On the Acquisition of Universal and Parameterised Goal Accessibility Constraints by Japanese Learners of English

This paper reports on how adult Japanese Learners of English/JLEs acquire universal and parameterised constraints which regulate the accessibility of Goals to Wh-Movement, and which determine whether subordinate or superordinate material is pied-piped or stranded when a wh-word is moved. We present evidence that universal constraints on Goal Accessibility operate in early JLE grammars, and that learners initially transfer setting for parameterised constraints from L1 to L2, concluding that our overall findings are broadly consistent with the Full Transfer Full Access model of L2 acquisition developed in Schwarz and Sprouse (1994, 1996). We show that JLEs are able to reset some parameterised constraints (e.g. the P-Stranding Constraint) but not others (e.g. the Left Branch Condition), and argue that they are only able to re-set learnable parameterised constraints (i.e. those whose setting can be learned solely on the basis of positive evidence from input), not unlearnable parameterised constraints (i.e. those whose settings cannot be learned solely on the basis of positive input)

MORSE: Semantic-ally Drive-n MORpheme SEgment-er

We present in this paper a novel framework for morpheme segmentation which uses the morpho-syntactic regularities preserved by word representations, in addition to orthographic features, to segment words into morphemes. This framework is the first to consider vocabulary-wide syntactico-semantic information for this task. We also analyze the deficiencies of available benchmarking datasets and introduce our own dataset that was created on the basis of compositionality. We validate our algorithm across datasets and present state-of-the-art results

Syntactic features in morphology : general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in german

Morphological analysis of inflectional categories has been for a long time a favored field of classical structuralism. American scholars, in this respect, concentrated on the representation of inflected forms in terms of concatenated morphemes

The systematization of tagalog morphosyntax

In the last two decades Philippine languages, and of these especially Tagalog, have acquired a prominent place in linguistic theory. A central role in this discussion was played by two papers written by Schachter (1976 and 1977), who was inspired by Keenan's artcle on the subject from 1976. The most recent contributions on this topic have been from de Wolff (1988) and Shibatani (1988), both of which were published in a collection of essays, edited by Shibatani, with the title Passive and Voice. These works, and several works in-between, deal with the focus system specific to Philippine languages. The main discussion centers around the fact that Philippine languages contain a basic set of 5 to 7 affix focus forms. Their exact number varies not only in the secondary literature, but in the primary sources, i.e. Tagalog grammars, as well, where considerable differences in the number of affix focus forms can be found. All of these works, however, do agree on one point: the Philippine focus system basica1ly consists of agent, patient (=goal or object), benefactive, locative, and instrumental affix forms. Schachter/Otanes (1972) list a number of further forms, and in Drossard (1983 and 1984) we tried to show (in an attempt similar to those of Sapir 1917 and Klimov 1977) that the main criterion for a systematization of the Philippine focus system consists in the difference between the active and stative domains, an attempt which in our opinion was largely misunderstood (cf. the brief remarks in Shibatani (1988) and de Wolff (1988). The present paper is thus, on the one hand, an attempt to repeat and clarify our earlier position, and on the other, a further step towards such a systematization. A first step in this direction was an article on resultativity in Tagalog from 1991. In the present paper this approach will be extended to reciprocity. In the process we will show that it is valid to make a distinction between an active (=controlled action) vs. a stative (=limited controlled action) domain. First, however, we will take a brief look at what makes up the active and stative voice systems