{"product_id":"analogical-classification-in-formal-grammar-von-matias-guzman-naranjo","title":"Analogical classification in formal grammar","description":"The organization of the lexicon, and especially the relations between groups of lexemes\nis a strongly debated topic in linguistics. Some authors have insisted on the lack of any\nstructure of the lexicon. In this vein, Di Sciullo \u0026amp; Williams (1987: 3) claim that “[t]he\nlexicon is like a prison – it contains only the lawless, and the only thing that its inmates\nhave in commonis lawlessness”. In the alternative view, the lexicon is assumed to have\na rich structure that captures all regularities and partial regularities that exist between\nlexical entries.Two very different schools of linguistics have insisted on the organization\nof the lexicon.\nOn the one hand, for theories like HPSG (Pollard \u0026amp; Sag 1994), but also some versions\nof construction grammar (Fillmore \u0026amp; Kay 1995), the lexicon is assumed to have a very\nrich structure which captures common grammatical properties between its members. In\nthis approach, a type hierarchy organizes the lexicon according to common properties\nbetween items. For example, Koenig (1999: 4, among others), working from an HPSG\nperspective, claims that the lexicon “provides a unified model for partial regularties,\nmedium-size generalizations, and truly productive processes”.\nOn the other hand, from the perspective of usage-based linguistics, several authors\nhave drawn attention to the fact that lexemes which share morphological or syntactic\nproperties, tend to be organized in clusters of surface (phonological or semantic) similarity\n(Bybee \u0026amp; Slobin 1982; Skousen 1989; Eddington 1996). This approach, often called\nanalogical, has developed highly accurate computational and non-computational models\nthat can predict the classes to which lexemes belong. Like the organization of lexemes\nin type hierarchies, analogical relations between items help speakers to make sense of\nintricate systems, and reduce apparent complexity (Köpcke \u0026amp; Zubin 1984).\nDespite this core commonality, and despite the fact that most linguists seem to agree\nthat analogy plays an important role in language, there has been remarkably little work\non bringing together these two approaches. Formal grammar traditions have been very\nsuccessful in capturing grammatical behaviour, but, in the process, have downplayed the\nrole analogy plays in linguistics (Anderson 2015). In this work, I aim to change this state\nof affairs. First, by providing an explicit formalization of how analogy interacts with\ngrammar, and second, by showing that analogical effects and relations closely mirror\nthe structures in the lexicon. I will show that both formal grammar approaches, and\nusage-based analogical models, capture mutually compatible relations in the lexicon.\u003cdiv class=\"aw-variant-hidden-subtitle-div\" id=\"aw-variant-subtitle-9783961101870\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003e\u003c\/h3\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Libri","offers":[{"title":"Hardcover - 9783961101870","offer_id":28501484273757,"sku":"9783961101870","price":35.0,"currency_code":"EUR","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0940\/0622\/files\/45312df4-a64d-4bab-9e98-a13fa4a1f4c1.jpg?v=1775883613","url":"https:\/\/shop.autorenwelt.de\/en\/products\/analogical-classification-in-formal-grammar-von-matias-guzman-naranjo","provider":"Autorenwelt Shop","version":"1.0","type":"link"}