Morphology

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 599–641 | Cite as

Computational locality in morphological maps

Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents a computational investigation of a range of morphological operations. These operations are first represented as morphological maps, or functions that take a stem as input and return an output with the operation applied (e.g., the ing-suffixation map takes the input ‘dɹɪŋk’ and returns ‘dɹɪŋk+ɪŋ’). Given such representations, each operation can be classified in terms of the computational complexity needed to map a given input to its correct output. The set of operations analyzed includes various types of affixation, reduplication, and non-concatenative morphology. The results indicate that many of these operations require less than the power of regular relations (i.e., they are subregular functions), the exception being total reduplication. A comparison of the maps that fall into different complexity classes raises important questions for our overall understanding of the computational nature of phonology, morphology, and the morpho-phonological interface.

Keywords

Morphological maps Computational locality Subregularity Morpho-phonological interface 

References

  1. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself. Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  3. Avery, P., & Lamontagne, G. (1995). Infixation <and metathesis> in Tagalog. Paper presented at the Canadian Linguistics Association, Montreal, 3 June. Google Scholar
  4. Bach, E., Brown, C., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1986). Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: a psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(4), 249–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baković, E. (2013). Blocking and complementarity in phonological theory. Bristol: Equinox. Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Hillel, Y., & Shamir, E. (1960). Finite-state languages: formal representations and adequacy problems. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel, 8F, 155–166. Reprinted in Y. Bar-Hillel (1964) Language and Information, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  7. Barreteau, D., & Bleis, Y. L. (1990). Lexique Mafa. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Google Scholar
  8. Beesley, K. R., & Karttunen, L. (2003). Finite state morphology. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Google Scholar
  9. Bergsland, K. (1976). Lappische Grammatik mit Lesestücken. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Google Scholar
  10. Beros, A., & de la Higuera, C. (2016). A canonical semi-deterministic transducer. Fundamenta Informaticae, 146(4), 431–459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blake, F. R. (1917). Reduplication in Tagalog. The American Journal of Philology, 38(4), 425–431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bogoras, W. (1969). Chukchee. In F. Boas (Ed.), Bureau of American ethnology bulletin: Vol. 40. Handbook of American Indian languages, Part 2 (pp. 631–903). Washington: Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
  13. Bromberger, S., & Halle, M. (1988). Conceptual issues in morphology. Ms., Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Bromberger, S., & Halle, M. (1989). Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 51–70. Google Scholar
  15. Byrd, D. (1993). Marshallese suffixal reduplication. In J. Mead (Ed.), WCCFL 11: proceedings of the 11th West coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 61–77). Google Scholar
  16. Carden, G. (1983). The non-finite = state-ness of the word formation component. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(3), 537–541. Google Scholar
  17. Chandlee, J. (2014). Strictly local phonological processes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware. Google Scholar
  18. Chandlee, J., & Heinz, J. (2012). Bounded copying is subsequential: implications for metathesis and reduplication. In Proceedings of the twelfth meeting of the special interest group on computational morphology and phonology (SIGMORPHON2012) (pp. 42–51). Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  19. Chandlee, J., & Heinz, J. (2018). Strict locality and phonological maps. Linguistic Inquiry. Google Scholar
  20. Chandlee, J., Athanasopoulou, A., & Heinz, J. (2012). Evidence for classifying metathesis patterns as subsequential. In J. Choi, E. A. Hogue, J. Punske, D. Tat, J. Schertz, & A. Trueman (Eds.), WCCFL 29: proceedings of the 29th West coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 303–309). Somerville: Cascadilla. Google Scholar
  21. Chandlee, J., Heinz, J., & Eyraud, R. (2014). Learning strictly local subsequential functions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2, 491–503. Google Scholar
  22. Chandlee, J., Eyraud, R., & Heinz, J. (2015). Output strictly local functions. In Proceedings of the 14th meeting on the mathematics of language (MoL 2015) (pp. 112–125). Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 113–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  25. Culy, C. (1985). The complexity of the vocabulary of Bambara. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8(3), 345–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daly, R. (1974). Applications of the mathematical theory of linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  27. Dixon, R. M. W. (1977). A Grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Engelfriet, J., & Hoogeboom, H. J. (2001). MSO definable string transductions and two-way finite-state transducers. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2(2), 216–254. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ettlinger, M. (2004). Aspect in Mafa: an intriguing case of featural affixation. In Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (Vol. 40, pp. 73–86). Google Scholar
  30. French, K. M. (1988). Insights into tagalog: reduplication, infixation, and stress from nonlinear phonology. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. Google Scholar
  31. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2014). An introduction to language (10 ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage. Google Scholar
  32. Gainor, B., Lai, R., & Heinz, J. (2012). Computational characterizations of vowel harmony patterns and pathologies. In J. Choi, E. A. Hogue, J. Punske, D. Tat, J. Schertz, & A. Trueman (Eds.), WCCFL 29: proceedings of the 29th West coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 63–71). Somerville: Cascadilla. Google Scholar
  33. Gazdar, G., & Pullum, G. K. (1985). Computationally relevant properties of natural languages and their grammars. New Generation Computing, 3(3), 273–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hale, K., & Blanco, A. L. (1989). Diccionario elemental del Ulwa (Sumu Meridional). Cambridge: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT. Google Scholar
  35. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  36. Hansson, G. (2001). Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  37. Hargus, S. (1993). Modeling the phonology-morphology interface. In S. Hargus & E. M. Kaisse (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology: studies in lexical phonology (Vol. 4, pp. 45–74). San Diego: Academic Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harris, Z. (1941). Linguistic structure of Hebrew. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 61(3), 143–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hayes, B. (1982). Metrical structure as the organizing principle of Yidiɲ phonology. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations, part I, Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar
  40. Hayes, B. (1999). Phonological restructuring in Yidiɲ and its theoretical consequences. In B. Hermans & M. Oostendorp (Eds.), The derivational residue in phonological optimality theory (pp. 175–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  41. Heinz, J. (2007). The inductive learning of phonotactic patterns. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  42. Heinz, J. (2009). On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology, 26, 303–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heinz, J. (2010). Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 623–661. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Heinz, J., & Idsardi, W. (2011). Sentence and word complexity. Science, 333(6040), 295–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heinz, J., & Idsardi, W. (2013). What complexity differences reveal about domains in language. Topics in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 111–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Heinz, J., & Lai, R. (2013). Vowel harmony and subsequentiality. In A. Kornai & M. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th meeting on the mathematics of language (MoL 13) (pp. 52–63). Google Scholar
  47. Heinz, J., Rawal, C., & Tanner, H. G. (2011). Tier-based Strictly Local constraints for phonology. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 58–64). Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  48. Hockett, C. F. (1954). Two models of grammatical description. Word, 10, 210–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hopcroft, J. E., Motwani, R., & Ullman, J. D. (2000). Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  50. Hulden, M. (2009a). Finite-state machine construction methods and algorithms for phonology and morphology. Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona. Google Scholar
  51. Hulden, M. (2009b). Foma: a finite-state compiler and library. In Proceedings of the 12th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 29–32). Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://code.google.com/archive/p/foma/. Google Scholar
  52. Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jardine, A. (2016). Locality and non-linear representations in tonal phonology. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware. Google Scholar
  54. Jardine, A., Chandlee, J., Eyraud, R., & Heinz, J. (2014). Very efficient learning of structured classes of subsequential functions from positive data. In A. Clark, M. Kanazawa, & R. Yoshinaka (Eds.), Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on grammatical inference (ICGI 2014) (Vol. 34, pp. 94–108). JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings. Google Scholar
  55. Johnson, C. (1972). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  56. Kaplan, R., & Kay, M. (1994). Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics, 20, 371–387. Google Scholar
  57. Kobele, G. (2006). Generating copies: an investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA. Google Scholar
  58. Koskenniemi, K. (1983). Two-level morphology: a general computational model for word-form recognition and production. University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics. Google Scholar
  59. Kusmer, L., & Hauser, I. (2016). Wrong-side reduplication in Koasati. Paper presented at the 24th Manchester Phonology Meeting. Google Scholar
  60. Langendoen, D. T. (1981). The generative capacity of word-formation components. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 320–322. Google Scholar
  61. Legendre, G., Miyata, Y., & Smolensky, P. (1990). Harmonic grammar: a formal multi level connectionist theory of linguistic well formedness: theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Cambridge, MA (pp. 388–395). Google Scholar
  62. Luo, H. (2013). Long-distance consonant harmony and subsequentiality. Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  63. Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 435–482. Google Scholar
  64. McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(3), 373–418. Google Scholar
  65. McCarthy, J. J. (2000). Harmonic serialism and parallelism. In M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall, & J. Kim (Eds.), NELS 30: proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 501–524). Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  66. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1993). Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/john_j_mccarthy/53/.
  67. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 18. Papers in optimality theory (pp. 249–384). Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  68. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1996). Prosodic morphology 1986. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/john_j_mccarthy/54/. Google Scholar
  69. McMullin, K. (2016). Tier-based locality in long-distance phonotactics: learnability and typology. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia. Google Scholar
  70. McNaughton, R., & Papert, S. (1971). Counter-free automata. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  71. Meinhof, C. (1932). Introduction to the phonology of the Bantu languages. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer/Ernst Vohsen. Trans. by N. J. van Warmelo. Google Scholar
  72. Mohri, M. (1997). Finite-state transducers in language and speech processing. Computational Linguistics, 23, 269–311. Google Scholar
  73. Mohri, M., & Sproat, R. (2006). On a common fallacy in computational linguistics. In M. Suominen, A. Arppe, A. Airola, O. Heinämäki, M. Miestamo, U. Määttä, J. Niemi, K. K. Pitkänen, & K. Sinnemäki (Eds.), SKY Journal of Linguistics: Vol. 19. A man of measure: Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on this 60th Birthday (pp. 432–439). Google Scholar
  74. Nelson, N. A. (2003). Asymmetric anchoring. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers. Google Scholar
  75. Odden, D. (1994). Adjacency parameters in phonology. Language, 70, 289–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Oncina, J., García, J., & Vidal, E. (1993). Learning subsequential transducers for pattern recognition interpretation tasks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15(5), 448–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Onn, F. M. (1980). Aspects of Malay phonology and morphology: a generative approach. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Google Scholar
  78. Orgun, C. O., & Sprouse, R. L. (1999). From mparse to control: deriving ungrammaticality. Phonology, 16, 191–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pater, J. (2012). Serial harmonic grammar and Berber syllabification. In T. Borowsky, S. Kawahara, T. Shinya, & M. Sugahara (Eds.), Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth O. Selkirk (pp. 43–72). London: Equinox. Google Scholar
  80. Payne, A. (2017). All dissimilation is computationally subsequential. Phonological Analysis. Google Scholar
  81. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Riggle, J. (2003). Nonlocal reduplication. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  83. Riggle, J. (2006). Infixing reduplication in Pima and its theoretical consequences. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24(3), 857–891. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roark, B., & Sproat, R. (2007). Computational approaches to morphology and syntax. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  85. Rogers, J., & Pullum, G. (2011). Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20, 329–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rogers, J., Heinz, J., Fero, M., Hurst, J., Lambert, D., & Wibel, S. (2013). Cognitive and sub-regular complexity. In G. Morrill & M.-J. Nederhof (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 8036. Formal grammar (pp. 90–108). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rose, S., & Walker, R. (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language, 80(3), 475–531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sapir, E., & Hoijer, H. (1967). The phonology and morphology of the Navajo language. University of California publications in linguistics: Vol. 50. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  89. Shieber, S. (1985). Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 333–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sneddon, J. (1996). Indonesian: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  91. Sproat, R. (1992). Morphology and computation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  92. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tesar, B. (2008). Output-driven maps. ROA-956. Google Scholar
  94. Tesar, B. (2014). Output-driven phonology: theory and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  95. Yu, A. C. L. (2007). A natural history of infixation. London: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haverford CollegeTri-Co Department of LinguisticsHaverfordUSA

Personalised recommendations