PROSODIC INHERITANCE AND MORPHOLOGICAL GENERALISATIONS 
Sabine Reinhard 
Dafydd Gibbon 
UniversitSt Bielefeld 
FakultSt fflr Linguistik und Literaturwissensohaft 
P8640 
D J,800 Bielefeld 1 
email: reinhard@lilil 1 .uni-bielefeld.de 
gibbon@lilil 1 .uni-bielefeld.de 
ABSTRACT 
Prosodic Inheritance (PI) morphology pro- 
vides uniform treatment of both concatenative 
and non-concatenative morphological and 
phonological generalisations using default inheri- 
tance. Models of an extensive range of German 
Umlaut and Arabic intercalation facts, imple- 
mented in DATR, show that the PI approach also 
covers 'hard cases' more homogeneously and 
more extensively than previous computational 
treatments. 
1, INTRODUCTION 
Computational models of sentence syntax are 
increasingly based on well-defined linguistic 
theories and implemented using general formal- 
isms; by contrast, morphology and phonology in 
the lexicon tend to be handled with tailor-made 
hybrid formalisms selected for properties such as 
finite state compilability, object orientation, 
default inheritance, or procedural efficiency. The 
linguistically motivated Prosodic Inheritance (PI) 
model with defaults captures morphotactic and 
morphophonological generalisations in a unified 
declarative formalism, and has broad linguistic 
coverage of both concatenative morphology and 
the notorious 'hard cases' of non-concatenative 
morphology. This paper integrates the PI con- 
cepts underlying previous descriptions of Ger- 
man Umlaut (Reinhard 1990a, 1990b), Bantu tone 
morphology and Arabic C-V intercalation 
(Gibbon 1990); Umlaut and intercalation are 
treated here. PI descriptions are currently Imple- 
mented in a DATR dialect (Gibbon 1989; for 
DATR cf. Evans & Gazdar 1989, 1990, 1989a, 
1989b); DATR was chosen for its syntactic 
simplicity and its explicit formal semantics. 
2. INHERITANCE AND NON-CONCATENATIVE 
MORPHOLOGY 
Morphological generalisations are of three 
basic kinds: morphotactic, the combinatorial 
principles of word composition in terms of 
immediate dominance (ID) relations, morpho- 
semantic, interpretation functions from morpho- 
tactic structures to semantic representations, 
and morphophonologica/ ( or ' morphograph ic') , 
interpretation functions from morphotactic 
structures to surface phonological or ortho- 
graphic representations. This paper is mainly 
concerned with modelling morphotactic and 
morphophonological generalisations. 
Simple abstract morphotactic combinations 
(denoted by the operator '*') may be repre- 
sented as follows: 
Ger.: \[Rad * singular\], \[Rad * plural\] 
Eng.: \[cat * plural\], \[dog * plural\], \[horse * plural\] 
Morpheme ID combinations receive a composi- 
tional morphophonological interpretation based 
on the forms of the component morphemes and 
the kind of construction involved. Phonological 
interpretations are composed primarily by 
means of concatenation, with phonological 
feature variation at morpheme boundaries: 
Get.: Rad-Rades,/ra:t/-/ra:des/ 
(Voicing specification of stem final C) 
Eng.: cats-dogs-horses,/keets/-/dogz/-/ho:siz/ 
(Voicing specification of C and epenthetic V in suffix) 
Non-concatenative morphophonological 
composition (which we will here refer to as 
morphoprosody) deals specifically with temporal 
feature overlap phenomena such as infixing, 
vowel gradation, consonant mutation, morpho- 
logical tone and stress patterning, involving the 
structural 'association' of temporally coextensive 
categories such as features and autosegmental 
tiers: 
Eng.: telephone, telephony, telephonic 
(stress, vowel quality) 
Ger.: Fuchs, F~ichse, fuchsig 
(Umlaut) 
Arab.: ktb, kutib, aktabib 
(intercalation) 
Kikuyu: hmahmolrorlihra, hmahmoltomhihre 
(tone) 
Morphoprosodic operations generally occur in 
combination with concatenation. Concatenation 
and association operators ('quasi-linear prece- 
dence, QLP, operators') are represented here 
- 131 - 
by " and ,o, respectively. QLP representations 
are intermediate specifications of morphotactic 
detail between abstract ID and concrete phono- 
logical representations. 
Morphophonological generalisations thus 
require three levels of abstraction: 
L 1 , Morphotactic ID: 
L 2, Morphotactic QLP: 
L 3, Phonological: 
Orthographic: 
\[telephone * ADJ-ic\] 
\[\[telephone o final-stress\] " ic\] 
/t E I @ I O n I k/(SAMPA com- 
puter phonetic notation) 
"telephonic" 
Details of phonological feature structure will not 
be dealt with here. 
The only explicit computational treatment of 
association operations is by Kay (1987; but cf. 
also the formal account by Bird & Klein, 1990), 
who models autosegmental phonological associ- 
ation with a multi-tape finite state transducer. 
Like autosegmental descriptions, Kay's finite 
state tranducers explicitly operate with direc- 
tional (leff-to-right or right-to-left) algorithms. 
Other approaches rely on lists of stem variants, 
string permutations, or string position indices 
(Cahill 1990). 
By contrast, the Pi approach to morpho- 
prosody does not rely on algorithmic conditions 
such as leff-right rule application, but on a 
general default principle: 
Assign a default value everywhere in a given context 
unless a) a designated value, and b) a designated 
position are otherwise specified in an explicit constraint. 
E.g. Get.: Assign non-umlaut everywhere in a stem 
unless 
a) an umlauting stem, and 
b) an umlaut-triggering affix cooccur. 
Arab.: Assign the default vowel of a vocal- 
ism (default consonant of a radical) 
everywhere in a word unless 
a) a designated vowel (designated con- 
sonant), and 
b) a designated position in stem syllable 
structure are explicitly specified. 
In the PI approach, lexemes are treated as 
individual (or 'most specific') nodes in an inheri- 
tance net. They are underspecified and inherit 
their full representations from semantic, syntac- 
tic, and phonological default inheritance hierar- 
chies. Each node in these hierarchies represents 
a morphophonological generalisation and is 
associated with a set of special cases (relative 
exceptions) over which a default priority order- 
ing in terms of relative specificity is defined. 
Fully specified phonological and orthographic 
lexeme representations are inherited from a 
hierarchy of general templates representing 
word, syllable and segment structures, and 
marked with QLP operators. The template slots 
are instantiated with properties inherited from 
specific lexemes. In the DATR implementation, 
inheritance of representations is implemented by 
local inheritance, and inheritance of specific 
exceptions and template instantiations is imple- 
mented by global inheritance, 
. MORPHOLOGICAL GENERAUSATIONS: 
UMLAUT AND INTERCALATION 
Two superficially related cases of non-concat- 
enative morphology are Umlaut in German and 
vowel-consonant-intercalation in Arabic. They 
are similar in respect of the QLP operation of 
stem vowel variation in different morphological 
contexts, though the Arabic case is more com- 
plex, with additional variation of syllable struc- 
ture and consonant position; in German, Umlaut 
primarily affects the vowel fronting feature. 
3.1. GERMAN UMLAUT 
Current computational descriptions of German 
vowel fronting (Umlaut) are linguistically inade- 
quate, in that they do not take into account the 
complexity of mutual conditioning between stem 
classes and inflectional and derivational affixes: 
either they ignore the complexities of deriva- 
tional morphology (Schiller & Steffens 1990), or 
overgeneralise, with lists of absolute exceptions 
Frost t990). 
In the PI model of German Umlaut, a wide 
range of 'exceptions' turn out to be important 
subregularities. The inflectional properties of 
stems are taken as defaults for both inflection 
and derivation; and captured in an inheritance 
hierarchy. Lexemes inherit fully specified stem 
forms, inflectional and derivational affixes, and 
Umlaut specification, via this hierarchy. The 
hierarchy for nouns specifies that Umlaut with 
zero-suffix plurals depends on gender, is arbi- 
trarily specified for each lexeme with e-suffix 
plurals (Umlaut being the default case), always 
occurs with er-suffix plurals, never with e._nn-, s-, 
and exotic plurals. Derivational suffixes are also 
specified for their Umlaut-triggering properties, 
but different subregularities hold for different 
derivational suffixes in non-default cases. 
stem p!ur. infl, -isch deriv. -ig deriv, 
Fuchs Fi.ichs-e_ fi.ichs-isch fuchs-i.q. 
Hund Hund-e_ h/.ind-isch hund-i.q 
Consequently, Umlaut conditions must be 
inherited from several sources. 
The three levels of morphophonological 
generalisation for an umlauted plural form like 
F(jchse have the following representations: 
L 1 , Morphotactic ID: \[Fuchs * Plural\] 
L 2, Morphotactic QLP: \[\[Fuchs ° Umlaut\] ^ e\] 
L 3, Phonological: /f Y k s @/ 
Orthographic: "fi~chse" 
The DATR implementation fragment shown 
below can be interpreted fairly straightforwardly 
as a representation of a semantic inheritance 
net, in which the 'most specific' node is Fuchs, 
which has some typed properties of its own and 
inherits others via NounE. Queries specify a 
- 132 - 
starting node and an attribute path. The left hand 
side of an equation is required to match a prefix 
of the query path; if there is more than one 
match for a node, the longest matching path 
overrides any others. Inheritance from more 
general nodes on the right hand side of an 
equation is explicitly constrained by associating 
them with a path. This path replaces the match- 
ing prefix of the query path in any further inheri- 
tance. If node or path are not specified, the node 
or path from the current local (or global) query 
environment is transferred. 
In this implementation, the lexeme .Fuchs 
inherits a full morphologically conditioned 
phonological/orthographic representation. In the 
lexical representation of Fuchs, the vowel is not 
specified for orthographic or phonological 
Umlaut. The vowel representation is inherited 
from a template with a vowel slot which condi- 
tionally inherits a \[+ umlaut\] or \[- umlaut\] 
morphological subcategory by multiple inheri- 
tance from the stem and affix concerned. The 
condition is implemented in DATR as nested 
inheritance: 
e.g. Voweh<orth> = = <Plur:<stem cond> > 
which conditionally specifies either 
Vowel: < orth • = = < \[ + umlaut\] > 
or 
Vowel: < orth > = = < \[-umlaut\] • 
depending on the value of Plur: <stem cond> 
for the lexeme concerned. 
A fragment of the PI implementation in DATR is 
stated below. 
Fuchs: 
< > = = Noun E 
<orth onset cons> = = f - 
< orth peak vowel> = = u 
<orth coda• = = (c h s) 
<morph gender• = =masc 
<sere cat> = = animate. 
Noun E: 
< • = = Noun 
<orth flex plur surf op> = = e surf. 
Noun: 
<> ---= 0 
<syn cat> = = noun 
<orth • = = (Onset Vowel Coda Suffix). 
Vowel: 
<orth> = = <Plur: <stem cond> > 
< \[ + umlaut\] • = = Umlaut: < < > • 
< > = = "<orth peak vowel•". 
Plur: 
<stem cond> = = <stem "<orth flex plur surf op>"> 
<stem 0 surf> = = <stem "<morph gender•"• 
<stem e-surf> = = <stem "<morph gender•"• 
<stem en surf• = = <stem marked> 
<stem ma'sc> = = <stem "<morph umlaut exc>"> 
< stem neut • = = < ~;tem marked • % classes 1 & 2 
< stern neut marked • = = < stem > % Kloster 
<stem marked > = = \[-umlaut\] 
<stem• = = \[+umlaut\] 
<surf• = = <surf "<orth flex plur surf op>"> 
<surf 0 surf• = = 0 
< surf e-surf • = = e <surfeFsurf• == (er) 
<surf en-_suff> = = (e n). 
Typical PI mappings in DATR notation arf~: , 
Fuchs:<orth infl plur> = (F iJ c h s e). 
Fuchs:<orth deriv ig-af• = (f u c h.s i g). 
A detailed account of the linguistic basis for 
the PI Umlaut model and the DATR implemen- 
tation are given in Reinhard (1990a, 1990b). 
3.2. INTERCALATION IN ARABIC VERB 
MORPHOLOGY 
A number of linguistic descriptions and com- 
putational implementations have treated various 
aspects of Arabic verb conjugation (McCarthy 
1982, Hudson 1984, Kay 1987, Calder 1989, 
Cahill 1990, Bird 1990, Gibbon 1990). 
The full range of generalisations is dealt with 
in the PI model in an integrated morphological 
hierarchy, which is shown in the feature 
structure in Figure 1. The generalisations cover 
stem type (CV-skeleton) exceptions and sub- 
regularities, interactions between different 
morphological categories, and the relations 
between intercalation, prefixation and suf- 
fixation. 
Arabic morphology has an agglutinative 
(concatenative) verb inflectional structure (cf. 
Table 1). It is combined with a radical 
(consisting only of consonants) and a vocalism 
(determined by three morphological categories: 
aspect, voice, and stem type) which are both 
intercalated in complex consonant-vowel 
skeletons, which are themselves derivational 
morphemes (cf. the DATR theorems in Table 2). 
These different stem types in Arabic verb 
morphology modify the meaning of the radical 
in partially predictable ways (e.g. as causative, 
reflexive). Morphophonological intercalation 
involves association of marked vowels and 
consonants to fixed skeleton positions, and 
"spreading" of the initial vowel and the final 
consonant, e.g. imperfective active in stem type 
xi: \[qtl ° <a,i> ° VCCWCVC\] = "aqtaalil". 
Spreading is represented in feature structures 
by coindexing, and is implemented in DATR by 
treating the spreading vowel and consonant as 
defaults. 
The categories involved in a word like 
vanoatilna with radical g~, as in yanqatilna min 
halaaU al-harbi 'they (fern) are being killed in tile 
war', are: 
3-pers, pl-num, fem-gen circumfix (PNG): y ... na 
Aspectual prefix: default V 
Stem type prefix: n 
Aspect/voice/stem type vocalism (Voc): <a,i> 
Reflexive stem type, vii (Skel): C V C V C 
Radical consOnantism 'kill' (Cons): qtl 
- 133 - 
Thus the morphological generalisations are the 
following: 
L 1, Morphotactic ID: 
\[PNG * Aspect * Voice * Binyan * Radical\], 
i.e. \[3-pl-fem * imperf * active * vii * qtl\] 
L 2, Morphotactic QLP: 
\[PNG 1 ^ \[Voc ° \[Aspect prefix ^ Stem type prefix ^ 
\[Skel ° Cons\]\]\] ^ PNG2\], 
i.e. \[y ^ \[<a, i> ° IV " n ^ \[CVCVC ° qt/\]\]\] ^ na\] 
I. 3, Orthographic (Roman): 
"yanqatilna" 
The fully specified representation for vanaatilnal 
at level 2 is shown in a conventional feature 
notation in Figure 1. The attribute "surf = (= "sur- 
face") subsumes phonology and orthography. 
The QLP operators of concatenation and asso. 
clation are represented by Prefix and Suffix 
attributes and by re-entrancy indexing, respec- 
tively. 
= 
rVerb: Infh 
Figure 1. 
Stem: 
Morph: 
Surf: 
= 
Asp: 
Voice: 
Stem type: 
Radical: 
GPers: 3 1 Num: plur 
en: fem 
Pref: 1 \[Orth: \[Roman: y\]\] 
\[Orth: \[Roman: a\]\] 
Morph: impe~ 
Surf: \[11 \[Pref: IV: \[2i~ \] 1 
Voc: V: \[2\] \[Orth: \[Roman: a\]\] 
*: \[2*\] \[Orth: \[Roman: i\]\] 
Morph: active 
Surf: \[1\] \] 
. == 
Morph: reflexive 
~Urf: Pref: \[Orth: \[Roman: n\]\] 
Type number: vii 
Skeleton: \[i~:1: \[3\] \] 
: \[2\] / 
:\[4\] l \[2*\] 1 
: \[s\] j 
I Sem: 'kill' \] 
at: verb 
urf: ICI:~. \[3\] \[Orth: \[Roman: ql\] 1 ~: \[4\] \[Orth: \[Roman: t\]\] 
\[5\] \[Orth: \[Roman: I\]\] 
1 
PI generalisation hierarchy for Arabic verbs summarised as a re-entrant feature structure. 
Table 1. 
1-per s 2-pers-masc 2..pers-fem 3-pers-masc ~-pers-fe~n 
Singular ? t- t- ,.. -i y- t- 
Dual - t- ... -aa t- .,. -aa y- ... -aa t- ... -aa 
Plural n- t- :.. -uu t- ... -na y- ... -uu y- ... -na 
Imperfective inflection by prefixation and suffixation in Arabic verbs 
134 - 
QU: <perf act surf orth roman> = Qth <imperf act surf orth roman> = 
i qatal i aqtul-*aqatil 
ii qattal ii uqattil 
iii q a at a I iii u q a at i I 
iv ?aqtal iv u?aqtil 
v taqattal v ataqattal 
vi taqaatal vi ataqaatal 
vii nqatal vii anqatil 
viii q t a t a I viii a q t a t i I 
ix qtalal ix aqtalil 
x staqtal x astaqtil 
xi qtaalal xi aqtaalil 
xii qtawtal xii aqtawtil 
xlii qtawwal xiii aqtawwll 
xiv qtanlal xiv aqtanlil 
xv qtanlay, xv aqtanliy. 
Qth < perf pass surf orth roman > = QU: < imperf pass surf orth roman > = 
i qutil i uqtal-*uqatal 
ii quttil ii uqattal 
iii quutil iii uqaatal 
iv ?uqttl iv u?aqtal 
v tuquttil v utaqattal 
vi tuquutil vi utaqaatal 
vii nqutil vii unqatal 
viii q t u t i I viii u q t a t a I 
ix ~'qtulil ix *uqtalal 
x staqtil x ustaqtal 
xi *qtuulil xi *uqtaalal 
xii *qtuwtil xii *uqtawtal 
xiii *qtuwwil xiii *uqtawwal 
xiv *qtunlil xiv *uqtanlal 
xv *qtunliy. xv *uqtanlay. 
Dhrj: < perf act surf orth roman > = Dhrj: < imperf act surf orth roman > = 
qi dahraj qi udahrij 
qii tadahraj qii atadahraj 
qiii d h a n r a j qiii a d h a n r i j 
qiv dharjaj, qiv adharjij. 
Dhrj: < perf pass surf orth roman > = Dhrj: < Imperf pass surf orth roman > = 
qi duhrij qi udahraj 
qi t u d u h rij qii u tad ah raj 
qiii d h u n r i j qiii u d h a n r aj 
qiv dhurjij, qiv udharjaj. 
Table 2. 
Otl: <part act surf orth roman > = 
i qaatil-*muqatil 
ii muqattil 
iii muqaatil 
iv mu?aqtil 
v mutaqattil 
vi mutaqaatil 
vii munqatil 
viii muqtatil 
ix muqtalil 
x mustaqtil 
xi muqtaalll 
xli muqtawtil 
xiii muqtawwil 
xiv muqtanlil 
xv muqtanliy. 
Qth <part pass surf orth roman > = 
i maqtuul-*muqatal 
ii muqattal 
iii muqaatal 
iv mu?aqtal 
v mutaqattal 
vi mutaqaatal 
vii munqatal 
viii m u q t a t a I 
ix *muqtalal 
x mustaqtal 
xi *muqtaalal 
xii *muqtawtal 
xiii *muqtawwal 
xiv *muqtanlal 
xv *muqtanlay. 
Dhrj: <part act surf orth roman > = 
qi mudahrij 
qii mutadahrij 
qiii mudhanrij 
qiv mudharjij. 
Dhrj: < part pass surf orth roman > = 
qi mudahraj 
qli mutadahraj 
qiii mudhanraj 
qiv mudharjaj. 
PI-mapping in DATR for all Arabic triliteral and quadriliteral verb stem types for radicals 
g~J ('to kill') and dhrj ('to roll'). (Asterisks denote overgenerated unacceptable forms; 
unacceptability is due to morphophonological Irregularity in stem type i and to semantic 
subreguladties in the other stem types. Idiosyncratic unacceptability is not marked.) 
The compact lexeme representation in DATR 
notation is simply the following: 
Qth < > = = Morphology 
<gloss> = = kill 
<c 1> == q 
<¢2> == t 
<c> = = I. 
The default root consonant (in this example T) 
spreads over all C positions in skeleton consti- 
tuents which are unspecified for C 1 or C 2 radical tional class: 
consonants (e.g. in CVCVC, stem type vii, only Aspect_prefix; 
the last consonant). The main generalisations < > 
about the skeleton template hierarchy are shown <lmperf> 
in the following excerpt from the DATR imple- <part> 
mentation (note the resemblance to context-free 
phrase structure rules; the concatenation opera- Stemtype_prefix: 
tion is implicit in DATR list ordering): < > : = 0 <iv> 
<v> 
< vii > 
<X> 
Stem templates: 
Stem: 
< > = = (Aspect_prefix 
Stemtype: 
< > = = (Stem_typeprefix 
Stem_typebody: 
< > = = (Rrst syllable Second_syllable). 
Stem constituents with morphotactic conditions for inflac- 
==0 
= = Mu affix 
= = Vocalic affix. 
Stem_type). 
Stem_type_body). 
= = Glottal affix 
= = T affix- 
= = N-affix 
== S{" af. 
% mu imperfective 
% affix 
% voc. participle 
% prefix 
% glottal prefix stem t. iv 
% t prefix stem type v 
% n prefix stem type vii 
% st prefix stem type x 
- 135 - 
Syllable templates with morphotactic conditions for deriva- 
tionel class and instantiation from global root node: 
Firstsyllable: 
<> == ("<c 1>" Vocalism:<> Geminate) 
<ix> == ("<c 1>" "<c2>" Vocalism:<>). 
Second_syllable: 
<> == ("<cg>" Vocalism:<*> "<c>") 
<ix> == ("<c>" Vocalism: <*> "<c>") 
<xiii> == ON affix Vocalism:<=> "<c>") 
<xiv> = = ("<-c 3>" Vocalism:<*> "<c>") 
<xv> = = ("<c> = Vocalism:<*> Y affix). 
% '*' denotes a non-default designated terminal:. 
All other information about morphological 
composition and phonological QLP and feature 
structure is predictable, and derived from consti- 
tuent node constraints. Coverage of the verb 
system is fairly complete, with all 15 triliteral and 
4 quadriliteral stem types, including subregu- 
larities, stem type and aspect prefixes, and other 
inflectional prefixes and suffixes for person, 
number and gender. 
4. CONCLUSION 
The PI approach to morphologically con- 
ditioned phonological and orthographic variation 
relates linguistically to word grammar (Hudson 
1984), word syntax (Selkirk 1982) and to proso- 
dic phonologies, and derives its computational 
features from DATR (Evans & Gazdar 1989); 
formally it relates closely to object-oriented 
morphology (Daelemans 1987), paradigmatic 
morphology (Calder 1989), and Bird's constraint- 
based phonology (1990). 
PI models use a unified formalism throughout, 
and thus differ radically from computational 
morphological systems with hybrid formalisms. 
These include two-level morphology with conti- 
nuation lexica and two-level rules (Koskenniemi 
1983), its derivates with feature-based lexicon 
and two-level rules (Karttunen 1987, Bear 1986, 
Trost 1990), and Cahill's DATR-driven morpho- 
logy with phonological descriptions in MOLUSC 
(1990). 
Finally, PI models have broad linguistic cover- 
age, capture significant generalisations over a 
wide range of typologically interesting morpho- 
logical systems without ad hoc diacritics, and 
have a straightforward and well-defined imple- 
mentation in DATR. 
5. REFERENCES 
Bear, John. 1986. A Morphological Recognizer 
with Syntactic and Phonological Rules. 
COLING-86, Bonn, 272-276. 
• Bird, Steven. 1990. Prosodic Morphology & 
Constraint-Based Phonology. Edinburgh 
Research Papers in CognitiveScience RP-38, 
June 1990. 
Steven & Ewan Klein. 1990. Phonological Events. 
Journal of Linguistics 26, 33-56. 
CahUl, Lynne. 1990. Syllable-Based Morphology. 
COLING-90, Helsinki. VOl. 3, 48-53. 
Calder, Jonathan. 1989. Paradigmatic Morpho- 
logy. Proc. 4th ACL, Eur. Chap., Manchester, 
233-240. 
Daelemans, Walter. 1987. Studies in Language 
Technology. An Object-Oriented Computer 
Model of Morphophonological Aspects of 
Dutch. Ph.D. thesis, U Leuven. 
Evans, Roger & Gerald Gazdar (eds.). 1989, 
1990. The DATR Papers (May 1989, February 
1990). U Sussex, CSR Reports. 
Evans, Roger & Gerald Gazdar. 1989a. Infer- 
ence In DATR. Proc. 4th ACL, Eur. Chap., 
Manchester, 66-71. 
Evans, Roger & Gerald Gazdar. 1989b. The 
Semantics of DATR. In: Anthony G. Cohn 
(ed.). Proc. of the 7th Conf. of the AISB, 
London: Pitman/Morgan Kaufmann, 79-87. 
Gibbon, Dafydd. 1989. PCS-DATR: A DATR 
implementation in PC-Scheme. U Bielefeld, 
English/Linguistics Interim Report 3. 
Gibbon, Dafydd. 1990. Prosodic Association by 
Template Inheritance. In: Walter Daelemans & 
Gerald Gazdar, eds., Inheritance in Natural 
Language Processing. U Tilburg, ILTAI. 
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: 
Basil Blackwell. 
Kaplan, Ronald & Laud Karttunen. 1987. Com- 
putational Morphology. Xerox Palo Alto 
Research Center, Stanford University. 
Kay, Martin. 1987. Nonconcatenative Finite-State 
:Morphology. Proc. 3rd ACL Eur. Chap., 
Copenhagen, 2-10. 
Koskenniemi, Kimmo. 1983. Two-Level Morpho- 
logy: A Genera/ Computational Model for 
Wordform Recognition and Production. Ph.D. 
thesis, U Helsinki. 
McCarthy, John J. 1982. Formal Problems in 
,Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Mimeo, 
Indiana University Linguistics Club. 
Reinhard, Sabine. 1990a. Verarbeitungs- 
probleme nichtlinearer Morphologien. To 
appear in: Burghard Rieger & Burkhard 
Schaeder, eds., Lexikon und Lexikographie. 
Hildesheim: Olms Verlag. 
Reinhard, Sabine. 1990b. Ad&quatheitsprobleme 
automatenbasierter Morphologiemodelle am 
Beispiel der deutschen Umlautung. M.A. 
thesis, U Trier. 
Schiller, Anne & Petra Steffens. 1990. A Two- 
Level Morphology for a German Natural Lan- 
guage Understanding System. IBM Stuttgart 
Report. 
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The Syntaxof Words. 
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 
Trost, Harald. 1990. The Application of Two- 
Level morphology to Non-Concatenative Ger- 
man Morphology. COLING-90, Helsinki, Voi. 
2, 371-376. 
- 136 - 
