Week 1 – introduction - Morphonology and syntax
-The emergence of morphology (F. Katamba)
Morphology is the study of words. It became a separate branch of linguistics in the 19th century
to help understand the relationships between different languages. Morphologists compare word
endings, sound systems, and word-formation patterns to show how languages are related and
how they evolve.
Morphology is the study of the structure and classification of words and the units that make
up words.
Morphology is the study of how words are made up of smaller parts. It is a relatively new
field of linguistics, but it has played an important role in our understanding of how languages
work and how they evolve.
Morphology is the study of the internal structure of words. It is a relatively new field of
linguistics, emerging in the 19th century. Early morphologists were interested in reconstructing
the history of languages, and they used morphology to compare and contrast related languages.
One of the most important early morphologists was Franz Bopp, who published a study
in 1816 supporting the claim that Sanskrit, Latin, Persian, and the Germanic languages were
all descended from a common ancestor. Bopp's evidence was based on a comparison of the
grammatical endings of words in these languages.
Another important early morphologist was Jacob Grimm, who published his classic
work, Deutsche Grammatik, between 1819 and 1837. Grimm used morphology to study the
evolution of the grammar of Germanic languages and the relationships of Germanic to other
Indo-European languages.
In the late 19th century, the philologist Max Muller argued that the study of the evolution
of words could illuminate the evolution of language as a whole. He believed that the study of
the 400-500 basic roots of the Indo-European ancestor of many of the languages of Europe and
Asia was the key to understanding the origin of human language.
However, Muller's evolutionary pretensions were abandoned early on in the history of
morphology. In the 20th century, morphology has been regarded as an essentially synchronic
discipline, meaning that it focuses on the study of word structure at one stage in the life of a
language rather than on the evolution of words.
Despite this shift in focus, morphology has had a checkered career in 20th-century linguistics.
This is due in part to the fact that morphology is a complex and challenging field, and there is
no single agreed-upon theoretical framework for the study of word structure.
-Morphology in Bloomfield’s Language (F. P. Dinneen)
Bloomfield defined morphology as the study of bound forms, or morphemes, and their
arrangements in forming words. He believed that morphology was more complex than syntax
because it deals with a greater number of elements and processes. Bloomfield also thought that
languages differ more in their morphology than in their syntax.
Bloomfield's definition of morphology is still widely accepted today. However, his view that
morphology is more complex than syntax is not shared by most linguists. In fact, many linguists
believe that syntax is more complex than morphology. One reason for this is that syntax deals
with the relationships between words, while morphology deals with the internal structure of
words. Syntax is a more abstract and complex system than morphology.
Another reason is that syntax is more universal than morphology. All languages have syntax,
but not all languages have morphology. For example, Chinese is a language with very little
morphology.
Bloomfield identified a number of problems in morphology, including the elusive nature
of the meanings dealt with, the selection of a basic form, and the fact that a single morpheme
can express more than one meaning. He proposed a classification of words based on whether
or not they contain a free form, and whether or not they are derived.
The problems in morphology that Bloomfield identified are still relevant today. However,
linguists have developed new theories and methods for addressing these problems. For
example, linguists now use a variety of criteria to select a basic form for a morpheme.
Bloomfield also discussed the problem of phonetic modification, which is the way that
the sounds of a morpheme can change depending on its environment. He argued that the basic
alternant should be chosen based on simplicity and pattern congruity with similar forms.
Finally, Bloomfield discussed the ranks of morphological constructions, which is the
order in which the various compositions, modifications, and affixations take place. He argued
that complex forms can best be described as though the various ranks occur in a determined
order. Bloomfield's discussion of the ranks of morphological constructions is also still relevant
today. However, linguists now use different terms to refer to these ranks. For example, linguists
now talk about the derivational rank and the inflectional rank.
- Morphology in American Structural linguistics (F. Katamba)
Structuralists view language as a system of interconnected levels, with each level having
its own structure and rules. The four main levels of language are phonology (sound systems),
morphology (word structure), syntax (sentence structure), and semantics (meaning).
Structuralists believed that each level of language should be analyzed separately from the
others. This is known as the doctrine of separation of levels.
American structuralist linguistics was a dominant school of linguistics in the first half of
the 20th century. Structuralists viewed linguistics as a body of descriptive and analytical
procedures, rather than a theory of the nature of language. They focused on one dimension of
language structure at a time, starting with the lowest level (phonology) and working their way
up to the highest level (semantics).
- American structuralist linguistics was a way of studying language that focused on describing
and analyzing how language works, rather than trying to come up with a theory about what
language is.
- Structuralists broke language down into different levels, starting with the smallest units of
sound (phonemes) and working their way up to the largest units of meaning (sentences).
- Structuralists made important contributions to the study of morphology, which is the study of
the internal structure of words. They showed that words can be analyzed into smaller units
called morphemes, which are the smallest units of meaning and grammatical function.
Later, the focus shifted to morphology, which is the study of the internal structure of
words. Structuralists showed that words can be analyzed into smaller units called morphemes,
which are the smallest units of meaning and grammatical function. For example, the word
"unbreakable" is made up of three morphemes: the prefix "un-", the root word "break", and the
suffix "-able".
-The goals of morphological research (M. Haspelmath)
Morphological research has four main goals:
1- Elegant description: To describe morphological patterns in a way that is clear, concise, and
generalizable or easy to understand. For example, we would say that English nouns form their
plural by adding -s, rather than listing all of the possible plural forms in a dictionary. All
linguists agree that morphological patterns (just like other linguistic patterns) should be
described in an elegant and intuitively satisfactory way. The main criterion for elegance is
generality. Scientific descriptions should, of course, reflect generalizations in the data and
should not merely list all known individual facts.
2- Cognitively realistic description: To describe morphological patterns in a way that reflects
the way that speakers of the language understand them. Most linguists would say that their
descriptions should not only be elegant and general, but they should also be cognitively realistic.
In other words, they should express the same generalizations about grammatical systems
that the speakers’ cognitive apparatus has unconsciously arrived at. We know that the speakers’
knowledge of English not only consists of lists of singulars and plurals, but comprises a general
rule of the type ‘add -s to a singular form to get a plural noun’. Otherwise, speakers would be
unable to form the plural of nouns they have never encountered before. For example, we know
that speakers of English can form the plural of nouns that they have never encountered before,
such as "duduk." This suggests that speakers have a general understanding of how to form
plurals, even if they do not know all of the specific forms.
Linguists sometimes reject proposed descriptions because they seem cognitively
implausible, and sometimes they collaborate with psychologists and neurologists and take their
research results into account.
3- System-external explanation: To explain why morphological patterns are the way they are,
taking into account factors outside of the language system, such as the needs of communication
and the cognitive abilities of humans. For example, we might ask why English nouns have
plurals at all. One possible explanation is that plurals are useful for communicating how many
things there are.
4- A restrictive architecture for description: To develop a framework for describing
morphological patterns that is universal to all human languages. We want to develop a
framework for describing morphological patterns that is universal to all human languages. This
would allow us to make generalizations about how languages work, and to identify patterns
that are unique to certain languages. linguists try to construct an architecture for description
(also called grammatical theory) that all language-particular descriptions must conform to.
This architecture is restrictive because it automatically disallows certain logically possible
interactions of rules. Many linguists assume that the architecture of grammar is innate, it is the
same for all languages because it is genetically fixed for the human species. The innate part of
speakers’ grammatical knowledge is also called Universal Grammar. For these linguists, one
goal of morphological research is to discover those principles of the innate Universal Grammar
that are relevant for word structure.
- Why cannot constituents of words be fronted to the beginning of the sentence?
To answer them from a Universal Grammar-oriented perspective with reference to a
hypothesis about the innate architecture of grammar (‘Because fronting rules are part of the
syntactic component, and morpheme combinations are part of morphology, and syntax and
morphology are separate’).
There are thus two primary orientations in contemporary theoretical morphological
research: The functionalist A orientation, which aims at system-external explanation, and the
generative (or formalist) orientation, which seeks to discover the principles of the innate
grammatical architecture. However, it does not seem wise to divide the labour of morphological
research in this way, because neither system-external factors nor innate principles can explain
the whole range of morphological patterns.
These goals are often in conflict with each other. For example, an elegant description may
not be cognitively realistic, and a system-external explanation may not be compatible with the
restrictive architecture of Universal Grammar. However, it is important to keep all four goals
in mind when conducting morphological research. It is important to note that these goals are
not always easy to achieve. Morphological research is a complex and challenging field, but it
is also a very rewarding one. By understanding the structure of words, we can gain a deeper
understanding of how language works and how humans communicate.
References
• Bruce M., Levine, R. (2011). A Concise Introduction to Linguistics (3rd Edition) 3rd
Edition. USA: Pearson.
• Dinneen, F. P. (1967) An Introduction to General linguistics.
• Haspelmath, M. (2002) Understanding morphonology.
• Katamba, F. (1993) Morphology.
Week 2 – Morphonology and syntax- What is Linguistic Morphology
Page 1 of 8 – Hussein Kareem
1- Morphology: basic notions
-Relations between words
Morphology, which is the study of the internal structure of words and how words are
formed and varied within the lexicon of any given language. Words are made up of smaller
parts called morphemes. These morphemes can be combined in different ways to form new
words. For example, the word "walking" is made up of the morphemes "walk" and "-ing."
A word family is a group of related words that are all derived from the same root word. For
example, the word family of tax includes the words taxation, taxable, and taxability. Or, Man,
manly, manhood…
Word forms are the different ways that a lexeme can be expressed. For example, the lexeme
"walk" has the word forms "walk," "walks," "walked," and "walking."
Inflection is the process of changing the form of a word to indicate grammatical information,
such as tense, number, and case. rules for computing the different forms of lexemes are called
rules of inflection.
Derivation is the process of forming a new word from an existing word by adding a prefix or
suffix.
Compounding is the process of forming a new word by combining two or more existing
words.
The two main types of word formation: derivation and compounding. Derivation is the
process of creating a new word from an existing word by adding or removing affixes.
Compounding is the process of creating a new word by combining two or more existing
words. Changing the word class of a word, as happened in the creation of the verb to tax from
the noun tax, is called conversion,
-Paradigmatic and syntagmatic morphology
The term ‘morphology’ has been taken over from biology where it is used to denote
the study of the forms of plants and animals. Its first recorded use is in writings by the
German poet and writer Goethe in 1796. It was first used for linguistic purposes in 1859 by
the German linguist August Schleicher (Salmon 2000), to refer to the study of the form of
words. In present-day linguistics, the term ‘morphology’ refers to the study of the internal
structure of words, and of the systematic form–meaning correspondences between words.
There is a direction in the relationship between these two sets of words. The word buyer
is a complex word since it can be decomposed into the constituents buy and -er. The word
buy, on the other hand, is a simplex word, because it cannot be decomposed any further into
smaller meaningful units, only into sound segments.
The notion ‘systematic’ in the definition of morphology given above is important. For
instance, we might observe a form difference and a corresponding meaning difference
between the English noun ear and the verb hear. However, this pattern is not systematic:
there are no similar word pairs, and we cannot form new English verbs by adding h- to a
Week 2 – Morphonology and syntax- What is Linguistic Morphology
Page 2 of 8 – Hussein Kareem
noun. There is no possible verb to heye with the meaning “to see” derived from the noun
‘eye.
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships are two different ways of looking at
language units. Syntagmatic relationships are between words that are combined to form
larger linguistic units, such as phrases and sentences. Paradigmatic relationships are between
words that belong to the same category, such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives, but cannot be
used together in the same sentence.
For example, the words "the" and "book" have a syntagmatic relationship in the phrase
"the book." This means that they are combined to form a larger linguistic unit. The
determiners "a" and "the" have a paradigmatic relationship. This means that they belong to
the same category of words (determiners), but cannot be used together in the same sentence
(e.g., "the a book"). In other words, syntagmatic relationships are about how words are
combined, while paradigmatic relationships are about how words are related to each other.
Paradigmatic morphology is the study of the inflection of words, while syntactic
morphology is the study of the derivation of words.
Paradigmatic morphology deals with the different forms that a word can take, depending
on its grammatical function in a sentence. For example, the English verb "walk" can be
inflected to form different tenses (e.g., "walked," "walking"), moods (e.g., "imperative"), and
persons (e.g., "I walk," "you walk," "he/she/it walks").
Syntactic morphology deals with the way that words are formed from other words. For
example, the English word "walkable" is formed from the verb "walk" by adding the suffix "-
able."
The distinction between paradigmatic and syntactic morphology is important because it
helps us to understand the different ways that words are used in language. Paradigmatic
morphology is concerned with the way that words are inflected to indicate their grammatical
function, while syntactic morphology is concerned with the way that words are formed to
create new words with new meanings.
A morpheme-based approach to morphology is a way of analyzing words by breaking
them down into their smallest meaningful parts. These parts are called morphemes.
Morphemes can be free morphemes, which can stand on their own as words, or bound
morphemes, which must be attached to another morpheme to form a word.
The morpheme-based approach to morphology views words as being formed by combining
morphemes together. This is similar to how sentences are formed by combining words
together. In fact, the morpheme-based approach to morphology is often referred to as the
"syntax of morphemes."
Here is an example:
The word "buyer" can be broken down into two morphemes: "buy" and "-er." "Buy" is a free
morpheme, because it can stand on its own as a word. "-er" is a bound morpheme, because it
must be attached to another morpheme to form a word.
The morpheme "-er" is a noun suffix. This means that when it is attached to a verb, it forms a
noun. For example, the verb "eat" can be combined with the morpheme "-er" to form the
noun "eater."
Week 2 – Morphonology and syntax- What is Linguistic Morphology
Page 3 of 8 – Hussein Kareem
The morpheme-based approach to morphology is a useful tool for understanding how words
are formed and how they are related to each other. It can also be used to generate new words.
Language users can create new words with more than one morpheme called
polymorphemic words (words consisting of more than one morpheme) by combining
morphemes together, or by combining morphemes with words that are already made up of
more than one morpheme. An example of the latter is the formation of the word
"tranquillizer." The word "tranquillize" is formed by adding the suffix "-ize" to the adjective
"tranquil." The word "tranquillizer" is not formed by simply combining three morphemes
together. Instead, it is formed in two steps. First, the suffix "-ize" is added to the adjective
"tranquil" to form the verb "tranquillize." Then, the suffix "-er" is added to the verb
"tranquillize" to form the noun "tranquillizer." The morphological structure of this word is
therefore layered. In other words, morphology can be seen as the syntax of morphemes. It is
the set of rules that tell us how to combine free and bound morphemes to form well-formed
words.
The paradigmatic approach to morphology is based on the idea that words and relationships
between words are the starting point of morphological analysis. Morphemes are secondary
units that are used to describe the internal structure of words.
In contrast, the syntagmatic approach to morphology is based on the idea that words are
formed by the concatenation of morphemes.
The paradigmatic approach is more suited for explaining the relationship between words in a
set, such as the verbs "walk," "walks," "walked," and "walking." It can also be used to
explain the relationship between words with different parts of speech, such as the verb "walk"
and the noun "walker."
The syntagmatic approach is more suited for explaining how words are formed from
morphemes, such as the word "walker" from the verb "walk" and the suffix "-er."
The paradigmatic approach is more suitable for explaining the relationship between
words in a language. This is because it allows us to capture the systematic relationships
between words, even when those relationships are not expressed through the concatenation of
morphemes.
For example, the English irregular verbs "sing" and "grow" have different past tense forms
("sang" and "grew"). This cannot be explained by the syntagmatic approach, which assumes
that words are formed by the concatenation of morphemes. However, it can be explained by
the paradigmatic approach, which sees words and relationships between words as the starting
point of morphological analysis.
Also, the paradigmatic approach is more suitable for explaining the acquisition of
morphology. This is because children learn about morphology by discovering the systematic
relationships between words.
There are also cases where new words are formed by replacing one constituent with
another. For example, the Dutch compound word "boeman" (boo-man) has a specific
meaning, "ogre or bugbear." Its female counterpart, "boevrouw," has clearly been formed by
Week 2 – Morphonology and syntax- What is Linguistic Morphology
Page 4 of 8 – Hussein Kareem
replacing the constituent "man" with "vrouw" (woman), rather than by directly combining
"boe" and "vrouw" into a compound. This is because the two compounds share the same
idiosyncratic meaning.
This type of word formation cannot be explained by a purely syntagmatic approach to
morphology, which is based on the combination of morphemes or the application of rules.
Instead, it is based on specific words, and is therefore a typical case of analogy.
The paradigmatically oriented definition of morphology states that morphology is
lexeme-based. Lexemes are the basic units of meaning in a language. In lexeme formation (or
word-formation), we create new lexemes on the basis of other lexemes. In inflection, we
create different forms of lexemes.
The processes of word-formation and inflection together form the morphological part of a
grammar.
Morphology deals with both the form and the meaning of linguistic expressions. Therefore,
morphology can be thought of as "word grammar." Word grammar accounts for the
systematic form-meaning relations between words. It is a set of correspondence rules
between the forms and meanings of words.
The notion of "word grammar" stands in opposition to "sentence grammar," which describes
the systematic relations between form and meaning at the sentence level.
In conclusion, the paradigmatic approach to morphology is a more comprehensive and
explanatory approach than the syntagmatic approach. It is better suited for explaining the
relationship between words in a language, as well as the acquisition of morphology.
-Morphology and the lexicon
The set of lexemes of a language comprises two subsets: simplex lexemes and complex
lexemes. The lexicon specifies the properties of each word, its phonological form,
its morphological and syntactic properties, and its meaning.
The lexicon is important for a number of reasons. First, it allows us to store and retrieve
information about words. Second, it allows us to understand and produce new words, even if
we have never seen them before. Third, it allows us to understand the meaning of sentences
and to communicate with others.
The relationship between morphology and the lexicon.
Morphology is the study of the internal structure of words and how words are formed and
varied. Morphology is important for the lexicon because it helps us to understand how
complex words are formed and how they are related to other words in the language.
For example, the English word swimmer is formed from the verb swim by adding the suffix -
er. The suffix -er is a recurrent element in English, and it is used to form nouns that denote
people who perform the action indicated by the verb. Thus, the word swimmer is related to
the verb swim in the same way that the words walker, runner, and jumper are related to the
verbs walk, run, and jump, respectively.
Week 2 – Morphonology and syntax- What is Linguistic Morphology
Page 5 of 8 – Hussein Kareem
The lexicon is a complex and dynamic system. It is constantly changing as new words
are created and old words fall out of use. The study of the lexicon is an important area of
linguistics, and it has implications for a variety of other fields, such as education, language
technology, and artificial intelligence.
The lexicon also contains words that have been borrowed from other languages. These
words are often adapted to fit the phonological and morphological rules of the borrowing
language.
2- Morphological analysis
- The atoms of words:
Words can be broken down into smaller units at both the phonological and
morphological levels. At the phonological level, words can be divided into syllables or
segments, and segments into their constituent phonological features. At the morphological
level, words may consist of more than one unit, which are called morphemes. Morphemes are
the smallest units of meaning in a language.
syncretism : The phenomenon that two or more grammatical words have the
same word form is called syncretism. EX: sheep, You, can be singular and plural.
Stems can be either simplex or complex. If they are simple, they are called roots. Roots may
be turned into stems by the addition of a morpheme.
Affixes are bound morphemes, meaning that they cannot stand alone as words.
However, not all bound morphemes are affixes. For example, the bound morphemes scope
and graph in the words microscope and telegraph are not affixes.
These bound morphemes are called combining forms because they only occur in combination
with other morphemes. They are often used in neo-classical compounds, which are
compounds that are formed from words from the classical languages of Greek and Latin.
Neo-classical compounds can have one or both constituents as combining forms. For
example, the word microscope has the combining form micro and the lexeme scope. The
word telegraph has the combining form tele and the lexeme graph.
Neo-classical compounds are compounds that are formed from words from the classical
languages of Greek and Latin. They can have one or both constituents as combining forms.
Combining forms cannot be considered affixes because that would imply that words such as
necrology would consist of affixes only. This goes against the idea that each word has at least
one stem.
Week 2 – Morphonology and syntax- What is Linguistic Morphology
Page 6 of 8 – Hussein Kareem
Affixes and combining forms
Affixes are bound morphemes that attach to words to change their meaning or
grammatical function. Combining forms are bound morphemes that can only occur in
combination with other morphemes. They are often used in neo-classical compounds.
- Morphological operations
Morphology is the study of the internal structure of words and how words are formed and
varied. It is not only concerned with the analysis of existing words, but also with the
formation of new words and forms of words. This is the creative aspect of morphology.
One key notion in morphology is that of the "morphological operation." This refers to the
process of combining morphemes to form words. There are two main types of morphological
operations: compounding and affixation.
Compounding is the process of combining two or more lexemes to form a new word. For
example, the English word "doghouse" is a compound of the lexemes "dog" and "house."
Affixation is the process of adding a prefix, suffix, or infix to a lexeme to form a new word
or form of a word. For example, the English word "dogs" is the plural form of the lexeme
"dog," which is formed by adding the suffix "-s."
Reduplication is another type of morphological operation, but it is not considered to be a
prototypical case of concatenative morphology. This is because the phonological content of
the reduplicated affix is not fixed, but depends on the phonological composition of the stem.
Another type of morphological operation is the use of tone patterns. This is a case of nonconcatenative
morphology, since the tone morpheme is not linearly ordered with respect to its
base.
Finally, some languages make use of internal modification to form new words. This involves
changing the phonological form of the root of the word. An example of this is the ablaut,
vowel gradation, or apophony that is used in many Indo-European languages to form
different forms of the verb.
In summary, morphological operations are the processes that are used to form new
words and forms of words. There are two main types of morphological operations:
concatenative and non-concatenative. Concatenative morphology involves combining
morphemes in a linear fashion, while non-concatenative morphology does not.
- Difficulties in Morphological analysis (M. Haspelmath)
Morpheme analysis is the process of breaking down words into their constituent morphemes.
This can be difficult in some cases, especially when it comes to suppletive allomorphs.
Suppletive allomorphs are morphemes that have different phonological shapes that are not
related to each other. For example, the English morpheme for the past tense of the verb "to
go" can be realized as the allomorphs -ed, -went, and -gone. These allomorphs are not related
to each other phonologically, but they all have the same meaning.
Week 2 – Morphonology and syntax- What is Linguistic Morphology
Page 7 of 8 – Hussein Kareem
Some linguists have argued that suppletive allomorphs cannot be considered to be
manifestations of the same morpheme, because they do not have a consistent phonological
form. They argue that the term morpheme should be reserved for abstract morphemes, which
are associated with a meaning but not with a particular phonological form.
Other linguists argue that suppletive allomorphs are still manifestations of the same
morpheme, even though they have different phonological forms. They argue that the
meaning of the morpheme is more important than its phonological form.
Regardless of whether or not suppletive allomorphs are considered to be manifestations of
the same morpheme, they can make morpheme analysis difficult. This is because it can be
difficult to identify suppletive allomorphs, especially when they are very different
phonologically.
The ambiguity of the term "morpheme". The term "morpheme" is often used ambiguously,
with both a concrete and an abstract meaning. The concrete meaning of "morpheme".
In the concrete sense, a morpheme is a minimal morphological constituent, or the
smallest meaningful unit of a word. In the concrete sense, a morpheme is a minimal
morphological constituent, or the smallest meaningful unit of a word. For example, the
English word "dogs" is made up of two morphemes: "dog" and "-s." The morpheme "dog" is
the root morpheme, which carries the core meaning of the word. The morpheme "-s" is the
plural suffix, which indicates that the word is referring to multiple dogs.
The abstract meaning of "morpheme. In the abstract sense, a morpheme is a set of
alternating morphs that have the same meaning and occur in complementary distribution. For
example, the English plural morpheme "-s" has three different allomorphs: /s/, /z/, and /iz/.
The allomorph /s/ is used after voiceless consonants (e.g., cats), the allomorph /z/ is used
after voiced consonants (e.g., dogs), and the allomorph /iz/ is used after certain vowel sounds
(e.g., babies).
Week 2 – Morphonology and syntax- What is Linguistic Morphology
Page 8 of 8 – Hussein Kareem
Three problems for morphological segmentation
Cumulative expression, zero expression, and empty morphemes are three problems for
morphological segmentation.
Cumulative expression is when an affix expresses two different morphological meanings
simultaneously. For example, in Serbian/Croatian, the suffix "-u" on the noun "ovca" (sheep)
expresses both the accusative case and the singular number. Cumulative expression is when a
word part expresses two or more different meanings at the same time.
Zero expression is when a morpheme has no formal element. For example, in Finnish, there
is no marker for the third person singular in verbs. Zero expression is when a word part has
no meaning at all.
Empty morphemes are morphemes that have form but no meaning. For example, in
Lezghian, four of the sixteen cases have a suffix that follows the noun stem and precedes the
case suffix, but this suffix has no meaning. Empty morphemes are word parts that have no
meaning, but they still exist.
References
• Haspelmath, M. (2002) Understanding morphonology.
• Katamba, F. (1993) Morphology.
Week 3 – Morphonology and syntax- The morpheme
Page 1 of 3 – Hussein Kareem
We have five units of grammatical description in languages, we can arrange all five units
on a scale of rank (sentence, clause, phrase, word, morpheme). We call the sentence the
'highest' unit and the morpheme the 'lowest'. The relation between the five units of grammatical
description is one of composition. The units of higher rank are composed of units of lower
rank. We can say that units of higher rank can be analysed (or 'decomposed') into units of lower
rank.
The world, sentences are separated from one another by using special marks of punctuation
(full-stop, question-mark, exclamation mark) and by capitalizing the first letter of the first word
in each sentence; and, within sentences, words are separated from one another by spaces.
There are two primary units of grammatical analysis, the word and the morpheme. Most
modern treatments of grammatical theory have glossed over this difficulty by defining the
morpheme as the minimal unit of grammatical analysis.
- Segmentability of words
Morphemes as minimal units of grammatical analysis. the units of 'lowest'. Words, the
units of next 'highest' rank, are composed. With the example we have the word, ‘ unacceptable’
which consisted of three morpheme, ‘un- accept – able’. Each one of these morpheme has it
own a particular Distribution, particular phonological and orthographical form, or 'shape'. A
word can be divided into smaller grammatical segments or morpheme is a matter of degree.
EX. The words boy-s; jump-s, jump-ed, But there are many other English nouns, verbs and
adjectives which either cannot be segmented, Such as. Suppletion, go, went , gone, good better,
best. Or irregular plurals, man-men- zero morpheme, sheep, sheep or Empty morpheme.
according to Crystal D. in his book , A dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, he define empty
morph as .. ‘ empty morph, to refer to a formal feature in a word which cannot be allocated
to any morpheme. A well-discussed example in English is the word children, where a possible
analysis is into root child and plural suffix -en (cf. oxen); the residual /r/ left by this analysis
is then seen as an empty morph without which the word would not be exhaustively analysed at
the morphemic level. ‘ (Crystal D. 2008, P 168)
These words all present problems of segmentation.
morpheme
free
lexical
open class
functional
close system
bound
inflectional
can't change
the catagrey of
word
dervational
mostlay, creat
new word
Week 3 – Morphonology and syntax- The morpheme
Page 2 of 3 – Hussein Kareem
A cranberry morpheme is a type of bound morpheme that cannot be assigned an
independent meaning and grammatical function, but nonetheless serves to distinguish one word
from another. It is also known as a unique morpheme, blocked morpheme, or leftover
morpheme. ( Don’t occur in another morpheme)
The words bad : worst: worst, are the same category or agree with ‘ tall: taller: tallest’.
- Morpheme and morph
De Saussure classify morpheme into substance ( row material: sound, meaning) and form
( the organization of material). The morpheme is an element of form that arbitrarily related to
substantial relation on the phonological ( or orthographical) level of the language.
- Sometimes morpheme has only one Phonological representation or form and other has a
number of variants known as allomorphs.
* To have allomorphs under two conditioned.
1- Phonologically Conditioned
-When its form is dependent on the adjacent phonemes.
- Morphophonology. The study of the different phonemic shapes of allomorphs. Sometime
called morphonology.
/-z/, /-s/, /iz/ are all phonologically conditioned allomorphs of English plural morphemefollow
specific rules
-Voiced + S-plural = /z/ dogs. bees
- Voiceless + S-Plural = /s/ ex Cats, giraffes
- /s/ , /z/ /sh/ (sibilant (hissing hushing) + S plural = /iz/ horses, Cheeses, dishes,
2- lexically Conditioned or grammatical.
When its form is form seems to be a purely accidental one, linked to a particular vocabulary
item.
Within Lexically conditioned plurals don’t follow any specific rule. Each one has to be
learnt separately.
Ox-Oxen : it is easy to divided into two morpheme (ox – en )
Sheep , sheep. Here we have zero suffix or morpheme , sheep - Ǿ.
goose-geese/ there is no obvious way to analyze geese. The /i/ replace /u/ called replacive.
Most linguist simply accept that the form ‘geese’ represent two morphemes goose and plural
form. That means, we have two morpheme can’t be separated. The same with ‘went’ represent
‘go and past tense’ and took. Represent take and past tense.
Week 3 – Morphonology and syntax- The morpheme
Page 3 of 3 – Hussein Kareem
- Isolating, agglutinating and inflecting languages
Isolating, agglutinating, and inflecting languages are three different types of language
morphologies.
1- An isolating ( or 'analytic') language is defined as one in which all words are invariable. In
other words, Isolating languages have a very simple morphology, with words typically
consisting of a single morpheme. This means that each word has only one meaning, and there
is no way to change the meaning of a word by adding or changing morphemes. Examples of
isolating languages include Chinese, Vietnamese, and Khmer.
2- An agglutinating language is one in which words are typically composed of a sequence of
morphs with each morph representing one morpheme.
Agglutinating languages have a more complex morphology than isolating languages, but their
words are still made up of multiple morphemes. In agglutinating languages, morphemes are
added to the end of a root word to change its meaning. For example, in the Turkish word
"evlerimizde" (in our houses), the root word is "ev" (house), and the morphemes "-ler" (plural),
"-im" (first person possessive), and "-iz" (locative) have been added to change its meaning.
Other examples of agglutinating languages include Finnish, Hungarian, and Japanese.
- Each grammatical function has its own morph or form.
3- Inflecting: Affixes can be attached to the root word in different ways, depending on the
grammatical function of the word. The form or morph change or inflect according to the
function.
Semi-agglutination'. The same morph may represent different grammatical units either in
different positions of the same word or in different words of the same class. The morpheme (
er) can be comparative ex: tall: teller, or agent ex: read: reader. This kind of 'semiagglutination'
(if it may be so called) is what was described above as the multiple representation
of morphemes by single morphs. It is particularly characteristic of various so-called
'Austronesian' languages (Sundanese, Tagalog, Malay, etc.).
There are many words that need not be listed in dictionaries, because their meanings are
completely predictable ( such as dioeciously), and many which cannot be listed, simply because
they may never have been used ( such as un-Clintonish and antirehabilitationist ). These are all
words which are not lexical items.
The distinction between words that are lexical items and words that are not. As we have
seen, words that are not lexical items must be complex, in the sense that they are composed of
two or more morphemes. But those are not the only words that are complex; lexical-item words
can be complex too. Words that are lexical items do not have to be monomorphemic (consisting
of just one morpheme).
Polymorphemic (consisting of more than one morpheme) has an important bearing on the
relationship between morphemes and meaning. Two characteristics of morphemes
1 . be identifiable from one word to another
2. contribute in some way to the meaning of the whole word.
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 1 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
According to Lyons, J (1968) in his book, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, He
defined the word as ‘is the unit par excellence of traditional grammatical theory.’ The word is
the principal unit of lexicography (or 'dictionary-making'). Lexicography is the study of words
and the art of writing dictionaries. Dictionaries are compilations of words and their meanings,
and the word is the basic unit of information that is included in a dictionary. (Crystal, D. 2008)
To distinguish between morphology and syntax, morphology deals with the internal
structure of words ('the study of forms of words). While, syntax deals with the rules governing
their combination in sentences. (the theory of 'putting together')
Crystal, D. (2008) in his book, ‘ A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics’ defines words
as, ‘word (n.) A unit of expression which has universal intuitive recognition by nativespeakers,
in both spoken and written language.’ But within this definition we have such
problems or difficulties, as a unit such as ‘washing machine’ two words, or is it one, to be
written washing-machine? Therefore, defining the word as (units of expression) or (ideas) does
not help.
Inflexion and derivation
It was in the nineteenth century that the term 'morphology' was introduced into linguistics
to cover both inflexion and derivation. (The term itself appears to have been invented by Goethe
and to have been first applied, in biology, to the study of the 'forms' of living organisms; as we
saw in the first chapter, from the middle of the nineteenth century linguistics was very much
influenced by evolutionary biology.) (Lyons, J. 1968)
The standard reference grammars of Greek and Latin, and the grammars of modern languages
which are based on classical principles, are generally divided into three sections, not two:
namely, into inflexion ( or 'accidence'), derivation ( or 'word-formation'), and syntax. But these
three sections are not regarded as being of equal importance to the grammarian.
Inflexion is defined in classical grammatical theory somewhat as follows: inflexion is a change
made in the form of a word to express its relation to other words in the sentence. And in the
grammars of particular languages the section on inflexion will describe the 'declensions' of
nouns, adjectives, and pronouns, and the 'conjugations' of verbs, according to selected models
of formation, or 'paradigms'. (ibid)
The section on derivation will list various processes whereby new words are formed from
existing words ( or 'roots'): adjectives from nouns (seasonal from season), nouns from verbs
(singer from sing), adjectives from verbs (acceptable from accept), and so on.
The section on derivation was grafted on grammars of the western classical languages
because of the influence of Sanskrit grammatical treatises, which focused on the systematic
study of the formation of words from a historical point of view. It was realized that inflexional
and derivational processes had a good deal in common. (ibid)
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 2 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
- Ambiguity of the term 'word'
The term 'word' has three different senses (Phonological representation, orthographical
representation and Grammatical word). The first two senses are distinguished in terms of the
notion of 'realization'. We must distinguish between phonological or orthographical words
and the grammatical words. (ibid)
For example, the phonological word /saŋ/ and the corresponding orthographic word sang
represent a particular grammatical word, which is traditionally referred to as 'the past tense of
sing'. But, the phonological word /k^t/ and the corresponding orthographic word cut represent
three different grammatical words: 'the present tense of cut', 'the past tense of cut', and the 'past
participle of cut'. So, phonological and orthographic words in English are generally in one-toone
correspondence with one another in the sense that they represent the same set of (one or
more) grammatical words.
There are some instances of correspondence between phonological and grammatical
words
(a) one-many: /mi:t/: meat, meet, here we have one phonological representation for many
grammatical words
(b) many-one: /ri:d/ or /red/: read ('the present tense of read', 'the past tense of read';
/red/ is also in correspondence with the orthographic word red,
/ri:d/ with the orthographic word reed (ibid)
- Word and 'lexeme'
Traditional grammar defines a word as an abstract unit of lexical meaning that underlies a
set of words that are related through inflection. For example, the words "sing," "sang," and
"singing" are all different forms of the same word, "sing." The term "lexeme" refers to the
abstract unit of lexical meaning that traditional grammar calls a ‘word’.
Modern linguistics has tended to use the term "word" can be used to refer to phonological
or orthographic units, or to the grammatical units they represent. This has led to some
confusion, as the term "word" can now be used to refer to three different things:
• Phonological word: A sequence of sounds that is considered to be a single word in a
language.
• Orthographic word: A sequence of letters that is considered to be a single word in a
language.
• Grammatical word: A word that has a specific grammatical function, such as noun,
verb, adjective, or adverb.
However, linguists often use the term "lexeme" to refer to the more abstract grammatical
units that occur in different forms according to the syntactic rules of a sentence. (Inflection
paradigm) (ibid)
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 3 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
- Accidence'
Accidence is a term in traditional grammar that refers to the variation of words according
to their grammatical properties. For example, the English word "cat" can be singular or plural,
and the word "run" can be present tense, past tense, or past participle. These variations are
considered to be accidental properties of the words "cat" and "run." The traditional term
'accidence' for what we are calling 'inflexion'
The traditional concept of accidence is based on the Aristotelian distinction between
substance and accidents. Substance refers to what a thing is essentially, and accidents are the
properties that a thing may or may not have. For example, it is part of the substance of man to
be intelligent and have two legs, it is 'accidental' that particular men should have red hair or
blue eyes.
In the same way, the traditional grammarian sees the lexeme, or word, as the substance of
a word, and its accidental properties are its grammatical properties. For example, the lexeme
"cat" can be singular or plural, but it is still essentially a cat.
The traditional concept of accidence is important because it allows us to classify words
into different classes based on their grammatical properties. For example, nouns can be
classified as singular or plural, and verbs can be classified as present tense, past tense, or past
participle. This classification of words is useful for understanding how language works and for
learning how to use language correctly. (ibid)
- Orthographic words
Orthographic words are words that are written in a particular way. They are made up of
letters, and they are separated from each other by spaces. Orthographic words are different
from lexemes, which are abstract units of lexical meaning.
Sapir observed that even uneducated American-Indian speakers, who had no experience of
writing any language at all, were able to dictate texts to him "word by word." This shows that
the ability to break utterances up into words is not something that is created by reading and
writing. Rather, it is a native ability of all speakers of a language. (ibid)
-Potential pause
The potential pause criterion of the word defines a word as any segment of a sentence
bounded by successive points at which pausing is possible. However, this criterion is not
considered to be a satisfactory definition of the word because speakers do not normally pause
between words in normal speech. A better definition of the word should capture the functional
unity of the word as it is used in normal speech.
The potential pause criterion of the word defines a word as any segment of a sentence bounded
by successive points at which pausing is possible. However, this criterion is not considered to
be a theoretical definition of the word, but rather a procedural help to the linguist working with
informants.
This is because speakers do not normally pause between words in normal speech. The
fact that speakers are able to actualize potential pauses when they wish to shows that words
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 4 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
must be identifiable as units in their language even under the normal conditions in which they
use it.
It is this functional unity of the word that linguists must try to capture in their definition of
the word. This functional unity is also what lies behind the recognition of the word in most
systems of orthography.
In sum, The potential pause criterion of the word is not a satisfactory definition of the word
because it does not account for the fact that speakers do not normally pause between words in
normal speech. A better definition of the word should capture the functional unity of the word
as it is used in normal speech. (ibid)
- Semantic definition of the word
One well-known definition of the word runs as follows 'A word may be defined as the
union of a particular meaning with a particular complex of sounds capable of a particular
grammatical employment.'
Within this definition, we have three condition to put in consideration
they are semantics (meaning), a phonological and a grammatical unit.
The definition of a word as a unit that has a definite meaning, a definite phonological shape,
and a definite grammatical employment is not satisfactory.
The two reasons for why this definition is not satisfactory:
1. There are other units that satisfy all three conditions, such as entire phrases and
distributionally limited segments of even higher rank. (the phrase "the new book" has a
definite meaning, a definite phonological shape, and a definite grammatical
employment. However, it is not generally considered to be a word.)
2. The definition does not account for the fact that some words are made up of multiple
morphemes, while others are made up of a single morpheme. (the word "unacceptable"
can be analyzed into three morphemes: "un", "accept", and "able". However, it is not
generally considered to be three words, because each morph has its own meaning,
sound and grammatical employment) (ibid)
- 'Minimal free form'
Bloomfield's definition of the word as a minimal free form. ( J. Lyons. 1968)
Bloomfield defines the word as "a minimum free form." This means that a word is the smallest
unit of language that can be used on its own as a complete utterance.
**Problems with Bloomfield's definition**
Bloomfield's definition has two main problems:
1. It fails to capture certain forms that are traditionally considered to be independent words,
such as articles (e.g. "the" and "a") in English. These forms cannot occur as whole utterances
in any normal situation of language use, but they are still considered to be words.
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 5 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
2. It is based on the criterion of "freedom of occurrence," which is not a reliable way to
identify words. For example, the word "the" could be said as a whole utterance in reply to
someone asking for a three-letter word beginning with "th." However, this is not a normal
situation of language use, and it is clear that the word "the" is not being used in its usual sense
in this context.
- Alternatives to Bloomfield's definition
It’s better way to define the word is in terms of its "cohesion" as a grammatical unit. This
means that the word is a unit that is more tightly bound together than other groupings of
morphemes in the sentence. However, the author acknowledges that it is difficult to measure
cohesion directly, and that Bloomfield's definition of the word as a minimal free form can be
used as a procedural aid to the linguist working with informants.
In sum, the minimal free form definition of the word is a useful concept, but it has its
limitations. It is important to bear these limitations in mind when using this definition to
identify words in a language. (ibid)
-Internal cohesion' of the word
The grammatical ' cohesion' of the word (regarded as a combination of morphemes) is
commonly discussed in terms of two criteria: 'positional mobility' and 'uninterruptability'.
• Positional mobility refers to the ability of a word to be moved around in a sentence
without changing the meaning of the sentence. For example, the word "boy" can be
moved around in the sentence "The boy ran down the street" without changing the
meaning of the sentence.
• Uninterruptability refers to the inability of other words or phrases to be inserted
between the morphemes of a word. For example, the word "boy" cannot be interrupted
by other words or phrases.
The English article "the" is a marginal case in terms of these criteria. It is not positionally
mobile, but it is uninterruptible. This means that it is not a fully word in the same way as other
words, such as "boy". (ibid)
-Phonological correlations
In many languages, the word is phonologically marked in some way, what is called a
word accent: in such languages every word is 'accented' (this may be a matter of stress or pitch,
or both) on one and only one syllable. This means that there is something in the way the word
is pronounced that tells us that it is a separate word. One common way of doing this is with
word accent, which means that one syllable in the word is stressed or pronounced more loudly
than the others. For example, in English, the word "banana" has the accent on the second
syllable. This means that we pronounce the second syllable, "-na", with more stress than the
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 6 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
first syllable, "-ba". This helps us to identify the word "banana" as a separate word, even if it
is surrounded by other words.
However, not all languages have word accent. In French, for example, the word accent
is not very strong, so it is not very helpful for identifying words. In this case, other phonological
features, such as vowel harmony, are used to help identify word boundaries.
Another way of phonologically marking the word is to have a different set of phonological
units at the beginning or end of words than in other positions. For example, in Japanese, all
words end in a vowel sound. This means that if we hear a word that ends in a consonant sound,
we know that it is not a Japanese word.
The fact that the word is phonologically marked in many languages is evidence that it is an
important unit in language. It is also interesting to note that there is often a connection between
the phonological and grammatical structure of a language. For example, in languages with word
accent, the word accent often falls on the same syllable as the head of the word, which is the
most important part of the word.
However, it is important to note that the phonological and grammatical structure of a
language are not always the same. For example, in French, the word accent does not always
fall on the same syllable as the head of the word. This shows that the two structures are
independent, but they are often related. (ibid)
In sum, The word is phonologically marked in many languages, meaning that there is
something in the way the word is pronounced that tells us that it is a separate word. This can
be done through word accent, which is when one syllable in the word is stressed or pronounced
more loudly than the others. For example, in English, the word "banana" has the accent on the
second syllable. Not all languages have word accent, but other phonological features, such as
vowel harmony, can be used to help identify word boundaries. Another way of phonologically
marking the word is to have a different set of phonological units at the beginning or end of
words than in other positions. For example, in Japanese, all words end in a vowel sound. The
fact that the word is phonologically marked in many languages is evidence that it is an
important unit in language. There is also often a connection between the phonological and
grammatical structure of a language, but the two structures are independent. (ibid)
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 7 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
- Independence of criteria
The grammatical and phonological criteria for identifying words are independent of one
another, and phonological criteria are subordinate to grammatical criteria. This means that the
definition of the word may vary from language to language.
For example, in some languages, the same unit may be both a word and a morpheme. This is
the case in English with the words "nice", "boy", and "want". In "isolating languages", such as
Chinese and Vietnamese, there is a one-to-one ratio of morphemes to words.
This means that the definition of the word is a complex one, and there is no single definition
that applies to all languages. (ibid)
The notion of' rank' : Rank' is a surface-structure notion
The term rank in linguistics refers to the hierarchical relationship between different
grammatical units. The most common way to think about rank is that units of higher rank are
composed of units of lower rank. For example, a sentence is composed of clauses, clauses are
composed of phrases, phrases are composed of words and words are composed of morph (s).
The notion of rank is useful for describing the grammatical structure of sentences. For
example, it allows us to identify the different parts of a sentence and the relationships between
them. It also allows us to see how sentences can be broken down into smaller and smaller units.
However, it is important to note that the notion of rank is not always clear-cut. For
example, there is some debate about whether morphemes, which are the smallest meaningful
units in a language, should be considered to be units of rank.
- An illustration
The notion of rank is not always clear-cut in linguistics, and it is not necessary to define
units of different ranks in a specific way. For example, the adjective "red-haired" contains three
morphemes: {red}, {hair}, and {ed}. However, two of these morphemes, {red} and {hair}, are
also free forms and can be considered to be words.
In a transformational grammar framework, there is no need to say that every sentence must
be analyzed into units of one rank or another. For example, the adjective "red-haired" can be
generated by the grammar in a sequence of operations that are not constrained by the
requirement that units of higher rank must be composed of an integral number of units of lower
rank.
This means that we do not need to have a specific definition of what a word is in order to
describe the grammar of a language. We can simply say that words are units that can be
combined to form sentences, and that the rules of grammar are responsible for generating all
of the possible sentences in a language.
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 8 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
Identifying words
It is important to identify these various types of word, There are two main stages in the
analysis,
- First, finding chunks such (fly, flew) which recur as self-contained units.
- Second, deciding how many lexical items are covered by each chunk (as with fly, which
covers two lexical items (noun and verb)), and conversely, deciding how many different chunks
belong to the same lexical item (as with verb: fly, flew, where different syntactic forms belong
to one lexical item).
The first stage, finding chunks which behave as self-contained units, we look for
sequences which are uninterruptible and mobile. These are useful guidelines in many
languages. A sequence such as chickens cannot be interrupted. It is impossible to say (chicklittle-
ens,) or (chicken-little-s.) In addition, the sequence chickens can move about. It can occur
next to different words, and in different parts of the sentence, as in: Chickens lay eggs, foxes
eat chickens, the chickens clucked loudly, and so on.
But, with (green trousers) consider two speared words, because we can interrupt them, just like
(Green leather trousers)
For the second stage of the analysis, we need to consider the syntactic behaviour of these
possible 'words', that is, their role in the overall sentence pattern, For example, fly as noun
would show up as behaving differently from fly as verb. (Aitchison, J. 1999)
A word and its forms: inflection
4.1 Words and grammar: lexemes, word forms and grammatical words
The idea that some complex words have meanings that are so predictable that they do not have
to be listed in a dictionary.
The scope of this chapter will be focu on one variety: words that do not have to be listed
because they are merely grammatically conditioned variants of a word that is more basic, in
some sense – and which itself may or may not be listed, depending on whether its meaning is
predictable or not.
By way of illustrating the notions ‘more basic’ and ‘grammatically conditioned variant’,
let us consider the words performs, performed and performance.
In brief, (performs, performed are inflection grammatical condition while performance
derivation ( there is no grammatical factor that requires the presence of -ance on performance.).
We can describe the difference between performance on the one hand and performs and
performed on the other by saying that the latter pair are grammatically conditioned variant
forms of the verb perform, whereas performance is not a variant form of the verb, but rather a
noun derived from it.
We need a new term for the more abstract kind of word of which the word forms
performs, performed and perform are all inflectional variants. Let us call this more abstract
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 9 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
kind of word a lexeme. The distinction is important, words as lexemes are written in small
capitals, while words as inflected forms continue to be represented in italics. We can now say
that performs, performed and perform are all inflected forms of the lexeme PERFORM, and
we can describe the grammatical function of performed by calling it the past tense form of the
verb PERFORM. We refer to lexemes in English by means of their bare, unaffixed forms.
Word form: a word as it is actually used in a sentence, including all of its inflectional affixes.
The same word form can belong to two quite different lexemes, as does rows in
-There were four rows of seats.
- One person rows the boat.
In the First statement, rows is the plural of the noun ROW meaning ‘line of people or things’,
while in the second it is one of the present tense forms of the verb ROW meaning ‘propel
with oars’
The term grammatical word for designations like ‘the plural of the noun ROW’, ‘the third
person singular present tense of the verb ROW. Grammatical word: a designation for the
grammatical category of a word form.
One lexeme may be represented by more than one word form, and one word form may
represent more than one lexeme.
4.2 Regular and irregular inflection
Regular inflection is the process of forming word forms by adding affixes to root morphemes
according to predictable rules.
Irregular inflection is the process of forming word forms by adding affixes or changing root
morphemes in ways that are not predictable.
For example, the regular plural form of the noun "piano" is "pianos". This is formed by
adding the suffix "-s" to the root morpheme "piano". The irregular plural form of the noun
"child" is "children". This is formed by changing the root morpheme "child" to "children".
The difference between allomorphs and suppletive roots. Allomorphs are different
forms of the same morpheme that are chosen depending on phonological factors. Suppletive
roots are different roots that are used to form different forms of the same lexeme. For
example, the allomorphs "-s", "-es", and "-en" are allomorphs of the plural morpheme. The
suppletive roots "go" and "went" are suppletive roots of the lexeme "GO".
Inflection is a smaller part of English morphology than it is in some other languages, but
it is still important to understand how it works.
4.3 Forms of nouns
The forms of nouns in English. Specifically, the singular and plural forms of nouns, as
well as the special cases of "zero-plural" nouns and nouns that only exist in the plural form.
Most countable nouns in English have two word forms: a singular and a plural. The plural
form is typically formed by adding the suffix "-s" to the root morpheme. However, there are
also a number of irregular plural forms, such as "children" and "feet."
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 10 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
The class of nouns that are unchanged in the plural, also known as "zero-plural" nouns.
This class of nouns is relatively small and consists mostly of animals, birds, and fish that are
either domesticated or hunted. For example, the plural forms of "sheep," "fish," and "deer"
are all the same as the singular forms.
The special case of nouns that only exist in the plural form, such as "scissors" and
"pants." These nouns are typically used to refer to single countable objects, but they only
have plural forms.
Finally, the issue of whether the singular-plural contrast in nouns in English is truly
inflectional. The author argues that it is, even though the choice between singular and plural
is often determined by meaning. The author points out that English grammar imposes a
requirement on speakers to be clear about whether there is one or more than one of something
when they are talking about it.
Overall, the author provides a clear and concise overview of the forms of nouns in English.
Also, the author discusses the regular and irregular plural forms of nouns, as well as the special
cases of "zero-plural" nouns and nouns that only exist in the plural form. Also, the singularplural
contrast in nouns in English is truly inflectional.
4.4 Forms of pronouns and determiners
Pronouns are words like "I", "he", "she", "we", and "they". They are used to refer to
people, places, and things without naming them explicitly. Determiners are words like "the",
"a", "an", "this", "that", and "some". They are used to specify or quantify nouns.
These pronouns and determiners are the only closed system of words in English. This
means that the number of pronouns and determiners in English is limited and does not change
over time.
The singular and plural forms of pronouns and determiners. Some pronouns and
determiners, such as "this" and "that", have both singular and plural forms "these" and
"those". Other pronouns and determiners, such as "I" and "the", have only one form.
The case system of pronouns in English. Pronouns can be in the nominative case, the
accusative case, or the genitive case. The nominative case is used for the subject of a
sentence. The accusative case is used for the direct object of a verb. The genitive case is used
for the possessive form of a pronoun.
The relationship between pronouns and determiners. Some pronouns, such as "his", "our",
and "their", can be used as determiners. However, other pronouns, such as "I", "he", "she",
"we", and "they", cannot be used as determiners.
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 11 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
4.5 Forms of verbs
A verb lexeme in English can have up to five distinct forms: the third person singular
present tense, the past tense, the progressive participle, the perfect or passive participle, and
the basic form (used everywhere else).
The difference between regular and irregular verbs. Regular verbs form the past tense
with the suffix -ed, while irregular verbs form the past tense in a variety of ways. Some of
verbs are syncretism, which is when two grammatical words that are distinct for some
lexemes are systematically identical for others. In the case of verbs, syncretism occurs with
the past tense and perfect (or passive) participle forms of many verbs, both regular and
irregular.
Auxiliaries and modals. Auxiliaries and modals are verbs that are used to help other verbs
form different tenses and moods. Auxiliaries and modals typically have a smaller range of
forms than other verbs. For example, modals only have one or two forms, and the auxiliary
verb "be" has eight forms.
4.6 Forms of adjectives
Many English adjectives have three forms: the positive, the comparative, and the
superlative. The positive form is the basic form of the adjective. The comparative form is
used to compare two things. The superlative form is used to compare three or more things.
The difference between regular and irregular adjectives. Regular adjectives form the
comparative and superlative forms with the suffixes -er and -est. Irregular adjectives form
the comparative and superlative forms in other ways.
Some adjectives that do not have comparative and superlative forms. These adjectives are
typically longer adjectives or adjectives that have more than one syllable.
The suffixes -er and -est are usually used with adjectives that have one syllable or two
syllables if the second syllable ends in a vowel. Longer adjectives and adjectives with more
than two syllables typically require the periphrasis with more or most.
4.7 Conclusion and summary
The author concludes and summarizes the chapter on inflection in English. Inflection is a
type of word formation that depends on the grammatical context or on choices that grammar
forces us to make. Inflection affects nouns, verbs, adjectives, and a few adverbs, as well as
the closed classes of pronouns, determiners, auxiliaries, and modals.
The maximum number of distinct inflected forms for any open-class lexeme in English is
small: 2 for nouns, 5 for verbs, 3 for adjectives, and 3 for adverbs. This is in contrast to some
other languages, where a lexeme may have hundreds or even thousands of distinct forms.
The role of inflection in English is modest compared to some other languages, but it is
still more than some other languages, which have little or no inflection. It is a fascinating
question why languages differ so enormously in this respect.
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 12 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
Chapter 5 : A word and its relatives: derivation
5.1 Relationships between lexemes
The relationship between lexemes. Lexemes (abstract) are the basic units of meaning in a
language. Derivational morphology is concerned with one kind of relationship between
lexemes: the relationship between bases and affixes.
A base is a partially complete word form to which an affix is attached to create word form or
a new lexeme. An affix is a bound morpheme that is attached to a base to form a new word or
to change the grammatical function of a word.
The example of the lexemes PERFORM and performance to illustrate the relationship
between bases and affixes. The base for the word performance is perform. The affix -ance is
attached to the base perform to create the new lexeme performance.
There are many different ways in which lexemes can be related, but derivational
morphology is only concerned with relationships involving affixation, both the affixes and
their tasks are quite diverse.
5.2 Word classes and conversion
Word classes are the same as what in traditional terminology are called parts of speech
and what many contemporary linguists call lexical categories.
Word classes are not determined by meaning. For example, the verb "perform" does not
denote an activity, but the noun "performance" does. Similarly, the verb "resemble" does not
denote an activity, but the adjective "similar" does.
Ambivalent words, which are words that can belong to multiple word classes. For
example, the word "hope" can be used as a noun or a verb. That ambivalent words are
typically derived from a basic form that belongs to one word class. For example, the verb
"hope" is the basic form, and the noun "hope" is derived from the verb.
Conversion, which is a type of derivational morphology that occurs without any overt
change in shape. Conversion is often used to derive nouns from verbs and verbs from nouns.
5.3 Adverbs derived from adjectives
Some adverbs are derived from adjectives by adding the suffix -ly. For example, the
adverb "quickly" is derived from the adjective "quick" by adding the suffix -ly.
But not all adverbs are derived from adjectives. Some adverbs are monomorphemic, meaning
that they consist of a single morpheme. For example, the adverbs "often," "seldom," "never,"
and "soon" are all monomorphemic adverbs.
Other adverbs are formed by conversion, which is a type of derivational morphology
that occurs without any overt change in shape. For example, the adverbs "fast" and "hard" are
converted from the adjectives "fast" and "hard."
Week 4 – Morphonology and syntax - The word
Page 13 of 13 - Hussein Kareem
5.4 Nouns derived from nouns
Not all derivational processes change word class. English has derivational processes.There
are a number of derivational processes in English that yield nouns with meanings such as
"small X," "female X," "inhabitant of X," "state of being an X," and "devotee of or expert on
X." Here are some examples of these derivational processes:
• Small X: -let, -ette, -ie (e.g. droplet, booklet, cigarette, doggie)
• Female X: -ess, -ine (e.g. waitress, princess, heroine)
• Inhabitant of X: -er, -(i)an (e.g. Londoner, New Yorker, Texan, Glaswegian)
• State of being an X: -ship, -hood (e.g. kingship, ladyship, motherhood, priesthood)
• Devotee of or expert on X: -ist, -ian (e.g. contortionist, Marxist, logician, historian)
Many of these words have unpredictable meanings and that the existence of some of
them seems arbitrary. This suggests that these words cannot be derived productively from
their bases and must therefore be listed in the lexicon.
The "gappiness" of these derivational processes (i.e. the fact that there are many
possible nouns that could be derived but are not) is further evidence that they are derivational
and not inflectional.
Reference
❖ Aitchison, J. (1999) Linguistics, (5th edition), Hodder Headline, UK
❖ Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2002) An Introduction to English Morphology
❖ Crystal, D. (2008) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th edition) Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
❖ Lyons, J (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics,
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 1 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
Chapter 4: Productivity in Word-Formation
4.1 THE OPEN-ENDEDNESS OF THE LEXICON
The main goal of morphology is to account for the ways in which speakers understand and
form both real words and potential words. While many words are memorized, countless words
are also made up on the spot. Morphology must explain the structure of both established words
and new words.
An example of a new word is "snail-mail." This word is a neologism, meaning it is a new word
that has not yet been entered into the dictionary. However, speakers of English can still
understand this word because they know the meaning of the words "snail" and "mail." They
can also form new words like this themselves.
Morphology is important for understanding how language works. It helps us to understand how
words are formed, how they are related to each other, and how they can be used to create new
words.
The consensus (agreement) among linguists is that the words of a language can be listed,
but the sentences of a language cannot. This is because the meanings of many words are not
predictable from their sounds or morphological structure. For example, the words "pear" and
"pair" have different meanings, even though they sound the same. The meanings of many words
(e.g. pear and pair) must be listed in the lexicon because there is nothing about their sounds or
morphological structure that would enable one to work out their meaning.
Syntax, on the other hand, is different. Syntax is the system of rules that governs how words
are combined to form sentences. These rules are not arbitrary; they are based on the principles
of grammar. This means that it is not necessary to memorize every sentence in a language in
order to be able to speak or write it correctly. Instead, speakers can use their knowledge of
grammar to generate new sentences.
The lexicon, the list of all the words in a language, cannot be seen as a static list because it
is always changing. New words are being created all the time, and old words fall out of use.
This is why no dictionary, however large, can list every word in a language.
One reason why the lexicon is constantly changing is that people have a natural ability to
create new words. This can happen in a number of ways, such as by compounding two or more
existing words, adding a prefix or suffix to an existing word, or borrowing a word from another
language. The lexicon of a language is open-ended because:
• New words are constantly (always) being created. This can happen through
compounding, derivation, or borrowing.
• The distinction between compound words and phrases is not always clear-cut. This
means that the lexicon can grow to include new compound words that were
previously considered to be phrases.
• There is no upper limit to the length of words that can be formed.
• Languages can borrow words from other languages.
This means that it is impossible to create a complete list of all the words in a language. Even
the largest dictionaries only contain a fraction of the total number of words that exist.
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 2 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
Nonce-words: are words that are created by an individual and are not yet part of the
established language. Compound words are formed by combining two or more words into a
single word. (like uncomplicatedness)
If we recognize nonce-words and compound words as part of the language, then our lexicon
will be larger and more open-ended. However, it also argues that the distinction between
compound words and syntactic phrases is not always straightforward. This is because both
compounds and phrases are made up of words.
4.1.1 What is Productivity?
There are two key points requiring elucidation (clarification):
(i) Productivity is a matter of degree. It is not a dichotomy, with some word-formation
processes being productive and others being unproductive. Probably no process is so general
that it affects, without exception, all the bases to which it could potentially apply. The reality
is that some processes are relatively more general than others.
This means that there is no sharp dividing line between productive and unproductive wordformation
processes. Rather, some processes are more productive than others. Even the most
productive word-formation processes are not completely general. For example, the suffix "-ly"
cannot be used to form adverbs from all adjectives.
(ii) Productivity is subject to the dimension of time. A process which is very general during
one historical period may become less so at a subsequent period. Conversely, a new process
entering a language may initially affect a tiny fraction of eligible inputs before eventually
applying more widely.
This means that the productivity of a word-formation process can change over time. The
productivity of a word-formation process can change for a number of reasons. For example,
a process may become less productive if speakers start to avoid using it for certain reasons. Or,
a process may become more productive if speakers start to use it to form new words from new
types of bases.
Why is it important to understand that productivity is a matter of degree and subject to the
dimension of time?
Understanding productivity is important for a number of reasons. First, it helps us to
understand how language works. Second, it helps us to understand how language changes over
time. Third, it can help us to teach and learn languages more effectively.
Productivity is a measure of how general a word-formation process is, i.e. how many
different words it can be used to create. The suffix -er is very productive, as it can be used to
create agentive nouns from most verbs. The suffix -id is less productive, as it can only be used
to create adjectives from a limited number of bound adjectival bases. The suffix -ist is
somewhere in between, as it can be used to form nouns and adjectives from a variety of noun
bases, but there are some unexplained gaps.
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 3 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
The importance of considering the proportion of eligible, acceptable bases that actually
undergo a morphological process when assessing the productivity of that process. For example,
the suffix -ness is more common than the suffix -ity in the English language as a whole, but
the suffix -ity is the preferred suffix for adjectives ending in -ile.
The suffix -itis is borrowed from Greek, where it was used to form the feminine of
adjectives and to form words referring to inflammatory diseases. In modern medical English, -
itis is used to form names of diseases, especially inflammatory ones. The suffix -itis is less
productive than the suffix -er, it is still a very productive suffix. This is because it attaches with
an extremely high degree of regularity to most suitable bases. the suffix -itis can be generalized
beyond the semantic niche of inflammatory diseases. For example, in jocular parlance, it is
used to form words like "skiveritis" and "Monday-morningitis" to refer to psychological
ailments.
The time dimension of productivity in word-formation processes. It argues that some
processes may be productive at one point in time and become less productive or unproductive
at a later point in time. For example, the suffixation of -id in tepid, frigid, etc. is now considered
to be virtually unproductive, while the suffixation of the agentive -er suffix in worker is still
very productive.
The role of fashion in productivity. It argues that some word-formation processes may be
in vogue for a time and then become less fashionable or abandoned altogether. For example,
the prefix loadsa- [l~udz~] was used in a few newly created words in the late 1980s, but it is
unclear whether it will survive and spread to other words.
An affix (inflection)that historically was used widely may atrophy or cease being applied
to new forms altogether. The second and third person singular present tense form of the verb
were realised by the regular suffixes -est and -th respectively. But these suffixes have dropped
out of common use. They survive as relics in antiquated religious language and on stage when
a pre-1800 play is performed. Like ( thou takest- you take), (he, she taketh- he, she takes)
4.1.2 Semi-productivity
Linguists like Matthews (1974) use the term semi-productivity to describe these affixes
because they are not fully productive, but they are still productive to some extent. They can be
used to form new words, but not all possible words. In other words, semi-productive affixes
can be used to form new words, but they cannot be used to form all possible words.
Idiosyncratic affixes are affixes that have unpredictable meanings and can only be attached to
a small number of words. They are often semi-productive, meaning that they can be used to
form new words, but only in a limited way.
The suffix -ant turns a verbal base into an agentive nominal. (It is similar in meaning to -er).
But it is very fussy. It accepts the bases in ( dependant, participant, assistant) but not those in
(*writ(e)ant,*buildant,*shoutant).
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 4 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
Semantically -ant has unpredictable effects. The meaning of words created by suffixing -
ant is inconsistent. For instance, a defendant has the narrow interpretation of a person sued in
a law court not just any one who defends oneself.
4.1.3 Productivity and Creativity
Katamba defines the term productivity as ‘the capacity of all human languages to use finite
means to produce an infinite number of words and utterances. In the domain of morphology,
creativity manifests itself in two distinct ways: rule governed creativity and rule-bending
creativity.
Two different types of creativity in the domain of morphology: rule-governed creativity and
rule-bending creativity. Rule-governed creativity refers to the ability of speakers to form new
words according to the general rules and principles of their language. Rule-bending creativity,
on the other hand, refers to the ability of speakers to form new words in ways that violate the
standard rules of word-formation.
For examples of both types of creativity in English. For example, the suffix -ly can be added
to an adjective to form an adverb (e.g. quick → quickly) and the prefix post- can be attached
to a noun base to form an adjective with the meaning 'after' (e.g. post-war). These are examples
of rule-governed creativity.
However, speakers also have the ability to form new words in ways that violate the standard
rules of word-formation. For example, the compounds stool pigeon and redlegs have meanings
that cannot be predicted from the meanings of their individual parts. These are examples of
rule-bending creativity.
Speakers of a language have the ability to create new words idiomatically, without following
the standard rules of word-formation. This can be seen in the way that certain compounds are
constructed, such as "stool pigeon" and "redlegs." The meanings of these compounds are
semantically unpredictable, and cannot be deduced (know) from the meanings of their
individual parts.
Sometimes the original literal meaning of a compound word is replaced by a more
figurative meaning over time. For example, the word "deadline" used to refer to the line around
a military camp that soldiers were not allowed to cross without risking death. Now, the word
"deadline" is more commonly used to refer to a final time for completing a task.
In other words, the original, literal meaning of a compound word may be forgotten or
become less important, while a new, figurative meaning takes over. This can happen for a
variety of reasons, such as changes in culture, technology, or language itself.
4.2 CONSTRAINTS ON PRODUCTIVITY
Although there is no limit to the number of words that can be produced in a language, not
every conceivable word that in theory could be formed is allowed. In this section we are going
to examine the factors that limit productivity. There are a number of factors that can constrain
the productivity of word formation. Some of these constraints are universal, while others are
language-specific. (Blocking: Phonological, Morphological, Semantic, Aesthetic factors and
adoption of words)
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 5 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
- Blocking
Blocking is when a new word cannot be formed because there is already another word with the
same meaning. For example, the word "thief" already exists, so we cannot create a new word
meaning "one who steals" by adding the suffix "-er" to the verb "steal." This is called blocking
because the existence of the word "thief" prevents the formation of the new word "*stealer."
4.2.1.1 Phonological factors
verbs with an inchoative meaning, roughly interpretable as 'to begin to X', can usually be
formed from
adjectives by suffixing -en to an adjectival base provided it meets the following phonetic
conditions:
(i) the base must be monosyllabic;
(ii) the base must end in an obstruent (i.e. stop, fricative or affricate), which may be optionally
preceded by a sonorant (e.g. a nasal consonant or an approximant like Ill or /r/).
A- Adjective + -en = verb, hard+en=harden
B- adjective + -ly = adverbs, Kind+ly = kindly
The segmental phonology of the base can determine whether a form can undergo -ly
suffixation. The -ly suffix tends to be avoided where an adjective ends in -ly (/-h/). Suffixing -
ly would result in a dispreferred /-lili/ sequence in the derived adverb. But -ly is used freely
where the adjective does not end in -ly (Aronoff, 1976). Like in ( silly *silliy , friendlyfriendlily,)
C- Our final example of phonological constraints on word-formation is taken from French
where the diminutive suffix -et (masculine)/-ette (feminine) is used freely to form diminutive
nouns like these: (fillette, livret)
4.2.1.2 Morphological factors
The morphological properties of a base may prevent the application of morphological rules.
Often native morphemes behave differently from foreign morphemes. Some affixes are
typically added either to native bases or to bases of foreign origin.
The rule of velar softening which changes /k/ (usually spelled with the letter c) to [ s] is
essentially restricted to words of Latin and French origin:
A- Velar Softening
/k/ ~ [s] before a suffix commencing with a nonlow vowel (e.g. i) The effects of velar softening
can be seen in.
cynic, cynical ~ cynicism
critic, critical ~ criticism, criticise
fanatic - ~ fanaticism -
ascetic ~ asceticism
sceptic ~ scepticism
Velar softening only affects words with Romance roots. So, if a thinker called Blake developed
a new philosophy, we might call it Blakism [bleikizm]. But we could not call it *Blacism
[bleisizm], since Blake is not a Romance root.
B- normally -hood, (which means 'rank, state, quality) co-occurs with native roots like those
in (boy-hood, brother-hood, man-hood, child-hood…) and is disallowed after Latinate roots
like those in (*judge-hood, *director-hood, *author-hood)
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 6 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
Clearly the distinction between native and borrowed morphemes is very important. However,
we should be careful not to press this too far. The roots in [parenthood, statehood, nationhood]
are borrowed from French, yet they can take the suffix -hood. With the passage of time, foreign
morphemes can be fully assimilated and nativised so that they behave in the same way as
indigenous morphemes.
C- Different groups of words (called paradigms) can take different affixes (endings). For
example, in French, regular verbs are divided into three groups: -er verbs, -ir verbs, and -re
verbs. Each group takes different endings when conjugated.
These different types of verbs in French (e.g. verbs ending in -er, -ir, and -re) have different
sets of suffixes for their different forms (e.g. present tense, past tense, etc.). This is called
inflectional morphology. Example:
• - er verbs : donner (to give)
• -ir verbs: finir (to finish)
• -re verbs: vendre (to sell)
The fact that different types of verbs have different sets of suffixes is because they belong to
different paradigms. A paradigm is a group of words that have the same morphological
properties.
So, that is depending on which paradigm a verb belongs to, it cooccurs with different
allomorphs of inflectional suffix morphemes. The existence of paradigms is very important for
understanding the nature of allomorph.
4.2.1.3 Semantic factors
Semantic factors can also affect the application of word-formation processes. For example,
the formation of compounds from adjectives plus past participles is usually blocked when the
root of the past participle is not inalienably possessed (i.e., obligatorily possessed) by the head
noun that it modifies. Thus, we can say "short-sleeved shirt" and "three-legged stool," but we
cannot say "*two-carred family" or "*big-Alsatianed woman."
Semantics can also restrict the application of morphological rules. For example, we
typically use the negative prefix un- to form the opposite of positive adjectives. If un- is
attached to the negative member of a pair, the resulting word is usually ill-formed. Thus, we
say "unhappy" and "unwise," but we do not say "*unsad" or "*unfoolish."
In the dialogue in [4.21 page 78], the surgeon uses the marked words unill, unsad,
unpessimistic, and undirty. To make the dialogue natural and preferred, these words should be
replaced by their unmarked counterparts unwell, unhappy, pessimistic, and dirty.
Why? - Because we tend to prefer treating the positive end of a semantic dimension as
unmarked. We are happier to derive the marked (i.e., "unusual"), less favorable meaning by
prefixing the negative prefix to a positive base than doing the reverse. That is why a happy
person is not said to be unsad. In other words, we prefer to say "I am unwell" rather than "I am
unill" because "well" is the unmarked word in the semantic dimension of health.
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 7 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
4.2.1.4 Aesthetic factors and the adoption of words
In some cases, word-formation is inhibited by vague aesthetic factors. This means that
there are many words that are grammatically correct but people do not like to use them
because they sound ugly.
One example of this is the word "stagflation." This word was coined in the 1970s to refer to
the combination of economic stagnation and a high level of inflation. However, the word has
not become widely used, possibly because some people find it unpleasant to hear.
Other examples of "ugly" words include "talkathon," "swimathon," and "knitathon." These
words were created by analogy to the word "marathon," but some people find them to be
awkward or even offensive.
Erudite purists are particularly bothered by these words because they see them as a
combination of Greek and Anglo-Saxon roots. They also argue that the suffix "-athon" does
not actually have the meaning that it is often used to convey.
The average speaker of English is not aware of these linguistic details, but they may still
avoid using these words because they sound strange or unpleasant.
In conclusion, aesthetic factors can play a role in determining whether or not a new word is
adopted by the language.
4.3 DOES PRODUCTIVITY SEPARATE INFLECTION FROM DERIVATION?
Inflection is typically more productive than derivation. This means that inflectional
processes can be applied to a wider range of bases, and they tend to produce more predictable
results. Inflectional morphology often displays lexemic paradigms, while derivational
morphology does not. A paradigm is a regular and predictable set of word-forms belonging to
the same set of lexemes. There are exceptions to both of these generalizations. Some
inflectional processes have exceptions, and some derivational processes are very regular and
predictable.
In sum, the distinction between inflection and derivation is not always clear-cut.
Productivity and the presence of paradigms can be useful criteria for distinguishing between
the two, but they are not infallible. Examples:
• Inflection: The English verb paradigm for the verb "walk" is regular and predictable:
walk, walks, walked, walking.
• Derivation: The English derivational suffix "-ly" can be added to most adjectives to
form adverbs, but there are some exceptions, such as "good" and "bad."
Derivational processes are by and large much more unpredictable than inflectional ones.
While inflectional processes usually affect most of the eligible forms in a regular manner,
derivational rules tend to be capricious. They tend to have as input a class whose membership
is subject to various arbitrary exclusions and to affect it spasmodically as we have already
seen. Unlike derivation, inflection is normally productive in these senses:
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 8 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
(i) It is general. The addition of particular inflectional affixes is not subject to various
arbitrary restrictions. Stems that belong to a given class normally receive all the affixes that
belong to that class. (Generality: Inflectional affixes can be added to a wide range of bases
without being subject to arbitrary restrictions. For example, in English, the plural suffix "-s"
can be added to almost any noun, regardless of its origin or meaning.)
(ii) The words resulting from the addition of inflectional affixes have regular and predictable
meanings. (Predictability: The words resulting from the addition of inflectional affixes have
regular and predictable meanings. For example, the plural form of a noun always refers to
multiple instances of that noun, and the past tense form of a verb always refers to an action
that happened in the past.)
There is a minority which are not marked for number. They belong to different subclasses
of noncount nouns referring to entities that are not individually counted.
(i) Some noncount nouns have a plural form but lack a plural meaning. ( new-news )
(ii) Other noncount nouns lack a plural form altogether (they do not refer to itemised
individual entities which are counted in English): milk-*milks, health *healths
4.4 THE NATURE OF THE LEXICON
We have seen in the foregoing sections that the lexicon is open-ended. Not all the words of
a language can be listed in the lexicon. The question that arises is, On what basis, then, are
words (and morphemes) selected for inclusion? And for the words selected, what kinds of
information must the lexicon include? In brief, what is the nature and function of the lexicon?
The lexicon is open-ended because new words are constantly being created and old words
are sometimes falling out of use. This is due to the dynamic nature of language, which is
constantly evolving to meet the needs of its speakers.
4.4.1 Potential Words
Potential English words are words that could be created using the rules of English word
formation. They are not necessarily real words, but they are grammatically correct and
semantically meaningful. For example, the words "grestifier" and "disperidate" are potential
English words. They are grammatically correct because they follow the rules of English word
formation. They are also semantically meaningful because the morphemes that they contain
have known meanings.
Here are some other examples of potential English words:
• "unfriend" (verb) - to remove someone as a friend
• "unhappiness" (noun) - the state of being unhappy
• "discombobulate" (verb) - to confuse or disconcert someone
• "antidisestablishmentarianism" (noun) - opposition to the disestablishment of the
Church of England
Potential English words can be created in a number of ways, including:
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 9 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
• Adding prefixes or suffixes to existing words
• Combining two or more words
• Borrowing words from other languages
The lexicon contains a set of phonotactic constraints that filter out phonologically illformed
words. This means that new words must have a combination of sounds that is allowed
in the language. For example, the words "*ltarpment" and "*mpandy" would be immediately
rejected because the consonant combinations /lt/ and /mp/ are not allowed at the beginning of
a word in English.
In other words, the lexicon only allows words that are pronounceable in the language. This is
why we can easily pronounce words like "cat" and "dog," but we would have difficulty
pronouncing words like "*ltarpment" and "*mpandy."
Non-nativised foreign words with sound sequences that are not permitted in English may
be allowed in, as a special case.
Foreign words with sound sequences that are not allowed in English may be allowed into the
lexicon as a special case. This is because we need to make an allowance for foreign place
names and personal names. For example, the words "Tblisi" and "Zgutsa" begin with the
consonant clusters [tbl] and [zg], which are not allowed in English.
Foreign words may be allowed to bypass the phonotactic filter, and they may keep their
foreign pronunciation. However, more often than not, they are modified to fit the general
phonotactic patterns of the language. For example, the schwa vowel may be inserted between
the first two consonants in "Zgusta" and "Tblisi" to produce [Z;)gust;)] and [tgblisi],
respectively.
This shows that the lexicon is a flexible system that can accommodate new words, even if
they do not conform to the general phonotactic patterns of the language.
4.4.2 Knowledge of Language and the Role of the Lexicon
The lexicon is a system that stores words and information about their meaning,
pronunciation, and grammatical properties. It also contains regularities about how words are
formed and how they can be combined to form sentences.
One example of a regularity that the lexicon contains is phonotactic constraints. Phonotactic
constraints are rules about which combinations of sounds are allowed in a language. For
example, English speakers know that the consonant combinations /lt/ and /mp/ are not
allowed at the beginning of a word. This means that we can immediately recognize that the
words "*ltarpment" and "*mpandy" are not possible English words.
The fact that we can distinguish between possible and impossible words is evidence that we
have knowledge of the language's phonotactic constraints. This knowledge is stored in the
lexicon.
The lexicon plays an important role in our ability to understand and produce language. It
allows us to access the words and information about words that we need to communicate our
thoughts and ideas.
Week 5 – Morphonology and syntax - Productivity in Word-Formation
Page 10 of 10 - Hussein Kareem
Traditionally, the lexicon was viewed as a list of irregularities, but most generative linguists
today reject this view. The lexicon is now seen as a repository of regularities as well as
irregularities.
Some of the regularities that are captured in the lexicon include:
• Phonological regularities: The lexicon contains information about the rules for
pronouncing words and morphemes. For example, English speakers know that the
suffix "-ed" is pronounced differently depending on the final sound of the stem to which
it is attached.
• Syntactic regularities: The lexicon contains information about the grammatical
properties of words and how they can be combined to form sentences. For example,
English speakers know that the word "aardvark" is a count noun and can be used in
sentences like "I saw an aardvark" and "I saw two aardvarks."
Even though the lexicon contains regularities, it is still necessary to memorize some
information about words, such as their meaning and pronunciation. However, the fact that there
are regularities in the lexicon makes it easier for us to learn and use language.
For example, once we know that the suffix "-ed" is used to form the past tense of regular verbs,
we can apply this rule to all regular verbs, even if we have never encountered them before. This
saves us from having to memorize the past tense form of every regular verb.
The lexicon is a complex and dynamic system that plays an essential role in our ability to
understand and produce language.
Reference
❖ Katamba, F. (1993), Morphology,
Week 6 – Morphonology and syntax - Insights from Lexical Morphology
Page 1 of 5 – Hussein Kareem
Chapter 6: Insights from Lexical Morphology
Lexical morphology provides us with the means of describing a number of
morphological phenomena in a clear manner, with the word rather than the morpheme
playing a pivotal, central role.
Lexical morphology is a departure, leaving from the morpheme-centric approach of
American structuralism, which viewed morphemes as the basic units of morphological
analysis. Instead, lexical morphology takes the word as the basic unit and views morphemes
as abstract entities that are used to derive words.
The structure-preserving principle is a fundamental principle of lexical morphology. It
ensures that the output of each morphological rule is a possible word in the language. This is
important because it allows speakers to easily recognize and understand the words they hear.
Lexical rules must be structure preserving. The output of a layer of derivation cannot violate
well-formedness constraints on words.
We pointed out that words rather than morphemes are the key elements in morphology.
First, they are the minimal signalling units. All words must be independently meaningful but
morphemes need not be, such as bound morpheme.
Second: we noted that when confronted with the problems of cumulative and overlapping
representation of morphemes in fusional languages, a morpheme-based theory of word
structure runs into insurmountable problems. But these problems are avoided if the word is
treated as the key morphological unit.
In other words, morpheme-based theories struggle to explain how multiple morphemes can be
combined to form a single word, where morphemes can represent multiple grammatical
features. For example, the morpheme "-s" represents both the third person and the plural
number. A morpheme-based theory would have to say that this morpheme has two separate
meanings, which can be difficult to explain.
But these problems are avoided if the word is treated as the key morphological unit
Third: The word is also a key unit for another reason: there are morphological processes
whose input is normally a word and not just a morpheme. These processes include the
following:
(i) compounding, where words like school and teacher are the input to the rule that produces
school teache.
(ii) affixation processes that have fully formed words as their input, such as the rules that
prefix re- (meaning 'again') and the rule that suffixes -ly:
open - re-open quick – quickly, write - re-write, nice – nicely
(iii), conversion which changes the word-class of a pre-existing word without any overt
change in the shape of the input.
staff(N) - staff(v) narrow(A) narrow(V) walk(v) walk(N) cool(A) cool(v)
Week 6 – Morphonology and syntax - Insights from Lexical Morphology
Page 2 of 5 – Hussein Kareem
6.2.1 Stratum Ordering Reflecting Morpheme Sequencing
- What is the different between the arrangement of the sentence and potential words?
Having a permissible phonological representation is not sufficient to ensure that a string
of sounds is a potential word. A further condition that has to be met is that the morphs
representing morphemes in words must be arranged in a sequence that is allowed by the rules
of word-formation in the language. Thus, the putative words grestifier and dispregmentation,
are plausible potential words. This is because first, they contain sounds of the English
phonological system arranged in ways that are phonologically permitted. Second, they
contain morphs representing morphemes that are arranged in an order that is sanctioned by
English grammar. Third: The only thing odd about these 'words' is that while all the affix
morphemes are found in the English lexicon, their root morphemes, -grest- and -preg-, are
not. (We don’t have these roots in English)
Our knowledge of word-structure includes knowledge of the sequence in which affixes are
combined. Generally, the order of morphemes in a word is rigidly fixed. But they differ from
the sentence whose elements can be rearranged within certain limits.
Ex: (She came here often. She often came here. Often, she came here.)
For the student of morphology, one of the challenges lies in providing an adequate
account of the principles that determine the sequence in which affixes are added to roots. The
theory of lexical morphology offers us insights into this problem.
The theory of lexical morphology predicts that affixes are added to roots in a specific order.
Affixes that are added earlier in the derivation (stratum 1) are considered to be closer to the
root than affixes that are added later in the derivation (stratum 2).
-The suffix of stratum 1 (non-neutral), e.g. (-al, ity, ) it causes a (variable) relocation of
stress. (department- departmental, medicine- medicinal)
-The suffix of stratum 2 (neutral), has no effect on the placement of stress : (e.g.-ize/-ise,
less, ) is phonologically neutral and so it is a candidate for stratum 2. It has no effect on the
placement of stress or on the segments in the base to which it is attached. ( real- realise,
computer- computerise)
As predicted by the theory, when both -al and -ise/-ize are present, they occur in the order -
al- before -isel -ize. Hence we get the words industri-alise, neutr-al-ise, nation-al-ise, verbal-
ise and sentiment-al-ise.
We might expect that if affixes of the same stratum co-occurred in a word, there would
be no constraints on order. This is clearly not the case?
• Which of the following suffixes are neutral: full, -less, and -ness?
• Can any of the neutral suffixes occur together in a word?
• If they can, are they ordered?
• If they are ordered, account for the order.
Week 6 – Morphonology and syntax - Insights from Lexical Morphology
Page 3 of 5 – Hussein Kareem
All the suffixes -full, -less, and -ness are neutral (stratum 2). These neutral suffixes can occur
together in a word but their ordering is subject to certain restrictions.
• The suffix -ness attaches to adjective bases to form abstract nouns
• While -less and -ful attach to nouns to form adjectives.
These requirements dictate that -less or -full must be added first to a noun, turning it into an
adjective, before -ness can be suffixed:
'home (N) less A -ness N 'cheer (N) ful A ness N
'power(N) less A -ness N 'care N ful A -ness N
6.2.2 Stratum Ordering and Productivity
Stratum 1 affixes are more idiosyncratic and have less predictable meanings than stratum 2
affixes. For example, the stratum 1 suffix -ous has a vague meaning that depends on the base
it is combined with. In contrast, the stratum 2 suffix -less has a regular and predictable
meaning of "without".
6.2.3 Stratum Ordering and Conversion
The direction of conversion can be determined by the difference in stress placement between
nouns and verbs. When a noun is derived from a verb, the conversion is non-neutral and the
noun receives stress on the first syllable. When a verb is derived from a noun, the conversion
is neutral and the verb retains the stress pattern of the noun. This is because nouns are formed
from verbs at stratum 1, while verbs are formed from nouns at stratum 2. The stratum 1 stress
rule places stress on the first syllable of nouns, but does not apply to verbs. As a result, nouns
derived from verbs receive stress on the first syllable, while verbs derived from nouns retain
the stress pattern of the noun.
The productivity of conversion also differs depending on the stratum at which it occurs.
Conversion from verbs to nouns is less productive than conversion from nouns to verbs. This
is because conversion from verbs to nouns occurs at stratum 1, while conversion from nouns
to verbs occurs at stratum 2. As we have seen, stratum 1 processes are less productive than
stratum 2 processes.
Finally, the treatment of irregular verb inflection also provides evidence for the claim that
conversion from nouns to verbs occurs at stratum 2. Verbs derived from nouns by conversion
do not undergo ablaut in the past tense. This is because the ablaut rule applies at stratum 1,
Week 6 – Morphonology and syntax - Insights from Lexical Morphology
Page 4 of 5 – Hussein Kareem
and denominal verbs are not formed until stratum 2. As a result, denominal verbs are
unavailable at the stage when the ablaut rule applies and they can only receive the regular -ed
inflection.
6.2.4 The Strict Cycle Condition
The Strict Cycle Condition (SCC) is a principle in lexical phonology that states that
phonological rules can only apply to forms that are created at the same stratum of the lexicon.
In other words, rules cannot "see" or affect forms that are created at earlier or later strata.
Week 6 – Morphonology and syntax - Insights from Lexical Morphology
Page 5 of 5 – Hussein Kareem
Reference
❖ Katamba, F. (1993), Morphology,
Week 7 – Morphonology and syntax – Morphological Trees
Page 1 of 7 – Hussein Kareem
Morphological trees are a way of representing the hierarchical structure of morphologically
complex words.
Hierarchical structure in morphological trees is a way of representing the relationships
between the different morphemes that make up a word.
We have largely assumed that morphological rules exist in a separate area of the grammar from
syntactic rules, with each area subject to its own principles.
Hierarchical structure is quite evident in compound words, and less so in derivationally derived.
7.1 Compounding types
A compound is a complex lexeme that can be thought of as consisting of two or more base
lexemes. In the simplest case, a compound consists of two lexemes that are joined together
(called compound members).
English allows several types of combinations of different word-classes (N: noun, A: adjective,
V: verb), but not all such combinations are possible.
N + N lipstick (lipn + stickn) - extremely productive
A + N hardware (harda + waren)
V + N drawbridge (drawv + bridgen) - unproductive and limited
N + V babysit (babyn + sitv) - not really productive
N + A leadfree (leadn + freea)
A + A bitter-sweet (bittera + sweeta)
Compounding rules may differ in productivity. In English, the N + N pattern is extremely
productive, so novel compounds are created all the time and are hardly noticed.
By contrast, the V + N pattern is unproductive and limited to a few lexically listed items, and
the N + V pattern is not really productive either. For instance, one cannot say to hair-wash
‘wash one’s hair’, and the small handful of examples like babysit are mostly backformations
from nouns, and are not produced directly by N + V compounding rules.
In other words, Compounding rules may differ in productivity, meaning that some rules
allow for the creation of new words more easily than others. In English, the N + N pattern is
extremely productive, meaning that new compound nouns can be created all the time and are
easily understood by speakers of the language. For example, the compound nouns
"smartphone" and "airbag" are both relatively new, but they are easily understood by most
English speakers.
By contrast, the V + N pattern is unproductive in English. This means that new V + N
compounds are rarely created, and those that do exist are often lexically listed, meaning that
they are learned as individual words rather than being formed by a productive compounding
rule.
Week 7 – Morphonology and syntax – Morphological Trees
Page 2 of 7 – Hussein Kareem
The N + V pattern is also not very productive in English. This means that there are not many
N + V compounds in the language, and those that do exist are often backformations from nouns.
For example, the verb "babysit" is a backformation from the noun "babysitter".
Noun incorporation (NI) is a type of compounding in which a noun is incorporated into a
verb, meaning that the noun becomes part of the verb and the two morphemes together form a
new verb. NI is particularly common in morphologically rich, polysynthetic languages, such
as Alutor, an Eskimo-Aleut language spoken in Siberia.
Polysynthetic languages are languages that have a large number of morphemes per word.
Polysynthetic languages are languages that have a large number of morphemes per word.
Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning in a language, and they can be either free (can
stand alone as words) or bound (must be attached to another morpheme to form a word).
Polysynthetic languages are often able to form very complex words by combining multiple
morphemes. For example, the Inuktitut word "igluviiluk" means "he is building a big house."
This word is made up of the following morphemes:
• iglu = house
• -vik = big
• -lu = he is building
All of these morphemes are combined into a single word, which is why Inuktitut is considered
to be a polysynthetic language.
In a compound word, the two lexemes (meaningful units) are combined at the stem level,
not the inflected form level. This is similar to derivational affixes, which also attach to stems.
For example, the English compound words "lipstick" and "child support" are formed from the
stems "lip" and "child", respectively, not the inflected forms "lips" and "children". While there
are some examples of compounds with inflected first lexemes, such as "publications list", this
is not common.
1- The endocentric type of compound : From the point of view of semantics, first stem
(compound member) called dependent, as modifying element of the meaning (narrow the
meaning) of the second stem (compound member) that called (semantic head)
The first compound member generally serves to modify and narrow the meaning of the second
compound member. Thus, a lipstick is a special kind of stick (not a special kind of lip), a
drawbridge is a special kind of bridge and a love letter is a special kind of letter.
the endocentric type of compound (the term endocentric means that the semantic head (or
centre) of the compound is ‘inside’ (endo-) the compound). In endocentric compounds, the
meaning of the entire word is a subset of the meaning of the lexeme that serves as the head. In
English, the semantic head of an endocentric compound is always the second member, but in
other languages such as Spanish, the head is the first member.
Week 7 – Morphonology and syntax – Morphological Trees
Page 3 of 7 – Hussein Kareem
The semantic relations that obtain between the head and the dependent in compounds are quite
diverse: purpose (writing desk, lipstick), appearance (hardware, swordfish), location (garden
chair, sea bird), event participant (e.g. agent: swansong, patient: flower-seller).
2- Exocentric: Not all compounds are of the endocentric type. Compounds may also be
exocentric (i.e. their semantic head is ‘outside’ (exo-) the compound). Exocentric compounds
can be illustrated with  examples from Ancient Greek. ( kakó-bios ‘having a bad life’ (kakós
‘bad’ + bíos ‘life’))
A- English has a few exocentric A + N compounds of this semantic type (redhead ‘someone
who has red hair’, highbrow, lazybones), but this pattern is hardly productive in English.
B- English has a few exocentric V + N compounds as well (referring to people rather than
instruments: pickpocket, cutthroat, killjoy), but this pattern is totally unproductive in English.
3- Coordinative compounds.: that have more than one semantic head. In these compounds,
each member has a separate referent. Both members are on an equal footing, and they can be
paraphrased with ‘and’, so they are called coordinative compounds.
Coordinative compounds are widespread in the world’s languages, but they happen to be rare
in European languages, including English.
In other words, Coordinative compounds are compounds that have more than one semantic
head. This means that both members of the compound have a separate referent, and they are on
an equal footing. Coordinative compounds can be paraphrased with "and", so they are also
called copulative compounds. Examples of coordinative compounds: ( brother-sister, mother
in law)
4- Appositional compounds.: both compound members have the same referent. English also
has some compounds of this kind (student worker, Marxism- Leninism), and adjective
compounds such as bitter-sweet and deaf-mute can be subsumed under this type as well.
The last type of compound to be mentioned here is again exocentric, but it shares with
coordinative compounds the feature of semantic equality of both compound members
7.2 Hierarchical structure in compounds
In addition to the semantic notion of "head" in compounds, there is also a formal notion of
"head". The formal head of a compound is the member that determines the grammatical
properties of the whole compound. For example, the formal head of the compound "lipstick"
is the noun "stick", because the compound is a noun.
- lipstick (noun) --> lip (noun) + stick (noun): FORMAL HEAD : stick (noun)
The formal head of a compound is the member of the compound that determines the
grammatical properties of the whole compound. For example, the formal head of the compound
"lipstick" is the noun "stick", because the compound is a noun.
The formal head of a compound can be identified using a number of criteria, including:
• Position: The formal head is usually the rightmost member of the compound.
• Inflection: The formal head is usually the only member of the compound that can be
inflected.
• Syntax: The formal head usually determines the syntactic category of the compound.
Week 7 – Morphonology and syntax – Morphological Trees
Page 4 of 7 – Hussein Kareem
Tree diagrams are a useful way to represent the hierarchical structure of compounds. In
compounds with more than two lexemes, there can be multiple possible hierarchical structures.
The tree diagram for a compound should reflect the semantics of the compound, i.e., the way
in which the meaning of the compound is built up from the meanings of its individual lexemes.
For example, the tree diagram for the compound "Berkeley Linguistics Society" shows that the
second and third lexemes form a compound inside the larger structure. This is because the
compound refers to a kind of linguistics society, namely one established at the University of
California, Berkeley. (Compound within compound)
In contrast, the tree diagram for the compound "particle physics conference" shows that the
first two lexemes are grouped into a compound. This is because the compound refers to a
conference about particle physics. Anther example (unclear power station) which has two
interpretation. Page 143. unclear power + station, or unclear+ power station
Compounds with more than two nouns may allow two or more hierarchical structures
simultaneously. This is because the meaning of the compound can be built up in different ways.
The formal head of a compound is the member that determines the grammatical properties of
the whole compound. In endocentric compounds, the formal head and the semantic head
coincide.
- Characteristics of formal heads in endocentric compounds
1- morphosyntactic locus: The formal head of an endocentric compound is the
morphosyntactic locus of the compound, meaning that it is the place where the morphosyntactic
features of the compound are expressed.
In the example of "lipsticks", the plural suffix "-s" is attached to the formal head, which is
"stick". This means that the formal head of the compound is the place where the number
marking of the compound is expressed.
An alternative analysis of "lipsticks" is to attach the plural suffix to the complete compound
word, rather than to the head. However, this analysis does not work for all cases. For example,
in Spanish, the plural suffix of the compound "años luz" (light years) is attached to the head,
"año" (light year).
Therefore, it is simpler and more general to assume that the formal head of an endocentric
compound is also the locus of morphosyntactic features, such as plurality.
2- The formal head determines for the entire compound characteristics such as wordclass,
gender and inflection class: In addition to determining the grammatical properties of
a compound, the formal head also determines its word class, gender, and inflection class. For
example, the English compound word "babysits" is a verb, just like its head "sits", but unlike
the non-head "baby". English: the plural of church mouse is church mice, not *church mouses
– i.e. the head determines the way the plural of the compound is formed.
Week 7 – Morphonology and syntax – Morphological Trees
Page 5 of 7 – Hussein Kareem
Coordinative and exocentric compounds do not always behave like formally headed
compounds. For example, coordinative compounds often have double plural marking, and
exocentric compounds may form their plurals in irregular ways. However, there is some
variation in this regard. (Martin Haspelmath, 2010 page 144)
The fact that the formal head of a compound determines its grammatical properties is an
important concept in morphology. It allows us to explain how compounds behave
grammatically and to predict the grammatical properties of new compounds.
7.3 Hierarchical structure in derived lexemes
• Complex lexemes formed by derivational affixes are similar to compounds in several
respects. Morphologists often use tree representations to show the relations between the
base and affixes.
• Hierarchical tree structures can be used to show semantic relations in derived lexemes
in a salient way. For example, the two trees in Figure 7.4 distinguish the two different
meanings of "undoable" very clearly.
• Different orderings of affixes can yield significantly different meanings, and
hierarchical structure can be used to represent this. For example, the Capanahua words
"pi-catsih-ma-hue" and "pi-ma-catsihqu-i" have different meanings due to the different
orderings of the desiderative and causative suffixes.
• Tree representations can also be used to express certain formal properties of derived
lexemes. For example, the English suffix "-able" is mostly attached to verbs (and
occasionally to nouns), turning them into adjectives. This can be expressed by saying
that the derivational affix "belongs" to the word class of adjectives.
• Not all derivational affixes are heads. Many derivational affixes do not determine the
word class and other properties of their derived lexemes. In the European languages,
this is true in particular of prefixes and diminutive suffixes.
Key points:
• Tree representations can be used to show both semantic and formal relations in derived
lexemes.
• Derivational affixes often behave like heads of compounds, and this is a sufficient
reason for treating them as heads.
• Not all derivational affixes are heads.
Week 7 – Morphonology and syntax – Morphological Trees
Page 6 of 7 – Hussein Kareem
7.4 Parallels between syntax and morphology?
To discuss the similarities and differences between syntactic and morphological heads.
Syntactic heads are the main words in a phrase or sentence, and they determine the
grammatical properties of the phrase or sentence. Morphological heads are the main words in
a compound or derived word, and they also determine the grammatical properties of the
compound or derived word.
there are some similarities between syntactic and morphological heads. For example, both
syntactic and morphological heads narrow the meaning of their dependents. This means that
the dependent word or phrase makes the meaning of the head more specific.
However, there are also some important differences between syntactic and morphological
heads. First, syntactic heads can govern the form of their dependents, but morphological heads
cannot. This means that syntactic heads can require their dependents to have a particular
grammatical form. Morphological heads, on the other hand, do not have this ability.
Second, dependents can agree in person and number with their syntactic heads, but they cannot
agree with their morphological heads. This means that the grammatical form of a dependent
word or phrase can be the same as the grammatical form of its syntactic head. However, the
grammatical form of a dependent word or phrase cannot be the same as the grammatical form
of its morphological head.
The similarities between syntactic and morphological heads are only partial. This means that
the principles governing syntactic structure and the principles governing morphological
structure are not identical.
Week 7 – Morphonology and syntax – Morphological Trees
Page 7 of 7 – Hussein Kareem
Table 7.1: Properties of formal heads in syntax, compounding and derivation
Head characteristic Syntactic Compound Derivational
Dependent narrows meaning Yes Yes No
Morphosyntactic locus Yes Yes (partial) Yes (partial)
Government Yes No No
Agreement Yes No No
The table shows that the only property that is shared by all three types of heads is
morphosyntactic locus. This means that all three types of heads bear the grammatical features
of the whole phrase or word.
Overall, there are some similarities between syntactic and morphological heads, but these
similarities are only partial. The principles governing syntactic structure and the principles
governing morphological structure are not identical.
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 1 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
1.1.1 What is the study of syntax about?
‘Syntax’ means ‘sentence construction’: how words group together to make phrases and
sentences. Some people also use the term grammar to mean the same as syntax, although
most linguists follow the more recent practice whereby the grammar of a language includes
all of its organizing principles: information about the sound system, about the form of
words, how we adjust language according to context, and so on; syntax is only one part of
this grammar.
The study of syntax is about how words are grouped together to form phrases and
sentences, and the different sentence constructions that languages use. It is a branch of
linguistics that is concerned with the structure of sentences and the relationships between
words. Syntax is essential to understanding the meaning of sentences, and it is also important
for producing grammatically correct sentences.
Tallerman is saying that this book will not be a descriptive grammar of any particular
language, nor will it be a prescriptive grammar that tells you how to speak or write English
correctly. Instead, the book will focus on the organizing principles of language in general,
such as the classification of words, the order of words in phrases and sentences, and the
structure of phrases and sentences.
The author also wants to make it clear that this book is not about improving your grammar in
the sense of teaching you which words to use or how to structure your sentences. Instead, the
book will help you understand how syntax works in languages, and to introduce the most
important syntactic concepts and technical terms.
This is important to understand because there is often a lot of confusion about what syntax is
and what it is not. Syntax is not about following a set of rules or avoiding certain grammatical
errors. Rather, it is about understanding the underlying principles that govern how languages
construct sentences.
By understanding syntax, you can better appreciate the beauty and complexity of language,
and you can also develop a deeper understanding of how to use language effectively.
Native speakers of a language know the grammar of that language perfectly, even if they
can't consciously explain the rules.
Children learn the grammar of their native language naturally, without formal instruction.
This is similar to how children learn to walk.
When people try to correct someone's grammar, they are usually not correcting grammatical
errors, but rather dialectal differences.
Linguists do not view dialectal forms of a language as "bad grammar". Dialectal differences
do not affect the grammar of a language. In other words, all dialects of a language have the
same grammar.
1. The double negative: many languages, including French and Breton, use a double
negative as standard. This shows that the double negative is not inherently illogical.
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 2 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
2. The contraction "I aren't": the standard English contraction "aren't I" is illogical, since it
does not follow the usual rules of English grammar for forming questions. They also point
out that some dialects of English, such as Northern English, have the contraction "amn't I",
which is more logical than standard English.
That some dialects of English could actually be considered more logical than standard
English, since they follow the general rules of grammar more consistently.
In other words, prescriptive grammar is not based on logic, but rather on social prejudice.
Some dialects of English are just as logical as standard English, and may even be more
logical in some cases.
Some people might say that non-standard English is illogical, but this is not true. For
example, many languages use double negatives, and some dialects of English have
contractions that are more logical than standard English. In general, there is no reason to
believe that non-standard English is less logical than standard English. It is just different.
1.1.2 Language change
In fact, though, the grammar of all languages changes over time, and no amount of
intervention by prescriptive grammarians or language academies can prevent this.
Languages change over time, and provides examples from the history of English to illustrate
this.
1.2.2 How to read linguistic examples
1.2.2.1 The layout of examples
The gloss is a literal translation of the original language. Each meaningful part of the original
is translated, whether it corresponds exactly to a word in English or not.The gloss is essential
for understanding the structure of a language, and that it can reveal important information
about word order, grammatical features, and other aspects of language that are not evident in
the English translation. Glosses are important in linguistics because they show the structure
of a language.
Glosses are translations of words and phrases into their basic parts. For example, the gloss of
the English phrase "the boy is crying" would be "nonpast cry progressive the boy."
By reading the gloss, you can learn about the word order of the language, the different parts
of speech, and other grammatical features. This information is not always evident in the
English translation.
If you only read the English translation of an example, you will miss out on important
information about the language. That's why it is important to read the gloss carefully.
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 3 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
1.2.2.2 Lexical and grammatical information
Glosses contain both lexical information, printed in normal type, and grammatical
information, printed in small capitals. Lexical information means ordinary words which are
translations (or paraphrases) of the original language.
The use of glosses in linguistics, which are translations of words and phrases into their basic
parts, including both lexical information (ordinary words) and grammatical information
(technical terms that describe the function of the words in the source language).
Grammatical information is often glossed using small capitals, and that affixes (grammatical
elements attached to the beginning or end of a word) are typically indicated with a dash in the
gloss.
How morphemes (elements of meaning) are represented in glosses, noting that
sometimes the boundaries between morphemes are not clear. In these cases, linguists may use
a colon or dot to indicate that a single source word contains more than one morpheme.
Glosses can be used to represent the morphosyntax of a language, which is the interface
between morphology (word forms) and syntax (sentence structure).
Syntax Chapter 12
Syntax in Bloomfield’s language
For Bloomfield syntax is the study of grammatical constructions that are different from those
treated in morphology; it is, traditionally, a separate division of grammar. The constructions
that syntax deals with have immediate constituents which must all be free forms; the
constructions studied in morphology may have bound forms as their immediate constituents.
A syntactic construction is defined as a recurrent set of taxemes of modulation, phonetic
modification, selection, and order.
In the sentences John ran, John fell, and Bill ran there are taxemes of selection (the nouns
and verbs, for instance, cannot fill each other’s functions) and order (for example, the noun
precedes the verb). These constructions can be said to have two positions, and each position
can be called a function (or functions) of the forms that can appear in that position. All the
forms that can fill a given position thereby constitute a form class.
A syntactic construction is a pattern of how words are arranged in a sentence. It is like a
blueprint that shows where each word goes.
For example, the syntactic construction for the sentence "John ran" is "noun phrase + verb
phrase." This means that the sentence must have a noun phrase (John) and a verb phrase
(ran). The noun phrase tells us who or what is doing the action, and the verb phrase tells us
what the action is.
Syntactic constructions can be linked together to form more complex sentences. For example,
the sentence "John ran and Bill jumped" uses parataxis to link two independent clauses. The
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 4 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
sentence "I ate because I was hungry" uses hypotaxis to link a subordinate clause to an
independent clause.
Parataxis, a syntactic device that links words and phrases without using subordinating
conjunctions. It describes several types of parataxis, including:
Parataxis is a syntactic device that links words, phrases, and clauses without using
subordinating conjunctions. It is a way of writing that is simple, direct, and immediate.
Parataxis can be used to create a variety of effects.
Since the constituents of these constructions are free forms, there are various ways in which
they can be linked together. #
Simple juxtaposition, or parataxis, is a much-used device, and there are several kinds of
parataxis—those with and without pause, usually nondistinctive variants in English (It’s ten
o’clock. I have to go home.)) Close parataxis (Yes sir; please come). Semi-absolute forms
{John, he ran away.)) and parenthesis (I saw the boy, I mean Smith’s boy, running down the
street.). Apposition is a form of parataxis in which the forms not equivalent in meaning are
grammatically linked in one construction {John, the poor boy . . . ). A device much
employed in English is a variety of this form, that is, close apposition without pause pitch
{King John, John the Baptist).
In other words, parataxis, a syntactic device that links words and phrases without using
subordinating conjunctions. It describes several types of parataxis, including:
• Simple juxtaposition: This is the most basic form of parataxis, and it involves
simply placing two or more constituents next to each other, with or without a pause.
For example: It's ten o'clock. I have to go home. Yes sir; please come. John, he ran
away.
• Close parataxis: This type of parataxis involves linking two constituents without a
pause or punctuation mark. For example: King John, John the Baptist
• Semi-absolute forms: These are forms that can be used on their own, but they are
often used in parataxis with other constituents. For example: John, the poor boy...
• Parenthesis: This type of parataxis involves inserting a constituent into a sentence in
parentheses. For example: I saw the boy (I mean Smith's boy) running down the
street.
• Apposition: This is a type of parataxis in which two constituents are linked together,
but they are not equivalent in meaning. For example: John, the poor boy...
The apposition is a much-employed device in English, and that a common form of apposition
is close apposition without pause pitch, such as "King John, John the Baptist."
Overall, the passage provides a good overview of parataxis and its various forms. It is
important to note that parataxis is not simply a lack of subordination. Rather, it is a deliberate
stylistic choice that can be used to create a variety of effects, such as immediacy, suspense,
and emphasis.
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 5 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
Features of modulation and phonetic modification play a great role in syntactic
constructions, and they are known as sandhi, an expression from the Hindu grammarians
meaning “putting together.”
We are thus enabled to distinguish between the absolute and included form of a word, that
is, the formal differences found when a word is uttered alone or with others. There are
various forms of sandhi, obligatory and optional (for example, a and an are obligatory
forms of sandhi, but did you and “didja” are optional). Sandhi modifications are found more
often in final phonemes than in initials.
Sandhi refers to the changes that occur to the sounds of words when they are combined
with other words. These changes can be obligatory or optional, and they can affect both
initial and final phonemes.
For example, in English, the word "a" becomes "an" before a vowel sound. This is an
obligatory form of sandhi. The phrase "did you" can be pronounced as either "did you" or
"didja." This is an optional form of sandhi.
Sandhi modifications are more common in final phonemes than in initials. This is because the
final phoneme of a word is more likely to be influenced by the first phoneme of the following
word. For example, in the English phrase "hot dog," the final /t/ of "hot" is pronounced as a
/d/ because of the following /d/ of "dog."
Taxemes of selection are of great importance in all languages, and syntax consists
largely of a discussion of them. There is a relation between the number of selective taxemes
and the form classes with which they operate: the more taxemes there are, the more
subdivisions of form classes one finds. Although these subdivisions have meaning, defining
them on that basis is generally of little help, since they are basically mechanical and in great
variety.
In other words, Taxemes of selection are of great importance in all languages. They are the
features of words that determine which other words can be combined with them. For
example, in the English sentence "I see a cat," the taxeme of selection for the noun "cat" is
that it must be modified by a determiner, such as "a" or "the." The taxeme of selection for the
verb "see" is that it must take a noun phrase as its object.
The more selective taxemes a language has, the more subdivisions of form classes it will
have. For example, English has a relatively large number of selective taxemes, such as
number, person, gender, and case. This means that English has a large number of form
classes, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
• The boy runs
The subject of this sentence is the singular noun phrase "the boy." The selective taxeme of
singular verbs is that they must be used with singular subjects.
• The boys run
The subject of this sentence is the plural noun phrase "the boys." The selective taxeme of
plural verbs is that they must be used with plural subjects.
• I was
The verb "was" in this sentence is a past-tense verb. The selective taxemes of past-tense verbs
are that they must be used with all subjects and that they must be inflected for the past tense.
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 6 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
Agreement is a narrower form of selection, operating on principles similar to the larger
sort, and conveniently divisible into three general types: concord or congruence, for example,
the agreement in number or gender; government, which has to do with the selected forms that
are permitted or required to occur with a concomitant form (for example, watch me, but I
watch)-, and cross-reference, subclasses that contain mention of the forms with which they
are joined (for example, “John, his mark,’’ Jean, oil est-il?).
Explaiation: agreement is a narrower form of selection. It is the relationship between two or
more words in a sentence that share the same grammatical features, such as number, gender,
and case.
There are three main types of agreement:
• Concord or congruence: This type of agreement occurs between two or more words
that are in the same syntactic relationship, such as subject and verb or noun and
adjective. For example, in the English sentence "The boys are playing," the subject
"boys" and the verb "playing" agree in number. Both are plural.
• Government: This type of agreement occurs between a head word and its dependents.
For example, in the English sentence "The boys like to play soccer," the verb "like"
governs the noun phrase "to play soccer." The noun phrase must be in the infinitive
form because it is the object of the verb "like."
• Cross-reference: This type of agreement occurs between two or more words that are
not in the same syntactic relationship, but which refer to the same entity. For example,
in the English sentence "John, his mark," the pronoun "his" refers to the noun "John."
Both words must be in the same gender and number.
Agreement is an important part of grammar because it helps us to understand the
relationships between words in a sentence. It also helps us to produce grammatically correct
sentences.
Here are some more examples of agreement:
• Concord:
o The cat is chasing the mouse. (Subject-verb agreement)
o The red ball is on the table. (Adjective-noun agreement)
• Government:
o I like to eat pizza. (Verb-noun phrase agreement)
o The boy gave the book to his friend. (Verb-noun phrase agreement)
• Cross-reference:
o John, his mark.
o Jean, est-il là?
Syntactic constructions involve free forms that may belong to different form
classes,
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 7 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
In other words, Endocentric and exocentric constructions are two fundamental types of
syntactic constructions.
Endocentric constructions are those in which the head of the construction is the same form
class as the construction itself. For example, in the phrase "big house," the head of the
construction is the noun "house," and the entire phrase is also a noun. In the phrase "ran
quickly," the head of the construction is the verb "ran," and the entire phrase is also a verb.
Endocentric constructions are more common than exocentric constructions. Endocentric
constructions can be further subdivided into coordinative and subordinative constructions.
Exocentric constructions are those in which the head of the construction is not the same
form class as the construction itself. For example, in the phrase "to the store," the head of the
construction is the preposition "to," but the entire phrase is a prepositional phrase. In the
phrase "I have to go," the head of the construction is the modal verb "have to," but the entire
phrase is a verb phrase.
Coordinative constructions or serial are those in which the head of the construction is the
same form class as two or more of its constituents. For example, in the phrase "boys and
girls," the head of the construction is the noun "boys," and both "boys" and "girls" are nouns.
Subordinative constructions or attributive are those in which the head of the construction is
the same form class as only one of its constituents. For example, in the phrase "poor John,"
the head of the construction is the noun "John," and the adjective "poor" modifies the noun
"John."
The classification of syntactic constructions into endocentric and exocentric constructions is a
useful tool for understanding the relationships between words in a sentence. It can also be
used to generate new sentences and to understand the meaning of existing sentences.
Phrases can be made up of more than one syntactic construction. And if all of the
constructions are endocentric, then one of the constituents will belong to the same form class
as the resultant phrase, and this constituent is called the center of the phrase.
For example, the phrase "big red house" has two endocentric constructions: "big house" and
"red house." The center of the phrase is the noun "house," because the entire phrase is also a
noun.
Another example is the phrase "to the big red house." This phrase has three endocentric
constructions: "to the big house," "the big house," and "big house." The center of the phrase
is again the noun "house," because the entire phrase is also a noun.
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 8 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
Exocentric constructions can also be combined to form phrases. For example, the phrase "to
and fro" is made up of two exocentric constructions: "to" and "fro." However, there is no
center for this phrase, because neither "to" nor "fro" is the same form class as the entire
phrase.
It is true that it is not possible to set up a consistent scheme of word classes (parts of speech).
Word classes overlap and cross each other in many ways. For example, the word "run" can be
used as a verb or a noun. And the word "the" can be used as a determiner or a conjunction.
Despite these challenges, word classes are still a useful tool for understanding syntactic
constructions. By identifying the word classes of the constituents of a phrase, we can better
understand the relationships between the words and the meaning of the phrase as a whole.
Taxemes of order are the arrangements in which form classes may occur. They are
different from taxemes of selection, which determine which form classes can be combined
with each other.
Taxemes of order vary greatly from one language to another. In English, for example, the
actor-action type (John ran) is the most common, but the action-goal type (catch John) is also
possible. In French, on the other hand, the order of verb conjuncts is very rigid.
Taxemes of order are an important part of syntax because they help us to understand the
relationships between words in a sentence. They also help us to produce grammatically
correct sentences.
IE Language, or Indo-European Language, is a language family that includes most of
the major languages of Europe, as well as many languages in Asia and the Middle East. Some
of the most widely spoken IE languages include English, Spanish, Hindi, Bengali,
Portuguese, Russian, Punjabi, French, and German.
Languages with fewer distinct word classes tend to rely on phrases as the basic element of
grammatical arrangements. This is because phrases can be used to express more complex
relationships between words than can individual words.
For example, in English, we can use the phrase "the big red house" to express the relationship
between the noun "house" and the adjectives "big" and "red." In a language with fewer
distinct word classes, we might need to use a compound word or a phrase to express this
same relationship.
Another example is the sentence "John ran." In English, we can express this relationship with
two words: "John" and "ran." However, in a language with fewer distinct word classes, we
might need to use a phrase to express the relationship between the subject and the verb.
The use of phrases as the basic element of grammatical arrangements has a number of
advantages. First, it allows languages to express more complex relationships between words.
Week 8 – Morphonology and syntax – Introduction to Syntax
Page 9 of 9 – Hussein Kareem
Second, it makes languages more flexible and adaptable to change. Third, it makes it easier
for people to learn new languages.
It is important to note that the distinction between words and phrases is not always clear-cut.
In some languages, it can be difficult to tell whether a particular word is a compound word or
a phrase. Additionally, some languages have words that can be used as either words or
phrases.
Despite these challenges, the distinction between words and phrases is still a useful tool for
understanding the grammar of different languages. By understanding the different ways in
which languages organize their words, we can better understand how these languages work
and how they are used to communicate.
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 1 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
CHAPTER 6 : Theories of syntax
Relational Grammar (RG) is a theory of grammar that analyzes sentences in terms of
grammatical relations, such as subject, direct object, and indirect object. RG assumes that
these grammatical relations are universal and primitive, and that they can be used to explain a
wide range of syntactic phenomena, such as passivization, dative shift, and raising.
Relational Grammar (RG) is a theory of syntax that argues that primitive grammatical
relations provide the ideal means to state syntactic rules in universal terms. It was developed
in the 1970s as an alternative to transformational grammar, which was the dominant syntactic
theory at the time.
One of the key features of RG is that it allows for sentences to have more than one level of
syntactic representation. This is necessary in order to account for sentences like passives and
dative shifts, in which the grammatical relations of the arguments change between the initial
and final representations of the sentence.
For example, the passive sentence "The apple was eaten by Pat" has the same initial
representation as the active sentence "Pat ate the apple." However, in the final representation
of the passive sentence, the subject ("the apple") is a derived subject, and the agent ("Pat") is
a 1-chômeur (i.e., a term that has lost its grammatical relations and been made into a nonterm).
RG has been influential in the development of other syntactic theories, and it remains an
important tool for syntactic analysis today.
Relational Networks: RG represents the grammatical relations in a sentence using a
relational network. A relational network is a graph in which the nodes represent terms (words
or phrases) and the edges represent grammatical relations. For example, the relational
network for the sentence "The teacher gave the book to the student" is shown below:
Teacher (subject) --- gave (predicate) --- book (direct object) --- to (adjunct) --- student
(indirect object)
Strata
RG assumes that sentences may have more than one level of syntactic representation,
called strata. The initial stratum is the most basic level of representation, and it is the only
stratum that conforms to the Universal Alignment Hypothesis, which states that there is a
consistent mapping between thematic relations and grammatical relations.
In addition to the initial stratum, there may be non-initial strata, which are created by the
application of syntactic rules. For example, the passive rule changes the direct object of the
initial stratum into the subject of the non-initial stratum.
Chômeurs
RG postulates a special grammatical relation for arguments that have lost their term relations
and been made into non-terms, called a chômeur. For example, in the passive sentence "The
book was given to the student by the teacher," the initial subject ("teacher") is a 1-chômeur.
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 2 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
Passivization and Dative Shift
Passivization and dative shift are two syntactic phenomena that are analyzed in terms of strata
in RG. In passivization, the direct object of the initial stratum is promoted to the subject
position of the non-initial stratum. In dative shift, the indirect object of the initial stratum is
promoted to the direct object position of the non-initial stratum.
Conclusion
RG is a powerful and flexible syntactic theory that has been used to analyze a wide range of
phenomena in a variety of languages. It is particularly well-suited for analyzing grammatical
relations-changing phenomena like passivization and dative shift.
Here is a summary of the main points of your text:
• RG is a theory of grammar that analyzes sentences in terms of grammatical relations.
• RG assumes that these grammatical relations are universal and primitive.
• RG allows for sentences to have more than one level of syntactic representation.
• This is necessary in order to account for sentences like passives and dative shifts, in
which the grammatical relations of the arguments change between the initial and final
representations of the sentence.
• RG has been influential in the development of other syntactic theories, and it remains
an important tool for syntactic analysis today.
6.2 Lexical-Functional Grammar
Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) is a theory of syntax that analyzes sentences into two
parts: constituent structure (c-structure) and functional structure (f-structure). C-structure
represents the word order of the sentence, while f-structure represents the grammatical
relations of the sentence, such as subject, object, and verb.
The relationship between the c-structure and f-structure of a sentence in Lexical-Functional
Grammar (LFG) is as follows:
• C-structure (constituent structure) represents the hierarchical relationship between
words and phrases in a sentence.
• F-structure (functional structure) represents the grammatical relations between the
constituents of a sentence, such as subject, object, and predicate.
C-structure and f-structure are related in the following ways:
• The heads of c-structure constituents correspond to the predicates of f-structures.
• The arguments of c-structure constituents correspond to the terms of f-structures.
• The grammatical relations between the constituents of a c-structure are represented by
the functional annotations on the c-structure nodes.
LFG is a constraint-satisfaction theory, which means that it is based on a set of constraints
that must be satisfied for a sentence to be grammatically correct. These constraints can be
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 3 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
used to account for a wide range of syntactic phenomena, such as passivization, dative shift,
and raising.
LFG is a modular theory, which means that the different components of the theory, such as
the lexicon, the syntax, and the semantics, can be developed independently of each other.
This makes LFG more flexible and adaptable to new data and new insights about language.
Here is a simpler explanation of LFG:
• LFG analyzes sentences into two parts: word order and grammatical relations.
• LFG uses a set of constraints to ensure that sentences are grammatically correct.
• LFG is flexible and adaptable to new data and new insights about language.
Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) is a theory of syntax that is similar to Relational
Grammar in some ways, but different in others. Like RelG, LFG rejects the notion of abstract
underlying syntactic representations and transformational rules. However, unlike RelG, LFG
does not posit a hierarchical ordering of grammatical relations. Instead, LFG assigns two
representations to each sentence: constituent structure (c-structure), which represents the
word order of the sentence, and functional structure (f-structure), which represents the
grammatical relations of the sentence.
LFG also makes extensive use of syntactic features, and its analyses of grammatical-relationchanging
phenomena like passive and dative shift crucially involve the lexicon.
One of the key advantages of LFG is that it allows for a more direct representation of the
relationship between the syntax and the semantics of a sentence. For example, in the sentence
"John gave the book to Mary," the f-structure would represent the fact that John is the agent
of the action, the book is the patient of the action, and Mary is the recipient of the action. This
representation is more direct than the representation that would be given in a theory like
RelG, which assumes a hierarchical ordering of grammatical relations.
Another advantage of LFG is that it is a more modular theory than RelG. This means that the
different components of the theory, such as the lexicon, the syntax, and the semantics, can be
developed independently of each other. This makes LFG more flexible and adaptable to new
data and new insights about language.
What is the relationship between the c-structure and f-structure of a sentence? A
The relationship between the c-structure and f-structure of a sentence in LFG:
• C-structure is like the word order of a sentence.
• F-structure is like the grammatical relations of a sentence, such as
subject, object, and verb.
• Functional annotations are like labels that are added to the c-structure tree to indicate
the grammatical functions of the nodes in the tree.
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 4 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
LFG uses functional annotations to relate the c-structure and f-structure of a sentence. This
means that the c-structure and f-structure of a sentence are not one-to-one, but they are
related to each other in a systematic way.
6.3 Government-Binding Theory
Government-Binding Theory (GB) is a theory of syntax that is based on the principles of
Universal Grammar and core grammar. It posits two levels of syntactic representation: dstructure
and s-structure. D-structure is the level at which lexical insertion occurs, while sstructure
is the level at which word order is determined. GB also recognizes two grammatical
relations: subject and direct object. These relations are derived from the constituent structure
configuration of a sentence.
GB is a theory of syntax that analyzes sentences into two levels of representation: dstructure
and s-structure. D-structure is the level at which lexical items are inserted into the
syntactic structure, and s-structure is the level at which the order of words in a sentence is
determined. GB also recognizes two grammatical relations: subject and object.
GB is a constraint-satisfaction theory, which means that it assumes that sentences are
grammatical if and only if they satisfy a set of constraints. The two most important
constraints in GB are the Projection Principle and the Extended Projection Principle. The
Projection Principle states that the subcategorization frames of lexical items must be satisfied
at all levels of syntactic representation. The Extended Projection Principle states that all
predicates must have subjects.
GB eliminates the need for phrase structure rules (PS-rules). Instead, d-structures are
projected from the subcategorization frames of lexical items in the lexicon.
Key Features of GB
• GB is a theory of universal grammar, which means that it attempts to capture the
common properties of the grammars of all human languages.
• GB is a constraint-satisfaction theory, which means that it assumes that sentences are
grammatical if and only if they satisfy a set of constraints.
• GB uses a system of X-bar theory to represent syntactic structure.
• GB recognizes two grammatical relations: subject and object.
• GB eliminates the need for phrase structure rules (PS-rules).
The Projection Principle is satisfied because the verb saw requires an internal
argument (Mary) and a d-structure is generated in which Mary is the internal argument of
saw. The Extended Projection Principle is satisfied because the predicate saw has a subject
(John).
The Projection Principle is satisfied because the verb kill requires an internal argument
(the rabbit) and a d-structure is generated in which the rabbit is the internal argument of kill.
The Extended Projection Principle is satisfied because the predicate kill has a subject (the
rabbit).
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 5 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
The Projection Principle is satisfied because the verb kill requires an internal argument
and a d-structure is generated in which the internal argument is a WH-NP. The Extended
Projection Principle is satisfied because the predicate kill has a subject (the coyote).
GB is a complex and sophisticated theory of syntax, and it has been very influential in the
field of linguistics.
The Minimalist Program is a theory of syntax that was developed in the 1990s. It is
based on the idea that syntax is driven by two main factors: the need to satisfy morphological
features and the need to check case.
The Minimalist Program has a number of advantages over previous theories of syntax. It is
more minimalist, meaning that it has fewer components and fewer rules. It is also more
universal, meaning that it is more likely to be able to account for the syntax of all human
languages.
The Minimalist Program has been very successful in accounting for a wide range of syntactic
phenomena. However, it is still a developing theory, and there are some areas where it is still
not clear how to account for all of the data.
Overall, the Minimalist Program is a very promising theory of syntax. It has the potential to
provide a unified and comprehensive account of the syntax of all human languages.
6.4 Role and Reference Grammar
Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) is a theory of language that seeks to capture the
interaction of syntax, semantics, and discourse-pragmatics in different grammatical systems.
Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) is a theory of grammar that takes into account the
interaction of syntax, semantics, and discourse pragmatics. It is a cross-linguistic theory,
meaning that it is designed to be able to account for the grammatical systems of all
languages.
Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) is a theory of grammar that focuses on the
interaction of syntax, semantics, and discourse pragmatics. It rejects both grammaticalrelations-
based representations and X-bar-type constituent-structure representations, instead
proposing a layered structure for clauses, consisting of a nucleus, core, and periphery. The
nucleus contains the predicate, the core contains the nucleus and the arguments of the
predicate, and the periphery contains adjuncts. RRG also uses a separate operator projection
to represent grammatical morphemes such as aspect, negation, tense, and illocutionary force.
One of the key features of RRG is its layered structure of the clause. This structure consists of
three layers: the nucleus, the core, and the periphery. The nucleus contains the predicate, the
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 6 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
core contains the nucleus and the arguments of the predicate, and the periphery contains any
adjuncts that are not arguments of the predicate.
RRG also makes a distinction between grammatical morphemes (operators) and lexical
morphemes. Operators are morphemes that have a grammatical function, such as tense or
negation. Lexical morphemes are morphemes that have a lexical meaning, such as nouns and
verbs.
RRG is a complex theory, but it is a powerful one that can be used to account for a wide
range of grammatical phenomena. It is also a theory that is still under development, and there
is a lot of active research being done in the field.
• Clause structure: RRG proposes that clauses have a layered structure, with the
following layers: nucleus, core, and periphery. The nucleus contains the predicate, the
core contains the predicate and its arguments, and the periphery contains adjuncts.
• Operators: RRG also proposes that grammatical morphemes, such as
tense, aspect, and negation, are represented in a different projection of the clause from
the predicate, arguments, and adjuncts. These morphemes are called operators, and
they have scope over different layers of the clause.
• Advantages of RRG: RRG has several advantages over other theories of grammar. It
is able to account for a wide range of cross-linguistic data, including the structure of
head-marking languages, discontinuous constituency, and languages with free word
order. It also provides a unified account of clause structure, operators, and scope.
RRG is a theory of syntax that emphasizes the relationship between syntax, semantics,
and discourse pragmatics.
• RRG's syntactic representation of clause structure is called the layered structure of the
clause.
• The layered structure of the clause is organized into three layers: nucleus, core, and
periphery.
• The nucleus contains the predicate, the core contains the predicate and its arguments,
and the periphery contains adjuncts.
• Operators, such as tense and negation, are represented in a separate projection of the
clause from the predicate, arguments, and adjuncts.
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 7 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
RRG's layered structure of the clause is a universal feature of all languages. However, the
way that the layers are instantiated can vary from language to language. For example, in
English, the core arguments of a verb are typically expressed by free morphemes, while in
Lakhota, the core arguments of a verb are typically expressed by bound morphemes.
RRG's approach to clause structure has several advantages over other theories of syntax.
First, it is able to account for the wide diversity of clause structures found in human
languages. Second, it is able to provide a natural explanation for the relationship between
syntax and semantics. Third, it is able to provide a framework for understanding how
discourse pragmatics can influence syntactic structure.
• The key points :
• RRG is a cross-linguistic theory of grammar that takes into account the interaction
of syntax, semantics, and discourse pragmatics.
• RRG has a layered structure of the clause, consisting of the nucleus, the core, and
the periphery.
• RRG distinguishes between grammatical morphemes (operators) and lexical
morphemes.
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 8 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
Grammatical Functions
The grammatical subject of a clause is the noun phrase that precedes the verb and agrees with
it in number. The subject typically denotes the Agent in the situation described by the clause.
In the passive voice, the subject is the entity that is acted upon by the verb.
There are three types of subject: grammatical, logical, and psychological. The grammatical
subject is the one that is defined by grammatical criteria, such as agreement with the verb.
The logical subject is the entity that is denoted by the subject, even if it is not in the normal
position for the subject. The psychological subject is the entity that the speaker is most
interested in talking about.
In English, the grammatical subject, the logical subject, and the psychological subject
typically coincide. This is because most verbs in English denote actions, and the Agent of an
action is typically the most important entity in the situation.
The grammatical subject is an important concept in linguistics because it is used to define
clauses, to determine agreement between nouns and verbs, and to understand the roles of
different constituents in a sentence.
The properties of grammatical subjects:
1. Agreement with the verb: The grammatical subject agrees with the verb in number
and person. For example, in the sentence "The tiger hunts prey at night," the subject
"the tiger" agrees with the verb "hunts" in number (both are singular) and person
(both are third person).
Agreement with the verb in number and person: The grammatical subject typically
agrees with the verb in number (singular or plural) and person (first, second, or third).
For instance, in the sentence "The tiger hunts prey at night," the subject "tiger" agrees
with the verb "hunts" in both number (singular) and person (third).
2. Position before the verb: The grammatical subject typically comes before the verb in
a declarative sentence. For example, in the sentence "The tiger hunts prey at night,"
the subject "the tiger" comes before the verb "hunts."
3. Control of understood subjects: The grammatical subject of a main verb can control
the understood subject of a non-finite clause. For example, in the sentence "Fiona
hoped to meet the Prime Minister," the understood subject of the infinitive "to meet
the Prime Minister" is "Fiona."
They can be controlled by other subjects. For example, in the sentence "Fiona
persuaded Arthur to bake a cake," the subject of the main clause, "Fiona," controls the
subject of the infinitive clause, "Arthur."
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 9 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
4. Control of ellipsis: Only the grammatical subject can be ellipsed in a coordinated
sentence. For example, the two sentences "Ayala went to the ball. Jonathan Stubbs
chatted to Ayala" can be combined into the single sentence "Ayala went to the ball
and chatted to Jonathan Stubbs" by omitting the grammatical subject "Ayala" from the
second sentence.
5. Control of floating quantifiers: Quantifiers like "all" and "both" can float out of
subject noun phrases but not out of non-subject noun phrases. For example, the
sentence "All the foxes were hunted by Larry Twentyman" is acceptable, but the
sentence "*All the foxes Larry Twentyman hunted" is unacceptable.
They can float out of their noun phrase. For example, in the sentence "All the Tringles
came to Merle Park," the quantifier "all" can float out of the subject noun phrase, "all
the Tringles," to a position next to the finite verb.
6. Control of reflexive pronouns: The grammatical subject of a clause controls the
interpretation of reflexive pronouns within that clause. For example, in the sentence
"Augusta blamed herself for what happened," the reflexive pronoun "herself" refers to
the same woman as the subject "Augusta."
7. Nominative case (in some languages): In some languages, such as Russian, the
grammatical subject is marked by nominative case. For example, in the Russian
sentence "Ivan tolknul Mashu" ("Ivan pushed Masha"), the subject "Ivan" is in the
nominative case and the object "Mashu" is in the accusative case.
They can take nominative case. For example, in the Russian sentence "Ivan tolknul
Mashu" ("Ivan pushed Masha"), the subject "Ivan" is in the nominative case.
These properties are not always all present in every sentence, and they may be realized in
different ways in different languages. However, they are all important for understanding the
grammatical structure of a sentence and the relationships between the different constituents of
that sentence.
The major properties of grammatical subjects in the basic construction of a language. These
properties are divided into syntactic, morpho-syntactic, and semantic properties.
Syntactic properties:
• Control of reflexives: Subjects can control reflexive pronouns, which means that the
reflexive pronoun must refer to the subject. For example, in "John saw himself," the
reflexive pronoun "himself" refers to the subject "John."
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 10 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
• Control of "all" and "both" floating: Subjects can control the floating of "all" and
"both" pronouns. For example, in "All the students passed the exam," the pronoun
"all" can float to the front of the sentence, as in "All passed the exam the students."
• Functioning as pivot (centre) in infinitives and coordinate constructions: Subjects
can function as the pivot of infinitives and coordinate constructions. For example, in
"John wants to eat," the subject "John" is the pivot of the infinitive "to eat."
Morpho-syntactic properties:
• Agreement with the finite verb: Subjects agree with the finite verb in person and
number. For example, in "I am happy" and "You are happy," the subject pronouns "I"
and "you" agree with the finite verbs "am" and "are" in person and number.
• Nominative case: Subjects are in the nominative case. For example, in "John is
happy," the subject pronoun "John" is in the nominative case.
Semantic properties:
• Reference to agents: Subjects typically refer to agents, which are the entities that
perform actions. For example, in "John kicked the ball," the subject "John" is the
agent of the action of kicking.
• Reference to entities that exist independently of the action: Subjects typically refer
to entities that exist independently of the action or state denoted by the main verb. For
example, in "John kicked the ball," the ball is an entity that existed before John kicked
it and will continue to exist after he kicked it.
The passive construction is not basic, even though it has a subject. This is because the
subject of a passive sentence does not necessarily refer to an agent. For example, in "The
ball was kicked by John," the subject "ball" does not refer to the agent of the action of
kicking.
8.3 Direct object
A direct object is a noun or noun phrase that receives the action of the verb. In English,
direct objects are typically located after the verb and are not preceded by a preposition.
Examples of direct objects:
• Louise broke the cup.
• Alison drove the car.
• Martha chewed the bread.
Properties of direct objects:
• Direct object NPs are never preceded by a preposition.
• Direct object NPs correspond to the grammatical subjects of passive sentences.
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 11 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
• Direct object NPs typically refer to Patients, which are the entities that are affected by
the action of the verb.
Example of a passive sentence:
• The cup was broken by Louise.
In this sentence, the direct object NP "the cup" is the subject of the passive sentence.
The passage also notes that the concept of direct object does not necessarily carry over to
other languages.
The difficulty with defining direct objects in English:
1- Passive sentences can have grammatical subjects that are not direct objects in the
corresponding active sentences.
(15) a. How is a girl to be chatted to if she does not go out? (Anthony Trollope, Ayala).
b. These fields were marched over by all the armies of Europe.
(16) a. How is someone to chat to a girl if she does not go out?
b. All the armies of Europe marched over these fields.
For example, the passive sentences in (15) have grammatical subjects ("a girl" and "these
fields"), but their active counterparts in (16) do not have direct objects. In other words, in
(16), the words "to a girl" and "over these fields" are prepositional phrases, not direct objects.
This suggests that the criteria for direct objects do not always apply to passive sentences.
This suggests that either: the proposes two possible explanations for this:
1. It is possible that more than direct objects can be converted to grammatical subjects in
the passive construction. More than direct objects can be converted to grammatical
subjects in the passive construction.
2. It is possible that the verbs "chat to" and "march over" take direct objects in their
passive forms. The verbs like "chat to" and "march over" can take direct objects, even
though they do not seem to have direct objects in their active counterparts.
The latter explanation is more likely, because it is more consistent with the other criteria for
direct objects in English.
2- Some apparent active transitive clauses in English have no corresponding passive. For
example, the sentences "That car weighs two tons", "Arthur measures six feet", "Her
daughters resemble Lucy", and "The cage contained a panda" do not have corresponding
passives. This may be because the panda in "The cage contained a panda" is not a Patient.
However, nobody has suggested that the panda is not a direct object.
Week 9 – Morphonology and syntax –Syntax 2 Theories of syntax, Grammatical Functions
Page 12 of 12 - Hussein Kareem
Two criteria for recognizing direct objects in English with most verbs combining with
two NPs in the neutral, active declarative construction:
1. The position of the particle "back": Where a verb combines with two NPs, the
particle "back" occurs after the verb, but before or after the direct object NP.
Example:
a. Ayala sent back the diamond necklace.
b. Ayala sent the diamond necklace back.
In clauses with three NPs, the occurrence of the particle is limited.
a. Ayala sent her cousin the diamond necklace.
b. *Ayala sent back her cousin the diamond necklace. (bad)
c. ?Ayala sent her cousin back the diamond necklace. (not acceptable, although back follows
the NP immediately to the right of the verb.)
d. Ayala sent her cousin the diamond necklace back.
2. The ability to become the grammatical subject of the corresponding passive: Direct
object NPs can typically become the grammatical subjects of the corresponding
passive sentences. To be balanced against this criterion is the fact that her cousin in
(a) can become the grammatical subject of the corresponding passive:
Ex: Her cousin was sent back the diamond necklace by Ayala.
Which of the two criteria is to be given precedence: the position of back or becoming
grammatical subject of the passive?
Another complication in identifying direct objects in English: pronouns behave differently from
full NPs with respect to the particle "back."
In the sentence "Ayala sent her cousin back the diamond necklace," the noun phrase "her
cousin" is a potential direct object, but the sentence is not acceptable. However, if we
substitute the pronoun "him" for "her cousin," the sentence becomes acceptable: "Ayala sent
him back the diamond necklace." This suggests that pronouns can be direct objects even in
positions where full NPs cannot be direct objects.
They allow prepositional phrases, as in
- Ayala sent away the diamond necklace to her cousin;
but compare
- *Ayala sent her cousin away the diamond necklace.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق
جميع الردود تعبّرعن رأي كاتبيها فقط. حريّة التعبير عن الرأي والرد متاحة للجميع( بما لا يخل بالنظام العام والادب)