What you describe is only true in morpheme-based approaches to morphology (what are also referred to as item-arrangement approaches). There are also item-process approaches and (increasingly in the last 50 years) word-paradigm approaches (see Blevins, 2016). Stump 2001 has a different taxonomy but also presents alternatives to a morpheme-based approach focused more on paradigms.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 2:32 PM Hugh Paterson III via Corpora < [email protected]> wrote: > As I have followed this conversation (and started it) I have often > wondered why the term lemma is used at all. In my understanding of > morphology there are roots and stems. My understanding is that roots are > single morphemes whereas stems may be composed of more than one morpheme. > Then additionally one has affixes (with the generally accepted > subcategories being: prefixes, suffixes, infixes, circumfixes). In some > theories of word construction there are 'bases'. Also some people accept > allomorphs, which may have some morphophonemic impacts on the stem/root. > I'm not at all clear what the theoretical implications of a lemma infer. If > someone can point me to the literature on the difference between a lemma > and a root that would be fantastic. I had supposed that lemma was the > computational term for a root. But maybe this is not the case? Given that > we have lemmas in various ontologies such as is used by LiLa and NIF do > these formal categories also have a formal definition or test which can be > applied cross-linguistically to determine if the content indicated to be a > "lemma" actually fits the categorical definition? In information science we > call these sorts of requirements content standards which apply at the > semantic level (rather than some constraint on the syntax or composition of > the string). > > Kind regards, > Hugh > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:25 AM Ada Wan via Corpora < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Orhan >> >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> You don't have to do both ('wean ourselves of the concept of a lemma and >> at the same time think of "a verb that can be conjugated"') at the same >> time. You can do one after the other, your choice. >> And I also didn't mention anything about "lemma" for the thought >> experiment. I would like one to understand (linguistic) morphology first, >> above all, the idea behind such. Perhaps one's addiction to >> lemma/lemmatization has to do with a lack of understanding? >> >> Re "lemma": >> in the context of our discourse, the term and the use of "lemma" only has >> a few decades of history. One of the goals of education is to train >> students to become mentally agile. It is fine to take a concept as an >> assumption and develop theories therefrom (assuming it's ethical and >> appropriate to do so). But one needs to be able to not use it whenever >> timing is appropriate, to not become addicted to it, to abandon it whenever >> there is a better, less biased alternative that can supplant it... etc.. A >> good researcher also ought to learn to develop a sense for such timing and >> context, including but not limited to when to self-correct, when to let go >> of a theory/hypothesis. >> >> Re "not allowed to talk about things": >> in general, given the freedom of expression, one can talk about anything >> one likes --- but if this were to relate to education/research/teaching, >> I'd ask that one thinks twice about what one claims. There has been some >> miseducation and/or bad theories/hypotheses in the "language space" (above >> all, in structural linguistics and the computational variant thereof). This >> is the main point I tried to address with my "objection" to "morphological >> endeavors". >> >> Re using the term "lemma" to refer to things that can be >> "conjugated/inflected": >> because "lemma" does not refer to things that can be >> "conjugated/inflected". >> >> Hope that helps. Looking forward to your answers to my questions. >> >> Thanks and best >> Ada >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 9:03 PM Bilgin, Orhan (Postgraduate Researcher) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ada, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply. >>> >>> I don't think it is possible to follow your advice to wean ourselves of >>> the concept of a lemma and at the same time think of "a verb that can be >>> conjugated", because that is precisely an example of what I would call a >>> lemma. >>> >>> I never claimed that anything exists beyond the reality of my mind. I >>> only asked why I am not allowed to talk about things that can be conjugated >>> / inflected etc. and to use the word "lemma" to refer to those things. You >>> haven't answered that question. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Orhan >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 Oct 2023 17:49, Ada Wan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> [To those who do not have shared interests on issues that pertain to >>> Corpora-List matters, such as data/corpora and their handling which >>> includes but is not limited to linguistic/NLP theories/methods (and the >>> validity thereof): please disregard.] >>> >>> Dear Orhan >>> >>> Thanks for your interests in this discussion. I think it is high time >>> that our community comes to a critical (re-)examination of (linguistic) >>> morphology (and to address issues concerning reinterpretation and >>> transition). >>> >>> First of all, allow me to put my traditional grammarian hat on to get to >>> your question more directly. You brought up an example of a morphological >>> paradigm. >>> Now, as linguists or language professionals, we know that language is >>> (re-)productive in nature. So, if you don't mind, we can do a thought >>> experiment and go through this dialectically (pls note that I only check my >>> emails about once a day on weekdays, however). >>> >>> 1. Let's think of a verb that does not yet exist (in any particular >>> language(s) that you can think of or that you are used to). Would you mind >>> conjugating it for me? How many patterns would you have? And what would the >>> forms be like? >>> 2. Where did you get the patterns/paradigm from? If you were able to >>> come up with a "full paradigm" (whatever that should refer to (?) --- but >>> let's suppose, you have 6 forms (as per some textbook paradigms from some >>> "Indo-European languages" --- 1st/2nd/3rd person in sg/pl), you surely >>> haven't seen any of these forms combined with the verb before, have you? So >>> where is your evidence that these forms exist in reality beyond that of >>> your mind? And if such "perfect/ideal paradigm" exists only in your mind >>> (and minds of some of your friends as well), how do you justify that >>> morphological paradigma (the form/"structure"/pattern) are a necessary or >>> intrinsic part of language (may these be of any particular language (which >>> "one"?) or or language in general)? Wouldn't morphology as well as the >>> perpetual construction and reconstruction of morphological patterns be a >>> self-fulfilling prophecy only? And how often do we impose our >>> conceptual/perceptual habits/categories upon whatever "new" that we >>> encounter? >>> 3. If, however, you were not able to construct a "full paradigm" or any >>> part thereof at all, or you claim you were not able to think of a >>> hypothetical verb either, because to you morphology is solely based on what >>> has been written and analyzed beforehand/historically, then what is there >>> to claim about morphological analyses? Not only does such practice not >>> generalize, but it would also just apply to calcified segments >>> analyzed/interpreted in a certain way as part of philological pursuits in >>> the past. One should bear in mind that philological methods can progress >>> and update as well. >>> >>> There are no limits as to how one can *use* (or some might even claim >>> *define* here) "language", including how various modalities can >>> combine/fuse with each other. Meaning has no fixed boundaries. When it >>> comes to language or meaning, there is no "completeness" to "speak of" or >>> to serve as basis of any science/study. And there are no fixed demarcations >>> between any "particular languages" either. >>> >>> Other perspectives on (the shortcomings of) morphology and "words" can >>> be found on my rebuttal page here: >>> https://openreview.net/forum?id=-llS6TiOew. Please also read the >>> references cited therein. >>> >>> I look forward to your reply, comments/remarks, or questions. (Actually, >>> the floor can also be opened to anyone who would like to join.) >>> >>> Thank you and best >>> Ada >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] >> https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] > https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
