@booklet {nivre:hal-01682188, title = {Universal Dependencies 2.1}, year = {2017}, note = {LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics ({\'U}FAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University - Corpus - Project code: 15-10472S; Project name: Morphologically and Syntactically Annotated Corpora of Many Languages}, keywords = {dependency, harmonized annotation, Morphology, stanford dependencies, syntax, treebank, universal tagset}, url = {https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01682188}, author = {Nivre, Joakim and Agi{\'c}, {\v Z}eljko and Ahrenberg, Lars and Antonsen, Lene and Aranzabe, Maria Jesus and Asahara, Masayuki and Ateyah, Luma and Attia, Mohammed and Atutxa, Aitziber and Augustinus, Liesbeth and Badmaeva, Elena and Ballesteros, Miguel and Banerjee, Esha and Bank, Sebastian and Verginica Barbu Mititelu and Bauer, John and Bengoetxea, Kepa and Bhat, Riyaz Ahmad and Bick, Eckhard and Bobicev, Victoria and B{\"o}rstell, Carl and Bosco, Cristina and Bouma, Gosse and Bowman, Sam and Burchardt, Aljoscha and Marie Candito and Caron, Gauthier and Cebiro{\u g}lu Eryi{\u g}it, G{\"u}l{\c s}en and Celano, Giuseppe G. A. and Cetin, Savas and Chalub, Fabricio and Jinho Choi and Cinkov{\'a}, Silvie and {\c C}{\"o}ltekin, {\c C}a{\u g}r{\i} and Connor, Miriam and Davidson, Elizabeth and Marneffe, Marie-Catherine de and Paiva, Valeria de and Ilarraza, Arantza Diaz de and Dirix, Peter and Dobrovoljc, Kaja and Dozat, Timothy and Droganova, Kira and Dwivedi, Puneet and Eli, Marhaba and Elkahky, Ali and Erjavec, Toma{\v z} and Farkas, Rich{\'a}rd and Fernandez Alcalde, Hector and Foster, Jennifer and Freitas, Cl{\'a}udia and Gajdo{\v s}ov{\'a}, Katar{\'\i}na and Galbraith, Daniel and Garcia, Marcos and G{\"a}rdenfors, Moa and Gerdes, Kim and Ginter, Filip and Goenaga, Iakes and Koldo Gojenola and G{\"o}k{\i}rmak, Memduh and Goldberg, Yoav and G{\'o}mez Guinovart, Xavier and Gonz{\'a}les Saavedra, Berta and Grioni, Matias and Gr\=uz\=itis, Normunds and Guillaume, Bruno and Habash, Nizar and Haji{\v c}, Jan and Haji{\v c} jr., Jan and H{\`a} Mỹ, Linh and Harris, Kim and Haug, Dag and Hladk{\'a}, Barbora and Hlav{\'a}{\v c}ov{\'a}, Jaroslava and Hociung, Florinel and Hohle, Petter and Ion, Radu and Irimia, Elena and Jel{\'\i}nek, Tom{\'a}{\v s} and Johannsen, Anders and J{\o}rgensen, Fredrik and Ka{\c s}{\i}kara, H{\"u}ner and Kanayama, Hiroshi and Kanerva, Jenna and Kayadelen, Tolga and Kettnerov{\'a}, V{\'a}clava and Kirchner, Jesse and Kotsyba, Natalia and Krek, Simon and Laippala, Veronika and Lambertino, Lorenzo and Lando, Tatiana and Lee, John and L{\^e} Hồng, Phương and Lenci, Alessandro and Lertpradit, Saran and Leung, Herman and Li, Cheuk Ying and Li, Josie and Li, Keying and Ljube{\v s}i{\'c}, Nikola and Loginova, Olga and Lyashevskaya, Olga and Lynn, Teresa and Macketanz, Vivien and Makazhanov, Aibek and Mandl, Michael and Christopher Manning and M{\u a}r{\u a}nduc, C{\u a}t{\u a}lina and Mare{\v c}ek, David and Marheinecke, Katrin and Martinez Alonso, Hector and Martins, Andr{\'e} and Ma{\v s}ek, Jan and Matsumoto, Yuji and McDonald, Ryan and Mendon{\c c}a, Gustavo and Miekka, Niko and Missil{\"a}, Anna and Mititelu, C{\u a}t{\u a}lin and Miyao, Yusuke and Montemagni, Simonetta and More, Amir and Moreno Romero, Laura and Mori, Shinsuke and Moskalevskyi, Bohdan and Muischnek, Kadri and M{\"u}{\"u}risep, Kaili and Nainwani, Pinkey and Nedoluzhko, Anna and Ne{\v s}pore-B\=erzkalne, Gunta and Nguyễn Thị, Lương and Nguyễn Thị Minh, Huyền and Nikolaev, Vitaly and Nurmi, Hanna and Ojala, Stina and Petya Osenova and {\"O}stling, Robert and {\O}vrelid, Lilja and Pascual, Elena and Passarotti, Marco and Perez, Cenel-Augusto and Perrier, Guy and Petrov, Slav and Piitulainen, Jussi and Pitler, Emily and Plank, Barbara and Popel, Martin and Pretkalnina, Lauma and Prokopidis, Prokopis and Puolakainen, Tiina and Pyysalo, Sampo and Rademaker, Alexandre and Ramasamy, Loganathan and Rama, Taraka and Ravishankar, Vinit and Real, Livy and Reddy, Siva and Rehm, Georg and Rinaldi, Larissa and Rituma, Laura and Romanenko, Mykhailo and Rosa, Rudolf and Rovati, Davide and Sagot, Beno{\^\i}t and Saleh, Shadi and Samard{\v z}i{\'c}, Tanja and Sanguinetti, Manuela and Saul\=ite, Baiba and Schuster, Sebastian and Seddah, Djam{\'e} and Seeker, Wolfgang and Seraji, Mojgan and Shen, Mo and Shimada, Atsuko and Sichinava, Dmitry and Silveira, Natalia and Simi, Maria and Simionescu, Radu and Simk{\'o}, Katalin and {\v S}imkov{\'a}, M{\'a}ria and Simov, Kiril and Smith, Aaron and Stella, Antonio and Straka, Milan and Jana Strnadov{\'a} and Suhr, Alane and Sulubacak, Umut and Sz{\'a}nt{\'o}, Zsolt and Taji, Dima and Tanaka, Takaaki and Trosterud, Trond and Trukhina, Anna and Tsarfaty, Reut and Tyers, Francis and Uematsu, Sumire and Ure{\v s}ov{\'a}, Zde{\v n}ka and Larraitz Uria and Uszkoreit, Hans and Vajjala, Sowmya and Niekerk, Daniel van and Noord, Gertjan van and Varga, Viktor and {\'E}ric Villemonte De La Clergerie and Veronika Vincze and Wallin, Lars and Washington, Jonathan North and Wir{\'e}n, Mats and Wong, Tak-sum and Yu, Zhuoran and {\v Z}abokrtsk{\'y}, Zden{\v e}k and Zeldes, Amir and Zeman, Daniel and Zhu, Hanzhi} } @inproceedings {walther11icil, title = {A Derivational Account for Sorani Kurdish Passives.}, year = {2011}, note = {

Communication au 4th International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL4). 17-19 juin 2011. Uppsala, Su\ède

}, month = {06/2011}, address = {Uppsala, Su{\`e}de}, abstract = {

In this paper we propose a new analysis for Sorani Kurdish passive formation. We ar- gue that passivisation in Sorani Kurdish actually is a derivational process and propose four arguments supporting this claim.

Within lexicalist approaches to morphosyntax, the question whether to treat passivisation as an inflectional or a derivational process has often been raised. The traditional treatment of passive considers it to be an inflectional process. This traditional view is followed by certain number of recent studies (Stump, 2006; Hippisley, 2007) that presuppose the existence of one single paradigm for both the active and the passive verb forms of a given lexeme. On the other hand, (Sadler and Spencer, 1998) claim a derivational analysis of passives while (Bresnan, 1982) states that passives may serve as an input for derivational processes. If one accepts that inflected forms cannot function as an input for derivational processes, (Bresnan, 1982) inevitably entails a derivational treatment of passivisation. (Blevins, 2003) proposes a treat- ment for passives as a morphological process called Passive Lexical Rule (PLR) applicable to a whole series of languages. (Sag et al., 2003) argue that the argument-structure-changing operation triggered by passivisation are evidence for a derivational analysis for passives.

Others, like (Kiparsky, 2005) do not explicitly choose between the two approaches. Yet the data Kiparsky presents for Latin rather favours a derivational analysis. Usually, deriva- tion is said to operate semantic change in an unpredictable way: as opposed to inflectional processes, given one derivational process, there is not necessarily one unique predictable se- mantic change that systematically occurs. Based on data from Latin, (Kiparsky, 2005) shows that morphological passive forms may have several distinct values, not only syntactic passive value. These values are lexically specified, i.e. not directly predictable.

In this paper we analyse the morphological passive of the Western Iranian language So- rani Kurdish. We use the more common name Sorani to refer to its standardised dialect, corresponding to what (Haig, 2010) refers to as Suleimani. Sorani mainly distinguishes it- self through its verbal morphology and its intricate system of \“endoclitic\” person markers (Samvelian, 2007). Sorani verb forms roughly consist of a set of prefixes and suffixes clus- tered around a given stem (cf. Table 2). Most traditional descriptions of Sorani morphology concur in stating the existence of two distinct verbal stems: one for the present tense forms and one for the past and non-finite forms. Clustered around these stems, prefixes mostly con- vey tense, aspect and mood (TAM) and polarity features, whereas suffixes may encode TAM and person information. Sorani also displays three sets of personal endings (Table 1): PE1 for the present verb and the perfect subjunctive , PE2 for imperfective, preterite and past perfect forms and PE3 for the remaining perfect forms. In past tenses, Sorani verbs display remnant features of split ergativity (Haig, 2010): if a verb is transitive, the normal person markers are replaced with the endoclitic person markers as subject-verb agreement markers in the past tenses. They are inserted in verb-internal second position (Samvelian, 2007).

Passives are formed by inserting the sequence \–r\ê/\–r\â between the stem and the other suffixes (shaded column in Table 2). Descriptive grammars implicitly present \–r\ê/\–r\â as just another set of inflectional suffixes for transitive verbs (McCarus, 1958; MacKenzie, 1961; Blau, 2000; Thackston, 2006).

In order to get a more precise view of Sorani passive, we have developed a full Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM, (Stump, 2001)) account for both possible analyses of Sorani passivisation \— inflection or derivation. We argue that passivisation in Sorani Kurdish is a derivational process and propose four arguments supporting this claim. Instead of inflectional Voice Realisation Rules, we propose a Lexical Passive Derivation Rule.\ 

}, keywords = {Derivation, Inflection, Morphology, Passive, Sorani Kurdish}, url = {http://web.me.com/gwalther/homepage/Publications_(fr)_files/ICIL2011abstractGWalther.pdf}, author = {G{\'e}raldine Walther} } @inproceedings {walther11lagb, title = {Latin Passive Morphology Revisited}, year = {2011}, note = {

Communication au colloque de la la Linguistic Association of Great-Britain (LAGB 2011). 7-10 septembre 2011. Manchester, Royaume-Uni

}, month = {09/2011}, address = {Manchester, UK}, abstract = {

Latin uses distinct morphological active and passive endings. Active endings attach to verbs asso- ciated with active syntax, e.g. transitive verbs. Passive endings attach not only to verbs with passive syntax, but also to so called deponent verbs with active syntax. In addition, deponents display forms usually restricted to verbs using active paradigms, namely present and future participles and gerunds. The deponents\’ mismatch between morphological form and syntactic value (Baerman, 2007) shows that the relation between morphological forms and the associated syntax is not straightforward. The traditional approach considers it to be an inflectional process and is followed by recent studies such as (Stump, 2006; Hippisley, 2007). On the other hand, (Bresnan, 1982) states that passives may serve as an input for derivational processes. If one accepts that inflected forms cannot function as an input for derivational processes, this inevitably entails a derivational treatment of passivisation. Other ap- proaches in favour of the derivational analysis argue for lexically specified argument-structure (Sadler and Spencer, 1998; Sag et al., 2003) or propose lexeme formation rules in the sense of (Blevins, 2003).

We propose a novel solution to the active/passive interface and in particular the question of de- ponency using independently motivated approaches. We argue from an inferential realisational point of view that morphological passive is best analysed as an independent inflection class. We claim that, at least for Latin, voice change should be treated as derivation within morphology and propose three arguments supporting this claim. (1) As opposed to inflectional processes, deriva- tion is usually said to operate semantic change in an unpredictable way. (Kiparsky, 2005) shows that Latin passive forms may convey up to five distinct values. These values are lexically specified, i.e. not directly predictable. Thus, the variety of semantic changes observed in Latin data and their resulting un-predictablility argues towards a derivational approach to Latin passives. (2) Treat- ing voice change as a derivational operation also significantly simplifies the morphology-argument structure interface. Lexically specified voice allows for lexically specified argument structures. No separate mechanism is needed to account for passivisation induced argument structure change. (3) We show that satisfyingly modelling the deponents\’ behaviour requires the existence of two types of inflection classes (A and B) corresponding to active and passive. Thus passivisation is best repre- sented as the derivational process assigning Class B to a base originally belonging to Class A. The so called Latin \“deponent\” verbs retrieve most of their forms from subparadigms (zones) of Class B and the additional forms from zones of Class A (Tables 1\–3) and are thus heteroclites rather than deponents. However, this analysis makes no predictions as to the existence of deponency in general.\ 

The combination of these arguments favours a derivational account of Latin passives. We provide\ a PFM fragment (Stump, 2001) for all forms of all types of Latin verbs, incl. (semi-)deponents. \  \ 

}, keywords = {C-COM, Deponency, Derivation, Inflection, Latin, Morphology, Passive}, url = {http://web.me.com/gwalther/homepage/Publications_(fr)_files/LAGB2011abstractGWalther.pdf}, author = {G{\'e}raldine Walther} } @article {walther11linguistica, title = {Measuring Morphological Canonicity}, journal = {Linguistica}, volume = {51}, year = {2011}, month = {2011}, pages = {157-180}, chapter = {157}, abstract = {

The question of regularity within morphological paradigms has been formerly addressed within approaches falling in the scope of Canonical Typology (Corbett, 2003). The aim of this paper is to provide a means for assessing the notion of morphological canonicity through original measures developed within our new morphological framework parsli. In particular, we introduce original measures for non-canonical phenomena such as heteroclisis, deponency, defectiveness and overabundance.

We introduce parsli a new model for inflectional morphology using an inferential-realisa- tional approach (Matthews, 1974; Zwicky, 1985; Anderson, 1992). Our model precisely pro- vides a formal representation of the lexicon/grammar interface. It relies on a formal definition of a lexical entry and a complete formal apparatus for computing all relevant form realisation rules for each lexeme, including stem formation rules. Realisation rules themselves may be ex- pressed through any suitable realisation-based formalism (e.g. PFM or Network Morphology). We introduce several formal innovations such as inflection zones, that constitute partitions of given inflection classes. They are in particular used in modelling heteroclisis.\ 

}, keywords = {Canonical Typology, Defectiveness, Deponency, Formalisation, Heteroclisis, Inflection, Morphology, Overabundance, Suppletion}, url = {http://web.me.com/gwalther/homepage/Publications_(fr)_files/Linguistica51GWalther.pdf}, author = {G{\'e}raldine Walther} } @inproceedings {walther11mmm, title = {When endoclitics account for structure in morphology : a Sorani Kurdish case study}, year = {2011}, note = {

Communication au Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8). 15-17 septembre 2011. Cagliari, Italie

}, month = {09/2011}, type = {Communication}, address = {Cagliari, Italie.}, abstract = {

http://web.me.com/gwalther/homepage/Publications_(fr)_files/MMM2011abstract.pdf

}, keywords = {Clitics, Morphology, Sorani Kurdish, Structure}, author = {G{\'e}raldine Walther} }