No escape from morphemes in morphological processing

Any approach to understanding morphological processing must begin with assumptions about the role of morphemes in linguistic representations. Contemporary linguistic theory proposes that such representations are centred on a syntactic organisation of morphemes, where a morpheme is an abstract syntactic unit that finds an interpretation in form and in meaning. From the linguist's perspective, then, morphological processing falls together with syntactic processing, and both involve the central exploitation of a grammar of morphemes. Recent computational work has challenged this perspective, proposing instead that morphological structure emerges from the acquisition of form/meaning connections. Here we show that these challenges to the role of morphemes in word and sentence processing rest on a misunderstanding of the morpheme within linguistic theory. Once we understand the notion of a morpheme and its explanatory role within linguistic theory, we can see that apparent challenges to the morpheme, rather than dispensing with the morpheme in the architecture of linguistic representations, always in fact presuppose a syntactic structure of morphemes as the unlearned input to language learning models. Since computational modelling is indispensable for work connecting theories of linguistic representation to theories of (morphological) processing, it is crucial that those constructing computational models appreciate why there is no escape from morphemes in morphological processing.

[1]  H. Harley,et al.  DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY , 1999 .

[2]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Architecture and Blocking , 2008, Linguistic Inquiry.

[3]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Evidence for Early Morphological Decomposition in Visual Word Recognition , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  G. Carlson Determinerless noun phrases , 1999 .

[5]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Some key features of distributed morphology , 1994 .

[6]  Norvin Richards,et al.  Lardil "Case Stacking" and the Structural/Inherent Case Distinction , 2007 .

[7]  ALEC MARANTZ,et al.  Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language , 2005 .

[8]  M. Aronoff Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes , 1993 .

[9]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  The learnability of abstract syntactic principles , 2011, Cognition.

[10]  Keren Rice,et al.  Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb , 2000 .

[11]  Dušica Filipović Đurđević,et al.  An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. , 2011, Psychological review.

[12]  R. Lieber Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory , 1992 .

[13]  Stephen R. Anderson,et al.  A-Morphous morphology , 1992 .

[14]  David Embick,et al.  Localism Versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology , 2010 .

[15]  Morris Halle,et al.  Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection , 1993 .

[16]  Brian Roark,et al.  Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing , 2009, EMNLP.

[17]  Robert E. Beard,et al.  Lexeme-morpheme base morphology : a general theory of inflection and word formation , 1996 .

[18]  Dunstan Brown,et al.  Review: Robert Beard, Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany: State University of New York Press , 1997 .

[19]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: a connectionist model. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[21]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.