Aronoff, M.: Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph I. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (1976).  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....dance are dancing 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 subj 2 4 pers 3 num sg 3 5 pred tanzen passive 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 In the case of psych verbs, however, the verbal morphology cannot introduce a subject. This can be attributed to the Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1973) or Blocking (Aronoff 1976) i.e. the principle that the existence of a more specific form precludes a less specific form from occurring. 24 Since non thematic es has case features, it is a more specific realization of the SUBJ than verbal morphology, which only contains person and number information. Therefore, the ....

Aronoff, M.(1976): Word Formation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

....interest in generative morphology. We will briefly examine how these cases are handled for English and for French, and how these approaches influenced our computational model for French. 4.3.1. Precedence Rules Ordering Hypothesis in English In generative morphology of English (Marchand, 1969; Aronoff, 1976; Scalise, 1986) affixes are classified into affixes and #affixes, i.e. Class I and Class II. The Ordering Hypothesis, which consists of giving some affixes precedence over others, is as follows: 1. Class I affixation 2. Cyclic phonological rules 3. Class II affixation In Table 4, inspired ....

Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

....necessary to apply statistical models for the calculation of productivity rates. 2 Before coming to the quantitative aspects we want to clarify the notion morphological productivity. Morphological productivity has long been a topic in theoretical morphology (see for example Schultink 1961, Aronoff 1976, van Marle 1985, and Plag 1999) It has been defined in many ways. We choose a definition by Schultink (1961, p. 113) which contains three aspects that are important to us: We see productivity as a morphological phenomenon as the possibility for language users to coin unintentionally an in ....

Aronoff M 1976 Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MIT Press.

....receives a distinctive 3sg interpretation where it competes with other forms of werden, but is unspecified for agreement features in the absence of paradigmatic competition. The paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimensions can be bridged by extending the morphological blocking principle proposed in Aronoff 1976 to regulate competition between inflected forms. A blocking principle that mediates between lexical entries and the structures they determine provides 2 a general means of associating a single entry with multiple syntagmatic interpretations. To make this proposal more concrete, let us adopt ....

.... underspecified forms from encroaching on the syntagmatic environments reserved for more specific forms Stated this way, the problem posed by underspecification is essentially paradigmatic in character and calls for a paradigmatic mechanism which, like the morphological blocking principle in Aronoff 1976, regulates competition between lexical alternatives. 2.3 Paradigmatic Blocking Aronoff s initial proposal, summarised in the passage below, attributes the non occurrence of forms like glorious ity to the prior existence of a synonymous underived form like glory. Blocking is the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....with entries via a subtype of exponence rule expresses the entries as rules proposal of Kiparsky 1982. As in Kiparsky s account, the use of generalised exponence rules avoids the need to invoke a preemptive lexical lookup to govern the blocking effects of lexicalised irregular forms, as in Aronoff (1976:42) and Anderson (1992:134) 3.1.4 The organisation of exponence rules Following Anderson 1992 and Stump (to appear) exponence rules are organised into rule blocks that express intrinsic ordering constraints on rule application. The analysis of wg conjugational systems requires at most the ....

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....derive the rather strong preference for the interpretation a liter of wine The fact that preferred interpretation may be influenced by the existence of alternative expressions for the same meaning is well known. Such effects are traditionally subsumed under the general notion of blocking (see Aronoff 1976 and Kiparsky 1982b; for an OT semantics perspective, see Blutner 1999) Blocking may be either partial or total (see for example Briscoe et al. 1995, Copestake and Briscoe 1995) A case in point is the well known phenomenon of conceptual grinding (see for example Pelletier and Schubert 1989) ....

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press.

.... s. However, preemption by synonymy with an irregularly derived lexical entry is only one form of semi productivity exemplified by lexical rules. Preemption by synonymy can also apply in cases where the blocking form is basic and does not involve affixation, such as glory blocking gloriosity (see Aronoff, 1976). Identity of lexical form between a derived and underived entry or a more irregular derived entry can serve to block the more regular derived entry, as with sticker which has a highly preferred meaning derived via object, as opposed to subject, er nominalization (compare bumper sticker to a ....

....for both basic and derived lexical entries independently of any lexical rules used to create derived entries. Thus we make no claim that a derived entry will necessarily be less frequent than a basic one. It might seem that this assumption commits us to a full entry theory of the lexicon (e.g. Aronoff, 1976; Jackendoff, 1997a) in which all possible words are present; that is, the consequences of lexical rules are precomputed. In the limit, the full entry theory cannot be correct because of the presence of recursive lexical rules such as derivational rules of re , anti or 7 In what follows we assume ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aronoff, Mark. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1.

....The need for conjunction is pervasive; this construct was also used in our initial example. In classification based knowledge representation, the use of negation and disjunction is often limited. But they occur in many natural morphological examples. Consider the following example, from [Aronoff 1976, p. 60] Citing an unpublished work of Emonds, Chapin states that the distribution of these affixes [English nominal suffixes 62 See, for instance, Meyer 1988] and [Zdonik Maier 1990] 63 All of these constructs have been studied in connection with taxonomic logics; see [Woods Schmolze ....

Mark Aronoff. Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.

....2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LW, UK alex cogsci.ed. ac.uk 1 Introduction A major motivation for the introduction of default inheritance mechanisms into theories of lexical organisation has been to account for the prevalence of the family of phenomena variously described as blocking (Aronoff, 1976:43) the elsewhere condition (Kiparsky, 1973) or preemption by synonymy (Clark Clark, 1979:798) In Copestake Briscoe (1991) we argued that productive processes of sense extension also undergo the same process, suggesting that an integrated account of lexical semantic and morphological ....

.... gloriousness, tropicalness) Nevertheless, there is a sense of markedness or awkwardness about such examples which is not present with forms which do not undergo noun formation with ity or compete with a non derived synonymous form (e.g. awkwardness, markedness, weakness, kindness) Aronoff (1976) argues that noun formation with ness, in contrast to ity, is fully productive, hence the lack of blocking with ness forms. This account does not address the difference in acceptability between those ness forms which are preempted by a synonymous underived form or one formed with ity. In ....

Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1.

....where the category is determined by the suffix. An approach of this kind was proposed for example by Selkirk (1982) See Spencer 1991 for references to related recent work, and an overview of the item and arrangement tradition in morphology. The second approach is exemplified for instance by Aronoff (1976) or Jackendoff (1975) following Chomsky 1970) who assume lexical rules or lexical redundancy rules. Here the affix is introduced syncategorematically in the rule, so in the corresponding structure (5) representing information about the word s derivation, the first part is still a verb, but the ....

Aronoff, Mark (1976): Word Formation in Generative Grammar . Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

.... structures, I shall use the following conventions (stemming from a generative morphological analysis which is usually refered to as lexical morphology, the central principle of which is the concept of the morphological component of a grammar as being word based rather than morpheme based (Aronoff (1976), who terminologically revised word based to lexeme based in Aronoff (1994) I will refrain from giving a synopsis of the entire framework and only discuss the points relevant to this study as they are applied in the course of the analysis the basics of first and newer generation generative ....

.... forms part of the traditional terminology of generative morphology, although lexeme as an equivalent term can also be observed (cf. e.g. Aronoff (1994) who considers the term to be less prone to misunderstandings) in more recent work (e.g. Beard (1995) Its status was originally formulated by Aronoff (1976) in the Word Based Hypothesis (WBH) All regular word formation processes are word based. A new word is formed by applying a regular rule to a single already existing word. Both the new word and the existing one are members of major lexical categories. Aronoff 1976, 21) The WBH in effect did ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aronoff, Mark (1976) Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.

....that conflicts with that required by category selection. Thus level ordering can be dismantled and the bracketing paradox dissolves. Before we begin our discussion of level ordering, let us discuss the constraint with which it conflicts: category selection. This constraint is mentioned in [Aronoff, 1976], although Aronoff was certainly not the first to notice the phenomenon. By category selection, I mean the fact that many affixes are restricted to applying to bases of certain syntactic categories. For example, the suffix less applies to nouns only: fearless, speakless, brokenless, ....

M. Aronoff, Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT press, 1976.

....suffix. An approach of this kind was proposed e.g. by Selkirk (1982) 1 But note that they may have different properties, and of course the translations that will be given cannot necessarily be used to make the same point for English in each case. 2 The second approach is exemplified by e.g. Aronoff (1976) or Jackendoff (1975) following Chomsky 1970) who assume lexical rules (or lexical redundancy rules) Here the affix is introduced syncategorematically in the rule, so in the corresponding structure (2) representing information about the word s derivation, the first part is still a verb, but ....

....to the affix. 60 need to be able to distinguish between derived and non derived words. On the other hand there is no lexical entry for the affix, an aspect that the approach has in common with process based proposals which view derivation as a relation between lexical entries (Jackendoff (1975) Aronoff (1976), Pollard Sag (1987) Flickinger (1988) Zwicky (1989) and Anderson (1992) While it would be possible to describe bar suffixation as a purely phonological effect in a hierarchy of the proposed kind, it does not seem desirable to do so. The new conception offers the interesting possibility of ....

Aronoff, Mark (1976): Word Formation in Generative Grammar . Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

....approach is a partial entry approach where information that can be derived from a redundancy rule is not listed in the new lexeme. Instead, it is produced when needed. The choice between a full and a partial entry approach is an implementational issue that involves a space time tradeoff. Aronoff [1976] develops a conception of the lexicon similar to Jackendoff s. Aronoff s system is lexeme based and has a set of word formation rules (WFR s) that apply to lexemes in the system in order to create new lexemes. Aronoff also adheres to the lexical hypothesis. It is the dictionary entries themselves ....

M. Aronoff, Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT press, 1976.

....for the processing of regular and irregular forms. cf. Pinker and Prince, 1991) The existence of precedence ordered (sub)modules of propositional level templates and firstorder rules can provide an even more plausible mechanism for implementing the Blocking Principle. cf. Kiparsky, 1982; Aronoff, 1976; Pinker and Prince, 1991, Marcus et al. 1993) The successful matching of a verb stem into one of the associative templates has the effect of blocking the firing of the default rules. On the other hand, the loosening of these associative templates as a result of memory failure, or infrequent ....

Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....precompiling of word forms. 2. Morphology syntax Interface Modelling inflections, derivations, and the corresponding phonological alternations via lexical rules places morphology in the lexicon (cf. Figure 1c) Morphemes have no representational status. This is essentially word based morphology (Aronoff, 1976; Anderson, 1992) by lexical rules. Alternatives to this approach (for Turkish) have also been explored, such as the modularization of syntax and morphology (cf. Figure 1a) which keeps them and their lexicons as separate systems (Gungordu and Oflazer, 1995) The flow of information is ....

Aronoff, M.: 1976, Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

.... w instrument 0.1 w substance 0.84 use subst lr Figure 3: Lexeme for lacquer the probability of an unattested derived entry given a word form. We can estimate the relative productivity of each lexical rule by calculating the ratio of possible to attested outputs for each rule (cf Aronoff, 1976): Prod(lexical rule) M N (where N is the number of attested lexical entries which match the lexical rule input and M is the number of attested output entries) We discuss some more elaborate measurements for productivity in section 4. This information concerning degree of productivity of a ....

Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1.

....the many different valence and semantic entries for aller; it can mean go , leave , fit , etc. Significantly, these semantically different entries for aller all share the four stems; each entry can appear with any of the stems, and the endings which attach to these stems are regular. In Aronoff s (1976) terms, there are many French words which correspond to a single morpheme aller. 7) a. Marc allait a Paris. Marc go.impf to Paris Marc went to Paris b. Marc s en ira. Marc refl of.it go.fut Marc will leave. c. Ce costume te va bien. This suit you go.pr well This suit fits you well (lit. goes ....

ARONOFF, MARK. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....for both basic and derived lexical entries independently of any lexical rules used to create derived entries. Thus we make no claim that a derived entry will necessarily be less frequent than a basic one. It might seem that this assumption commits us to a full entry theory of the lexicon (e.g. Aronoff, 1976; Jackendoff, 1997a) in which all possible words are present; that is, the consequences of lexical rules are precomputed. In the limit, the full entry theory cannot be correct because of the presence of recursive lexical rules such as derivational rules of re , anti or great prefixation in words ....

....entry given a word form. 7 Within the probabilistic framework presented above lexical rules are not directly associated with probabilities. Nevertheless we can represent the relative productivity of each lexical rule by calculating the ratio of possible to attested outputs for each rule (c.f. Aronoff, 1976): Prod(lexical rule) M N (where N is the number of attested lexical entries which match the lexical rule input and M is the number of attested output entries) This is a very simple estimate of productivity, and more complex accounts are considered below. The estimate for degree of ....

Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1.

.... not identical: ful suffixation has an additional entailment of fullness or completeness which accounts for the preferred usage of ful nominals as measure phrases (e.g. A spoon spoonful of sugar in a recipe context) Such differences are expected given blocking preemption by synonymy (e.g. Aronoff, 1976; x6 and below) amenable to this approach; for instance, Atkins and Levin (1992) identify two senses of reel appropriate to the interpretation of film reel and fishing reel and demonstrate that some but not all extant conventional dictionaries list these two senses. Often the precise ....

....predicates selecting for the ground and unground senses of a complement, especially if this is combined with co composition, as (12) illustrates. 12) a Sam fed and carved the lamb b Sam fed and enjoyed the lamb 16 This makes our approach closest to that of word based morphology (e.g. Aronoff, 1976) but with the possibility of phrasal based operations as well. 17 In fact, there is more to be said on this topic, since it seems plausible that derivational rules are less ambiguous, because of the information about the process conveyed by the affix, and therefore, perhaps more fine grained in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

No context found.

Aronoff, M.: Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph I. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (1976).

No context found.

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

No context found.

Cognition, 60, 65-82. Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.

No context found.

Aronoff M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph No. 1, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

No context found.

Aronoff, Mark, Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC