Computers and the Humanities

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 281–287 | Cite as

Using a morphological analyzer to teach theoretical morphology

  • Judith L. Klavans
  • Martin S. Chodorow


This paper presents the results of our experience in using an instructional morphological parser (IMP) as a teaching tool in two graduate level courses, one in theoretical morphology and the other in computational morphology. IMP was written in Waterloo PROLOG by the second author and is based on the UDICT morphology system (Byrd 1983). The courses were taught by the first author at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. We present a brief overview of computational morphology and discuss in detail the implementation we used for IMP. We then give an outline of the two courses with some speculation on the computational and linguistic concepts that our students learned. In particular, we discuss the problems we encountered in teaching the notion of recursion.

Key Words

computational computers linguistics morphology natural language processing parsing programming PROLOG recursion teaching 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aronoff, Mark. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Bloomfield, Leonard. Language. New York: Holt and Company, 1933.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, John D. Human Cogniton: Learning, Understanding and Remembering. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. Byrd, Roy. J. “Word Formation in Natural Language Processing Systems.” Proceedings of IJCAI-VIII, 1983, pp. 704–706.Google Scholar
  5. Byrd, Roy J., Judith L. Klavans, Mark Aronoff, and Frank Anshen. “Computer Methods for Morphological Analysis.” Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1986, pp. 120–27.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ed. Roderick A. Jacobs, and Peter S. Rosenbaum. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company, 1970, pp. 184–21.Google Scholar
  8. Halle, Morris. “Prologomena to a Theory of Syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry, 4 (1976), 3–16.Google Scholar
  9. Hockett, C. F. A Course in Modern Linguistics. Toronto: Macmillan, 1958.Google Scholar
  10. Koskenniemi, Kimmo, ed. Two-Level Morphology. A General Computational Model for Word-Form Recognition and Production. Publication no. 11. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. Lees, Robert B. The Grammar of English Complementation. The Hague: Mouton, 1960.Google Scholar
  12. Lovins, Julie Beth. “Development of a Stemming Algorithm.” Journal of Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics, 11 (1968), 22–31.Google Scholar
  13. Merriam. Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam, 1963.Google Scholar
  14. Siegal, Dorothy. Topics in English Morphology. PhD Thesis, MIT, 1974.Google Scholar
  15. Tzoukermann, Evelyne, and Roy J. Byrd. “The Application of a Morphological Analyser to On-line Dictionaries.” In Proceedings of the European Conference on Lexicography (EUROLEX). Ed. Tomasz Magay. Budapest, Hungary, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. Winograd, Terry. “An A. I. Approach to English Morphemic Analysis.” A. I. Memo No. 241.MIT A. I. Laboratory. Cambridge, MA, 1971.Google Scholar
  17. Winston, Patrick W. and Berthold K. P. Horn. LISP. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith L. Klavans
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin S. Chodorow
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.IBM T. J. Watson Research CenterYorktown Heights
  2. 2.CUNY-Graduate CenterNew York
  3. 3.Hunter College of CUNYNew York
  4. 4.IBM T. J. Watson Research CenterYorktown Heights

Personalised recommendations