Two-Level Morphological Analysis System
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
A Two-Level Morphological Analysis System is a Morphological Analysis System that can solve a Two-Level Morphological Analysis Task.
- Example(s):
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- an Associative Model Morphological Analysis System,
- a Corpus-Based Morphological Analysis System,
- a Finite State Transducers (FST) Morphological Analysis System,
- a Directed Acrylic Word Graph (DAWG) Morphological Analysis System,
- a Finite State Automata (FSA) Morphological Analysis System,
- a Mininum Description Length Morphological Analysis System,
- a Paradigm Based Morphological Analysis System,
- a Recurrent Neural Network Language Model (RNNLM) Morphological Analysis System,
- a Stemmer Morphological Analysis System,
- See: Finite State Transducer, Natural Language Syntactic Analysis System, 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).