| Morphology (linguistics) |
Article Index for Morphology |
Shopping Morphology |
Website Links For Morphology |
Information AboutMorphology (linguistics) |
|
Morphology is the field within Linguistics that studies the internal structure of words. (Words as units in the lexicon are the subject matter of Lexicology .) While words are generally accepted as being (with Clitic s) the smallest units of Syntax , it is clear that in most (if not all) languages, words can be related to other words by rules. For example, English speakers recognize that the words ''dog'', ''dogs'', and ''dog-catcher'' are closely related. English speakers recognize these relations from their tacit knowledge of the rules of word-formation in English. They intuit that ''dog'' is to ''dogs'' as ''cat'' is to ''cats''; similarly, ''dog'' is to ''dog-catcher'' as ''dish'' is to ''dishwasher''. The rules understood by the speaker reflect specific patterns (or regularities) in the way words are formed from smaller units and how those smaller units interact in speech. In this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word-formation within and across languages, and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers of those languages. HISTORY The history of morphological analysis dates back to the Ancient India n linguist who formulated the 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology in the text '''' by using a Constituency Grammar. The Graeco-Roman grammatical tradition also engaged in morphological analysis. The term ''morphology'' was coined by August Schleicher in 1859 ''Für die Lehre von der Wortform wähle ich das Wort "Morphologie"'' ("for the science of word formation, I choose the term 'morphology'", ''Mémoires Acad. Impériale'' 7/1/7, 35) FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS Lexemes and word forms The term "word" is ambiguous in common usage. To take up again the example of ''dog'' vs. ''dogs'', there is one sense in which these two are the same "word" (they are both nouns that refer to the same kind of animal, differing only in number), and another sense in which they are different words (they can't generally be used in the same sentences without altering other words to fit; for example, the verbs ''is'' and ''are'' in ''The dog is happy'' and ''The dogs are happy''). The distinction between these two senses of "word" is arguably the most important one in morphology. The first sense of "word," the one in which ''dog'' and ''dogs'' are "the same word," is called Lexeme . The second sense is called '''word-form'''. We thus say that ''dog'' and ''dogs'' are different forms of the same lexeme. ''Dog'' and ''dog-catcher'', on the other hand, are different lexemes; for example, they refer to two different kinds of entities. The form of a word that is chosen conventionally to represent the canonical form of a word is called a Lemma , or '''citation form'''. Prosodic word vs. morphological word There is yet another complication to using the term "word" in linguistic investigation: the ''morphological word'' does not always correspond to a ''prosodic word'' (often called ''phonological word'').For lengthy discussion of this issue, see Matthews, 1st ed., chapter 2, "Word, word-form, and lexeme". Presumably this explication is repeated in the 2d ed. This point involves the concept of word classes (popularly known in the English speaking world as "parts of speech"). For virtually all languages, the native grammatical tradition (where such exists) and modern linguistics both recognize that the lexemes of the language in question belong to one of a small set of lexical classes (categories of lexemes), such as "noun" and "verb".Except for many Chomskyan linguists, linguists accept that the set of word classes is not universal, but varies from language to language; for example, non-Chomskyan linguists agree that Chinese and many other languages lack the lexical category, "adjective". In such languages, the usual grammatical expression on an ''attribute'' (e.g., tall, green, moody) is an intransitive verb, sometimes called a 'stative verb'. Some languages contain forms like the English ''he's''. ''He's'' combines a noun and a verb -- it is not a member of any ''single'' English word class. That being so, ''he's'' is not a ''morphological'' "compound word" in the generally used sense of that term "compound word". Yet it meets the standard criteria for a phonological word. The apostrophe "s" allomorph of the word-form 'is' of the verb 'to be' is an enclitic attaching to a preceding noun phrase when that noun phrase is the syntactic subject: e.g., "she's here", "Bobby's leaving". Here are examples from other languages of the failure of a single phonological word to coincide with a single morphological word-form. In Latin, one way to express the concept of 'NOUN-PHRASE1 and NOUN-PHRASE2' (as in "apples and oranges") is to suffix '-que' to the second noun phrase: "apples oranges-and", as it were. An extreme level of this theoretical quandary posed by some phonological words is provided by the Kwak'wala language. Formerly known as Kwakiutl , Kwak'wala belongs to the Northern branch of the Wakashan language family. "Kwakiutl" is still used to refer to the tribe itself, along with other terms. In Kwak'wala, as in a great many other languages, meaning relations between nouns, including possession and "semantic case", are formulated by affixes instead of by independent "words". The three word English phrase, "with his club", where 'with' identifies its dependent noun phrase as an instrument and 'his' denotes a possession relation, would consist of two words or even just one word in many languages. But affixation for semantic relations in Kwak'wala differs dramatically (from the viewpoint of those whose language is not Kwak'wala) from such affixation in other languages for this reason: the affixes phonologically attach not to the lexeme they pertain to semantically, but to the ''preceding'' lexeme. Consider the following example (in Kwakw'ala, sentences begin with what corresponds to an English verb):Example taken from Foley 1998, using a modified transcription. This phenomenon of Kwak'wala was reported by Jacobsen as cited in van Valin and La Polla 1997. kwixʔid-i-da bəgwanəmai-χ-a q�asa-s-isi t�alwagwayu Morpheme by morpheme translation: kwixʔid-i-da = clubbed-PIVOT-DETERMINER bəgwanəma-χ-a = man-ACCUSATIVE-DETERMINER q�asa-s-is = otter-INSTRUMENTAL-3.PERSON.SINGULAR-POSSESSIVE t�alwagwayu = club. "the man clubbed the otter with his club" (Notation notes: 1. accusative case marks an entity that something is done to. 2. determiners are words such as "the", "this", "that". 3. the concept of "pivot" is a theoretical construct that is not relevant to this discussion.) That is, to the speaker of Kwak'wala, the sentence does not contain the "words" 'him-the-otter' or 'with-his-club' Instead, the markers -''i-da'' (PIVOT-'the'), referring to ''man'', attaches not to ''bəgwanəma'' ('man'), but instead to the "verb"; the markers -''χ-a'' (ACCUSATIVE-'the'), referring to ''otter'', attach to ''bəgwanəma'' instead of to ''q�asa'' ('otter'), etc. To summarize differently: a speaker of Kwak'wala does ''not'' perceive the sentence to consist of these phonological words: kwixʔid i-da-bəgwanəma χ-a-q�asa s-isi-t�alwagwayu "clubbed PIVOT-the-mani him-the-otter with-hisi-club Inflection vs. word-formation Given the notion of a lexeme, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of morphological rules. Some morphological rules relate different forms of the same lexeme; while other rules relate two different lexemes. Rules of the first kind are called Inflectional Rules , while those of the second kind are called ''' Word-formation '''. The English plural, as illustrated by ''dog'' and ''dogs'', is an inflectional rule; compounds like ''dog-catcher'' or ''dishwasher'' provide an example of a word-formation rule. Informally, word-formation rules form "new words" (that is, new lexemes), while inflection rules yield variant forms of the "same" word (lexeme). There is a further distinction between two kinds of word-formation: Derivation and Compounding . Compounding is a process of word-formation that involves combining complete word-forms into a single compound form; ''dog-catcher'' is therefore a compound, because both ''dog'' and ''catcher'' are complete word-forms in their own right before the compounding process has been applied, and are subsequently treated as one form. Derivation involves Affix ing Bound (non-independent) forms to existing lexemes, whereby the addition of the affix '''derives''' a new lexeme. One example of derivation is clear in this case: the word ''independent'' is derived from the word ''dependent'' by prefixing it with the derivational prefix ''in-'', while ''dependent'' itself is derived from the verb ''depend''. The distinction between inflection and word-formation is not at all clear-cut. There are many examples where linguists fail to agree whether a given rule is inflection or word-formation. The next section will attempt to clarify this distinction. Paradigms and morphosyntax A paradigm is the complete set of related word-forms associated with a given lexeme. The familiar examples of paradigms are the Conjugations of verbs, and the Declension s of nouns. Accordingly, the word-forms of a lexeme may be arranged conveniently into tables, by classifying them according to shared inflectional categories such as Tense , Aspect , Mood , Number , Gender or Case . For example, the personal pronouns in English can be organized into tables, using the categories of person (1st., 2nd., 3rd.), number (singular vs. plural), gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), and Case (subjective, objective, and possessive). See English Personal Pronouns for the details. The inflectional categories used to group word-forms into paradigms cannot be chosen arbitrarily; they must be categories that are relevant to stating the Syntactic Rules of the language. For example, person and number are categories that can be used to define paradigms in English, because English has Grammatical Agreement rules that require the verb in a sentence to appear in an inflectional form that matches the person and number of the subject. In other words, the syntactic rules of English care about the difference between ''dog'' and ''dogs'', because the choice between these two forms determines which form of the verb is to be used. In contrast, however, no syntactic rule of English cares about the difference between ''dog'' and ''dog-catcher'', or ''dependent'' and ''independent''. The first two are just nouns, and the second two just adjectives, and they generally behave like any other noun or adjective behaves. An important difference between inflection and word-formation is that inflected word-forms of lexemes are organized into paradigms, which are defined by the requirements of syntactic rules, whereas the rules of word-formation are not restricted by any corresponding requirements of syntax. Inflection is therefore said to be relevant to syntax, and word-formation is not. The part of morphology that covers the relationship between Syntax and morphology is called morphosyntax, and it concerns itself with inflection and paradigms, but not with word-formation or compounding. Allomorphy In the exposition above, morphological rules are described as analogies between word-forms: ''dog'' is to ''dogs'' as ''cat'' is to ''cats'', and as ''dish'' is to ''dishes''. In this case, the analogy applies both to the form of the words and to their meaning: in each pair, the first word means "one of X", while the second "two or more of X", and the difference is always the plural form ''-s'' affixed to the second word, signaling the key distinction between singular and plural entities. One of the largest sources of complexity in morphology is that this one-to-one correspondence between meaning and form scarcely applies to every case in the language. In English, we have word form pairs like ''ox/oxen'', ''goose/geese'', and ''sheep/sheep'', where the difference between the singular and the plural is signaled in a way that departs from the regular pattern, or is not signaled at all. Even cases considered "regular", with the final ''-s'', are not so simple; the ''-s'' in ''dogs'' is not pronounced the same way as the ''-s'' in ''cats'', and in a plural like ''dishes'', an "extra" vowel appears before the ''-s''. These cases, where the same distinction is effected by alternative forms of a "word", are called Allomorph y.
Lexical morphology Lexical Morphology is the branch of morphology that deals with the Lexicon , which, morphologically conceived, is the collection of Lexeme s in a language. As such, it concerns itself primarily with word-formation: derivation and compounding. MODELS OF MORPHOLOGY There are three principal approaches to morphology, which each try to capture the distinctions above in different ways. These are,
Note that while the associations indicated between the concepts in each item in that list is very strong, it is not absolute. Morpheme-based morphology In Morpheme-based Morphology , word-forms are analyzed as arrangements of Morpheme s. A morpheme is defined as the minimal meaningful unit of a language. In a word like ''independently'', we say that the morphemes are ''in-'', ''depend'', ''-ent'', and ''ly''; ''depend'' is the Root and the other morphemes are, in this case, derivational affixes. The existence of words like ''appendix'' and ''pending'' in English does not mean that the English word ''depend'' is analyzed into a derivational prefix ''de-'' and a root ''pend''. While all those were indeed once related to each other by morphological rules, this was so only ''in Latin'', not in English. English borrowed the words from French and Latin, but not the morphological rules that allowed Latin speakers to combine ''de-'' and the verb ''pendere'' 'to hang' into the derivative ''dependere''. In a word like ''dogs'', we say that ''dog'' is the root, and that ''-s'' is an inflectional morpheme. This way of analyzing word-forms as if they were made of morphemes put after each other like beads on a string, is called Item-and-Arrangement . The morpheme-based approach is the first one that beginners to morphology usually think of, and which laymen tend to find the most obvious. This is so to such an extent that very often beginners think that morphemes are an inevitable, fundamental notion of morphology, and many five-minute explanations of morphology are, in fact, five-minute explanations of morpheme-based morphology. This is, however, not so. The fundamental idea of morphology is that the words of a language are related to each other by different kinds of rules. Analyzing words as sequences of morphemes is a way of describing these relations, but is not the only way. In actual academic linguistics, morpheme-based morphology certainly has many adherents, but is by no means the dominant approach. Lexeme-based morphology Lexeme-based Morphology is (usually) an Item-and-Process approach. Instead of analyzing a word-form as a set of morphemes arranged in sequence, a word-form is said to be the result of applying rules that ''alter'' a word-form or stem in order to produce a new one. An inflectional rule takes a stem, changes it as is required by the rule, and outputs a word-form; a derivational rule takes a stem, changes it as per its own requirements, and outputs a derived stem; a compounding rule takes word-forms, and similarly outputs a compound stem. Word-based morphology Word-based Morphology is a (usually) Word-and-paradigm approach. This theory takes paradigms as a central notion. Instead of stating rules to combine morphemes into word-forms, or to generate word-forms from stems, word-based morphology states generalizations that hold between the forms of inflectional paradigms. The major point behind this approach is that many such generalizations are hard to state with either of the other approaches. The examples are usually drawn from Fusional Language s, where a given "piece" of a word, which a morpheme-based theory would call an inflectional morpheme, corresponds to a combination of grammatical categories, for example, "third person plural." Morpheme-based theories usually have no problems with this situation, since one just says that a given morpheme has two categories. Item-and-Process theories, on the other hand, often break down in cases like these, because they all too often assume that there will be two separate rules here, one for third person, and the other for plural, but the distinction between them turns out to be artificial. Word-and-Paradigm approaches treat these as whole words that are related to each other by Analogical rules. Words can be categorized based on the pattern they fit into. This applies both to existing words and to new ones. Application of a pattern different than the one that has been used historically can give rise to a new word, such as ''older'' replacing ''elder'' (where ''older'' follows the normal pattern of Adjectival Superlative s) and ''cows'' replacing ''kine'' (where ''cows'' fits the regular pattern of plural formation). While a Word-and-Paradigm approach can explain this easily, other approaches have difficulty with phenomena such as this. MORPHOLOGICAL TYPOLOGY See Also: Morphological typology In the 19th century, philologists devised a now classic classification of languages according to their morphology. According to this typology, some languages are Isolating , and have little to no morphology; others are Agglutinative , and their words tend to have lots of easily-separable morphemes; while others yet are inflectional or Fusional , because their inflectional morphemes are said to be "fused" together. This leads to one bound morpheme conveying multiple pieces of information. The classic example of an isolating language is Chinese ; the classic example of an agglutinative language is Turkish ; both Latin and Greek are classic examples of fusional languages. Considering the variability of the world's languages, it becomes clear that this classification is not at all clear-cut, and many languages do not neatly fit any one of these types, and some fit in more than one. A continuum of complex morphology of language may be adapted when considering languages. (An interesting link that may prove to help in understanding more about linguistics is: Synchronic reality). The three models of morphology stem from attempts to analyze languages that more or less match different categories in this typology. The Item-and-Arrangement approach fits very naturally with agglutinative languages; while the Item-and-Process and Word-and-Paradigm approaches usually address fusional languages. The reader should also note that the classical typology also mostly applies to inflectional morphology. There is very little fusion going on with word-formation. Languages may be classified as synthetic or analytic in their word formation, depending on the preferred way of expressing notions that are not inflectional: either by using word-formation (synthetic), or by using syntactic phrases (analytic). FOOTNOTES SEE ALSO
SOURCES :(Abbreviations: CUP = Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; UP = University Press)
|
|
|