Very few researchers today would create an algorithm to do morphological parsing of some language. Rather, most morphological analyzers these days are based on three components: a language-agnostic parsing engine (which contains algorithms); a set of grammar rules for morphology; and a lexicon. Commonly used parsing engines include the Xerox finite state transducer (xfst) and the Stuttgart finite state transducer (sfst), among others.
If two groups use the same engine for the same language, there will be significant similarities in their code--the same affixes, for example. It could be hard to demonstrate plagiarism there, simply because the code *has* to be similar. Even morphosyntactic feature names will often be the same (how many ways can you say "tense" or "number"?).
On the other hand, if there are significant morpho-phonological processes, that part of the grammar could and probably would differ in analysis, because there are different ways to describe the natural classes involved, or to order the rules. Or if there is not an agreed-on set of declension classes (as there is not, for Pashto), there would likely be differences in that part of the grammar on the part of different teams. --
maxwell at umiacs.umd.edu
"My definition of an interesting universe is
one that has the capacity to study itself."