Two-Level Morphological Analysis Task
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
A Two-Level Morphological Analysis Task is a Morphological Analysis Task that is based on the Koskenniemi Two Level Morphology Model.
- Context:
- It can be solved by a Two-Level Morphological Analysis System by implementing a Two-Level Morphological Analysis Algorithm.
- Example(s):
- ...
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- an Associative Model Morphological Analysis Task,
- a Corpus-Based Morphological Analysis Task,
- a Finite State Transducers (FST) Morphological Analysis Task,
- a Directed Acrylic Word Graph (DAWG) Morphological Analysis Task,
- a Finite State Automata (FSA) Morphological Analysis Task,
- a Mininum Description Lenth Morphological Analysis Task,
- a Paradigm Based Morphological Analysis Task,
- a Recurrent Neural Network Language Model (RNNLM) Morphological Analysis Task,
- a Stemmer Morphological Analysis Task,
- See: Finite State Transducer, Natural Language Syntactic Analysis Task, Morphological Tag, Morphological Inflection, Morphological Derivation, Part-of-Speech Tagging System, Word Sense Disambiguation, Minimum Description Length, Zipfian Sparsity, Gibbs Sampling, Non-concatenative Morphology, Allomorphy, Morphophonology, Recurrent Neural Network Language Model.
References
2008
- (Saranya, 2008) ⇒ S. K. Saranya. (2008). “Morphological Analyzer for Malayalam Verbs.” In: M. Tech Thesis, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore.
- QUOTE: Koskenniemi thus invented a new way to describe phonological alternations in finite-state terms. Instead of cascaded rules with intermediate stages, rules could be 22 thought of as statements that directly constrain the surface realization of lexical strings. The rules would not be applied sequentially but in parallel. Koskenniemi (1983) constructed an implementation of his constraint-based model that did not depend on a rule compiler, composition or any other finite-state algorithm, and he called it two-level morphology. Two-level morphology is based on three ideas:
- Rules are symbol-to-symbol constraints that are applied in parallel, not sequentially like rewrite rules.
- The constraints can refer to the lexical context, to the surface context, or to both contexts at the same time.
- Lexical lookup and morphological analysis are performed in[tandem.
- QUOTE: Koskenniemi thus invented a new way to describe phonological alternations in finite-state terms. Instead of cascaded rules with intermediate stages, rules could be 22 thought of as statements that directly constrain the surface realization of lexical strings. The rules would not be applied sequentially but in parallel. Koskenniemi (1983) constructed an implementation of his constraint-based model that did not depend on a rule compiler, composition or any other finite-state algorithm, and he called it two-level morphology. Two-level morphology is based on three ideas:
- Koskenniemi's model is "two-level" in the sense that a word is represented as a direct, letter-for-letter correspondence between its lexical or underlying form and its surface form. For example, the word chased is given this two-level representation (where + is a morpheme boundary symbol and 0 is a null character):
- Lexical form:
c h a s e + e d - Surface form:
c h a s 0 0 e d
- Lexical form:
- Koskenniemi's model is "two-level" in the sense that a word is represented as a direct, letter-for-letter correspondence between its lexical or underlying form and its surface form. For example, the word chased is given this two-level representation (where + is a morpheme boundary symbol and 0 is a null character):
2005
- (Karttunen & Beesley, 2005) ⇒ Lauri Karttunen, and Kenneth R. Beesley. (2005). “Twenty-Five Years of Finite-State Morphology.” In: Proceedings of Inquiries into Words, Constraints and Contexts. A Festschrift for Kimmo Koskenniemi on his 60th Birthday (2005).