What about Realizational Morphology?


Q: I am under the impression that your book is committed to the existence of morphemes, minimal combinations of meaning and form. That is a very old-fashioned view. Modern theories of morphology such as Realizational Morphology are not based on that flawed assumption. For example, see Gregory Stump's book Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge 2001.  It argues against morpheme-based approaches and presents a feature-based theory of lexical forms and a set of rules of exponence and referral for projecting combination of features onto surface forms. Am I right in thinking that your approach is totally incompatible with modern, feature-based, realizational theories such as Stump's.

A: Funny that you should ask that question. Karttunen published a paper in 2003, Computing with Realizational Morphology, on that very topic. He shows that, although different in appearance, Stump's system is yet another variant of finite-state morphology. Using Stump's description of Lingala as the example, Karttunen shows how it can be inplemented using replace rules, composition, and substitution. See the code example Realizational Morphology.