Non-canonical Inflection: Data, Formalisation and Complexity Measures

  • Benoît Sagot
  • Géraldine Walther
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 100)

Abstract

Non-canonical inflection (suppletion, deponency, heteroclisis, etc.) is extensively studied in theoretical approaches to morphology. However, these studies often lack practical implementations associated with large-scale lexica. Yet these are precisely the requirements for objective comparative studies on the complexity of morphological descriptions. We show how a model of inflectional morphology which can represent many non-canonical phenomena [67], as well as a formalisation and an implementation thereof can be used to evaluate the complexity of competing morphological descriptions. After illustrating the properties of the model with data about French, Latin, Italian, Persian and Sorani Kurdish verbs and about noun classes from Croatian and Slovak we expose experiments conducted on the complexity of four competing descriptions of French verbal inflection. The complexity is evaluated using the information-theoretic concept of description length. We show that the new concepts introduced in the model by [67] enable reducing the complexity of morphological descriptions w.r.t. both traditional or more recent models.

Keywords

Inflectional Morphology Description Complexity MDL Paradigm Shape Canonicity Inflection Zone Stem Zone Inflection Pattern Stem Pattern 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, S.R.: A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aronoff, M.: Morphology by Itself. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baerman, M.: Deponency in Serbo-Croatian. Online Database (2006), http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/deponency/Examples/Serbo-Croatian.htm
  4. 4.
    Baerman, M.: Morphological Typology of Deponency. In: Baerman, M., Corbett, G.G., Brown, D., Hippisley, A. (eds.) Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, vol. 145, pp. 1–19. The British Academy, Oxford University Press (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baerman, M., Corbett, G.G., Brown, D.: Defective Paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010); Proceedings of the British Academy 145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baerman, M., Corbett, G.G., Brown, D., Hippisley, A. (eds.): Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bane, M.: Quantifying and measuring morphological complexity. In: Chang, C.B., Haynie, H.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Sommerville, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baroni, M., Matiasek, J., Trost, H.: Unsupervised discovery of morphologically related words based on orthographic and semantic similarity. In: Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Morphological and Phonological Learning, pp. 48–57 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beesley, K.R., Karttunen, L.: Finite State Morphology. CSLI, Stanford (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernhard, D.: Apprentissage non supervisée de familles morphologiques par classification ascendante hiérarchique. In: Proceedings of TALN 2007, Toulouse, France, pp. 367–376 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonami, O., Boyé, G.: Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology. In: Eynde, F.V., Hellan, L., Beerman, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the HPSG 2001 Conference. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonami, O., Boyé, G.: Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français. Langages 152, 102–126 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bonami, O., Boyé, G.: Deriving inflectional irregularity. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Connference on HPSG, pp. 39–59. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonami, O., Boyé, G.: La morphologie flexionnelle est-elle une fonction? In: Choi-Jonin, I., Duval, M., Soutet, O. (eds.) Typologie et comparatisme. Hommages offerts à Alain Lemaréchal, Peeters, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 21–35 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonami, O., Boyé, G., Giraudo, H., Voga, M.: Quels verbes sont réguliers en français? In: Actes du premier Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, pp. 1511–1523 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van den Bosch, A., Daelemans, W.: Memory-based morphological analysis. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 285–292 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boyé, G.: Régularité et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français. In: Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., Plénat, M. (eds.) Des unités morphologiques au lexique. Hermes Science (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boyé, G.: Problémes de morpho-phonologie verbale en français, espagnol et italien. Ph.D. thesis, Universitè Paris 7 (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyé, G.: Suppletion. In: Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 12, pp. 297–299. Elsevier, Oxford (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brown, D., Chumakina, M., Corbett, G.G., Popova, G., Spencer, A.: Defining ‘periphrasis’ : key notions (2011); under editorial reviewGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cartoni, B.: Lexical morphology in machine translation: A feasibility study. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL (EACL 2009), Athens, Greece, pp. 130–138 (March 2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chomsky, N., Halle, M.: The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row (1968)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Corbett, G.G.: Agreement: the range of the phenomenon and the principles of the surrey database of agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 101, 155–202 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Corbett, G.G.: Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83, 8–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Corbett, G.G.: Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between. In: Baerman, M., Corbett, G.G., Brown, D., Hippisley, A. (eds.) Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, vol. 145, pp. 21–43. The British Academy, Oxford University Press (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Corbett, G.G., Fraser, N.: Network Morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–142 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Creutz, M., Lagus, K.: Unsupervised discovery of morphemes. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Morphological and Phonological Learning of ACL 2002, pp. 21–30 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Demberg, V.: A language-independent unsupervised model for morphological segmentation. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 920–927 (June 2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ernout, A., Thomas, F.: Syntaxe Latine, 2nd edn., Kliensieck, Paris (1953)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fradin, B., Kerleroux, F.: Troubles with lexemes. In: Booij, G., de Janet, C., Sergio Scalise, A.R. (eds.) Selected papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. Topics in Morphology, pp. 177–196. IULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gaussier, E.: Unsupervised learning of derivational morphology from inflectional lexicons. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Unsupervised Methods in Natural Language Processing, University of Maryland (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goldsmith, J.: Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Computational Linguistics 27(2), 153–198 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Halle, M., Marantz, A.: Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S.J. (eds.) The view from building, vol. 20, pp. 111–176. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harris, Z.S.: From phoneme to morpheme. Language 31(2), 190–222 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hathout, N.: From wordnet to celex: acquiring morphological links from dictionaries of synonyms. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 1478–1484. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hippisley, A.: Declarative Deponency: A Network Morphology Account of Morphological Mismatches. In: Baerman, M., Corbett, G.G., Brown, D., Hippisley, A. (eds.) Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, vol. 145, pp. 145–173. The British Academy, Oxford University Press (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jacquemin, C.: Guessing morphology from terms and corpora. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 156–165 (1997)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Juola, P.: Assessing linguistic complexity. In: Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K., Karlsson, F. (eds.) Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. John Benjamins Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Keshava, S.: A simpler, intuitive approach to morpheme induction. In: PASCAL Challenge Workshop on Unsupervised Segmentation of Words into Morphemes, pp. 31–35 (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kilani-Schoch, M., Dressler, W.U.: Morphologie naturelle et flexion du verbe français. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kiparsky, P.: Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In: Yearbook of Morphology 2004, pp. 113–135. Springer, Dordrecht (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Koskenniemi, K.: A general computational model for word-form recognition and production. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 178–181 (1984)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lepage, Y.: Solving analogies on words: an algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 728–734 (1998)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lieber, R.: Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1992)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lovis, C., Michel, P.A., Baud, R., Scherrer, J.R.: Word segmentation processing: A way to exponentially extend medical dictionaries. In: Greenes, R.A., Peterson, H.E., Protti, D.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Medical Informatics, pp. 28–32 (1995)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Matthews, P.H.: Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1974)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    McCarus, E.N.: A Kurdish Grammar: descriptive analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. Ph.D. thesis, American Council of Learned Societies, New-York, USA (1958)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    McWhorter, J.: The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5, 125–166 (2001)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moreau, F., Claveau, V., Sébillot, P.: Automatic morphological query expansion using analogy-based machine learning. In: Amati, G., Carpineto, C., Romano, G. (eds.) ECIR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4425, pp. 222–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Namer, F.: Morphologie, lexique et tal: l’analyseur dérif. In: TIC et Sciences Cognitives. Hermes Sciences Publishing, London (2009)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pinker, S.: Words and Rules. Basic Books, New-York (1999)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pirelli, V., Battista, M.: The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in italian verb inflection. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 307–380 (2000)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Porter, M.F.: An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14(3), 130–137 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pratt, A.W., Pacak, M.G.: Automated processing of medical english. In: Proceedings of the 1969 Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 1–23 (1969)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rissanen, J.: Universal coding, information, prediction, and estimation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 30(4), 629–636 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sagot, B.: The lefff, a freely available, accurate and large-coverage lexicon for French. In: Proceedings of the 7th Language Resource and Evaluation Conference, Valetta, Malta (2010)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Snyder, B., Barzilay, R.: Unsupervised multilingual learning for morphological segmentation. In: Proceedings of ACL 2008, Columbus, USA, pp. 737–745 (June 2008)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Spiegler, S., Golenia, B., Flach, P.: Promodes: A probabilistic generative model for word decomposition. In: Peters, C., Di Nunzio, G.M., Kurimo, M., Mostefa, D., Penas, A., Roda, G. (eds.) CLEF 2009. LNCS, vol. 6241, Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stroppa, N., Yvon, F.: Du quatrième de proportion comme principe inductif: une proposition et son application à l’apprentissage de la morphologie. Traitement Automatique des Langues 47, 33–59 (2006)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Stump, G.T.: Inflectional Morphology. In: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Stump, G.T.: Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82, 279–322 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tepper, M., Xia, F.: Inducing morphemes using light knowledge. Journal of ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TALIP) 9(3), 1–38 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Thackston, W., Kurdish, S.: A reference grammar with selected readings (2006), http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Sorani/sorani_1_grammar.pdf (published online)
  64. 64.
    Thornton, A.M.: Towards a typology of overabundance (December 2010), presented at the Décembrettes 7, Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tribout, D.: Les conversions de nom à verbe et de verbe à nom en français. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris Diderot – Paris 7 (2010)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Walther, G.: A derivational account for Sorani Kurdish passives (2011); presentation at the 4th International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL4), June 17-19, Uppsala, Sweden (2011)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Walther, G.: An inferential realisational model for inflectional morphology. Linguistica 52 (2011); internal and External Boundaries of Morphology (accepted)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Walther, G.: Latin passive morphology revisited (2011); presentation at the 2011 Meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great-Britain (LAGB 2011), September 7-10, Manchester, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Xanthos, A.: Apprentissage automatique de la morphologie — Le cas des structures racine-schéme. Sciences pour la Communication 48, Peter Lang (2008)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zauner, A.: Praktická príručka slovenského pravopisu. Vydavat’el’stvo Osveta, Martin, Slovakia (1973)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zweigenbaum, P., Grabar, N.: Liens morphologiques et structuration de terminologie. In: Actes de IC 2000: Ingénierie des Connaissances, pp. 325–334 (2000)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Zwicky, A.M.: How to describe inflection. In: Niepokuj, M., Clay, M.V., Nikiforidiou, V., Feder, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 372–386. Berkeley Linguistics Society (1985)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benoît Sagot
    • 1
  • Géraldine Walther
    • 2
  1. 1.ALPAGEINRIA Paris–Rocquencourt & UniversitéParis 7France
  2. 2.LLF, UMR 7110Univ. Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris CitéParisFrance

Personalised recommendations