Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:01:54.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Network Morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal inflection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Greville G. Corbett  and
Norman M. Fraser
Greville G. Corbett
Affiliation:
Greville Corbett, Department of Linguistic and International Studies, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK.1
Norman M. Fraser
Affiliation:
Norman Fraser, Vocalis Ltd, Chaston House, Mill Court, Cambridge CB2 5LD, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper we introduce a declarative approach to inflectional morphology, which we call Network Morphology, using the lexical representation language DATR. We show that we can account for a range of (Russian) data, for which previously various rule types were required, and can provide a more satisfying analysis than was previously available. First we outline the essential data (section 2), highlighting the problems they present. Section 3 introduces the basic tenets of Network Morphology. This draws heavily on DATR, which we present in outline in section 4. Next we reconsider the Russian declensional classes from this new perspective (section 5). We show how the approach described overcomes long-standing problems in an elegant fashion; the complexity of the data suggests that the approach adopted has implications well beyond Russian. We then tackle the complex problem of animacy in Russian, which exemplifies interesting regularities extending across declensional classes (section 6).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 113 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen R. (1982). Where's morphology? LIn 13. 571–612.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred (1967). Syntactic features in morphology: general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. In To Honor Roman Jakobson I. The Hague: Mouton. 239–270.Google Scholar
Bird, Steven & Klein, Ewan (1990). Phonological events. JL 26. 33–56.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Robert J. & Webber, Bonnie Lynn (1980). Knowledge representation for syntactic/semantic processing. Proceedings of the First Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Stanford. 316–323.Google Scholar
Brachman, Ronald J. (1985). ‘I lied about the trees.’ Or, defaults and definitions in knowledge representation. AI Magazine 6. 80–93.Google Scholar
Brachman, Ronald J. & Levesque, Hector (eds.) (1985). Readings in knowledge representation. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Briscoe, Ted, Copestake, Ann & de Paiva, Valeria (eds.) (1993). Default inheritance within unification-based approaches to the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Hippisley, Andrew (forthcoming). Conflict in Russian genitive plural assignment: a solution implemented in DATR. Paper read at the Spring Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of Birmingham, 24 March 1993.Google Scholar
Calder, Jonathan (1989). Paradigmatic morphology. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Manchester, England. 58–65.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew (1987). Allomorphy in inflection. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard S. (1978). Genitive–accusatives in Slavic: the rules and their motivation. International Review of Slavic Linguistics 3. 27–42.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. (1981). Syntactic features. JL 17. 55–76.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. (1982). Gender in Russian: an account of gender specification and its relationship to declension. Russian Linguistics 6. 197–232.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. (1988). Gender in Slavonic from the standpoint of a general typology of gender systems. Slavonic and East European Review 66. 1–20.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter (1987). Studies in language technology. An object-oriented computer model of morphophonological aspects of Dutch. PhD thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter & Gazdar, Gerald (eds.) (1992). Special issue on inheritance I & II. Computational Linguistics 18.2 & 18.3.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, De Smedt, Koenraad & Gazdar, Gerald (1992). Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics 18. 205–218.Google Scholar
Dingwall, W. O. (1969). Government, concord and feature-change rules. Glossa 3. 200–240.Google Scholar
Domenig, M. (1989). Word Manager: a system for the specification, use, and maintenance of morphological knowledge. Habilitation thesis, University of Zürich.Google Scholar
Erjavec, Tomaž (1992). Treatments of Slovene verb morphology in inheritance models. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger (1990). An introduction to the Sussex Prolog DATR system. In Evans, Roger & Gazdar, Gerald (eds.) The DATR papers. (Cognitive Science Research Report CSRP 139). University of Sussex. 63–71.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger & Gazdar, Gerald (1989a). Inference in DATR. Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Manchester, England. 66–71.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger & Gazdar, Gerald (1989b). The semantics of DATR. In Cohn, A. G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour. London: Pitman/Morgan Kaufmann. 79–87.Google Scholar
Fahlman, Scott E. (1979). Representing and using real-world knowledge. In Winston, Patrick H. & Brown, R. H. (eds.) Artificial intelligence: an MIT perspective, vol. I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 451–470.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel, Pollard, Carl & Wasow, Thomas (1985). Structure-sharing in lexical representation. Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Chicago. 262–267.Google Scholar
Fraser, Norman M. & Corbett, Greville G. (forthcoming). Russian gender assignment in DATR. Paper read at the Spring Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of Birmingham, 24 March 1993.Google Scholar
Fraser, Norman M. & Hudson, Richard (1992). Inheritance in Word Grammar. Computational Linguistics 18. 133–158.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald (1987). Linguistic applications of default inheritance mechanisms. In Whitelock, P., Wood, M. M., Somers, H. L., Johnson, R. & Bennett, P. (eds.) Linguistic theory and computer applications. London: Academic Press. 37–68.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald (1990). An introduction to DATR. In Evans, Roger & Gazdar, Gerald (eds.) The DATR papers (Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP 139). School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex. 1–14.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald (forthcoming). Ceteris paribus. To appear in Kamp, J. A. W. & Rohrer, C. (eds.) Aspects of computational linguistics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd (1992). ILEX: a linguistic approach to computational lexica. In Klenk, Ursula (ed.) Computatio linguae: Aufsätze zur algorithmischen und quantitativen Analyse der Sprache (= Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 73). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 32–53.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard (1984). Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard (1990). English word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Isačenko, A. V. (1962). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart, vol. I: Formenlehre. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Elizabeth A. (1990). Enhancements to the Sussex Prolog DATR system. In Evans, Roger & Gazdar, Gerald (eds.) The DATR papers (Cognitive Science Research Report CSRP 139). School of Computing and Cognitive Sciences, University of Sussex. 41–61.Google Scholar
Karcevskij, S. (1932). Sur la structure du substantif russe. In Charisteria Guilelmo Mathesio Quinquagenario: a discipulis et circuli linguistic pragensis sodalibus oblata. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague. 65–73.Google Scholar
Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. & Vernaud, J.-R. (1985). The internal structure of phonological elements: a theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2. 303–328.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moser, Lionel (1992). Simulating Turing machines in DATR. Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP 241. School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. & Orešnik, Janez (1973). Language-particular rules and explanation in syntax. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt Rinehart. 419–459.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. I: Fundamentals. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1959). In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society. 116–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Graham, Ballim, Afzal, Carroll, John & Warwick-Armstrong, Susan (1992). A practical approach to multiple default inheritance for unification-based lexicons. Computational Linguistics 18. 311–337.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew (1991). Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stankiewicz, Edward (1968). Declension and gradation of Russian substantives in contemporary standard Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Stefik, Mark & Bobrow, Daniel G. (1985). Object-oriented programming: themes and variations. Al Magazine 6. 40–62.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. (1991). A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67. 675–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. (1993). On rules of referral. Language 69.Google Scholar
Thomas-Flinders, Tracy (1981). Inflectional morphology: introduction to the extended word and paradigm theory. Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4, UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan (1993). Russian. In Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge. 827–886.Google Scholar
Touretzky, David S. (1986). The mathematics of inheritance systems. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Touretzky, David S., Horty, John F. & Thomason, Richmond H. (1987). A clash of intuitions: the current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems. Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Milan. 476–482.Google Scholar
Unbegaun, Boris O. (1957). Russian grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, V. V., Istrina, E. S. & Barxudarov, S. G. (eds.) (1952). Grammatika russkogo jazyka, vol. I: Fonetika i morfologija. Moscow: AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Deirdre (1988). Consequences of some categorially-motivated phonological assumptions. In Oherle, Richard T., Bach, Emmon & Wheeler, Deirdre (eds.) Categorial grammars and natural language structures. Dordrecht: Reidel. 467–488.Google Scholar
Yngve, Victor H. (1958). A programming language for mechanical translation. Mechanical Translation 5. 25–41.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. (1967). Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold (1985). How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj, Mary, Van Clay, Mary, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki & Feder, Deborah (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: BLS, University of California. 372–386.Google Scholar