014 Date of Birth: 2/5/1968 Country of Birth: Israel ID no.: 023653678 Address: Moskovitz 17 Rehovot Tel.: 0544709541 E-mail address: [email protected] EDUCATION 2000 B.A., summa cum laude , Indian Studies and Egyptology, the Hebrew University. 2002 M.A., magna cum laude , The Language of Revealed Mysteries: A Comparative view of Monologue-Hymns ( ātmastuti) in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Coptic [in Hebrew], the Hebrew University, Supervised by David Shulman. 2010 Ph.D., summa cum laude, Jewish Malayalam Women's Songs , the Hebrew University, supervised by David Shulman. 2010 Post-doctoral studies, The Department of Malayalam and Kerala Studies in the University of Calicut in Kerala, India, under the guidance of Venugopala Panicker. ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS 1997 Assistant Teacher, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 1998 Junior Teaching Assistant, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 1999 Junior Teaching Assistant, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 2000 Junior Teaching Assistant, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 2001 Language Instructor, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 2002 Language Instructor, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 2003 Teaching Assistant, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 2004 Teaching Assistant, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 2006 Instructor, The Faculty of Humanities, Indian Studies 2010 Teaching Fellow, The Faculty of Humanities, Asian Studies, Bar-Ilan University External Teacher, The Faculty of Humanities, Comparative
    [Show full text]
  • The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Department of Linguistics Evaluation Report
    Committee for the Evaluation of Linguistics Study Programs The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Department of Linguistics Evaluation Report March 2013 1 Contents Chapter 1: Background………………………………………………………………..…….3 Chapter 2: Committee Procedures………...…………………….………………...……4 Chapter 3: Evaluation of Linguistics Study Program at the Hebrew University of Jeruslem………………………........….5 Chapter 4: General Recommendations and Timetable……………………….22 Appendices: Appendix 1 – Letter of Appointment Appendix 2 - Schedule of the visit 2 Chapter 1- Background At its meeting on November 13th 2012, the Council for Higher Education (CHE) decided to evaluate study programs in the field of Linguistics during the academic year of 2013. Following the decision of the CHE, the Minister of Education, who serves ex officio as Chairperson of the CHE, appointed a Committee consisting of: Prof. Stephen Anderson- Department of Linguistics , Yale University, USA – Chair Prof. Ruth Berman, Department of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University, Israel Prof. Elly Van Gelderen- Department of English, Arizona State University, USA Prof. Barbara Partee- Department of Linguistics , University of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA Prof. Joshua Wilner- Departments of English and Comparative Literature, City College and The Graduate Center - CUNY, USA Prof. Shuly Wintner, Department of Computer Science, University of Haifa, Israel Prof. Draga Zec- Department of Linguistics, Cornell University, USA Ms. Alex Buslovich was the Coordinator of the Committee on behalf of the CHE. Within the framework of its activity, the Committee was requested to:1 1. Examine the self-evaluation reports, submitted by the institutions that provide study programs in Linguistics, and to conduct on-site visits at those institutions. 2. Submit to the CHE an individual report on each of the evaluated academic units and study programs, including the Committee's findings and recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Locative Alternation in Biblical and Modern Hebrew
    The locative alternation in Biblical (and Modern) Hebrew Edit Doron & Keren Dubnov in A. Moshavi and T. Notarius (eds.) 2017. Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods and Analyses. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 321-360. 1. Introduction1 The arguments of locative verbs include a Locatum argument and a Location argument, where the Locatum typically undergoes a change in Location. The present article is concerned with locative verbs in Hebrew, mostly Biblical Hebrew, with brief comparison to Modern Hebrew. As in other languages, some Hebrew locative verbs display the locative alternation, i.e. allow the Locatum and Location arguments to alternate in alignment. Ditransitive locative verbs typically assign one of these two arguments the function of direct object and the other – that of indirect object; alternating verbs allow both arguments to fulfill either function.2 The present article studies this alignment alternation. First, it uncovers the semantic factors determining which Biblical Hebrew (BH) locative verbs alternate and which do not. Second, it points to the aspects of this alternation which are preserved in Modern Hebrew (MH). Third, it presents and explains a syntactic characteristic of BH locative verbs, also preserved in MH, which to the best of our knowledge, has not been noted before: The Locative Alternation Preposition Identity In Hebrew, both BH and MH, verbs which undergo the locative alternation allow the same preposition in the two alternants. The two different alignments of the arguments of locative verbs will be called Frame A and Frame B. In Frame A, the Locatum is direct object and the Location is object of a preposition.
    [Show full text]
  • From a Collective to a Free Choice Determiner in Biblical Hebrew Edit Doron Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Chapter 1 From a collective to a free choice determiner in Biblical Hebrew Edit Doron Hebrew University of Jerusalem The paper is a diachronic study of the Hebrew universal determiner kol. In Biblical Hebrew (BH), kol was originally a noun meaning ‘entirety’ which grammaticalized as a collective determiner akin to all. Kol induces maximality, like the determiner all, but, unlike all, it is not quantificational, hence its maximality does not preclude homogeneity. Semantically, kol NP is interpreted as the plural property correspond- ing to NP. In argument position, the strongest interpretation of kol NP results from the application of the definite type-shift (the iota type-shift). But within the scope of certain modals and in downward entailing environments, the indefinite type- shift (existential closure) yields a stronger interpretation. This results in thefree choice (FC)/negative polarity (NPI) any interpretation of kol in these environments. In post-Biblical times, the any interpretation evolved into the distributive interpre- tation every. The paper thus traces the development of kol’s extensive meaning variation ‘all/any/every’. 1 Introduction How does universal quantification develop in a language? Haspelmath (1995) sug- gests that collective universal determiners (like English all) often originate in an adjective meaning entire/whole, and that distributive universal determiners (such as English every) have various sources – free choice (FC) determiners like any, or collective universal determiners like all. The [FC → distributive] development was elucidated by Beck (2017), and here I would like to describe the [collective → distributive] development. I claim that at least for some languages, the latter development is a cycle which includes the former, as shown in (1) below:1 1The cyclical nature of (1) is due to its reversibility (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Form and Meaning in the Hebrew Verb
    DEDICATION In memory of David & Blanca Nathan Betty & Yehoshua Kastner ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This is my favorite part! As any graduate student will tell you, the acknowledgments are the most inter- esting chapter of every dissertation that you read. I’m glad to report that they’re also the best chapter to write. There is a dissertation lurking beyond these acknowledgments, one that I could not have written anywhere else. I am indebted to the constant feedback from syntacticians, morphologists, semanticists, phonologists, computational modelers, cognitive scientists and variationists that it was my good fortune to have at NYU while working on this project. The range of topics that I have attempted to cover here is clearly not one that I could have wrangled by myself. Any good idea to be found in the main text arose through the continued guidance of the many people who have educated me along the way. Any clarity in the writing is likewise the result of many kind souls commenting furtively on my written work. Many colleagues are to be thanked for this, but first and foremost, this means my committee. I won’t embarrass myself or my advisor, Alec Marantz, by attempting to wax poetic about his contributions to my intellectual development or about the amazing speed with which he thinks on his feet. Instead, here’s one anecdote that stuck with me. The neurolinguistics lab at NYU hosts a program in which one exceptional high school student comes in every summer to learn experimental design and develop their own project. The student is usually mentored by the research assistant managing Alec’s MorphLab (of which I was a member).
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew— Edit Doron's Vision
    Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 12 (2020) 1–6 brill.com/aall Theoretical linguistics and Biblical Hebrew— Edit Doron’s vision Tania Notarius The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel and University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa [email protected] Nora Boneh The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel [email protected] This is the first of two thematic issues (the second of which will appear as BAALL 13:1) guest-edited by the late Edit Doron and by Tania Notarius, with the contribution of Nora Boneh, dedicated to the theoretical linguistic study of Biblical Hebrew. They exemplify one of the fruits of Edit Doron’s endeavors to establish firm research ties between theoretical formal linguistics and the philological study of Biblical Hebrew. Edit’s untimely death interrupted this and many other of her projects; it is the goal of this introductory essay to point out some of the milestones of her contribution to the field. The interaction between Biblical Hebrew studies, on the one hand, and the- oretical linguistics, on the other, is not novel and spans dozens of years of scholarity.1 In most of these works, the main focus is on the study of the Hebrew language of the Bible by applying tools provided by linguistic theory—be it for- mal or cognitive—with the purpose of improving the description of the data and proposing analyses to particular linguistic phenomena. Edit’s aspiration of bringing the two worlds of study closer together was however different: it was about the belief that linguistic theory can, in turn, benefit from the study of an ancient language, such as Biblical Hebrew.
    [Show full text]
  • Hebrew Morphological Disambiguation: an Unsupervised Stochastic Word-Based Approach
    Hebrew Morphological Disambiguation: An Unsupervised Stochastic Word-based Approach Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Menahem (Meni) Adler Submitted to the Senate of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev September 2007 Beer-Sheva Hebrew Morphological Disambiguation: An Unsupervised Stochastic Word-based Approach Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Menahem (Meni) Adler Submitted to the Senate of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev September 2007 Beer-Sheva This work was carried out under the supervision of Dr. Michael Elhadad In the Department of Computer Science Faculty: Natural Sciences To Ora In loving memory of my father - Baruch Contents Abstract viii List of Figures xiii List of Tables xiii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation................................ 3 1.2 StartingPoints ............................. 4 1.3 Implementation ............................. 5 1.4 Contributions .............................. 5 1.5 GuidetotheRestoftheDissertation . 10 2 Background 13 2.1 MorphologicalModels . 14 2.2 Morpheme................................ 15 2.3 Lexeme ................................. 16 2.3.1 Definition ............................ 16 2.3.2 Derivation............................ 17 2.4 HebrewWordDefinition . 20 2.4.1 GeneralOverview. 20 2.4.2 DefiniteArticle ......................... 23 2.4.3 FormativeLetters. 25 2.4.4 PronounSuffix ......................... 26 2.4.5 Notation............................. 27 v 2.5 Hebrew Lexical Categories . 28 2.6 HebrewInflectionalProperties . 31 2.7 Morphological Analyzer . 31 2.8 Morphological Disambiguator . 35 2.8.1 Motivation............................ 35 2.8.2 Disambiguation Methods . 36 2.8.3 Disambiguation in Various Languages . 37 3 Objectives 45 4 Resources 49 4.1 Corpora ................................. 49 4.2 Morphological Analyzer . 51 5 Tagset Design 55 5.1 Methodology .............................
    [Show full text]