File size: 82,263 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 | {
"paper_id": "P93-1019",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:52:18.541544Z"
},
"title": "FEATURE-BASED ALLOMORPHY*",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hans-Ulrich",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krieger",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "krieger@dfki.uni-sb.de"
},
{
"first": "Hannes",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pirker",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "pirker@dfki.uni-sb.de"
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nerbonne",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "nerbonne@let.rug.nl"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Morphotactics and allomorphy are usually modeled in different components, leading to interface problems. To describe both uniformly, we define finite automata (FA) for allomorphy in the same feature description language used for morphotactics. Nonphonologically conditioned allomorphy is problematic in FA models but submits readily to treatment in a uniform formalism.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P93-1019",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Morphotactics and allomorphy are usually modeled in different components, leading to interface problems. To describe both uniformly, we define finite automata (FA) for allomorphy in the same feature description language used for morphotactics. Nonphonologically conditioned allomorphy is problematic in FA models but submits readily to treatment in a uniform formalism.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Background and Goals ALLOMORPHY or MORPHOPHONEMICS describes the variation we find among the different forms of a morpheme. For instance, the German second person singular present ending -st has three different allomorphs, -st, -est, -t, determined by the stem it combines with: 'say' 'pray' 'mix'",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1) lsg pres ind 2sg pres ind 3sg pres ind sag+e sag+st sag+t bet + e bet+ est bet-/-et mix+e mix+t mix+t",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "MORPHOTACTICS describes the arrangement of morphs in words, including, e.g., the properties of -st that it is a suffix (and thus follows the stem it combines with), and that it combines with verbs. While allomorphy is normally described in finite automata (FA), morphotactics is generally described in syntax-oriented models, e.g., CFGs or feature-based grammars. The present paper describes both allomorphy and morphotactics in a feature-based language like that of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard and Sag 1987) . *This work was supported by research grant ITW 9002 0 from the German Bundesministerium ffir Forschung und Technologie to the DFKI DISCO project. We are grateful to an anonymous ACL reviewer for helpful comments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 511,
"end": 533,
"text": "(Pollard and Sag 1987)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The technical kernel of the paper is a featurebased definition of FA. 1 While it is unsurprising that the languages defined by FA may also be defined by feature description languages (FDL), our reduction goes beyond this, showing how the FA themselves may be defined. The significance of specifying the FA and not merely the language it generates is that it allows us to use FA technology in processing allomorphy, even while keeping the interface to other grammar components maximally transparent (i.e., there is NO interface--all linguistic information is specified via FDL).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our motivation for exploring this application of typed feature logic is the opportunity it provides for integrating in a single descriptive formalism not only (i) allomorphic and morphotactic information but also (ii) coneatenative and non-concatenative allomorphy. The latter is particularly useful when concatenative and non-concatenative allomorphy coexists in a single language, as it does, e.g., in German.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "An FA A is defined by a 5-tuple (Q, E, 5, q0, F) , where Q is a finite set of STATES, ~ a finite IN-PUT ALPHABET, (~ : Q x ~ ---y Q is the TRAN-SITION FUNCTION, q0 E Q the INITIAL STATE, and F _C Q the set of FINAL STATES. 2 For reasons of simplicity and space, we only refer to the simplest form of FA, viz., DETERMIN-ISTIC finite automata without e-moves which consume exactly one input symbol at a time. This is of course not a restriction w.r.t, expressivity: given an arbitrary automaton, we can always construct a deterministic, equiva-I See Krieger 1993b for the details and several extensions.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 48,
"text": "(Q, E, 5, q0, F)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "2We assume a familiarity with automata theory (e.g., Hopcroft and Ullman 1979) . lent one which recognizes the same language (see Hopcroft and Ullman 1979) . Fortunately, our approach is also capable of representing and processing directly non-deterministic FA with emoves and allows for edges which are multiplesymbol consumers.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 78,
"text": "Hopcroft and Ullman 1979)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 155,
"text": "Hopcroft and Ullman 1979)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Specifying an automaton in our approach means introducing for every state q E Q a possibly recursive feature type with the same name as q. We will call such a type a CONFIGURATION. Exactly the attributes EDGE, NEXT, and INPUT are appropriate for a configuration, where EDGE encodes disjunctively the outgoing edges of q, NEXT the successor states of q, and INPUT the symbols which remain on the input list when reaching q.S Note that a configuration does not model just a state of the automaton, but an entire description at a point in computation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "[ EDGE input-symb ] (2) proto-confi9 _= | NEXT config | / INPUT list(input-symb)J",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We now define two natural subtypes of protocon fig. The first one represents the non-final states Q \\ F. Because we assume that exactly one input symbol is consumed every time an edge is taken, we are allowed to separate the input list into the first element and the rest list in order to structure-share the first element with EDGE (the consumed input symbol) and to pass the rest list one level deeper to the next state.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(3) non-final-conflg =_ proto-config \"]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "EDGE [] / NEXTIINPUT [] / INPUT ( [-i-]. [] )J",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The other subtype encodes the final states of F which possess no outgoing edges and therefore no successor states. To cope with this fact, we introduce a special subtype of T, called under, which is incompatible with every other type. In addition, successfully reaching a final state with no outgoing edge implies that the input list is empty.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(4) final-config = proto-config ] EDGE undef l NEXT undef l INP ( ) J",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "aNote that EDGE is not restricted in bearing only atomic symbols, but can also be labeled with complex ones, i.e., with a possibly underspecified feature structure (for instance in the case of 2-1evel morphology--see below). Of course, there will be final states with outgoing edges, but such states are subtypes of the following DISJUNCTIVE type specification:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(5) config =_ non-final-con.fig V J~inal-config",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "To make the idea more concrete, let us study a very small example, viz., the FA A (see Figure 1) . A consists of the two states X and Y, from which we define the types X and Y, where Y (7) is only an instantiation of final-config.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"text": "Figure 1)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In order to depict the states perspicuously, we shall make use of DISTRIBUTED DISJUNCTIONS. DSrre and Eisele 1989 and Backofen et al. 1990 introduce distributed disjunctions because they (normally) allow more efficient processing of disjunctions, sometimes obviating the need to expand to disjunctive normal form. They add no expressive power to a feature formalism (assuming it has disjunction), but abbreviate some otherwise prolix disjunctions:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 101,
"text": "DSrre and",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 117,
"text": "Eisele 1989 and",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 138,
"text": "Backofen et al. 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "{$1 a V PATH2 $1 ~ V fl} = PATH3 .., ] {[PA ,a ] [P, THlb ]} PATH2 o~ V PATH2 fl PATH3 [ ... ] PATH3 [ ... ]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The two disjunctions in the feature structure on the left bear the same name '$1', indicating that they are a single alternation. The sets of disjuncts named covary, taken in order. This may be seen in the right-hand side of the equivalence. 4",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We employ distributed disjunctions below (6) to capture the covariation between edges and 4Two of the advantages of distributed disjunctions may be seen in the artificial example above. First, co-varying but nonidentical elements can be identified as such, even if they occur remotely from one another in structure, and second, features structures are abbreviated. The amount of abbreviation depends on the number of distributed disjunctions, the lengths of the paths PATH1 and PATH2, and--in at least some competing formalisms--on the size of the remaining structure (cf. PATH3 [...] above). their successor states: if a is taken, we must take the type X (and vice versa), if b is used, use again type X, but if c is chosen, choose the type Y.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Finite Automata as Typed Feature Structures",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\"non-final-config ]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(6)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "X--EDGE $1{aVbVc} NEXT $1{X V X V Y} (7) Y -[ final-config ]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(6)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Whether an FA A ACCEPTS the input or not is equivalent in our approach to the question of FEATURE TERM CONSISTENCY: if we wish to know whether w (a list of input symbols) will be recognized by A, we must EXPAND the type which is associated with the initial state q0 of A and say that its INPUT is w. Using the terminology of Carpenter 1992: (8) must be a TOTALLY WELL-TYPED feature structure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(6)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[q\u00b0 ] 8INPUT W Coming back to our example (see Figure 1 ), we might ask whether abc belongs to /2(A). We can decide this question, by expanding the type X with [INPUT (a,b,c) ]. This will lead us to the following consistent feature structure which moreover represents, for free, the complete recognition history of abc, i.e., all its solutions in the FA.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 174,
"text": "[INPUT (a,b,c)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 55,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(6)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "EDGE [] c (9) ]NEXT [NEXT IEYGE under | | NEXT ]NEXT under I | [INPUT [] ( > / | INPUT r-~ ( ~].~] )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "/ /",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Note that this special form of type expansion will always terminate, either with a unification failure (A does not accept w) or with a fully expanded feature structure, representing a successful recognition. This idea leads us to the following ACCEPTANCE CRITERION:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "/ LINPUT~ < [~'~ LINPUT < 5q\"",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(10) w \u2022 \u00a3(A) \u00a2=~ (NEXT)\" [{NP () where f \u2022 F",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "/ LINPUT~ < [~'~ LINPUT < 5q\"",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Notice too that the acceptance criterion does not need to be checked explicitly--it's only a logical specification of the conditions under which a word is accepted by an FA. Rather the effects of (10) are encoded in the type specifications of the states (subtypes of final-config, etc.).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "/ LINPUT~ < [~'~ LINPUT < 5q\"",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Now that we have demonstrated the featurebased encoding of automata, we can abbreviate them, using regular expressions as \"feature templates\" to stand for the initial states of the automaton derived from them as above. 5 For example, we might write a feature specification [NORPHIFORN (a + b)*c] to designate words of the form accepted by our example automaton.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "/ LINPUT~ < [~'~ LINPUT < 5q\"",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As a nice by-product of our encoding technique, we can show that unification, disjunction, and negation in the underlying feature logic directly correspond to the intersection, union, and complementation of FA. Note that this statement can be easily proved when assuming a classical set-theoretical semantics for feature structures (e.g., Smolka 1988) . To give the flavor of how this is accomplished, consider the two regular expressions \u20221 : ab*c and/22 --a*bc. We model them via six types, one for each state of the automata. The initial state of/21 is A, that of/22 is X. The intersection of\u00a31 and/22 is given by the unification of A and X. Unifying A and X leads to the following structure:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 339,
"end": 351,
"text": "Smolka 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "/ LINPUT~ < [~'~ LINPUT < 5q\"",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(11) : |EDGE a [NEXT BJ [NEXT $1 {XV Y}J [NEXT B A",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "/ LINPUT~ < [~'~ LINPUT < 5q\"",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Now, testing whether w belongs to /21 N/22 is equivalent to the satisfiability (consistency) of",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "/ LINPUT~ < [~'~ LINPUT < 5q\"",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "where type expansion yields a decision procedure. The same argumentation holds for the union and complementation of FA. It has to be noted that the intersection and complementation of FA via unification do not work in general 5'Template' is a mild abuse of terminology since we intend not only to designate the type corresponding to the initial state of automaton, but also to suggest what other types are accessible.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(12) A A X A [INPUT w],",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "for FA with e-moves (Ritchie et al. 1992, 33-35) . This restriction is due to the fact, that the intersected FA must run \"in sync\" (Sproat 1992, 139-140) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 48,
"text": "(Ritchie et al. 1992, 33-35)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 153,
"text": "(Sproat 1992, 139-140)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(12) A A X A [INPUT w],",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The following closure properties are demonstrated fairly directly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(12) A A X A [INPUT w],",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Let A1 = (Qt, Et, 61, qo, Ft) and As = (Os, ~2, ~S, q~), Fs).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 13,
"text": "(Qt,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 17,
"text": "Et,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 21,
"text": "61,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 25,
"text": "qo,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 26,
"end": 29,
"text": "Ft)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(12) A A X A [INPUT w],",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 AtUAs ~ qoVqto",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "* Alf7As ~ qoAq~o",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In addition, a weak form of functional uncertainty (Kaplan and Maxwell 1988) , represented through recursive type specifications, is appropriate for the expression also concatenation and Kleene closure of FA. Krieger 1993b provides proofs using auxiliary definitions and apparatus we lack space for here.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 76,
"text": "(Kaplan and Maxwell 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 A1 ~ -~qo",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The focus of this section lies in the illustration of the proposal above and in the demonstration of some benefits that can be drawn from the integration of allomorphy and morphotactics; we eschew here the discussion of alternative theories and concentrate on inflectional morphology. We describe inflection using a word-andparadigm (WP) specification of morphotactics (Matthews 1972 ) and a two-level treatment of allomorphy (Koskenniemi 1983) . We also indicate some potential advantages of mixed models of allomorphy--finite state and other. 6",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 369,
"end": 383,
"text": "(Matthews 1972",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 444,
"text": "(Koskenniemi 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Allomorphy",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Several WORD-GRAMMARS use FDL morphotactics (Trost 1991, Krieger and Nerbonne 1992 on derivation); alternative models are also available. Krieger and Nerbonne 1992 propose an FDL-based WP treatment of inflection. The basic idea is to characterize all the elements of a paradigm as alternative specifications of abstract lexemes. Technically, this is realized through the specification of large disjunctions which unify with lexeme specifications. The SThe choice of two-level allomorphy is justified both by the simplicity of two-level descriptions and by their status as a \"lingua franca\" among computational morphologists. Two-level analyses in FDLs may also prove advantageous if they simplify the potential compilation into a hybrid two-level approach of the kind described in Trost 1991. three elements of the paradigm in (1) would be described by the distributed disjunction in (13). 1are not distinguished in the FDL, and Krieger and Nerbonne 1992 foresaw an interface to an external module for allomorphy. It would be possible--but scientifically poor--to distinguish all of the variants at the level of morphotactics, providing a brute-force solution and multiplying paradigms greatly. 7 The characterization in Section 2 above allows us to formulate WITHIN FDL the missing allomorphy component.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 68,
"text": "(Trost 1991, Krieger and",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 781,
"end": 792,
"text": "Trost 1991.",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "WP Morphotactlcs in FDL",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Two-level morphology has become popular because it is a declarative, bidirectional and efficient means of treating allomorphy (see Sproat 1992 for a comprehensive introduction). In general, two-level descriptions provide constraints on correspondences between underlying (lexical) and surface levels. We shall use it to state constraints between morphemic units and their allomorphic realizations. Because twolevel automata characterize relations between two levels, they are often referred to (and often realized as) transducers. The individual rules then represent constraints on the relation being transduced.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Two-Level Allomorphy",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The different forms of the suffix in 2nd person singular in (1) are predictable given the phonological shape of the stem, and the alternations can be described by the following (simplified) two-level rules (we have abstracted away from inessential restrictions here, e.g., that (strong) verbs with i/e-umlaut do not show epenthesis):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Two-Level Allomorphy",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "rTzoukermann and Libermann 1990 show that multiplying paradigms need not degrade performance, however. The colon ':' indicates a correspondence between lexical and surface levels. Thus the first rule states that a lexical morph boundary + must correspond to a surface e if it occurs after d or t and before s or t. The second specifies when lexical s is deleted (corresponds to surface 0). Two-level rules of this sort are then normally compiled into transducers (Dalrymple et al. 1987, p.35-45) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 463,
"end": 495,
"text": "(Dalrymple et al. 1987, p.35-45)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Two-Level Allomorphy",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Morphology Two-level descriptions of allomorphy can be specified in FDLs straightforwardly if we model not transducers, but rather two-level acceptors (of strings of symbol pairs), following Ritchie et al. 1992 . We therefore employ FA over an alphabet consisting of pairs of symbols rather than single symbols, s",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 191,
"end": 210,
"text": "Ritchie et al. 1992",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The encoding of these FA in our approach requires only replacing the alphabet of atomic symbols with an alphabet of feature structures, each of which bears the attributes LEX and SURF. A pair of segments appearing as values of these features stand in the lexical-surface correspondence relation denoted by ':' in standard twolevel formalisms. The values of the attributes STEM and ENDING in (13) are then not lists of symbols but rather lists of (underspecified) feature structures. Note that the italicized t etc. found in the sequences under MORPHIENDING (13) denote types defined by equations such as (16) or (17). (To make formulas shorter we abbreviate 'alphabet' etymologically as 'aft'.) It is the role of the collection of FA to restrict underspecifled lexical representations to those obeying allomorphic constraints. This is the substance of the allomorphy constraint (18), which, together with the Acceptance Criterion (10), guarantees that the input obeys the constraints of the associated (initial states of the) FA.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "(15) a]~ = [LEX $1{\"a\"V ..\"s\"V\"s\"V'+\"V\"+\"} ] SURF $d\"a\" V .\"s\" V 0 V \"e\" v",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "NORPH]FORM [~] ] (18) allomorphy =_ INPUT []",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Rules of the sort found in (14) can be directly compiled into FA acceptors over strings of symbol pairs (Ritchie et al. 1992, p.19) . Making use of the regular expression notation as templates (introduced in Section 2 above), (19-21) display a compilation of the first rule in (14). Here the composite rule is split up into three different constraints. The first indicates that epenthesis is obligatory in the environment specified and the latter two that each half of the environment specification is necessary. 9 Finite-state morphology has been criticized (i) for the strict finite-stateness of its handling of morphotactics (Sproat 1992, 43-66) ; (ii) for making little or no use of the notion of inflectional paradigms and inheritance relations between morphological classes (Cahill 1990) ; and (iii) for its strict separation of phonology from morphology--i.e., standard two-level rules can only be sensitive to phonological contexts (including word and morpheme boundaries), and apply to all forms where these contexts hold. In fact, allomorphic variation is often \"fossilized\", having outlived its original phonological motivation. Therefore some allomorphic rules 97r* denotes the Kleene closure over alphabet 11\" and A the complement of A with respect to ~r.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 131,
"text": "(Ritchie et al. 1992, p.19)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 628,
"end": 648,
"text": "(Sproat 1992, 43-66)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 780,
"end": 793,
"text": "(Cahill 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "are restricted in nonphonological ways, applying only to certain word classes, so that some stems admit idiosyncratic exceptions with respect to the applicability of rules (see Bear 1988 , Emele 1988 , Trost 1991 \u2022 To overcome the first difficulty, a number of researchers have suggested augmenting FA with \"word grammars\", expressed in terms of feature formalisms like PATR II (Bear 1986) or HPSG (Trost 1990 ). Our proposal follows theirs, improving only on the degree to which morphotactics may be integrated with allomorphy. See Krieger and Nerbonne 1992 for proposals for treating morphotactics in typed feature systems.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 177,
"end": 186,
"text": "Bear 1988",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 199,
"text": ", Emele 1988",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 212,
"text": ", Trost 1991",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 389,
"text": "(Bear 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 409,
"text": "(Trost 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "We illustrate how the FDL approach overcomes the last two difficulties in a concrete case of nonphonologically motivated allomorphy. German epenthesizes schwa (< e >) at morph boundaries, but in a way which is sensitive to morphological environments, and which thus behaves differently in adjectives and verbs\u2022 The data in (22) demonstrates some of these differences, comparing epenthesis in phonologically very similar forms\u2022 free, adj super frei+st freiest (22) free, v 2s pres be+frei+st befreist woo, v 2s pres frei+st freist While the rule stated in (14) (and reformulated in (19)-(21)) treats the verbal epenthesis correctly, it is not appropriate for adjectives, for it does not allow epenthesis to take place after vowels. We thus have to state different rules for different morphological categories.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The original two-level formalism could only solve this problem by introducing arbitrary diacritic markers\u2022 The most general solution is due to Trost 1991, who associated two-level rules with arbitrary filters in form of feature structures. These feature structures are unified with the underlying morphs in order to check the context restrictions, and thus serve as an interface to information provided in the feature-based lexicon. But Trost's two-level rules are a completely different data structure from the feature structures decorating transitions in FA.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "We attack the problem head on by restricting allomorphic constraints to specific classes of lexical entries, making use of the inheritance techniques available in structured lexicons\u2022 The cases of epenthesis in (22) is handled by defining not only the rule in (19-21) for the verbal cases, but also a second, quite similar rule for the more liberal epenthesis in adjectives) \u00b0 This frees the 1\u00b0In fact, the rules could be specified so that the rule from operating on a strictly phonological basis, making it subject to lexical conditioning\u2022 This is illustrated in Figure 2 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 564,
"end": 572,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF6"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "But note that this example demonstrates not only how feature-based allomorphy can overcome the strictly phonological base of two-level morphology (criticism (iii) above), but it also makes use of the inheritance structure in modern lexicons as well.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "FDL Specification of Two-Level",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "In this section we examine our proposal vis-b.-vis others, suggest future directions, and provide a summary.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Computational morphology is a large and active field, as recent textbooks (Sproat 1992 and Ritchieet al. 1992 ) testify\u2022 This impedes the identification of particularly important predecessors, among whom nonetheless three stand out.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 90,
"text": "(Sproat 1992 and",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 109,
"text": "Ritchieet al. 1992",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison to other Work",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "First, Trost 1991's use of two-level morphology in combination verbal rule inherited from the more general adjectival rule, but pursuing this here would take us somewhat afield.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison to other Work",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "with feature-based filters was an important impetus.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison to other Work",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Second, researchers at Edinburgh (Calder 1988 , Bird 1992 first suggested using FDLs in phonological and morphological description, and Bird 1992 suggests describing FA in FDL (without showing how they might be so characterized, however--in particular, providing no FDL definition of what it means for an FA to accept a string).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 45,
"text": "(Calder 1988",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 57,
"text": ", Bird 1992",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison to other Work",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Third, Cahill 1990 posed the critical question, viz., how is one to link the work in lexical inheritance (on morphotactics) with that in finitestate morphology (on allomorphy). This earlier work retained a separation of formalisms for allomorphy (MOLUSC) and morphotactics (DATR). Cahill 1993 goes on to experiment with assuming all of the allomorphic specification into the lexicon, in just the spirit proposed here. 11 Our work differs from this later work (i) in that we use FDL while she uses DATR, which are similar but not identical (cf. Nerbonne 1992); and (ii) in that we have been concerned with showing how the standard model of allomorphy (FA) may be assumed into the inheritance hierarchy of the lexicon, while Cahill has introduced syllable-based models.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison to other Work",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "At present only the minimal examples in Section 2 above have actually been implemented, and we are interested in attempting more. Second, a compilation into genuine finite state models could be useful.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Future Work",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Third, we are concerned that, in restricting ourselves thus far to acceptors over two-level alphabets, we may incur parsing problems, which a more direct approach through finite-state transducers can avoid (Sproat 1992, p.143) . See Ritchie et al. 1992, 19-33 for an approach to parsing using finite-state acceptors, however.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 206,
"end": 226,
"text": "(Sproat 1992, p.143)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 259,
"text": "Ritchie et al. 1992, 19-33",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Future Work",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "This paper proposes a treatment of allomorphy formulated and processable in typed feature logic. There are several reasons for developing this approach to morphology. First, we prefer the GENERALITY of a system in which linguistic knowledge of all sorts may be expressed--at least as long as we do not sacrifice processing efficiency. This is an overarching goal of HPSG (Pollard and Sag 1987) --in which syntax and semantics is described in a feature formalism, and in which strides toward descriptions of morphotactics (Krieger 1993a , Riehemann 1993 lICf. Reinhard and Gibbon 1991 for another sort of DATR-based allomorphy Gerdemann 1993) and phonology (Bird 1992) have been taken. This work is the first to show how allomorphy may be described here. The proposal here would allow one to describe segments using features, as well, but we have not explored this opportunity for reasons of space.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 371,
"end": 393,
"text": "(Pollard and Sag 1987)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 535,
"text": "(Krieger 1993a",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 552,
"text": ", Riehemann 1993",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 641,
"text": "Gerdemann 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 667,
"text": "(Bird 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Second, the uniform formalism allows the exact and more transparent specification of dependencies which span modules of otherwise different formalisms. Obviously interesting cases for the extension of feature-based descriptions to other areas are those involving stress and intonation--where phonological properties can determine the meaning (via focus) and even syntactic well-formedness (e.g., of deviant word orders). Similarly, allomorphic variants covary in the style register they belong to: the German dative singular in -e, dera Kinde, belongs to a formal register.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Third, and more specifically, the featurebased treatment of allomorphy overcomes the bifurcation of morphology into lexical aspects-which have mostly been treated in lexical inheritance schemes--and phonological aspects-which are normally treated in finite-state morphology. This division has long been recognized as problematic. One symptom of the problem is seen in the treatment of nonphonologically conditioned allomorphy, such as German umlaut, which (Trost 1990 ) correctly criticizes as ad hoc in finite-state morphology because the latter deals only in phonological (or graphemic) categories. We illustrated the benefits of the uniform formalism above where we showed how a similar nonphonologically motivated alternation (German schwa epenthesis) is treated in a feature-based description, which may deal in several levels of linguistic description simultaneously.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 456,
"end": 467,
"text": "(Trost 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary",
"sec_num": "4.3"
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Towards the Integration of Functions, Relations and Types in an AI Programming Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Backofen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Euler",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "G6rz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proc. of GWAI-90",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Backofen, R., L. Euler, and G. G6rz. 1990. Towards the Integration of Functions, Relations and Types in an AI Programming Language. In Proc. of GWAI-90. Berlin. Springer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "A Morphological Recognizer with Syntactic and Phonological Rules",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bear",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Proc. of COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "272--276",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bear, J. 1986. A Morphological Recognizer with Syntactic and Phonological Rules. In Proc. of COLING, 272-276.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Morphology with Two-Level Rules and Negative Rule Features",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bear",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proc. of COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "28--31",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bear, J. 1988. Morphology with Two-Level Rules and Negative Rule Features. In Proc. of COLING, 28-31.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Finite-State Phonology in HPSG",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bird",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proc. of COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "74--80",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bird, S. 1992. Finite-State Phonology in HPSG. In Proc. of COLING, 74-80.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Syllable-Based Morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Cahill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proc. of COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "48--53",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cahill, L. J. 1990. Syllable-Based Morphology. In Proc. of COLING, 48-53.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Morphonology in the Lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Cahill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proc. of the 7th European A CL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "87--96",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cahill, L. J. 1993. Morphonology in the Lexicon. In Proc. of the 7th European A CL, 87-96.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Paradigmatic Morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Calder",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proc. of the 5th European A CL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Calder, J. 1988. Paradigmatic Morphology. In Proc. of the 5th European A CL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. No. 32Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carpenter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carpenter, B. 1992. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. No. 32Tracts in Theoretical Com- puter Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Tools for Morphological Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dalrymple",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kaplan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karttunen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koskenniemi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shaio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wescoat",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dalrymple, M., R. Ka- plan, L. Karttunen, K. Koskenniemi, S. Shaio, and M. Wescoat. 1987. Tools for Morphological Analysis. Technical Report CSLI-1987-108, CSLI, Stanford University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Determining Consistency of Feature Terms with Distributed Disjunctions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dsrre",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eisele",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proc. of GWAI-89 (15th German Workshop on AI)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "270--279",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "DSrre, J., and A. Eisele. 1989. Determining Consis- tency of Feature Terms with Distributed Disjunc- tions. In Proc. of GWAI-89 (15th German Work- shop on AI), ed. D. Metzing, 270-279. Berlin. Springer-Verlag.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Uberlegungen zu einer Two-Level Morphologie fiir das Deutsche",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Emele",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proc. der",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Emele, M. 1988. Uberlegungen zu einer Two-Level Morphologie fiir das Deutsche. In Proc. der",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Complement Inheritance as Subcategorization Inheritance",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gerdemann",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "German Grammar in HPSG",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gerdemann, D. 1993. Complement Inheritance as Subcategorization Inheritance. In German Gram- mar in HPSG, ed. J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Ponard. Stanford: CSLI.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "troduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Hopcroft",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Ullman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hopcroft, J. E., and J. D. Ullman. 1979. In- troduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "An Algorithm for Functional Uncertainty",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kaplan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maxwell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proc. of Coling",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "303--305",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kaplan, R., and J. Maxwell. 1988. An Algorithm for Functional Uncertainty. In Proc. of Coling 1988, 303-305. Budapest.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Two-Level Model for Morphological Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koskenniemi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Proc. of IJCAI",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "683--685",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Koskenniemi, K. 1983. Two-Level Model for Mor- phological Analysis. In Proc. of IJCAI, 683-685.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Derivation Without Lexicad Rules",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H.-U. ; R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krieger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rosner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rupp",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Constraint Propagation, Linguistic Description and Computation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Krieger, H.-U. 1993a. Derivation Without Lexi- cad Rules. In Constraint Propagation, Linguis- tic Description and Computation, ed. R. Johnson, M. Rosner, and C. Rupp. Academic Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Representing and Processing Finite Automata Within Typed Feature Formalisms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H.-U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krieger",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Krieger, H.-U. 1993b. Representing and Pro- cessing Finite Automata Within Typed Fea- ture Formalisms. Technical report, Deutsches Forschungsinstitut fiir Kiinstfiche Intelligenz, Saarbriicken, Germany.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Feature-Based Inheritance Networks for Computational Lexicons",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H.-U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krieger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nerbonne",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Default Inheritance within Unification-Based Approaches to the Lexicon",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Krieger, H.-U., and J. Nerbonne. 1992. Feature- Based Inheritance Networks for Computational Lexicons. In Default Inheritance within Unification-Based Approaches to the Lexicon, ed. T. Briscoe, A. Copestake, and V. de Paiva. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Also DFKI Research Report RR-91-31.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matthews",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1972,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matthews, P. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A The- oretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Feature-Based Lexicons--An Example and a Comparison to DATR",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nerboune",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "In Beitriige des ASL-Lexikon-Workshops",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "36--49",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nerboune, J. 1992. Feature-Based Lexicons-- An Example and a Comparison to DATR. In Beitriige des ASL-Lexikon-Workshops, Wandlitz (bei Berlin), ed. D. Reimann, 36-49. also DFKI RR-92-04.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Prosodic Inheritance and Morphological Generalizations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reinhard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gibbon",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Proc. of the 6th European ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "131--137",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Reinhard, S., and D. Gibbon. 1991. Prosodic In- heritance and Morphological Generalizations. In Proc. of the 6th European ACL, 131-137.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies. A Case Study of bar-Adjectives in German",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Riehemarm",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Seminar f/Jr Sprachwissenschaft",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Riehemarm, S. 1993. Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies. A Case Study of bar-Adjectives in German. Master's thesis, Eberhard-Karls- Universit~it Tiibingen, Seminar f/Jr Sprachwis- senschaft.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Computational Morphology: Practical Mechanisms for the English Lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Ritchie",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Russell",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Black",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Pulman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ritchie, G. D., G. J. Russell, A. W. Black, and S. G. Pulman. 1992. Computational Morphology: Prac- tical Mechanisms for the English Lexicon. Cam- bridge: MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "A Feature Logic with Subsorts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Smolka",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Smolka, G. 1988. A Feature Logic with Subsorts. Technical Report 33, WT LILOG-IBM Germany.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Morphology and Computation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sproat",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sproat, R. 1992. Morphology and Computation. Cambridge: MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "The Application of Two-Level Morphology to Non-concatenative German Morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Trost",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proc. of COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "371--376",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Trost, H. 1990. The Application of Two-Level Mor- phology to Non-concatenative German Morphol- ogy. In Proc. of COLING, 371-376.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "X2MORF: A Morphological Component Based on Augmented Two-Level Morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Trost",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "DFKI",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Trost, H. 1991. X2MORF: A Morphological Com- ponent Based on Augmented Two-Level Mor- phology. Technical Report RR-91-04, DFKI, Saarbrficken, Germany.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "A Finite-State Morphological Processor for Spanish",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tzoukermann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Libermann",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proc. of COLING",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tzoukermann, E., and M. Libermann. 1990. A Finite-State Morphological Processor for Spanish. In Proc. of COLING, Vol. 3.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "A finite automaton A recognizing the language \u00a3(A) = (a + b)*c."
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "model lacks a treatment of allomorphy. The various allomorphs of -st in"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "in the mixcase s:O \u00a2:~ {s,z,z, ch}+:O t"
},
"FIGREF3": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "our formalisation of FA cannot allow etransitions without losing important properties, we are in fact forced to this position."
},
"FIGREF6": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Nonphonological Conditioning of allomorphy is achieved by requiring that only some word classes obey the relevant constraints\u2022 Adjectives inherit from two of the epenthesis constraints in the text, and verbs (without i/e umlaut) satisfy all three. This very natural means of restricting allomorphic variation to selected, nonphonologically motivated classes is only made available through the expression of allomorphy in type hierarchy of the FDL. (The types denote the initial states of FA, as explained in Section 2.)"
}
}
}
} |