DOCSLIB.ORG

Lexical Level

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lexical Level Lexical Level Data for the lexicon – how to acquire all forms of words, a relation between those forms and the canonical form, and the relation to additional information. Morphological analysis – given the inflected form, how to get its syntactical features, the canonical form, and the decomposition into morphemes (a morphological synthesis is also possible). Data structures – how to create and store a lexicon so that it takes little space, and so that it guaranties fast access to information. Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (15 / 31) Morphemes (1/2) A morpheme is (in a simplification) a part of a word. There are free morphemes and bound morphemes. A free morpheme can appear on its own as a word. They do not have to be accompanied by other morphemes. A bound morpheme does not have that property. A root is a basic morpheme of a word, to which affixes (both flectional and derivational) can be glued. A root is a lexical morpheme. Example: dodatkowy. A word stem is that part of a word that remains after flectional affixes have been stripped. It carries the meaning of the word. It does not have to be a single morpheme. Example: dodatkowy. Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (16 / 31) Morphemes (2/2) Affixes are bound morphemes that have grammatical functions. They are divided into prefixes, suffixes, infixes, postfixes, and circumfixes. The null morpheme carries only grammatical information, but it has no textual representation. For example, the singular nominative of the Polish word słoń (elephant) can be analyzed as słoń+;, i.e. the stem słoń and a null morpheme. Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (17 / 31) Morphological Types of Languages Isolating languages do not have bound morphemes (all words are single morphemes). In agglutinative languages, bound morphemes are put one after another, each one specifying only one feature value. In inflected languages, many different features can be represented by a single bound morpheme. In polysynthetic languages, some elements that appear as separate words in other languages are expressed by morphological means. Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (18 / 31) Flectional and Derivational Morphology In flectional morphology, we describe various forms of the same word – a lexeme. A set of all inflected forms constitutes a paradigm of that word. Inflected forms have the same part of speech as the canonical form of the lexeme, they have the same meaning, but they adapt the word to fulfill other syntactic functions. Derivational morphology forms new words, new lexemes. From one lexeme, we get another one, of a different meaning, and usually of a different part of speech. Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (19 / 31) Flectional and Derivational Morphology – Examples Inflection: droga ! drogi, drodze, drogę, drogi, dróg. drogi ! drogiego. droga. drodzy. pies ! psa, psu, psie, psy. pieszy ! pieszego, pieszemu, pieszym, piesi. kochać ! kocham, kochasz. kochałem. kochałabyś. Derivation: pies ! piesek, pieseczek, psi, pieski. kot ! kotek, koteczek, kocię, koci, kocić się. kochać ! kochanie, kochanek, kochanka, kochliwy. Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (20 / 31) Joining Morphemes – Concatenation The simplest and the most common way of joining morphemes is concatenation – appending a morpheme (a suffix) or prepending a morpheme (a prefix). A much less frequently used method is to insert a morpheme inside a word. Such operation is severely restricted, and it can be treated as prepending a prefix while skipping some initial phones of the word, e.g. the first consonant, the first syllable, the first unaccented syllable, etc. Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (21 / 31) Joining Morphemes – Other Methods In Semitic languages, the stem of verbs is a pattern consisting of a root (usually three consonants), a vowel pattern (bearing information about voice and aspect) and a derivational pattern that defines the class. For example, ktb means to write. In active voice, the vowel pattern contains A, so the word for the derivational pattern CVCVC (the canonical form) in active voice sounds kAtAb. In passive voice, the vowel pattern is UI, and the word itself is kUtIb. The vowel pattern CVVCVC leads to a word to correspond: in active voice – kAAtAb, in passive voice – kUUtIb. Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (22 / 31) Joining Morphemes – Restrictions (1/2) Not every affix can be glued to any word in any place. The restrictions may be concerned with the part of speech, the case and other grammatical features, as well as features of pronunciation and meaning. To describe such restrictions, various methods can be used, e.g. continuation classes. Unification seems to be the simplest method. An example (adjectives in positive degree) in mmorph (a morphology program): adv pos : adv[deg=pos advs=$advs form=surface] a[deg=pos form=stem advs=$advs par a!=no] advsuf[deg=pos advs=$advs] Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (23 / 31) Joining Morphemes – Restrictions (1/2) Not every affix can be glued to any word in any place. The restrictions may be concerned with the part of speech, the case and other grammatical features, as well as features of pronunciation and meaning. To describe such restrictions, various methods can be used, e.g. continuation classes. Unification seems to be the simplest method. An example (adjectives in .rule name positive degree) in mmorph (a morphology program): .an adverb is created. from an adjective. adv. pos : adv.[deg=pos advs=.$ .advs . and anform=surface adverb ending] a.[deg=pos form=stem. advs=$advs par a!=no] advsuf.[deg=pos advs=$advs] Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (24 / 31) Joining Morphemes – Restrictions (1/2) Not every affix can be glued to any word in any place. The restrictions may be concerned with the part of speech, the case and other grammatical features, as well as features of pronunciation and meaning. To describe such restrictions, various methods can be used, e.g. continuation classes. Unificationdegree. seems . to be the simplest method. An example (adjectives in . positive degree) in mmorph (a morphology program): . and paradigm agree . adv pos : adv[deg=pos. advs=. $advs form=surface] a[deg=pos form=stem advs=$advs par a!=no] advsuf[deg=pos advs=$advs] Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (25 / 31) Joining Morphemes – Restrictions (2/2) Endings for the rule: adv.pos1: “o” advsuf[deg=pos advs=o] adv.pos2: “&prim;e” advsuf[deg=pos advs=e] The lexicon (a part): a[deg=pos form=stem par a=y dega=no advs=o] “bos” = “bosy” “bezosobow” = “bezosobowy” “burzow” = “burzowy” “brodat” = “brodaty” ... Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (26 / 31) Alternations in Morphemes Resulting from Concatenation pies lp lm M pies psy What is the stem in the lexeme D psa psów pies? C psu psom pies or ps? One of them, both of them, or B psa psy something else? W psie psy N psem psami Mc psie psach Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (27 / 31) Dog’s Fate – the First Solution pies lp lm We have two stems: the basic one M pies+; ps+y – pies, and an alternative one – ps (or the other way round). D ps+a ps+ów This solution is simple, and it C ps+u ps+om is used often (e.g. in IN- TEX/Unitex). However, it needs B ps+a ps+y a set of stems for every word with W ps+ie ps+y such alternations, so it is error prone. N ps+em ps+ami Mc ps+ie ps+ach Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (28 / 31) Dog’s Fate – the Second Solution pies lp lm The stem of the lexeme pies is M p’s+; p’s+y p’s, i.e. soft p’ and s. Except for nominative singular, a soft p D p’s+a p’s+ów is followed by s, so the softness of p is not perceivable. In nomi- C p’s+u p’s+om native singular, a null morpheme B p’s+a p’s+y is appended. As it is hard to pro- nounce ps, an e is inserted in the W p’s+’e p’s+y middle. Now the soft p’ can sur- N p’s+em p’s+ami face: we have pies. Mc p’s+’e p’s+ach Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (29 / 31) Alternations of Phones Consonants: m:m’,b:b’,p:p’,v:v’: łamać – łamię, krok – krokiem, pies – psa t:ć,c:ć,d:dź,d:dż,s:ś,sz:ś,z:ź,ż:ź,n:ń: wożę – wozisz, noszę – nosisz r:rz: karać – karzę, brać – bierzesz k:cz,g:ż: piekę – pieczesz, mogę – możesz Vowels: e:o,e:a,o:ó,ę:ą: bierzemy – biorę, księga – ksiąg Deletion or insertion of a vowel: samogłoska – samogłosek Alternations of phones can happen more than once in the same word: gwiazda – gwieździe, brać – biorę Jan Daciuk, DIIS, ETI, GUT Natural Language Processing 2. Morphology: Concatenation of Morphems (30 / 31) Alternations of Phones – Other Languages In German, there are Umlauts, which are distinguished in writing with a diacritic. A vowel without an umlaut in the first syllable of a noun can turn into a vowel with an umlaut in plural: Land – L¨ander, Bruder – Bruder¨ .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Representation of Inflected Nouns in the Internal Lexicon
    Memory & Cognition 1980, Vol. 8 (5), 415423 Represeritation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon G. LUKATELA, B. GLIGORIJEVIC, and A. KOSTIC University ofBelgrade, Belgrade, Yugoslavia and M.T.TURVEY University ofConnecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268 and Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut 06510 The lexical representation of Serbo-Croatian nouns was investigated in a lexical decision task. Because Serbo-Croatian nouns are declined, a noun may appear in one of several gram­ matical cases distinguished by the inflectional morpheme affixed to the base form. The gram­ matical cases occur with different frequencies, although some are visually and phonetically identical. When the frequencies of identical forms are compounded, the ordering of frequencies is not the same for masculine and feminine genders. These two genders are distinguished further by the fact that the base form for masculine nouns is an actual grammatical case, the nominative singular, whereas the base form for feminine nouns is an abstraction in that it cannot stand alone as an independent word. Exploiting these characteristics of the Serbo­ Croatian language, we contrasted three views of how a noun is represented: (1) the independent­ entries hypothesis, which assumes an independent representation for each grammatical case, reflecting its frequency of occurrence; (2) the derivational hypothesis, which assumes that only the base morpheme is stored, with the individual cases derived from separately stored inflec­ tional morphemes and rules for combination; and (3) the satellite-entries hypothesis, which assumes that all cases are individually represented, with the nominative singular functioning as the nucleus and the embodiment of the noun's frequency and around which the other cases cluster uniformly.
    [Show full text]
  • Reduplication in Distributed Morphology
    Reduplication in Distributed Morphology Item Type text; Article Authors Haugen, Jason D. Publisher University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona) Journal Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics, Linguistic Theory at the University of Arizona Rights http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Download date 27/09/2021 03:15:12 Item License Copyright © is held by the author(s). Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/143067 The Coyote Papers 18 (May 2011), University of Arizona Linguistics Department, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A. Reduplication in Distributed Morphology Jason D. Haugen Oberlin College [email protected] Keywords reduplication, Distributed Morphology, allomorphy, reduplicative allomorphy, base-dependence, Hiaki (Yaqui), Tawala Abstract The two extant approaches to reduplication in Distributed Morphology (DM) are: (i) the read- justment approach, where reduplication is claimed to result from a readjustment operation on some stem triggered by a (typically null) affix; and (ii) the affixation approach, where reduplica- tion is claimed to result from the insertion of a special type of Vocabulary Item (i.e. a reduplica- tive affix–“reduplicant" or \Red") which gets inserted into a syntactic node in order to discharge some morphosyntactic feature(s), but which receives its own phonological content from some other stem (i.e. its \base") in the output. This paper argues from phonologically-conditioned allomorphy pertaining to base-dependence, as in the case of durative reduplication in Tawala, that the latter approach best accounts for a necessary distinction between \reduplicants" and \bases" as different types of morphemes which display different phonological effects, including \the emergence of the unmarked" effects, in many languages.
    [Show full text]
  • University of California Santa Cruz Minimal Reduplication
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ MINIMAL REDUPLICATION A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Jesse Saba Kirchner June 2010 The Dissertation of Jesse Saba Kirchner is approved: Professor Armin Mester, Chair Professor Jaye Padgett Professor Junko Ito Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Jesse Saba Kirchner 2010 Some rights reserved: see Appendix E. Contents Abstract vi Dedication viii Acknowledgments ix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Structureofthethesis ...... ....... ....... ....... ........ 2 1.2 Overviewofthetheory...... ....... ....... ....... .. ....... 2 1.2.1 GoalsofMR ..................................... 3 1.2.2 Assumptionsandpredictions. ....... 7 1.3 MorphologicalReduplication . .......... 10 1.3.1 Fixedsize..................................... ... 11 1.3.2 Phonologicalopacity. ...... 17 1.3.3 Prominentmaterialpreferentiallycopied . ............ 22 1.3.4 Localityofreduplication. ........ 24 1.3.5 Iconicity ..................................... ... 24 1.4 Syntacticreduplication. .......... 26 2 Morphological reduplication 30 2.1 Casestudy:Kwak’wala ...... ....... ....... ....... .. ....... 31 2.2 Data............................................ ... 33 2.2.1 Phonology ..................................... .. 33 2.2.2 Morphophonology ............................... ... 40 2.2.3 -mut’ .......................................... 40 2.3 Analysis........................................ ..... 48 2.3.1 Lengtheningandreduplication.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological Sources of Phonological Length
    Morphological Sources of Phonological Length by Anne Pycha B.A. (Brown University) 1993 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 2004 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: Professor Sharon Inkelas (chair) Professor Larry Hyman Professor Keith Johnson Professor Johanna Nichols Spring 2008 Abstract Morphological Sources of Phonological Length by Anne Pycha Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Sharon Inkelas, Chair This study presents and defends Resizing Theory, whose claim is that the overall size of a morpheme can serve as a basic unit of analysis for phonological alternations. Morphemes can increase their size by any number of strategies -- epenthesizing new segments, for example, or devoicing an existing segment (and thereby increasing its phonetic duration) -- but it is the fact of an increase, and not the particular strategy used to implement it, which is linguistically significant. Resizing Theory has some overlap with theories of fortition and lenition, but differs in that it uses the independently- verifiable parameter of size in place of an ad-hoc concept of “strength” and thereby encompasses a much greater range of phonological alternations. The theory makes three major predictions, each of which is supported with cross-linguistic evidence. First, seemingly disparate phonological alternations can achieve identical morphological effects, but only if they trigger the same direction of change in a morpheme’s size. Second, morpheme interactions can take complete control over phonological outputs, determining surface outputs when traditional features and segments fail to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological Well-Formedness As a Derivational Constraint on Syntax: Verbal Inflection in English1
    Morphological Well-Formedness as a Derivational Constraint on Syntax: Verbal Inflection in English 1 John Frampton and Sam Gutmann Northeastern University November 1999 ::: the English verb and its auxiliaries are always a source of fascination. Indeed, I think we can say, following Neumeyer (1980), that much of the intellectual success of Chomsky (1957) is due precisely to its strikingly attractive analysis of this inflectional system. (Emonds, 1985, A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories) The now well-known differences between verb raising in English and French that were first explored by Emonds (1978), and later analyzed in more depth by Pollock (1989), played an important role in the early development of Chomsky's (1995) Min- imalist Program (MP). See Chomsky (1991), in particular, for an analysis in terms of economy of derivation. As the MP developed, the effort to analyze verb raising largely receded. Lasnik (1996), however, took the question up again and showed that fairly broad empirical coverage could be achieved within the MP framework. One important empirical gap (which will be discussed later) remained, and various stipulations about the feature makeup of inserted lexical items were required. In this paper we hope both to remove the empirical gap and to reduce the stipulative aspects of Lasnik's proposal. The larger ambition of this paper is to support the effort, begun in Frampton and Gutmann (1999), to reorient the MP away from economy principles, particularly away from the idea that comparison of derivations is relevant to grammaticality. Here, we will assume certain key ideas from that paper and show how they provide a productive framework for an analysis of verb raising.
    [Show full text]
  • JOSAR, Vol. 2 No. 1 March, 2017; P-ISSN: 2502-8251
    JOSAR, Vol. 2 No. 1 March, 2017; p-ISSN: 2502-8251; e-ISSN: 2503-1155 Copyrights@ Balitar Islamic University, Blitar-Indonesia http:josar.unisbablitar.ejournal.web.id MORPHEME ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE SilviNuril M*1, AisyaBrilian G.K *2, MahudaSafitri*3, RahmaniaFirdaus*4, Rama GarethaEvansam*5, Ahmad Siswanto*6 1,2Islamic University of Balitar; Jl. Majapahit No. 04, Telp. (0342)813145 3Program StudiPendidikanBahasaInggris,FKIP Universitas Islam Balitar, Blitar e-mail: *[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected],[email protected] Abstract Morphology is the study of words. Morphemes are the minimal units of words that have a meaning and can not be subdivided further. There are two main types: free and bound. Morpheme is article includes a listof references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient.Therefore the researchers conducted the research about morpheme. The research methode that was used is decriptive qualitative method. To gain the data the researchers used literature review in which the data gained from dictionary. Every morpheme can be classified as either free or bound. Bound morphemes can be further classified as derivational or inflectional. These categories are mutually exclusive, and as such, a given morpheme will belong to exactly one of them. Free morphemes can function independently as words. Bound morphemes appear only as part us of words, always in conjunction with a root and sometimes with other bound morphemes. Keywords: linguistic, classification of morpheme, derivational, inflectional, free and bound. 37 JOSAR, Vol. 2 No. 1 March, 2017; p-ISSN: 2502-8251; e-ISSN: 2503-1155 Copyrights@ Balitar Islamic University, Blitar-Indonesia http:josar.unisbablitar.ejournal.web.id 1.
    [Show full text]
  • On Zero Agreement and Polysynthesis* Mark C. Baker Rutgers University
    On Zero Agreement and Polysynthesis* Mark C. Baker Rutgers University 1. Introduction Research on polysynthesis and nonconfigurationality in the tradition of Jelinek (1984) and Baker (1996) assigns great significance to the presence of agreement on verbs and other theta-role assigners. My Polysynthesis Parameter, for example, says that every argument of a predicate must be expressed by morphology on the word that contains that theta-role assigner: (1) The Polysynthesis Parameter (Informal version, Baker 1996: 14) Every argument of a head element must be related to a morpheme in the word containing that head (an agreement morpheme, or an incorporated root). Yes: Mohawk, Nahuatl, Southern Tiwa, Mayali, Chukchee, (Mapudungun) … No: English, Spanish, Chichewa, Japanese, Quechua, Turkish, (Kinande)… Agreement morphology is the single most important way of satisfying this requirement, the other being incorporation. (1) implies that in a polysynthetic language like Mohawk, all verbs necessarily agreement with subjects, objects, and indirect objects, except for the special case when the direct object is incorporated into the verb. This accounts elegantly 1 for paradigms like the following, found also in languages like Nahuatl and Chukchee: * This chapter was made possible thanks to a trip to Argentina in October 2000, to visit at the Universidad de Comahue in General Roca, Argentina. This gave me a chance to supplement my knowledge of Mapudungun from secondary sources (Smeets 1989, Salas 1992, Augusta 1903) by consulting with Argentine experts on this language (Pascual Masullo, Lucia Gulluscio, and Roberto Aranovich), and by interviewing their Mapuche consultants, as well as members of the Mapuche community that we met in Junin de los Andes, Argentina.
    [Show full text]
  • MORPHOLOGY What Is Morphology?
    Asst.Inst.Wassan H.A MORPHOLOGY What is Morphology? . Morphology is the scientific study of word formation. Minimal meaningful / grammatical unit of a word. The study of patterns of word formation. How words are originated, grammatical forms, on what basis the word class is formed etc. Words and Morphemes . A word: is a unit which is constituent at the phrase level and above. This is being the minimal possible unit of a reply. It has regular stress pattern, being the smallest constituent that can be moved within a sentence without making the sentence ungrammatical. Morpheme . Minimal, meaningful unit of a word or in the grammar of a language. Not further divisible or analyzable into smaller forms. The units of ‘lowest’ rank out of which words, the units of next highest rank are composed. If we try to break up a morpheme, it loses its identity and it left with meaningless noises. Morpheme . Semantically different from other phonemically similar or identical linguistic forms. e.g. Speaker, deer, faster . A sound sequence is not always regarded as a morpheme. E.g: man—*woman, unnatural, unfaithful, *under, *sun . It could be also termed as an abstract unit of meaning. A synonym for morpheme is glosseme Examples: . Unladylike . Un+ lady+ like . Encouragement . En+ courage+ ment . Disillusionment . Dis+ illusion+ ment . Anti-naxalism . Anti+ naxal+ ism What is morph then? . A morph is the phonetic realization of a morpheme. The real form of the morpheme, the actual utterance of the morpheme. A formal unit with a physical shape. This is similar to the concept called ‘phone’ in phonology Allomorph .
    [Show full text]
  • Inferring Morphological Rules from Small Examples Using 0/1 Linear Programming
    Inferring morphological rules from small examples using 0/1 linear programming Ann Lilliestrom,¨ Koen Claessen, Nicholas Smallbone Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden fannl,koen,[email protected] Abstract Here, +’s∗ represents the suffix ’s, and +a+ repre- 1 We show how to express the problem of sents an infix a. The table shows that both ’s and finding an optimal morpheme segmentation an apostrophe can mark the genitive case; the sec- from a set of labelled words as a 0/1 linear ond column means that the genitive was marked programming problem, and how to build by ’s only in singular nouns, and by an apostrophe on this to analyse a language’s morphology. only in plural nouns. An s suffix marks plural, and The approach works even when there is because of the tiny input data it was only seen in very little training data available. genitive nouns. Plural can be marked by an inner vowel change from a to e (indicated by the arrow), 1 Introduction or by changing a final y to ies, in which case the Many recent tools for morphological analysis use singular form is marked by a or y. statistical approaches such as neural networks (Cot- The tool also segments the input words into mor- terell et al., 2018). These approaches can profitably phemes consistent with the table of rules (the in- use huge amounts of training data, which makes ferred stem is marked in bold): them ideal for high-resource languages. But if there standard inflected is little training data available, statistical methods womjajnj ? womjejnj ? can struggle to learn an accurate model.
    [Show full text]
  • On Null Causativization the Problem: Much Recent Literature (Pesetsky 1995, Harley 1995, Pylkkänen 2002, Alexiadou Et Al
    On Null Causativization The Problem: Much recent literature (Pesetsky 1995, Harley 1995, Pylkkänen 2002, Alexiadou et al. 2006) argues that examples such as (1), often described as ‘zero-derived causatives’, contain a null causative head which is equivalent to overt causative morphemes like Finnish -tti illustrated in (2). However, null causative elements differ from overt causative heads in ways that are not predicted by a theory which assumes simple variation in (non-)pronunciation of functional heads. The Facts: Bittner (1999) observes that null causatives such as zero-derived causative verbs and resul- tative secondary predicates are limited to direct causation; an indirect causation interpretation, where in- termediate causes intervene between the causing and final caused event, is not possible in the absence of an overt causative morpheme (3)-(4). Another apparent restriction on null causatives is that they never causativize transitive verbs. According to Haspelmath (1993), while there are languages such as Finnish which share causative morphology between causative-transitives and causative-inchoatives, no language has causative/transitive pairs related by null morphology, even those languages with apparent null causative morphology in causative-inchoatives. Informally, one might say that null causatives are restricted to com- bining with ‘smaller’ constituents than overt causatives. If null causative elements were equivalent to overt causative heads modulo their pronunciation, this would predict that the equivalent of (5) should be possi- ble with the same null morpheme. However, Haspelmath’s data suggest this prediction is not borne out, as illustrated with English in (6). Pylkkänen (2002) accounts for the contrast between Finnish and En- glish by proposing that causatives in English are ‘root-selecting’ while those in Finnish are ‘verb-selecting’.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Rid of Number Features
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Getting Rid of Number Features A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Linguistics by John Gluckman 2014 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS Getting Rid of Number Features by John Gluckman Master of Arts in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2014 Professor Anoop Mahajan, Chair This thesis is a study of the featural representation of nominal number. By looking at patterns of agreement when 1st and 2nd person arguments interact, I argue that the expression of morpholog- ical number does not involve dedicated plural features (e.g., [+plural]). Instead, morphological number is dependent on multiple, privative, atomic features ([INDIVIDUAL]), essentially extend- ing into morphology a standard semantic theory of nominal plurality (Link 1983, Schwarzschild 1992). A feature bundle containing more than one [INDIVIDUAL] feature is mapped to a plural exponent. The empirical discussion centers on agreement in LOCAL contexts, where a 1st or 2nd person acts on another 1st or 2nd person. In many languages, two singular arguments may result in plural morphology on the verb. I show that the plural morphology results from a single syntactic head copying phi-features from two different argument positions, “building” a plural feature bun- dle. I extend the discussion beyond local agreement contexts, and show how Individual Number can account for a large range of data. The proposed theory attempts to unify morphological and semantic representations within a Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001) The thesis of John Gluckman is approved. Jessica Rett Carson Schütze Anoop Mahajan, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Overview of the arguments 1 2 Distributed Morphology 8 3 Individual Number 11 4 Alternative representations for number 18 4.1 Classic features .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Hebrew Linguistics (‘Inleiding Hebreeuwse Taalkunde’) Uva, Weeks 10-11
    Introduction to Hebrew Linguistics (‘Inleiding Hebreeuwse Taalkunde’) UvA, Weeks 10-11 Morphology Tamás Biró 1 Morphology • Morphology: studies the inner structure of words. Well, what is a word? •Word: No general definition – Syntactic word: basic unit of a sentence. – Phonological word: domain of some phonological processes (e.g., stress assignment, vowel harmony). – Orthographic word: between two spaces. – Clitic: part of the phonological word, but syntactically an independent unit (e.g., articles, French preverbal pronouns, etc.). 2 Example: Kaleb-letters ?כ ,ל ,ב What is the status of Hebrew prepositions • • Orthography: single word. Not a linguistic argument. • Syntax: preposition is an autonomous unit. Merges with article (be+ha = ba), similarly to French du, German vom. • Phonology: – Take a phenomenon that depends on word beginning: begat-kefat allophony: [stop] → [fricative] / V__ .[Tiberian H [bevayit], colloquial Israeli H [bebayit :בבית – – > TH/BH: clitic + word = single phonological word. – > Colloquial IH: two phonological words, and begad- kefat rule does not apply across word boundary. – [bevakaša]: lexicalized unit: diachronically complex, but synchronically in IH monomorphemic. 3 Morphology • Morphology: studies the inner structure of words. Well, what is a word? No general definition Morpheme: Smallest linguistic unit with meaning. (Well, what is meaning?) Free morphemes: can stand alone. Bound morphemes: affixes and “cranberry”-morphemes. Null morpheme: no phonemic material (e.g., Sg. masc.) Allomorph: alternative forms of the same morpheme. • Morphology: studies the way morphemes are combined. – Morpho-phonology: sound changes during morpheme combination (e.g., 't kofschip, V harmony). – Morpho-syntax: morpheme combinations in order to enter a sentence (e.g. cases, agreement). 4 Morphological processes Inflection: feminine, plural, construct, binyanim, mishkalim..
    [Show full text]