| { |
| "paper_id": "C69-1201", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:32:44.599518Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "C69-1201", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "and satisfactory definition exists, and some linguists deny any validity of the word, relegating it to folk linguistics.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Following Greenberg we take words as being composed of morphemes so that a word may be identified with a sequence of morphemes and no morpheme overlaps two words. From the distribution of the morphemes of a corpus we find clusters which approximate the words of the corpus.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The approximating units are determined relative to the corpus from which the distribution is defined. The corpus may be either considered as a closed sublanguage in itself or as a sample from some larger corpus.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We study the behavior of approximate units relative to longer and longer portions of the corpus, and also relative to the corpus considered as a statistical sample.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Assuming that a word may be r~presented as a sequence of morphemes, how should this sequence be distinguished? In the well-known paper of Togeby, (19&9) there is a convenient summry of structural views of the word. In his discussion, the word is set forth as a morpheme sequence possessing properties classified under the headings of 1 \u00b0 Forme libre j . i 30 Permutabilite ~. In considering how a ~, 2 \u00b0 Seoarabllite, and morpheme sequence should be distinguished as a word we will begin by examining Togeby f s classifications.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 138, |
| "end": 145, |
| "text": "Togeby,", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 146, |
| "end": 152, |
| "text": "(19&9)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In Togeby, under the discussion of a word as a forme libre minimum, reference is made to Bloomfield's (1933) statement about the word as a minimum free form and the ~mallest items which are snoken by themselves, in isolation.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 89, |
| "end": 108, |
| "text": "Bloomfield's (1933)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The idea of minimum free form is actually found somewhat earlier in Bloomfield ' s (1926) Postulates. differ and not we find A minimum free form is a word. A word is thtm'a\"form which may be utteredalone (with.meaning) but cannot beanalyzed into parts that may (all of them) be uttered alone (with meaning). Thus the~word ~ can be analyzed into~_~ and z~ but the latter part cannot be uttered alone; theword ~can be analyzed into wr_wr_it_~ and -er, but the latter cannot be uttered alone (the word err he'by virtue of different meaning a different form) ... Similar views are found in the older \"universal grammars.\" They principally in taking the Aristotelian position that the word some smaller unit has meaning.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 68, |
| "end": 89, |
| "text": "Bloomfield ' s (1926)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For example, in Harris (1771) a concern with min,tmumunits of meaning.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 16, |
| "end": 29, |
| "text": "Harris (1771)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "But what shall we say? Hav@ these parts (of a Qu@ntity of sound) again other parts, Which~arein like manner significant and may be pursued to Infinite? 9an we suppose that aliMea~ing~iike.Body, to be divisible; and to include within itself other Meanings without end? If this be absurd, \"' thenmhstw@~ec~ssarliy!~admit, that there is~such a thing as a Sound significant, of which no part is of itself significant. And thiS:~is ~at we oall'.t.heproper:~haracte~ of a Wo~ For thus though the Words (Suu) and (shineth! have each a Meaning, yet iethere ce~ainly no-Mem~inginianT~f their Paths, neither in the syllables of one, nor the ~etters of the other. James Harris refers to Priscian's definition in which the word is defined as a minimummeaningful utterance in connected speech.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "' \"Dictio @S~ parttime oratlonis constructae, id est, in ordine compositae. Pars autem, quantum ad ' tbtU~inteiiigendum, ~ id' est, a~.~otius~ensus", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "intellectum. Hoc autem ideo dictum est, nequis conetur ix~ in duas partes dividere, hoc est, iU ,~-z. Xi et r_~; non enim ad totum intelligendumhaec fit Fb~ purpo~e~6fconstruc~ng our model we~eHail~interpret.:minimu TM free form as follows:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 A word'S'iS a sequence ofmubword units. If this sequence may be uttered alone, then it is to be expected that the sequence co-occurs freely with other sequences.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Under the classification of separabilite, Togeby places the requirement of Jakobson (1938) that words are the separable components of phrases : m4nlmal actually separable comuonants of the phrase.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 75, |
| "end": 90, |
| "text": "Jakobson (1938)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Conversely, the constituents of a word should not be separable.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The general requirement of separablllte seems to be that a word is a morpheme sequence which may co-occur with other morpheme sequences to give granmmtical utterances. If the sequence is a distinct word, then its morphemes must be contiguous, and the morphemes of a noncontiguous gra,~natical sequence cannot be identified with the same word.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Under permutabilite I, Togeby quotes HJelmelev(19%3) '_'les mots pourront tout s!-~lement ~tre d~finis c~ les signes minima dont l'\u00a2soression, J .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "et de m~eme le contenu, sont recluroauement Dermutables \" According to Togeby, HJelmslev means that \"un changement de l'ordre des roots p0~rra entrainer un changement de sens. tandis qu'un chan~ement de l'ordre des ~rties du roots n'en sera pas capable.\"", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The requirement here is that if a sequence of morphemes is identified with a word, then the order of the sequence must be invariant.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In Greenberg (1957) , the proposed definition of the word based on substitution and the recognition of grau~atical sequences, we interpret as follows:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 3, |
| "end": 19, |
| "text": "Greenberg (1957)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let S he a sequence of linguistic units and G the class of graummtical sequences, in Greenberg's words the class of sequences which \"exist as expressions in the language.\"", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Suppose that S~ X A B C D E~G is a morpheme sequence. We want to decide whether or not the boundary between B and C is a word boundary.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To each morpheme of S there corresponds a \"nucleus.\" For the nucleus of B to be a word terminal it is necessary that \"infinite insertion\" of nuclei $ possible between B and C, otherwise if there\"is a maximum to the number of n~ei that can be inserted,\" the boundary is \"intra-word boundary.\"", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Nuclei are classes of morpheme sequences having strongly equivalent substitution properties. Some of the conditions for class membership are so strict that we would expect the defined classes to be empty for the language tak~en as a whole. Perhaps as Chomsky conjectures in a review of Greenberg's essay: \"It might be that the notion of word may be dsfined r~lativ~ to a particularly simpleset of sentences. 1958In practice, Greenberg's conditions might be interpreted as follows: Case 2", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "S= X A B C D E", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this case the frequency of AB also exceeds the frequency of BC, but the segmentation AB CD would not agree with linguistic intuition at all. In Case 2, B has much greater freedom of combination on the left than on the right, and to satisfy the condition of separability, at least approximately, we would segment as A BCD\u00b0", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In formalizing these intuitions, we refer to the procedure of Harris (1955) for grouping phonemes into morphs. Harris assumes that an utterance U may be represented as a sequence of phonemes a I a 2 ... a n .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 62, |
| "end": 75, |
| "text": "Harris (1955)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let R(al) be the number of different phonemes which may follow the phoneme a I in the total language. Similarly, let R(al, a2) be the number of different phonemes which may follow al, a 2 and so on. Likewise, let L(an) be the number of different phonemes which may precedean, L(an_ 1 an) the number which may precede an-1 a n, and so on. Then the sequence SR = R(al) R(ala 2) R(ala2a 3) ..o R(al a 2 ... a n)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "describes the freedom of co-occurrence on the right at each phoneme of U, and the sequence SL = L(a I a 2 o..an) L(a 2 ... a n ) ... L(a n)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "describes th~ freedom of co-occurrence on the left at each phoneme of U. In this case the text frequencies indicate that B has much greater freedom of combination on the left than on the right\u00b0 Given no further information, we segment as A ( B C D. We formalize this decision in the following \"Cutting Rule.\" There are nine possible combinations according to the distributional properties of B and C. These are shown in Figure 1 , which we refer to as a \"Segmentation Rule.\" The number of slashes--the \"degree\" of the boundary--indicates the relative evidence for segmentation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 420, |
| "end": 428, |
| "text": "Figure 1", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If R(B)~L(B) cut as X A B ) C O E.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "\"-", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ":,0 =0 <0 R(c) -L(C) >0 ----0 <0 BIIo BIIIo BIIIIC BIC BIIc BIIIC BIc BIIc Figure 1. Segmentation Rule", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "~R~B) -L(B)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The first sample which we will consider for purposes of illustration Kendall (1952) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 69, |
| "end": 83, |
| "text": "Kendall (1952)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "~R~B) -L(B)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We examine the correspondence between syntactic and segment boundaries using several samples of morphemic data.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Some Distributional Groupings", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In mmny cases a ~ero-degree pair occurs in a manner which is only barely statistically significant. Let us compare. On the other hand, the high-frequency morphemes the, ship, be, in~, out,", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Some Distributional Groupings", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "... all occur in the first sentence. A consequence is the poor performance of the procedure when applied to more than the first two sentences. See The general conclusion is that words do co~respond to segments of at least second degree in a statistically significant manner. The correspondence, however,, is dependent on text length and style.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Some Distributional Groupings", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In applying Harris's procedure to our test data, we observe that the segments obtained from the R's alone were different from the segments obtained from the L's alone.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Left-Right Linguistic Asymmetry", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Using entropy as a measure of freedom of co-occurrence, and segmenting after each macimum in ~, we obtain the first-order segments: It contains aluminum.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Left-Right Linguistic Asymmetry", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "we find that the range of following phonemes is larger than that of the preceding. In It contains aluminum, for example, the range of successors is 28-2 = 26 and that of predecessors is 22-1 = 21. Moreover, the R's and L's give different segments. From the R's ~e obtain it/ k a n/teynz/@lu~n/in/B m From the L's alone we obtain it~ @n/teynz/@ luwmin/@m Another example of different segmentation resulting from following and preceding units is found in ~on (1963) . In this study the linguistic units were Fries' classes, and the sample a text of 5000 words.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 457, |
| "end": 463, |
| "text": "(1963)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Left-Right Linguistic Asymmetry", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The second-order segments from the following classes are", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Left-Right Linguistic Asymmetry", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If one believes/ that all questions raised/by science/...", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Left-Right Linguistic Asymmetry", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If/one believes that all/questions raised by/science", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The reverse segmentation gives:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this text, the variance of E R is larger than that of E L.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The reverse segmentation gives:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A related result is Johnson's (1965) ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 20, |
| "end": 36, |
| "text": "Johnson's (1965)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The reverse segmentation gives:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ".61", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Cor(4~-F~l ,~)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ".32", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Cor(4~-F~l ,~)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ".37", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Cor(4~-F~l ,~)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Cor(~R-EL J,EL)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Cor(4~-F~l ,~)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ".51", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Cor(4~-F~l ,~)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ".24", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Cor(4~-F~l ,~)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ".19 Table 2 . Variances and Correlations.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 4, |
| "end": 11, |
| "text": "Table 2", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Cor(4~-F~l ,~)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "These measures of directional diversity apparently reflect that the language is a unidirectional process. This is to be expected in a suffixing language such as English. We wonder if some directional asy~mmtry is a property of all natural languages.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Cor(4~-F~l ,~)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "One purpose of this paper was to clarify the distributional nature of the word. The assumption has been that a word is a cluster of morphemes. A quantification of what one might mean by \"cluster of morphemes\" leads to the segmentation rules, and we have presented the results of their application in numerical detail.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Text Specific Compounds", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The hypothesis that words are clusters of morphemes according to our interpretation is partially verified by the data that have been presented, but the results remain suggestive rather than definitive.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Text Specific Compounds", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Printers' words and distributional groupings are coextensive with a much greater-than-chance frequency. Moreover, in one case at least, there is a close correspondence between the degree of distributional separation of morphemes and the corresponding syntactic boundaries.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Text Specific Compounds", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "An ofttimes unstated assumption in statistical studies of language is that the results would become better if the sample size were larger.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Text Specific Compounds", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This assumption is confirmed, but only in a restricted sense. In the specialized language of the primer Ted and Sally, we used a large sample procedure to eliminate zero-degree segments and obtain a closer correspondence with printers' words. This procedure is applicable to the closed vocabulary of this primer, in which every morpheme is used many times. It would not be applicable to texts where Zipf's law holds.,,\"", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Text Specific Compounds", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "and most morphemes are used only once. These examples suggest that there are degrees of distributional freedom and that instead of hoping to give an absolute distributional characterization of the word, we should speak of degrees of distributional word-hood. The degree of b oundedness of the morphemes of a word is not an absolute property but depends on the corpus containing them, and in addition the context of surrounding morphemes.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Text Specific Compounds", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The segmentation rules are numerical procedures for grouping linguistic units. Here we apply these rules to graphemic data. For a graphemic application we compare Ted and Sall~ and Word ~nd 0b~ect.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Graphemic Grouping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Using letters, we can process much larger samples than we could using morphemes. Relative to the first 16,6AO letters of T~. and Sally, we obtain the segments Come Boots said Ted", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Graphemic Grouping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this simple text almost all words can be isolated from letter samples.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Graphemic Grouping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In contrast, consider the sentence fra~nent from ~ord and 0b.~ect:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Graphemic Grouping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "What counts as a word as against a string ...", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Graphemic Grouping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Relative to a sample of 15,889 letters, the second-order se~nents from maxlma in R:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Graphemic Grouping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "What counts asa word asa gain stas tring ...", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Graphemic Grouping", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Wh at counts asaw ord asaga ins tast ring ...", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Frc~ maxima in L:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Combining the information from the R s and L s we obtain the segments.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Frc~ maxima in L:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Leonard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Bloomfield", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1926, |
| "venue": "Lan~", |
| "volume": "2", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "153--169", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Bloomfield, Leonard, \"A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language,\" Lan~.,_2, 1926, pp. 153-16~.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Essays in Linguistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Joseph", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Greenberg", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1957, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Greenberg, Joseph, .Essays in Linguistics, Chicago, 1957, p. 27.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Hermes or a Philosoohical Inquiry Concerning Universal Gra~, London, 1771", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "James", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Harris", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "20--21", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Harris, James, Hermes or a Philosoohical Inquiry Concerning Universal Gra~, London, 1771, pp. 20-21.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "From Phoneme to Morpheme", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Zellig", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Harris", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1955, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "190--213", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Harris, Zellig, \"From Phoneme to Morpheme,\" _~, $1, 1955, pp. 190~23~.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Omkrin~ Soro~teories Grundl~ggels\u00a2", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "L", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hjelmslev", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1943, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Hjelmslev, L., Omkrin~ Soro~teories Grundl~ggels\u00a2, 1943, p. 66.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Actes d~ IV me C~ngre8 de Linaulstes, 193~", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jakobson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "133--136", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jakobson, R., Actes d~ IV me C~ngre8 de Linaulstes, 193~, pp. 133-3~.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "The Psychological Reality of Phase Structure Rules", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [ |
| "F" |
| ], |
| "last": "Johnson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1965, |
| "venue": "J. of Verbal Learnin~ and Verbal Beh~viQr ~", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "69--75", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Johnson, N.F., \"The Psychological Reality of Phase Structure Rules\", J. of Verbal Learnin~ and Verbal Beh~viQr ~, 1965, pp. ~69-~75.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "The Advanced Theory of Statistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [ |
| "G" |
| ], |
| "last": "Kendall", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1952, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "l", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kendall, M.G., The Advanced Theory of Statistics. Vol. l, New York, 1952, p. 290 et seq.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "_Mathem~ical Foundation of Information Theory", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "A", |
| "middle": [ |
| "I" |
| ], |
| "last": "Khinchin", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1957, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Khinchin, A. I., _Mathem~ical Foundation of Information Theory, New York, 1957, pp. 2-~.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Qu'est-ce qu'un mot", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Knud", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Togeby", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Travau~ du C~rcle Ling~istioue de Copenha~e, V, 19~9", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "97--111", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Togeby, Knud, \"Qu'est-ce qu'un mot?\" Travau~ du C~rcle Ling~istioue de Copenha~e, V, 19~9, pp. 97-111.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "Robinson Crusoe", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Daniel", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Defoe", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1914, |
| "venue": "_Beacon Third Reader. Ginn and Co", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Defoe, Daniel, \"Robinson Crusoe, \" _Beacon Third Reader. Ginn and Co., Boston, 1914.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "The Structure of American English", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Francis", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1959, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Francis, N., The Structure of American English, New York, 1959.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF17": { |
| "ref_id": "b17", |
| "title": "All Around Me", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "A", |
| "middle": [ |
| "I" |
| ], |
| "last": "Gates", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [ |
| "M" |
| ], |
| "last": "Bartlett", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1957, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Gates, A. I., and Bartlett, M. M., All Around Me, New York, 1957.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "text": "If R(B~L(B) cut as X A ( B C D E. If R(B) = L(B) cut either as XA B ),C D E or as XA(BCDE. Let us insert right-or left-hand boundaries at C by use of the cutting rule, as we did with B. The strangest evidence for segmentation (separability) is in the case where R(C)>L(C), so that we place a left-hand boundary before C; and at the same time R(B)>L(B), so that we place a right-hand boundary after B. The result is indicated as A B ) ( C D. The weakest evidence for segmentation (adhesion) is where R(B)~L(B), and~ the same time R(C)>L(B). The result is indicated as A ( B C ) D.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "text": "With no further information, we might observe that B occurs more frequently with A than with C, and segment as AB CD. Under this condition the requirement of adhesion may be met, but a simple consideration of frequencies is not sufficient to meet the requirement of", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">\"~nsertion criterion.\" Thus if BC spans a conjunctive boundary,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">then B is a word boundary if there exists a morpheme sequence S i such</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">that X A B S i C D Eg G.</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">The Use of Numerical Linguistic Data</td></tr><tr><td>separability.</td><td colspan=\"3\">This is illustrated by the hypothetical set of data of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Our object now is to define a quantitative procedure for Case 2.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">approximating words. Th~ procedure attempts to meet the various</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">requirements summarized 21 the last section. Since our interest is Morpheme Pair Frequency Morpheme Pair Frequency</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">in distributional methods, we do not want the procedure to include an AB BC 3</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">independent test for gra~maticality. EB i</td><td>~F</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>GB</td><td>i</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">The requirements that we attempt to fulfill are summarized by</td></tr><tr><td>HB</td><td>i</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Julliand as d~</td><td colspan=\"3\">and ~eoarabilit~. These are realized as a con~non</td></tr><tr><td>IB</td><td>i</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">occurs in the language. The subsequence BC may belong to characteristic in the procedures of Greenberg and Juilland: A potential</td></tr><tr><td>JB</td><td>i</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">a single word if it is replaceable by a single morpheme and gram~aticality word is isolated as a sequence of morphemes which are associated in</td></tr><tr><td>KB</td><td>i</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">is preserved. some special way, then the potential word is tested for its function If for a small number of morpheme sequences Si, the sequer~es</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">X A B S i C D E are grammatical, then the subsequence BC belongs to the as a word, according to some test of insertion.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">same word. If the sequences X A B S i C D E are granm~tical for a large Let us imagine a linguist confronted by the following data.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">number of Si, then the subsequence BC probably does not belong to the</td></tr><tr><td>same word.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">In an unpublished ~, Juilland develops a constructive definition</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">of the word which requires the recognition of gra~naticality. If</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">S = X A B C D E~ G is a morpheme sequence, the boundary between B and C Molpheme Pair Frequency Mcrpheme Pair Frequency</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">is classified according to the potential sentence occurrences of B and B. AB 4 BC ' 3</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Boundaries are classified as \"conJunctive%r \"disjunctive.\" Disjunctive EB '6 B~ 7</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">boundaries isolate potential words called \"functional units.\" Conjunctive</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Case i</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">boundaries occur potentially within words but must be tested by an</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF1": { |
| "text": "(alo..ak) is a relative maximum in SR. 2. L(ak+l...an) is a relative maximum in SL. 3. R or L are large in comparison with the number of different phonemes.If any two of these conditions are satisfied, we have stronger distributional evidence for segmentation than in the case of just one alone. Likewise, if all three conditions are fulfilled, then~we wo'~ld expect that a k would be a morpheme terminal more often than if just two of the conditions are fulfilled. We shall adopt a similar line of reasoning to segmentations based on the distributions of fixed-length sequences.", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">A Segmentation Procedure The placing of segment boundaries at positions of maximum freedom of combination realizes separability, but the requirement that a word should be a morpheme sequence showing strong internal association is accounted for only in a negative way--we do not place boundaries at positions of low freedom of combination. We propose another procedure for grouping morphemes by combining both left and right freedom of co-occurrence. As a result we derive a scale of degrees of distributional separation. In Harris's procedure there is sufficient information to form a ranking of boundaries. If al...a n is the sequence to be segmented then we place a boundary between ak and ~ ak+ 1 if one or more of the following conditions is met. Let A B ) C D indicate a right-hand boundary after B, following from the distribution of B, and A B ( C D indicate a left-hand boundary before C, following from the distribution of C. In a \"first-order segmentation\" ~f the sequence XABCDE~ we will use only the distributional properties of single morphemes. Thus, in our hypothetical Case 2, we refer only to the distributional properties of B. Morpheme Pair Frequency AB GB 1 HB 1 IB 1 JB 1 Morpheme Pair Frequency BC 3 1. RFor convenience we introduce some notation. EB 1 BF 7</td></tr><tr><td>KB</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td/><td>-length subsequences</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">rather than some higher-level syntactic unit. Thus for some fixed k, the</td></tr><tr><td>co-occurrence measures</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Rk(al...a k) Rk (a2.\u00b0.ak+ l) ... Rk(an_k+l...a n )</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">might yield the same segments as th~ sequence</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">R(al)R(ala 2) ... R(a I ...a n ) \u2022</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF2": { |
| "text": "is from the primer Ted and SaSAIy. This text contains 121 different printers' words in all. As in other deliberately morphemically closed texts, Zipf's law does ne~ operate so we have a large variety of contextual combinations with many repetitions. The sample consists of the first &,670 morphemes and forms the main narrative. We obtain the For example, if the unit U has entropy ~(U) of successors 3 then the 'rdiversity\" ll of successors is 2 E'U'.(~ The entropy would be the same if all the 2 E(U) successors were equally likely.", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Thus in the sequence ~ ~entlemanlv the space marks a morpheme</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">boundary, since ungentlemanly is a printers' word. However in the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">~L~g_~g~,</td><td/><td>where B = ~</td><td>and C ~_~, B1 = the ~</td><td>of England</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Evaluation Procedures</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">segments : and C 1 = 's. Consequently we take the boundary between ~</td><td>and</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">come//Boots//sai d//Ted//// Applied to real data, the constructive procedures of Greenberg 's as a phrase boundary. ' In the two word sequences, ~he man and he</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">come and//ride//// and Juilland are developed with the aid of many illustrative examples, went, the spaces mark word and phrase boundaries respectively.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">come and//ride///in///my wagon//// but are still programmatic end have not been applied to large linguistic Between any two morphemes we have 20 possible combinations of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">jump/in///Boots//sai d//Ted//// samples. Likewise, Harris gives the morphemic segmentation of many syntactic and segment boundaries. The correspondence my be e~mluated</td></tr><tr><td>by the ~</td><td colspan=\"4\">ride/ / / in / / /my //wagon //Boots / / ~ sentences but does not give a numerical evaluation of his results for a statistic, or derived statistics such as the contingency</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">jump/inland//ride~I~~ large text.-coefficient C -~//~\u00f7~\u00b0 See, for axmmple,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">herellwellgollsai dl/Ted In evaluating our approximation procedures, we will be concerned</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">with degrees of adequacy. The results presented so far suggest that</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">there is a strong correspondence between the degree of a segment boundary</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">and the corresponding syntactic boundary. It appears that segment</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">boundaries of zero end first degrees correspond to intra-word boundaries,</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">second-degree segment boundaries to word boundaries, and third-end fourth-</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">degree boundaries to phrase and sentence boundaries.</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">To determine the correspc~enee, we give a more precise formulation.</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">In the morpheme sequence X A B C D E let B I and CI be the lowest level</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">constituents containing B and C respectively. It may happen that B I= B</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">and C I = C. If BI and C I belong to the same printers' word, then the</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">~ntactic boundary between B and C is a moroheme boundary. If B I and C I</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">do not belong to the same printers' word, then the syntactic boundary</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">between B and C is labeled according to the highest syntactic level of</td></tr><tr><td/><td>B I</td><td>or</td><td>CI.</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF4": { |
| "text": "III approach Ing a Ill/fixed Ill/stand ard // of 111/ how I far III in II direct IIII quotation H/my III", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">no I thing de viate /// from // the // di root.</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">The morpheme groupings are:</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">For thecaseof sent ences generally however or even</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">thecaseof eternal sent ences generallysurely there is</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">no thing approachinga fixed standard of howfar in</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">direct quotation may deviate from the direct.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">Some n~nerical results are summarized in Table 1 . The measures</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">of correspondence are between word boundaries and segment boundaries</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">of degrees two, three, or four. In Table I , Length refers to the text</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">length in morphemes, and N is the number of boundaries for which the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">correspondence measures were computed.</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">final example is Quine's Word and Ob.iect. We show the segmentation</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">of this sentence relative to a sample of 900 morphemes. Even though the Text Length Rule N X 2 C Diversity</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">words tend to be polymorphic, the morphemic diversity is smaller than Ted and ~%lly ~6~6 Second 197 10~.A .59 2.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">that found for the first 900 morphemes of Kobinson Crusoe. The values Order</td></tr><tr><td>Robinson CrusQe</td><td>2100</td><td>First</td><td>95</td><td>5.0</td><td>.O7</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">are &.O and 5.1, respectively. Order</td><td colspan=\"4\">It follows that morphemic combination</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">in WQ~ and 0b~ect is more restrained and the occurrence of longer words Word andOb~ec~ 9oo First 95 35.8 .85 ~.i</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Order</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">does not imply more freedom of morphemic combination.</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">Table i. Stmmmry of word and segment correspondences.</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">The segmentation follows.</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">For // the / case / of //// sent // ence s //// general ly ////</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">how ever // or //// even // the / case / of // e tern al //</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">sent // ence s //// general ly sure ly //// there // i s ///</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF6": { |
| "text": "For the application of our segmentation rules it is of interest that fact, in all the English samples that we have considered, Var(ER) >Var(EL).Moreover, in these samples Cor(IE R -ELI , ER)~ Cor(JE R -ELI , EL) . The variances and correlations are shown inTable 2.", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td>Length</td><td>Var(E R)</td><td>Var(E L)</td></tr><tr><td>red and Sal_~y</td><td>~646</td><td>2.33</td><td>1.98</td></tr><tr><td>Robinson Crusoe</td><td>2100</td><td>3.63</td><td>3.46</td></tr><tr><td>Word andOb'ect</td><td>9OO</td><td>2.19</td><td>1.99</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>experiment which relates</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">constituent structure to memory blocks. Carried out in reverse order,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">where Ss are expected to remember preceding words, constituents are not</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">so well isolated.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">In our primer data, following morphemes are more variable than</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">preceding morphemes. Using entropy as a measure of diversity,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">E(E~) = E(EL) = 3.18,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">where E indicates expected value. It may be shown that the expected</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">value of right and left entropies must be equal. But for the variances</td></tr><tr><td>we find</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Var(E R) = 2.33 and Var(EL) = 1.98.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">The difference Var(ER) -Var(EL) is significant for this sample.</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF7": { |
| "text": "A study of the relationship between segmentation and sample size shows that segments are quite stable and do not change with respect to longer and longer portions of a text. In some cases, of course, larger samples break up segments which occurred initially ~or lack of distributional information. The general conclusion is that the distributional freedom with respect to limited contexts may be established from relatively small samples.With regard to establishing the distributional reality of printers' wordsj morpheme segments of fixed order do not necessarily approach words as the sample size increases. The distributional clusters which do not correspond to printers' words furnish style indicators. Thus, we have the segments: lookTed, ~ in Ted an~Sally; onboard and on__shore in Robinson Crusoe; and ~_~ and thecaseof in Word and Object. These stylistic groupings show the same strong association that is found between the morphemes occurring within words. TheBe groupings are not necessarily the mcst frequent in a \u2022sample. The groups onboard, thecaseof, etc. function as compounds in their respective texts. We may speculate about the role of morpheme frequency in the formation of compounds. To use our theory in a predictive sense, we would assert morphemes showing strong association, in the sense we have defined it, operate as compounds. Our rules enabla us to make statements about the relative ease of combination of linguistic units. We have already pointed out that in the .~obinson Crusoe sample th_~e, in the context the //h~ , shows neutral association, while in the context th__ee //// first, the disassociation is strong. A parallel example, also in Robinson Crusoe, is o nn where we find omboard, onshore. On the other hand, in the context of the prepositional phrases onus and ca them. we find the nentral associations on II we and on II t__h~.", |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "num": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
