<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P86-1019">
  <Title>COMPUTER METHODS FOR MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="125" end_page="126" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5. Further Analyses and Plans
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> When we have modified our grammar to incorporate resuits we have obtained, and added the necessary supporting features and attributes to the words in UDICT's word list, we will re-run our programs to produce files based on the corrected analyses that we will obtain.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> These files will, in turn, be used for further analysis in the Lexical Systems project, and by other researchers.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> We plan to continue our work by looking for more constraints on affixation. A reasonable, if ambitious, goal is to achieve a word formation rule grammar which is &amp;quot;tight&amp;quot; enough to allow us to reliably generate words using derivational affixation. Such a capability would be important, for example, in a translation application where idiomaticness often requires that a translated concept appear with a different part-of-speech than in the source language.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Further research will investigate patterns of multiple affixation. Are there any interdependencies among affixes when more than one appear in a given word? If so, what are they? One important question in this area has to do with violations of the Affix Ordering Generalization (Siegel (1974)), sometimes known as &amp;quot;bracketing paradoxes&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> A related issue which emerged during our work concerns prefixes, such as pre# and over#, which apparently ignore the category of their bases. It may be that recursive application of prefixes and suffixes is not the best way to account for such prefixes. We would like to use our data to address this question.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Our data can also be used to investigate the morphological behavior of words which are &amp;quot;zeroderived&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;drifted&amp;quot; from a different major category. Such words are the nouns considerable, accused, and beyond listed in Merriam(1967). Contrary to our goal for GETBASES (to produce a list of morphologically active bases), these words never served as the base for derivational affixation in our data. We conjecture that some mechanism in the grammar prevents them from doing so, and plan to investigate the nature of that mechanism.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Obtaining results from investigations of this type will not only be important for producing a robust word analysis system, it will also significantly contribute to our theoretical understanding of morphological phenomena.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>