<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="J02-2002">
  <Title>c(c) 2002 Association for Computational Linguistics The Combinatory Morphemic Lexicon</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="147" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
1. Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The study presented in this article is concerned with the integrated representation and processing of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics in a unified grammar architecture. An important issue in such integration is mismatches in morphological, syntactic, and semantic bracketings. The problem was first noted in derivational morphology. Williams (1981) provided examples from English; the semantic bracketings in (1a-2a) are in conflict with the morphological bracketings in (1b-2b).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  If the problem were confined to derivational morphology, we could avoid it by making derivational morphology part of the lexicon that does not interact with grammar. But this is not the case. Mismatches in morphosyntactic and semantic bracketing [?] Computer Engineering and Cognitive Science, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: bozsahin@metu.edu.tr.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  Computational Linguistics Volume 28, Number 2 also abound. This article addresses such problems and their resolution in a computational system.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3">  M&amp;quot;uller (1999, page 401) exemplifies the scope problem in German prefixes. (3a) is in conflict with the bracketing required for the semantics of the conjunct (3b). (3) a. Wenn [Ihr Lust] und [noch nichts anderes vor-]habt, if you pleasure and yet nothing else intend k&amp;quot;onnen wir sie ja vom Flughafen abholen can we them PARTICLE from.the airport pick up 'If you feel like it and have nothing else planned, we can pick them up at the airport.' b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt Similar problems can be observed in Turkish inflectional suffixes. In the coordination of tensed clauses, the tense attaches to the verb of the rightmost conjunct (4a) but applies to all conjuncts (4b). Delayed affixation appears to apply to all nominal inflections (4c-e).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  (4) a. Zorunlu deprem sigortasi [y&amp;quot;ur&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;uVge girmi,s] ama mandatory earthquake insurance effect enter-ASP but [tam anlamiyla uygulanamami,s]-ti exactly apply-NEG-ASP-TENSE 'Mandatory earthquake insurance had gone into effect, but it had not been enforced properly.' b. y&amp;quot;ur&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;uVge girmi,s-ti ama tam anlamiyla uygulanamami,s-ti c. Adam-in [araba ve ev]-i man-GEN car and house-POSS  take it to mean the syntax of words, in contrast to the syntax of phrases. By morphosyntax we mean those aspects of morphology and syntax that collectively contribute to grammatical meaning composition. This is more in line with the inflectional-morphology-is-syntax view. In this respect, we will not address problems related to derivational morphology; its semantics is notoriously noncompositional and does not interact with grammatical meaning. Moreover, without a semantically powerful lexicon such as Pustejovsky's (1991), even the most productive fragment of derivational morphology is hard to deal with (Sehitoglu and Bozsahin 1999).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5">  Bozsahin The Combinatory Morphemic Lexicon Phrasal scope of inflection can be seen in subordination and relativization as well. In (5a), the entire nominalized clause marked with the accusative case is the object of want. In (5b), the relative participle applies to the relative clause, which lacks an object. The object's case is governed by the subordinate verb, whose case requirements might differ from that of the matrix verb (5c). As we show later in this section, the coindexing mechanisms in word-based unification accounts of unbounded extraction face a conflict between the local and the nonlocal behavior of the relativized noun, mainly due to applying the relative participle -diVg-i to the verbal stem ver rather than the entire relative clause. A lexical entry for -diVg-i would resolve the conflict and capture the fact that it applies to nonsubjects uniformly.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  (5) a. Can [Ay,se'nin kitab-i oku-ma-si]-ni iste-di C.NOM A.-GEN book-ACC read-INF-AGR-ACC want-TENSE 'Can wanted Ay,se to read the book.' lit. 'Can wanted Ay,se's-reading-the-book.' b. Ben [ Mehmet'in ,cocuVg-a/*-u ver ]-diVg-i kitab-i oku-du-m I.NOM M-GEN child-DAT/*ACC give-REL.OP book-ACC read-TENSE-PERS1 'I read the book that Mehmet gave to the child.' c. Ben [ Mehmet'in kitab-i ver ]-diVg-i ,cocuVg-u/*-a g&amp;quot;or-d&amp;quot;u-m</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>