[Fwd: Re: [developers] processing of lexical rules]

[Jeff Good]

Hello everyone,

I've been following the discussion of morphology in the LKB over the 
last week or so and now that Emily has brought up the Montage project, 
I thought I would share some of my current thinking on how Montage's 
"morphophonology" component would work (much of the stuff that's been 
discussed Emily and I are calling "morphophonology" to emphasize an 
idea that we will use one system to "unpack" complex "squished" 
phonological strings into "clean" agglutinating-like morphological 
structures that will then be interpreted for morphosyntactic content).

I'm attaching to this e-mail a diagram I've been playing with for 
Emily's and my CLS paper a few months from now. It's a more detailed 
specification of the bipartite lexicon we proposed in our LSA talk. 
(Actually, in the formulation in the diagram it's grown into something 
like sesquibipartite since I've added the category of "lexicographic" 
information as distinct from morphophonological and morphosyntactic 
information.) Perhaps this will be interesting to people thinking about 
the LKB's morphological support.

The morphophonological analyzer we envision has to be able to handle 
just about anything a linguist working on an undocumented language 
might want to throw at it--arbitrary position classes, bizarre 
cooccurrence restrictions, multiple exponence of morphological 
categories (like person agreement), suprasegmental morphology, etc. In 
the current conception, the LKB still does some morphological analysis, 
but this is limited to analyzing what are effectively agglutinating 
structures, which are an attempt to abstract away from the problems of 
"fusion".

Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MontageMorphophon.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32986 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20050218/966df5a2/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------