In the
morphological rule, four kinds of signifiants can be found: (i) signifiants of the general form: X [direct sum] y (derivation), where y is an affix; (ii) signifiants of the general form X [right arrow] Y (conversion); (iii) signifiants of the general form a [right arrow] b (modificatory processes), where a and b are phonological units in X and Y respectively and are defined in [SIGMA]; and (iv) signifiants of the general form: X [direct sum] Y (compounding), where X and Y are both stems.
In the
morphological rule, four kinds of signifiants can be found: (i) signifiants of the general form: X [Angstrom] y (derivation), where y is an affix; (ii) signifiants of the general form: X [right arrow] X (conversion);(iii) signifiants of the general form: a [right arrow] b (modificatory processes), where a and b are phonological units in X and Y respectively and are defined in [SIGMA]; and (iv) signifiants of the general form: X [Angstrom] Y (compounding), where X and Y are bothstems.
In a similar vein, the Adjacency Condition (Siegel 1979) stipulates that in determining whether an affix can be attached to a complex word, the only relevant information is provided by the most recently attached element by means of a
morphological rule. Williams (1981), as Spencer (1991: 187) notes, replaces the Adjacency Condition with the Atom Condition, which predicts that affixation processes can be sensitive only to the most recently attached morpheme.
Albright presents a computationally implemented model of paradigm acquisition that proceeds in two stages: first, it compares all of the available paradigms and selects the base form that allows the remainder of the paradigm to be projected as reliably and effectively and efficiently as possible, and then develops a gradient morphological grammar to project the rest of the paradigm, using the minimal generalization method of
morphological rule induction.
We give a descriptive account of Italian DVRs (Section 2) and propose a
morphological rule that generates them with an underspecified semantics (Sections 3 and 4).
The allomorphy of the Dutch past tense suffix constitutes a classical example of a completely regular simple
morphological rule in Dutch morphology.
Lexemes at their phonological level have an inventory of related, but not necessarily morphophonologically related, stems, which are selected depending on the nature of the
morphological rule.
It aims to disprove the myths that analogy is inconsequential in English word-formation and devoid of relations to
morphological rules and focuses on cases of surface analogy.
Many languages possess
morphological rules which serve to express diminution or augmentation, endearment or contempt [...].