An analogical approach to the typology of inflectional complexity

• Autorzy: Guzmán Naranjo Matías

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v12i2.352

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper studies the inflectional complexity of nouns, verbs and adjectives in 137 datasets, across 71 languages. I follow Ackerman and Malouf (2013) in distinguishing between E(numerative) complexity and I(ntegrative) complexity. The first one encompasses aspects of inflection, like the number of principal parts, paradigm size, and number of exponents, while the second one captures the implicative relations between paradigm cells (how difficult it is to predict one cell of a paradigm knowing a different cell). I provide a formalism and computational implementation to estimate both I- and E-complexity expressed through Word and Paradigm morphology (Blevins 2006, 2016), which is flexible and powerful enough for typological research. The results show that, as suggested by Ackerman and Malouf (2013), I-complexity is relatively low across the languages in the sample, with only two clear exceptions (Navajo and Yaitepec-Chatino). The results also show that E-complexity can vary considerably crosslinguistically. Finally, I show there is a clear correlation between I- and E-complexity.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

inflectional complexity; typology; analogy; Word and Paradigm morphology

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: Vol. 12, No. 2
• Strony: 415--475
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 106 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Guzmán Naranjo Matías

• Sprachwissenschaftliches Seminar Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1136-6836

Bibliografia

• 1. Farrell ACKERMAN and Robert MALOUF (2013), Morphological organization: the low conditional entropy conjecture, Language, 89(3):429-464, doi:10.1353/lan.2013.0054.
• 2. Adam ALBRIGHT, Argelia ANDRADE, and Bruce HAYES (2001), Segmental environments of Spanish diphthongization, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 7(5):117-151.
• 3. Adam ALBRIGHT and Bruce HAYES (1999), An automated learner for phonology and morphology, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d74/ 847ecd575887fcfe42ea022c2d82750fe7d9.pdf, unpublished manuscript.
• 4. Peter ARKADIEV and Francesco GARDANI (2020), The complexities of morphology, in Peter ARKADIEV and Francesco GARDANI, editors, The complexities of morphology, pp. 1-19, Oxford University Press.
• 5. Sabine ARNDT-LAPPE (2011), Towards an exemplar-based model of stress in English noun–noun compounds, Journal of Linguistics, 47(3):549-585.
• 6. Sabine ARNDT-LAPPE (2014), Analogy in suffix rivalry: the case of English -ity and -ness, English Language and Linguistics, 18(3):497-548.
• 7. R. Harald BAAYEN, Yu-Ying CHUANG, and Maria HEITMEIER (2019a), WpmWithLdl: implementation of word and paradigm morphology with linear discriminative learning R package version 2.
• 8. R. Harald BAAYEN, Yu-Ying CHUANG, Elnaz SHAFAEI-BAJESTAN, and James P. BLEVINS (2019b), The discriminative lexicon: a unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning, Complexity, 2019:1-39.
• 9. R. Harald BAAYEN, Richard PIEPENBROCK, and Leon GULIKERS (1996), The CELEX lexical database (cd-rom).
• 10. Matthew BAERMAN, Dunstan BROWN, and Greville G. CORBETT, editors (2015), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity, Oxford University Press.
• 11. Matthew BAERMAN, Dunstan BROWN, and Greville G. CORBETT (2017), Morphological complexity, Cambridge University Press.
• 12. Sacha BENIAMINE (2017), Un algorithme universel pour l’abstraction automatique d’alternances morphophonologiques, in 24e conférence sur le traitement automatique des langues naturelles (TALN), volume 2.
• 13. Sacha BENIAMINE (2018), Classifications flexionnelles: étude quantitative des structures de paradigmes, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris Diderot.
• 14. Sacha BENIAMINE (Forthcoming), One lexeme, many classes: inflection class systems as lattices, in Berthold CRYSMANN and Manfred SAILER, editors, One-to-many relations in morphology, syntax and semantics, Language Science Press.
• 15. Sacha BENIAMINE, Olivier BONAMI, and Ana R. LUÍS (2021), The fine implicative structure of European Portuguese conjugation, Isogloss. Open Journal of Romance Linguistics, 7:1-35, ISSN 2385-4138, doi:10.5565/rev/isogloss.109, https://revistes.uab.cat/isogloss/article/view/ v7-beniamine-bonami-luis.
• 16. Sacha BENIAMINE and Matías GUZMÁN NARANJO (2021), Multiple alignments of inflectional paradigms, in Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (SCiL), volume 4, pp. 216-227, doi:10.7275/ymc0-p491.
• 17. Charles Edwin BENNETT (1918), New Latin grammar, Allyn and Bacon.
• 18. Christian BENTZ and Dimitrios ALIKANIOTIS (2016), The word entropy of natural languages, unpublished arXiv manuscript.
• 19. Christian BENTZ, Ximena GUTIERREZ-VASQUES, Olga SOZINOVA, and Tanja SAMARDŽIĆ (2022), Complexity trade-offs and equi-complexity in natural languages: a meta-analysis, Linguistics Vanguard, doi:10.1515/lingvan-2021-0054.
• 20. Christian BENTZ, Tatyana RUZSICS, Alexander KOPLENIG, and Tanja SAMARDŽIĆ (2016), A comparison between morphological complexity measures: typological data vs. language corpora, in Proceedings of the workshop on computational linguistics for linguistic complexity (CL4LC), pp. 142-153.
• 21. Christian BENTZ and Bodo WINTER (2013), Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case, Language Dynamics and Change, 3(1):1-27, doi:10.1163/22105832-13030105.
• 22. Balthasar BICKEL, Goma BANJADE, Martin GAENSZLE, Elena LIEVEN, Netra Prasad PAUDYAL, Ichchha Purna RAI, Manoj RAI, Novel Kishore RAI, and Sabine STOLL (2007), Free prefix ordering in Chintang, Language, pp. 43-73.
• 23. Balthasar BICKEL and Johanna NICHOLS (2007), Inflectional morphology, in Timothy SHOPEN, editor, Language typology and syntactic description, volume 3, pp. 169-240, Cambridge University Press, 2 edition.
• 24. Balthasar BICKEL and Johanna NICHOLS (2013), Inflectional synthesis of the verb, in Matthew S. DRYER and Martin HASPELMATH, editors, The world atlas of language structures online, Max Planck Digital Library.
• 25. James P. BLEVINS (2006), Word-based morphology, Journal of Linguistics, 42(3):531-573.
• 26. James P. BLEVINS (2013), The information-theoretic turn, Psihologija, 46(3):355-375, ISSN 00485705, doi:10.2298/PSI1304355B.
• 27. James P. BLEVINS (2016), Word and paradigm morphology, Oxford University Press.
• 28. Olivier BONAMI and Sacha BENIAMINE (2016), Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms, Word Structure, 9(2):156-182.
• 29. Olivier BONAMI and Sacha BENIAMINE (2021), Leaving the stem by itself, in Marcia HAAG, Sedigheh MORADI, Andrija PETROVIC, and Janie REES-MILLER, editors, All things morphology, pp. 82-98, John Benjamins.
• 30. Olivier BONAMI, Gauthier CARON, and Clément PLANCQ (2014), Construction d’un lexique flexionnel phonétisé libre du Français, in SHS web of conferences, volume 8, pp. 2583-2596, EDP Sciences, doi:10.1051/shsconf/20140801223.
• 31. Olivier BONAMI and Berthold CRYSMANN (2013), Morphotactics in an information-based model of realisational morphology, in Stefan MÜLLER, editor, Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Freie Universität Berlin, pp. 27-47.
• 32. Olivier BONAMI, Lukáš KYJÁNEK, and Marine WAUQUIER (2023), Assessing the featural organisation of paradigms with distributional methods, Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics, 6(1):310-320.
• 33. Olivier BONAMI and Matteo PELLEGRINI (2022), Derivation predicting inflection: a quantitative study of the relation between derivational history and inflectional behavior in Latin, Studies in Language, 46(4):753-792, doi:10.1075/sl.21002.bon.
• 34. Joan L. BYBEE and Dan I. SLOBIN (1982), Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense, Language, 58(2):265-289.
• 35. Paul-Christian BÜRKNER (2017), Brms: an R package for bayesian multilevel models using stan, Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1):1-28, doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01.
• 36. Franco Alberto CARDILLO, Marcello FERRO, Claudia MARZI, and Vito PIRRELLI (2018), Deep learning of inflection and the cell-filling problem, IJCoL. Italian Journal of Computational Linguistics, 4(4-1):57-75.
• 37. Bob CARPENTER, Andrew GELMAN, Matthew HOFFMAN, Daniel LEE, Ben GOODRICH, Michael BETANCOURT, Marcus BRUBAKER, Jiqiang GUO, Peter LI, and Allen RIDDELL (2017), Stan: a probabilistic programming language, Journal of Statistical Software, Articles, 76(1):1-32, ISSN 1548-7660, doi:10.18637/jss.v076.i01.
• 38. Andrew CARSTAIRS (1983), Paradigm economy, Journal of Linguistics, 19(1):115-128.
• 39. Andrew CARSTAIRS (1990), Phonologically conditioned suppletion, in Wolfgang U. DRESSLER, Hans C. LUSCHÜTZKY, Oskar E. PFEIFFER, and John R. RENNISON, editors, Contemporary morphology, number 49 in Trends in Linguistics, pp. 17-23, De Gruyter, Berlin.
• 40. Andrew CARSTAIRS (1998), Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion, in Geert E. BOOIJ and Jaap VAN MARLE, editors, Yearbook of morphology 1998, pp. 67-94, Springer.
• 41. Andrew CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY (1994), Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast, Language, pp. 737-788.
• 42. Tianqi CHEN and Carlos GUESTRIN (2016), Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 785-794.
• 43. Ryan COTTERELL, Christo KIROV, Mans HULDEN, and Jason EISNER (2019), On the complexity and typology of inflectional morphological systems, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:327-342, doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00271.
• 44. Sara COURT, Micha ELSNER, and Andrea D. SIMS (2022), Quantifying factors shaping analogical restructuring of the Maltese nominal system, Talk at the International Morphology Meeting, Budapest.
• 45. Michael A. COVINGTON and Joe D. MCFALL (2008), The moving-average type-token ratio, in Linguistics Society of America.
• 46. Michael A. COVINGTON and Joe D. MCFALL (2010), Cutting the Gordian knot: the moving-average type–token ratio (MATTR), Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 17(2):94-100.
• 47. Walter DAELEMANS and Antal VAN DEN BOSCH (2005), Memory-based language processing, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80890-1.
• 48. Walter DAELEMANS, Jakub ZAVREL, Ko VAN DER SLOOT, and Antal VAN DEN BOSCH (1998), TiMBL: Tilburg memory-based learner, Technical report, Universiteit van Tilburg, https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/ timbl-tilburg-memory-based-learner-version-10-reference-guide.
• 49. Wolfgang U. DRESSLER (2011), The rise of complexity in inflectional morphology, Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47(2):159.
• 50. Matthew S. DRYER and Martin HASPELMATH (2013), The world atlas of language structures online, Max Planck Digital Library, https://wals.info/.
• 51. David EDDINGTON (2000), Analogy and the dual-route model of morphology, Lingua, 110(4):281-298.
• 52. Katharina EHRET (2021), An information-theoretic view on language complexity and register variation: Compressing naturalistic corpus data, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(2):383-410.
• 53. Micha ELSNER, Andrea D. SIMS, Alexander ERDMANN, Antonio HERNANDEZ, Evan JAFFE, Lifeng JIN, Martha Booker JOHNSON, Shuan KARIM, David L. KING, Luana Lamberti NUNES, et al. (2019), Modeling morphological learning, typology, and change: what can the neural sequence-to-sequence framework contribute?, Journal of Language Modelling, 7(1):53-98.
• 54. Micha ELSNER et al. (2022), OSU at SigMorphon 2022: analogical inflection with rule features, in Proceedings of the 19th SIGMORPHON workshop on computational research in phonetics, phonology, and morphology, pp. 220-225.
• 55. Stefano FEDERICI and Vito PIRRELLI (1997), Analogy, computation, and linguistic theory, in New methods in language processing, pp. 16-34, UCL Press London.
• 56. Stefano FEDERICI, Vito PIRRELLI, and Franqois YVON (1995a), Advances in analogy-based learning: false friends and exceptional items in pronunciation by paradigm-driven analogy, in Proceedings of international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’95) workshop on new approaches to learning for natural language processing, Montreal, Canada, pp. 158-163.
• 57. Stefano FEDERICI, Vito PIRRELLI, and François YVON (1995b), A dynamic approach to paradigm-driven analogy, in Stefan WERMTER, Ellen RILOFF, and Gabriele SCHELER, editors, IJCAI 1995: connectionist, statistical and symbolic approaches to learning for natural language processing, volume 1040 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 385-398, Springer.
• 58. Timothy FEIST and Enrique L. PALANCAR (2015), Oto-Manguean inflectional class database, University of Surrey.
• 59. Raphael FINKEL and Gregory STUMP (2007), Principal parts and morphological typology, Morphology, 17:39-75.
• 60. Joseph H. GREENBERG (1960), A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language, International Journal of American Linguistics, 26(3):178-194.
• 61. Ximena GUTIERREZ-VASQUES and Victor MIJANGOS (2018), Comparing morphological complexity of Spanish, Otomi and Nahuatl, https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04314, unpublished manuscript.
• 62. Ximena GUTIERREZ-VASQUES and Victor MIJANGOS (2019), Productivity and predictability for measuring morphological complexity, Entropy. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Entropy and Information Studies, 22(1):48.
• 63. Matías GUZMÁN NARANJO (2019a), Analogical classification in formal grammar, Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax, Language Science Press, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3191825.
• 64. Matías GUZMÁN NARANJO (2019b), Analogy-based morphology: the Kasem number system, in Stefan MÜLLER and Petya OSENOVA, editors, Proceedings of the 26th international conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Bucharest, pp. 26-41, CSLI Publications.
• 65. Matías GUZMÁN NARANJO (2020), Analogy, complexity and predictability in the Russian nominal inflection system, Morphology, 30:219-262.
• 66. Matías GUZMÁN NARANJO and Olivier BONAMI (2021), Overabundance and inflectional classification: quantitative evidence from Czech, Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1).
• 67. Martin HASPELMATH (2011), The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax, Folia Linguistica, 45(1):31-80.
• 68. Iván IGARTUA and Ekaitz SANTAZILIA (2018), How animacy and natural gender constrain morphological complexity: evidence from diachrony, Open Linguistics, 4(1):438-452.
• 69. Patrick JUOLA (1998), Measuring linguistic complexity: the morphological tier, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 5(3):206-213.
• 70. Patrick JUOLA (2008), Assessing linguistic complexity, in Matti MIESTAMO, Kaius SINNEMÄKI, and Fred KARLSSON, editors, Language complexity: typology, contact, change, pp. 89-108, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
• 71. Kimmo KETTUNEN (2014), Can type-token ratio be used to show morphological complexity of languages?, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 21(3):223-245.
• 72. Christo KIROV, Ryan COTTERELL, John SYLAK-GLASSMAN, Géraldine WALTHER, Ekaterina VYLOMOVA, Patrick XIA, Manaal FARUQUI, Sebastian J. MIELKE, Arya MCCARTHY, Sandra KÜBLER, et al. (2018), UniMorph 2.0: universal morphology, in Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC-2018), European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
• 73. Alexander KOPLENIG, Peter MEYER, Sascha WOLFER, and Carolin MÜLLER-SPITZER (2017), The statistical trade-off between word order and word structure – large-scale evidence for the principle of least effort, PLOS ONE, 12(3):1-25, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173614.
• 74. Yves LEPAGE (1998), Solving analogies on words: an algorithm, in COLING 1998 volume 1: the 17th international conference on computational linguistics, pp. 728-735.
• 75. Yves LEPAGE (2004), Analogy and formal languages, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 53:180-191.
• 76. Vladimir I. LEVENSHTEIN (1966), Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals, Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8):707-710.
• 77. Emily LINDSAY-SMITH, Matthew BAERMAN, Sacha BENIAMINE, Helen SIMS-WILLIAMS, and Erich R. ROUND (2024), Analogy in inflection, Annual Review of Linguistics, 10(1):211-231, ISSN 2333-9683, 2333-9691, doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-040935, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/ annurev-linguistics-030521-040935.
• 78. Gary LUPYAN and Rick DALE (2010), Language structure is partly determined by social structure, Plos One, 5(1):1-10, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008559.
• 79. Jorma LUUTONEN (1997), The variation of morpheme order in Mari declension: suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia, Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, Helsinki.
• 80. Robert MALOUF (2017), Abstractive morphological learning with a recurrent neural network, Morphology, 27(4):431-458.
• 81. Stela MANOVA, Harald HAMMARSTRÖM, Itamar KASTNER, and Yining NIE (2020), What is in a morpheme? theoretical, experimental and computational approaches to the relation of meaning and form in morphology, Word Structure, 13(1):1-21.
• 82. Claudia MARZI (2020), Modeling word learning and processing with recurrent neural networks, Information – an International Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(6):320-334.
• 83. Claudia MARZI, Marcello FERRO, and Vito PIRRELLI (2019), A processing-oriented investigation of inflectional complexity, Frontiers in Communication, 4(48):1-23.
• 84. Clive A. MATTHEWS (2005), French gender attribution on the basis of similarity: a comparison between AM and connectionist models, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 12:262-296.
• 85. Clive A. MATTHEWS (2010), On the nature of phonological cues in the acquisition of French gender categories: evidence from instance-based learning models, Lingua, 120(4):879-900.
• 86. Clive A. MATTHEWS (2013), On the analogical modelling of the English past-tense: a critical assessment, Lingua, 133:360-373, ISSN 0024-3841, doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.04.002.
• 87. Peter Hugoe MATTHEWS (1972), Inflectional morphology: a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation, CUP Archive.
• 88. Matti MIESTAMO et al. (2008), Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective, in Matti MIESTAMO, Kaius SINNEMÄKI, and Fred KARLSSON, editors, Language complexity: typology, contact, change, pp. 23-41, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
• 89. Fermin MOSCOSO DEL PRADO (2011), The mirage of morphological complexity, in Proceedings of the annual meeting of the GG, 33.
• 90. Yoon Mi OH and François PELLEGRINO (2022), Towards robust complexity indices in linguistic typology: a corpus-based assessment, Studies in Language, pp. 1-41.
• 91. Enrique L. PALANCAR (2021), Paradigmatic structure in the tonal inflection of Amuzgo, Morphology, 31(1):45-82.
• 92. Jeff PARKER and Andrea SIMS (2020), Irregularity, paradigmatic layers, and the complexity of inflection class systems: a study of Russian nouns, in Peter ARKADIEV and Francesco GARDANI, editors, The complexities of morphology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• 93. Matteo PELLEGRINI and Marco PASSAROTTI (2018), Latin-flexi: an inflected lexicon of Latin verbs, in Elena CABRIO, Alessandro MAZZEI, and Fabio TAMBURINI, editors, Proceedings of the fifth Italian conference on computational linguistics (CLiC-it 2018), volume 2253, pp. 324-329, Accademia University Press.
• 94. Neil RATHI, Michael HAHN, and Richard FUTRELL (2022), Explaining patterns of fusion in morphological paradigms using the memory–surprisal tradeoff, in Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
• 95. Benoît SAGOT and Géraldine WALTHER (2011), Non-canonical inflection: data, formalisation and complexity measures, SFCM, 100:23-45.
• 96. Andrea D. SIMS and Jeff PARKER (2016), How inflection class systems work: on the informativity of implicative structure, Word Structure, 9(2):215-239.
• 97. Kaius SINNEMÄKI and Francesca DI GARBO (2018), Language structures may adapt to the sociolinguistic environment, but it matters what and how you count: a typological study of verbal and nominal complexity, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, ISSN 1664-1078, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01141.
• 98. Royal SKOUSEN (1989), Analogical modeling of language, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• 99. Royal SKOUSEN (1992), Analogy and structure, Springer.
• 100. Royal SKOUSEN, Deryle LONSDALE, and Dilworth B. PARKINSON (2002), Analogical modeling: an exemplar-based approach to language, number 10 in Cognitive Processing, John Benjamins.
• 101. Peter SMIT, Sami VIRPIOJA, Stig-Arne GRÖNROOS, and Mikko KURIMO (2014), Morfessor 2.0: toolkit for statistical morphological segmentation, in The 14th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL).
• 102. Andrew SPENCER (2012), Identifying stems, Word Structure, 5(1):88-108.
• 103. Nicolas STROPPA and François YVON (2005), An analogical learner for morphological analysis, in Proceedings of the ninth conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL-2005), pp. 120-127.
• 104. Gregory T. STUMP and Rafael FINKEL (2013), Morphological typology: from word to paradigm, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.
• 105. Géraldine WALTHER and Benoît SAGOT (2011), Modélisation et implémentation de phénomènes flexionnels non-canoniques, Traitement Automatique des Langues, 52(2):91-122.
• 106. Robert W. YOUNG (2000), The Navajo verb system: an overview, University of New Mexico Press.