Documentation

Linglib.Core.Morphology.Wordhood

Wordhood Typology: ms-words vs p-words #

@cite{kalin-bjorkman-etal-2026}

@cite{kalin-bjorkman-etal-2026} (§3.2) argue that solving the wordhood problem requires distinguishing at minimum two notions of "word":

Crossing ms-boundedness (bound vs free) with p-boundedness yields a four-way typology of morpheme attachment (Table 3):

ms-freems-bound
p-freecanonical wordnon-cohering affix
p-boundsimple cliticcanonical affix

This classification connects Morphology.Diagnostics (Zwicky & Pullum's clitic-vs-affix criteria, which diagnose ms-boundedness) with Phonology.ProsodicWord (PrWd structure, which diagnoses p-boundedness).

Morphosyntactic boundedness: whether an element must be internal to a (complex) ms-word.

ms-bound elements are diagnosed by cohesiveness (the ms-word they belong to cannot be interrupted), fixed order (their position within the ms-word is rigid), and selectivity (they are picky about what they attach to). @cite{kalin-bjorkman-etal-2026} §3.2.1.

ms-free elements are independent ms-words: they can be reordered with respect to other ms-words, separated from them, etc.

Instances For
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Phonological/prosodic boundedness: whether an element must be internal to a (complex) p-word.

      p-bound elements are diagnosed by participating in p-word-bounded phonological processes (vowel harmony, stress assignment, nasal assimilation) and not exhibiting independent p-word edge phenomena. @cite{kalin-bjorkman-etal-2026} §3.2.2.

      p-free elements form their own p-word: they satisfy minimal word constraints independently, trigger p-word edge phenomena, and block cross-boundary processes.

      Instances For
        @[implicit_reducible]
        Equations
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          A morpheme's wordhood profile: its boundedness on both the morphosyntactic and phonological/prosodic dimensions. @cite{kalin-bjorkman-etal-2026} Table 3.

          Instances For
            Equations
            Instances For
              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For

                The four-way classification of morpheme attachment from Table 3. @cite{kalin-bjorkman-etal-2026} §3.2.3.

                • canonicalWord : WordhoodClass

                  ms-free, p-free: an independent word by both criteria. Example: English cat.

                • simpleClitic : WordhoodClass

                  ms-free, p-bound: syntactically independent but phonologically dependent. Requires prosodic incorporation (e.g., Clitic Group). Example: English possessive -'s, Romance clitics. @cite{zwicky-1977}

                • nonCoheringAffix : WordhoodClass

                  ms-bound, p-free: morphosyntactically part of a word but phonologically independent (forms own p-word). Example: Dutch non-cohering prefixes.

                • canonicalAffix : WordhoodClass

                  ms-bound, p-bound: part of a word by both criteria. Example: English plural -s, past tense -ed.

                Instances For
                  @[implicit_reducible]
                  Equations
                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For
                    theorem Core.Morphology.Wordhood.classify_injective (w₁ w₂ : WordhoodProfile) (h : w₁.classify = w₂.classify) :
                    w₁ = w₂

                    The four classes are mutually exclusive (each profile maps to exactly one class).