Morphology Part 2
Andrew Hippisley
a.hippisley@surrey.ac.uk
Plan
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The structure of the lexicon
WFRs and morphological operation types
Aronoff’s indexed stems
Productivity and WFRs
Head and modifiers in word formation
1
The structure of the lexicon
1.1
Chomsky’s Aspects (1965)
1.1.1 Inflectional morphology as features
S
NP
Det
the
VP
N
+pl
boy
V
+pl
run
1.1.2. Morphological rules
 inflectional features are related to phonological strings (basic alternants)
 this is done by Readjustment Rules (RRs): change abstract features into
abstract forms
 the output of the RRs is the input to the Phonological Rules – they spell
out the phonetic expression
1.1.3. What happens in the lexicon?
 lexical entry
o free morphemes
o semantics
o sub-cat info.
o syntactic category
o phonological info. (basic alternants, idiosyncratic info. for spell-out)
 generalizations over lexical features,
o e.g. +human implies +animate
1
1.2
Chomsky’s Remarks (1970)
1.2.1 Two kinds of nominalization:
 gerundive and derived
a. The enemy destroyed the city with fire
b. The enemy’s destroying the city with fire...
c. The enemy’s destruction of the city with fire...
d. Tom amused the children with his stories
e. Tom’s amusing the children with his stories...
f. *Tom’s amusement of the children with his stories...
1.2.2 Lexicalist Hypothesis
 ban on category changing T-Rules
 category and sub-category information that is the result of derivation
needs to be specified before lexical insertion
 call for a linguistic component to account for derivation – the lexicon
sarcastically 
a. Dick' s 
 criticizing the book
*sarcastic 
*sarcastically 
b. Dick' s 
criticism of the book
sarcastic

1.2.3 Lexicon
 free morphemes
 derived words
 lexical redundancy rules: relating derivational pairs, capture
generalizations
 idiosyncrasies
1.3
Halles Prolegomena (1973)
1.3.1




The lexicon
the lexicon has an architecture
all morpheme types included (back to item and arrangement?); derived words
degrees of productivity: captured by the filter component. Potential words.
WFRs
2
2
WFRs and morphological operation types
2.1
Word formation as lexeme formation
 morpheme-based: word’s meaning computed by adding the meanings of
all embedded morphemes
 reliance on one-to-one correspondence of morpheme to form
BUT: ‘zero morphs’, ‘empty morphs’, ‘superfluous morphs’, and
‘homonymous morphs
 lexeme-based:
Derivation is viewed as the way the overall meaning and overall
phonology of a Base lexeme is related to the overall meaning and overall
phonology of a Derivative lexeme. Morphological description will thus
fall out from viewing how lexemes relate to one another.
2.1.2 The structure of the lexeme. Example Russian stol ‘table’
syntax:
noun
semantics:
STOL 
' table'

phonology (stem ):

/ stol /
grammatical wordforms: stol[acc sg], stol[dat pl], stol[gen pl], etc.
2.1.3 Lexeme-formation: changes at the three levels of description. Example: Russian
dobrot(a) ‘kindness’ derived from dobr(ij) ‘kind’.
Base
syntax:
adjective
semantics:
DOBRIJ 
' kind'

phonology (stem):

/ dobr /

Derivative

syntax:
noun
semantics:
DOBROTA 
' quality of being kind'

phonology (stem):

/ dobrot /
3
2.1.4 Accounting for transposition. Example: Russian adjective serebr´an(ij) ‘silver’
derived from the noun serebr(o) ‘silver’. Note: semantic level largely unaltered.

Base
syntax:
noun
semantics:

SEREBRO 
' silver'

phonology (stem ):

/ serebr /
Derivative
syntax:
adjective
semantics:
SEREBR ANIJ 
' silver'

phonology (stem):

/ serebr  an /
2.1.5 Accounting for zero derivation. Example: Russian adjective zolot(oj) ‘gold’
derived from noun zolot(o).
Base
syntax:
noun
semantics:
ZOLOTO 
' gold'

phonology (stem):

/zolot /
2.2

Derivative

syntax:
adjective
semantics:
ZOLOTOJ 
' relating to gold'

phonology (stem):

/ zolot /
Aronovian WFRs (Aronoff 1976; 1994)
2.2.1 Structural description and structural change
WFR
base

x

semantics: 

y

phonology:

z

syntax:

structural description
syntax:
cx
semantics:
cy

phonology:

cz

structural change

x

semantics: 

y

phonology:

z

syntax:
4
2.2.2 Syntactic conditions.
(a) derivation in –ness: thankful -> thankfulness
(b) Russian. Derivation in –tel´: uči(t´) ‘to teach’ -> učitel´ ‘teacher’
(c) Russian. Personal derivation in –n´ik: pomošč ‘help’ -> pomoščn´ik ‘helper’
(d) Russian. Personal derivation in –ec: slep(oj) ‘blind’ -> slepec ‘blind man’
2.2.2.1 Unitary Base Hypothesis
'The syntacticosemantic specification of the base, though it may be more
or less complex, is always unique. A WFR will never operate on either
this or that.' (Aronoff 1976:48)
2.2.3 Semantic conditions
a. John punched Bill.
b. *John repunched Bill.
c. John punched the holes in the paper.
d. John repunched the holes in the paper
Russian example:
a
Base
abbat
gloss
abbot
Derivative
abbatsk(ij)
gloss
abbot (adj)
b
c
d
baron
avtor
advokat
baron
author
barrister
baronsk(ij)
avtorsk(ij)
advokatsk(ij)
baron (adj)
author (adj)
barrister (adj)
e
f
g
h
i
š um
apel´s´in
bereg
akul(a)
slon
noise
orange
coast
shark
elephant
š umov(oj)
apel´s´inov(ij)
beregov(oj)
akulov(ij)
slonov(ij)
noise (adj)
orange (adj)
coastal
shark (adj)
elephantine
5
2.2.4 Phonological conditions. Italian data (Scalise 1986: 47-48)
1. fortunato
leale
corretto
gradevole
2. umano
onesto
educato
abitato
lucky
loyal
correct
pleasant
human
honest
well-mannered
inhabited
sfortunato
sleale
scorretto
sgradevole
*sumano / disumano
*sonesto / disonesto
*seducato / diseducato
*sabitato / disabitato
3
Aronoff’s indexed stems
3.1
Multiple stems or multiple operations? (Zwicky 1996)
unlucky
disloyal
incorrect
unpleasant
inhuman
dishonest
ill-mannered
uninhabited
Russian example: kot´onok ‘kitten’
(a) paradigm of wordforms
nom
acc
gen
dat
inst
loc
Singular
kot´onok-Ø
kot´onk-a
kot´onk-a
kot´onk-u
kot´onk-om
kot´onk-e
Plural
kot´at-a
kot´at-Ø
kot´at-Ø
kot´at-am
kot´at-am´i
kot´at-ax
(b) lexemic representation: more than one stem (Hippisley 1998)
syntax:
noun
semantics:
KOT ONOK 
' kitten'

phonology (stem inventory):

stem sg / kot onok/ ; stem pl / kot at /
3.2
A stem with multiple functions: the third stem in Latin verbal morphology
(Aronoff 1994)
(a) Three stems in Latin verbs
Present Active
Infinitive
amā -re
laudā -re
Perfect Active
amā v-i
laudā v-i
6
Perfect Passive
Participle
amā t-us
laudā t-us
(b) The future active participle and the third stem
verb
am(ō ) 'love'
cale(ō ) 'be hot'
dole(ō ) 'suffer
pain'
iace(ō ) 'lie'
perfect passive
participle
amā t-us
*
*
future active participle
*
iact-ū r-us
amā t-ū r-us
calit-ū r-us
dolit-ū r-us
(c) The supine and the third stem
i.
abi- ı̄
dormit-um
depart-1st.Sg.Perf.Act sleep-Sup.Acc.Sg
'I went away to sleep'
ii.
mirabile dict-ū
wonderful say-Sup.Abl.Sg
'wonderful to relate'
(d) Derivatives and the third stem
Verb Base
can(ō )
vinc(ō )
2. Abstract noun
cogit(ō )
conveni(ō )
3. Desiderative verb ed(ō )
em(ō )
4. Intensive verb
iaci(ō )
volv(ō )
5. Iterative verb
scr ı̄ b(ō )
vide(ō )
1. Agent noun
gloss
sing
conquer
think
meet
eat
buy
throw
roll
write
see
stem
cantvictcogitā tconventē semptiactvolū tscriptv ı̄ s-
7
Derivative
cant-or
vict-or
cogitā t-io
convent-io
ē suri(o)
empturi(o)
iact(o)
volū t(o)
script-it(o)
v ı̄ s-it(o)
singer
conqueror
thought
meeting
be hungry
want to buy
fling
tumble about
write often
see often
4
Productivity and derivation (Corbin 1987: 176)
4.1
profitability
(a)
bishop -> bishopric: low productivity
4.2
availability
(a)
–tet affixation: quartet, quintet. High availability, but low profitability. Semantic
conditions? (Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 37).
(b)
warmth, breadth, depth
4.3
regularity
(a)
greenth? (Bauer 1988: 60).
4.4
Blocking and semi-productivity (Aronoff 1976).
monster
monstrous
monstrosity
*cury
curious
curiosity
glory
glorious
*gloriosity
5
Head and modifier in derivation
5.1
Endocentric compounds (Spencer 1991)
(a)
[ film society ]
(b)
[ [ film society ] committee ]
(c)
[ [ [ film society ] committee ] scandal ]
Head:
Modifier:
labour
laborious
*laboriosity
‘the meaning of the construct is a sub-type of the head’ Zwicky (1993)
‘plays a contributory role, restricting the meaning of the head in one way
or another.’
5.2
Head is on the right; semantic, syntactic and phonological percolate from the head
5.3.
Exocentric: lazybones, pickpocket, cut-throat.
Note: left element is predicate-like; right element is argument-like. Appear to be
lexicalised phrases.
8
5.4
Dvandva: elements related by conjunction: Austria-Hungary, red-green, motherchild
5.5
Heads in affixation?
Williams (1981) Right-Hand Head Rule covers all complex words alike. In
affixation, the head is the suffix. e.g. breadwinner, the head is –er.
Argument against this is that heads should be able to be treated as full words for
lexical insertion; they also should carry the bulk of the semantic features. Suffixes
are semantically much more like modifiers.
5.6
NLP application of head-modifier relation (Hippisley et al. forthcoming)
(a) Eliciting hyponyms of qì; 器 ‘tool’
Information extraction task:
Elicit members of category
Search schema used:
[X [substring] ]
Query example:
[ X [qì]N ]N
(b) Table 8. Elicited hyponyms of qì; 器 ‘tool’
Query string
[XV [qì] ]
Elicited strings
1.處 理 器
chŭ-lĭ qì
process tool
2.散 熱 器
sàn-rè qì
scatter-heat tool
3.監 測 器
jiān-cé qì
examine-test tool
4.揚 聲
器
yáng-shēng qì
raise-sound tool
5.解 碼 器
jĭe-mă qì
separate-number tool
6.伺 服 器
sì-fú qì
render-service tool
7.瀏 覽 器
líu-lăn qì
swift-skim tool
8.掃 描 器
săo-miáo qì
sweep-copy tool
9
English equivalent
‘processor’
‘cooler’
‘monitor’
‘speaker’
‘decoder’
‘server’
‘browser’
‘scanner’
Recommended reading
Anderson, S. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aronoff, M. 1983. A decade of morphology and word formation. Annual Review of Anthropology 12.35575.
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press.
Bauer, L. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge.
Newmeyer, F. 1980. Linguistic Theory in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scalise, S. 1986. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris [second edition].
Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Other references
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In: Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds) Readings in
English Transformational Grammar. Waltham MA: Blaisdell.184-221.
Corbin, D. 1987. Morphologie dérivationelle et structuration du lexique (2 vols). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word-formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 3-16.
Hippisley, Andrew. (1998). Indexed stems and Russian word formation: a Network Morphology account of
Russian personal nouns. Linguistics 36 (6).1039-1124.
Hippisley, Andrew; Cheng, David; and Ahmad, Khurshid. (2005). The Head Modifier Principle and
Multilingual Term Extraction. To appear in Natural Language Engineering 11 (1).
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-74.
Zwicky, Arnold M. (1993). Heads, bases and functors. In: Fraser, Corbett & McGlashan (eds) Heads in
Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 292-315
Zwicky, A. 1996. The Architecture of Morphology. Paper read at Frontiers of Research in Morphology
ESRC Research Seminar, University of Sussex, April 1996.
10