Word forms and meanings - Word и Excel - помощь в работе с программами

Saussure,
Humboldt,Vygotsky and Jean Aitcheson- the key role of a word in the
structure and function of language.

George
Miller
(1991)… words- the fundamental units of language.

This,
then, is a well-established tradition… and any approach aiming at
a general theory of language must accord the word a central place.
Few theories attribute to the word a truly central position in the
language, and more than one approach either peripheralizes it or
dispenses with it altogether as a linguistic entity.

Their
role as the elements of discourse, the building blocks of meaning
from which sentences are constructed.

L.
Bloomfield viewed the word as a minimal free form. But it is not
completely satisfying.

Allan
Gartner: «The word is the unit of tongue.»

A
word has its own make-up and somehow has an existence prior to, and
even independent of that of any particular sentence.

Constituents
of the word must be examined. The fact that a word can express
different senses raises a serious problem. No generally acceptable
principle of the word unity has been formed.

Smirnitsky
has unity of all its forms and meanings.

It
is words in general, not scientific words, that are scientifically
important (Miller, 1991)

Guillaume:
« A word consists of meaning and its physical sign.»

It
is primarily a meaning construction and its inherent unity that lie
in the mental component (of go-went as 1 word)

The
human principle underlying language is that expression is possible
only if smth has first been represented. The necessity of
representing smth before expressing it is universal in space and
time. It is this that makes the word a necessity in every act of
language.

Definitions
of a word are plentiful. Method as a major tool of scientific
analysis borderlines criteria of a word:

phonological

morphological

semantic

syntactic

Thus,
the boundaries of the lexicon also vary depending each time on the
way we delimit words.

7. Typologies of meaning. Lexical and grammatical meaning.

Word-meaning
is not homogeneous but is made up of various components that
combination and interrelation of which determine the inner facet of
the word. The 2 main types of meaning-the grammatical and lexical
meanings in words and word-forms.

Grammatical
meaning.Word-forms,
such as girls,
winters, joys, tables, etc.
though denoting widely different objects of reality have something
in common. This common element is the grammatical meaning of
plurality which can be found in all of them.

Thus
grammatical meaning may be defined ,as the component of meaning
recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of different words,
as, e.g., the tense meaning in the word-forms of verbs (asked,
thought, walked, etc.)
or the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (girl’s,
boy’s, night’s, etc.).

In
a
broad sense it may be argued that linguists who make a distinction
between lexical and grammatical meaning are, in fact, making a
distinction between the functional (linguistic) meaning which
operates at various levels as the interrelation of various
linguistic units and referential (conceptual) meaning as the
interrelation of linguistic units and referents (or concepts).

In
modern linguistic science it is commonly held that some elements of
grammatical meaning can be identified by the position of the
linguistic unit in relation to other linguistic units, i.e. by its
distribution. Word-forms speaks,
reads, writes have
one and the same grammatical meaning as they can all be found in
identical distribution, e.g. only after the pronouns he,
she, it and
before adverbs like well,
badly, to-day, etc.

Certain
component of the meaning of a word is de-scribed when you identify
it as a part of speech, since different parts of speech are
distributionally different (cf. my work and I work).

Lexical
Meaning.
Comparing word-forms of one and the same word-observe that besides
grammatical meaning, there is another component of meaning in them.
This component is identical in all the forms of the word. E.g. the
word-forms go, goes, went, going, gone possess different grammatical
meanings of tense, person and so on, but in each of these forms we
find one and the same semantic component denoting the process of
movement. This is the lexical meaning of the word which may be
described as the component of meaning proper to the word as a
linguistic unit, i.e. recurrent in all the forms of this word.

The
difference between the lexical and the grammatical
components
of meaning
is not to be sought in the difference of the concepts underlying the
two types of meaning, but rather in the way they are conveyed. The
concept of plurality, e.g., may be expressed by the lexical meaning
of the world plurality; it may also be expressed in the forms of
various words irrespective of their lexical meaning, e.g. boys,
girls, joys, etc. The concept of relation may be expressed by the
lexical meaning of the word relation and also by any of the
prepositions, e.g. in, on, behind, etc. (cf. the book is in/on,
behind the table). “

By
lexical meaning we designate the meaning proper to the given
linguistic unit in all its forms and distributions, while by
grammatical meaning we designate the meaning proper to sets of
word-forms common to all words of a certain class. Both the lexical
and the grammatical meaning make up the word-meaning as neither can
exist without the other. That can be observed in the semantic
analysis of correlated words in different languages. E.g. сведения
is
not semantically identical with information
because unlike
сведения
English word does not possess the grammatical meaning of plurality
which is part of the semantic structure of Russian word.

Соседние файлы в папке haritonchik

Источник

Putting thoughts into words requires a knowledge of a language’s structure and vocabulary.

Click the card to flip 👆

Unit 1

Form two real words by combining a prefix and/or suffix with the root listed below. If you need to, use your dictionary.Then illustrate that the word has the meaning of that root by using one of those words in a sentence.
Example: dic, dict=to say
1. addiction
2. edict
The judge’s edict was the final say in that matter.
voc, vok=to call

Recent flashcard sets

Sets found in the same folder

Other sets by this creator

Verified questions

vocabulary

Verified answer

literature

Verified answer

literature

Verified answer

vocabulary

Verified answer

Other Quizlet sets

Источник

Types of Word Formation Processes

Compounding
Compounding forms a word out of two or more root morphemes. The words are called compounds or compound words.

In Linguistics, compounds can be either native or borrowed.

Native English roots are typically free morphemes, so that means native compounds are made out of independent words that can occur by themselves. Examples:

mailman (composed of free root mail and free root man)
mail carrier
dog house
fireplace
fireplug (a regional word for ‘fire hydrant’)
fire hydrant
dry run
cupcake
cup holder
email
e-ticket
pick-up truck
talking-to

Some compounds have a preposition as one of the component words as in the last 2 examples.

In Greek and Latin, in contrast to English, roots do not typically stand alone. So compounds are composed of bound roots. Compounds formed in English from borrowed Latin and Greek morphemes preserve this characteristic. Examples include photograph, iatrogenic, and many thousands of other classical words.

Note that compounds are written in various ways in English: with a space between the elements; with a hyphen between the elements; or simply with the two roots run together with no separation. The way the word is written does not affect its status as a compound. Over time, the convention for writing compounds can change, usually in the direction from separate words (e.g. email used to be written with a hyphen. In the 19th century, today and tomorrow were sometimes still written to-day and to-morrow. The to originally was the preposition to with an older meaning ‘at [a particular period of time]’. Clock work changed to clock-work and finally to one word with no break (clockwork). If you read older literature you might see some compound words that are now written as one word appearing with unfamiliar spaces or hyphens between the components.

Another thing to note about compounds is that they can combine words of different parts of speech. The list above shows mostly noun-noun compounds, which is probably the most common part of speech combination, but there are others, such as adjective-noun (dry run, blackbird, hard drive), verb-noun (pick-pocket, cut-purse, lick-spittle) and even verb-particle (where ‘particle’ means a word basically designating spatial expression that functions to complete a literal or metaphorical path), as in run-through, hold-over. Sometimes these compounds are different in the part of speech of the whole compound vs. the part of speech of its components. Note that the last two are actually nouns, despite their components.

Some compounds have more than two component words. These are formed by successively combining words into compounds, e.g. pick-up truck, formed from pick-up and truck , where the first component, pick-up is itself a compound formed from pick and up. Other examples are ice-cream cone, no-fault insurance and even more complex compounds like top-rack dishwasher safe.

There are a number of subtypes of compounds that do not have to do with part of speech, but rather the sound characteristics of the words. These subtypes are not mutually exclusive.

Rhyming compounds (subtype of compounds)
These words are compounded from two rhyming words. Examples:

There are words that are formally very similar to rhyming compounds, but are not quite compounds in English because the second element is not really a word—it is just a nonsense item added to a root word to form a rhyme. Examples:

This formation process is associated in English with child talk (and talk addressed to children), technically called hypocoristic language. Examples:

bunnie-wunnie
Henny Penny
snuggly-wuggly
Georgie Porgie
Piggie-Wiggie

Another word type that looks a bit like rhyming compounds comprises words that are formed of two elements that almost match, but differ in their vowels. Again, the second element is typically a nonsense form:

Derivation Derivation is the creation of words by modification of a root without the addition of other roots. Often the effect is a change in part of speech.

Affixation (Subtype of Derivation)
The most common type of derivation is the addition of one or more affixes to a root, as in the word derivation itself. This process is called affixation, a term which covers both prefixation and suffixation.

Blending
Blending is one of the most beloved of word formation processes in English. It is especially creative in that speakers take two words and merge them based not on morpheme structure but on sound structure. The resulting words are called blends.

Usually in word formation we combine roots or affixes along their edges: one morpheme comes to an end before the next one starts. For example, we form derivation out of the sequence of morphemes de+riv+at(e)+ion. One morpheme follows the next and each one has identifiable boundaries. The morphemes do not overlap.

But in blending, part of one word is stitched onto another word, without any regard for where one morpheme ends and another begins. For example, the word swooshtika ‘Nike swoosh as a logo symbolizing corporate power and hegemony’ was formed from swoosh and swastika. The swoosh part remains whole and recognizable in the blend, but the tika part is not a morpheme, either in the word swastika or in the blend. The blend is a perfect merger of form, and also of content. The meaning contains an implicit analogy between the swastika and the swoosh, and thus conceptually blends them into one new kind of thing having properties of both, but also combined properties of neither source. Other examples include glitterati (blending glitter and literati) ‘Hollywood social set’, mockumentary (mock and documentary) ‘spoof documentary’.

The earliest blends in English only go back to the 19th century, with wordplay coinages by Lewis Carroll in Jabberwocky. For example, he introduced to the language slithy, formed from lithe and slimy, and galumph, (from gallop and triumph. Interestingly galumph has survived as a word in English, but it now seems to mean ‘walk in a stomping, ungainly way’.

Some blends that have been around for quite a while include brunch (breakfast and lunch), motel (motor hotel), electrocute (electric and execute), smog (smoke and fog) and cheeseburger (cheese and hamburger). These go back to the first half of the twentieth century. Others, such as stagflation (stagnation and inflation), spork (spoon and fork), and carjacking (car and hijacking) arose since the 1970s.

Here are some more recent blends I have run across:

mocktail (mock and cocktail) ‘cocktail with no alcohol’
splog (spam and blog) ‘fake blog designed to attract hits and raise Google-ranking’
Britpoperati (Britpop and literati) ‘those knowledgable about current British pop music’

Clipping Clipping is a type of abbreviation of a word in which one part is ‘clipped’ off the rest, and the remaining word now means essentially the same thing as what the whole word means or meant. For example, the word rifle is a fairly modern clipping of an earlier compound rifle gun, meaning a gun with a rifled barrel. (Rifled means having a spiral groove causing the bullet to spin, and thus making it more accurate.) Another clipping is burger, formed by clipping off the beginning of the word hamburger. (This clipping could only come about once hamburg+er was reanalyzed as ham+burger.)

Acronyms
Acronyms are formed by taking the initial letters of a phrase and making a word out of it. Acronyms provide a way of turning a phrase into a word. The classical acronym is also pronounced as a word. Scuba was formed from self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. The word snafu was originally WW2 army slang for Situation Normal All Fucked Up. Acronyms were being used more and more by military bureaucrats, and soldiers coined snafu in an apparent parody of this overused device. Sometimes an acronym uses not just the first letter, but the first syllable of a component word, for example radar, RAdio Detection And Ranging and sonar, SOund Navigation and Ranging. Radar forms an analogical model for both sonar and lidar, a technology that measures distance to a target and and maps its surface by bouncing a laser off it. There is some evidence that lidar was not coined as an acronym, but instead as a blend of light and radar. Based on the word itself, either etymology appears to work, so many speakers assume that lidar is an acronym rather than a blend.

A German example that strings together the initial syllables of the words in the phrase, is Gestapo , from GEheime STAats POlizei ‘Sectret State Police’. Another is Stasi, from STAats SIcherheit ‘State Security’. Acronyms are a subtype of initialism. Initialisms also include words made from the initial letters of a Phrase but NOT pronounced as a normal word — it is instead pronounced as a string of letters. Organzation names aroften initialisms of his type. Examples:

NOW (National Organization of Women)
US or U.S., USA or U.S.A. (United States)
UN or U.N. (United Nations)
IMF (International Monetary Fund)

Some organizations ARE pronounced as a word: UNICEF
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)

The last example incorporates a meaning into the word that fits the nature of the organization. Sometimes this type is called a Reverse Acronym or a Backronym.

These can be thought of as a special case of acronyms.

Memos, email, and text messaging (text-speak) are modes of communication that give rise to both clippings and acronyms, since these word formation methods are designed to abbreviate. Some acronyms:

NB — Nota bene, literally ‘note well’. Used by scholars making notes on texts. (A large number of other scholarly acronyms from Latin are used, probably most invented in the medieval period or Renaissance, not originally in Latin)
BRB — be right back (from 1980s, 90s)
FYI — for your information (from mid 20th century)
LOL — laughing out loud (early 21st century) — now pronounced either /lol/ or /el o el/; has spawned compounds like Lolcats).
ROFL — rolling on the floor laughing
ROFLMAO — rolling on the floor laughing my ass off

Reanalysis
Sometimes speakers unconsciously change the morphological boundaries of a word, creating a new morph or making an old one unrecognizable. This happened in hamburger, which was originally Hamburger steak ‘chopped and formed steak in the Hamburg style, then hamburger (hamburg + er), then ham + burger

Folk etymology
A popular idea of a word’s origin that is not in accordance with its real origin.

Many folk etymologies are cases of reanalysis in which the word is not only reanalysis but it changes under the influence of the new understanding of its morphemes. The result is that speakers think it has a different origin than it does.

Analogy
Sometimes speakers take an existing word as a model and form other words using some of its morphemes as a fixed part, and changing one of them to something new, with an analogically similar meaning. Cheeseburger was formed on the analogy of hamburger, replacing a perceived morpheme ham with cheese. carjack and skyjack were also formed by analogy.

Novel creation
In novel creation, a speaker or writer forms a word without starting from other morphemes. It is as if the word if formed out of ‘whole cloth’, without reusing any parts.

Some examples of now-conventionalized words that were novel creations include blimp, googol (the mathematical term), bling, and possibly slang, which emerged in the last 200 years with no obvious etymology. Some novel creations seem to display ‘sound symbolism’, in which a word’s phonological form suggests its meaning in some way. For example, the sound of the word bling seems to evoke heavy jewelry making noise. Another novel creation whose sound seems to relate to its meaning is badonkadonk, ‘female rear end’, a reduplicated word which can remind English speakers of the repetitive movement of the rear end while walking.

Creative respelling
Sometimes words are formed by simply changing the spelling of a word that the speaker wants to relate to the new word. Product names often involve creative respelling, such as Mr. Kleen. © Suzanne Kemmer

Word Forms

Recognize meanings of noun, verb, adjective and adverb forms

Multiple Word Forms vs. Limited Word Forms

Imagination is an example of a noun with verb, adjective and adverb word forms. All share the meaning «the forming of images in the mind that are not actually present». Additional word definitions vary slightly and keep close to the central meaning.

His writing was

MULTIPLE WORD FORMS, SHARED MEANING
CONTEXT	WORD FORM
NOUN
ADJECTIVE
ADVERB

Revolution is an example of a word that has some but not all four word forms. Notice that the adjective and adverb forms have meanings that depart from «rebellion to authority» and take on a meaning closer to «rebellion of mind or feeling».

The singer sang about social

revolted. revolt (V) «rebelled «

revolutionary. (innovative, rebellious)

revolting¹. (disgusting or rebellious)

—none— «in a revolutionary manner»

imagination (N) — the natural ability of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses; the word can be both a count noun (He had quite an imagination! ) when speaking specifically and a noncount noun (He had imagination.) when speaking in general.

rebel (N) — go against or take action against a social convention (the usual way of doing things) or a government or institution

revolt (V) — (1) rebel or break away from authority; (2) turn away in mental rebellion, disgust; (3) rebel in feeling; (4) feel horror. (at) He revolted at seeing their brutality.

¹revolting (Adj) — (1) disgusting, repulsive, distasteful, awful; (2) rebellious They are revolting. (unclear meaning)

revolution (N) — (1) an overthrow of a government, a rebellion; (2) a radical change in society and the social structure; (3) a sudden, complete or marked change in something; (4) completion of a circular movement, one turn.

revolutionary (Adj) — (1) a sudden complete change; (2) radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles; (3) related to a country’s revolution (period); (3) revolving, turning around like a record

«John Lennon» by Charles LeBlanc licensed by CC BY-SA 2.0 (size changed and «poster» filter applied)

Word Form Entry into English

Source of word and the addition of other forms

Word Forms

Historically, a word entered the English language, or was borrowed, primarily as one form—a noun, a verb or an adjective. In time, additional forms were added to the original word so that it could function in other ways. The table below includes words and their approximate entry dates as well as additional word forms and their appearance dates.

There is no formal or exact way of knowing which suffix to add when changing a word from one form to another. The methods of adding suffix forms vary. Some patterns exist, depending on whether the origin of the word is M >uninterested, disinterested and not interested.

A word may not have all four word forms. For example, the noun fun is w >fun (1675-85) and funny (1750-60). But usage of fun as a verb is rare and as an adverb is non-existent.

A word may have two similar forms that co-exist. For example, a word may enter English or be borrowed more than once. The noun chief (leader) entered into usage in M >chef (head cook) from French in 1835-45.

A word may be newly coined (made up) and not yet have other forms. For example, the word selfie is w >twerk can be used as a verb, but can one say a twerk (noun), twerky (adjective) or twerkily (adverb)?

Bright Hub Education

Word Formation

Word formation occurs when compounding, clipping or blending existing words to create new words. Below we will cover the definition of these terms and give you several examples of each.

Compounding Words

Compounding words are formed when two or more lexemes combine into a single new word. Compound words may be written as one word or as two words joined with a hyphen. For example:

noun-noun compound: note + book → notebook
adjective-noun compound: blue + berry → blueberry
verb-noun compound: work + room → workroom
noun-verb compound: breast + feed → breastfeed
verb-verb compound: stir + fry → stir-fry
adjective-verb compound: high + light → highlight
verb-preposition compound: break + up → breakup
preposition-verb compound: out + run → outrun
adjective-adjective compound: bitter + sweet → bittersweet
preposition-preposition compound: in + to → into

Compounds may be compositional, meaning that the meaning of the new word is determined by combining the meanings of the parts, or non-compositional, meaning that the meaning of the new word cannot be determined by combining the meanings of the parts. For example, a blueberry is a berry that is blue. However, a breakup is not a relationship that was severed into pieces in an upward direction.

Compound nouns should not be confused with nouns modified by adjectives, verbs, and other nouns. For example, the adjective black of the noun phrase black bird is different from the adjective black of the compound noun blackbird in that black of black bird functions as a noun phrase modifier while the black of blackbird is an inseparable part of the noun: a black bird also refers to any bird that is black in color while a blackbird is a specific type of bird.

Clipping Words

Clipping is the word formation process in which a word is reduced or shortened without changing the meaning of the word. Clipping differs from back-formation in that the new word retains the meaning of the original word. For example:

advertisement – ad
alligator – gator
examination – exam
gasoline – gas
gymnasium – gym
influenza – flu

The four types of clipping are back clipping, fore-clipping, m >gas from gasoline. Fore-clipping is removing the beginning of a word as in gator from alligator. M >flu from influenza. Complex clipping is removing multiple parts from multiple words as in sitcom from situation comedy.

Blending Words

Blending is the word formation process in which parts of two or more words combine to create a new word whose meaning is often a combination of the original words. Below are examples of blending words.

advertisement + entertainment → advertainment
biographical + picture → biopic
breakfast + lunch → brunch
chuckle + snort → chortle
cybernetic + organism → cyborg
guess + estimate → guesstimate
hazardous + material → hazmat
motor + hotel → motel
prim + sissy → prissy
simultaneous + broadcast → simulcast
smoke + fog → smog
Spanish + English → Spanglish
spoon + fork → spork
telephone + marathon → telethon
web + seminar → webinar

Blended words are also referred to as portmanteaus.

Word Formation Sample Downloads

For more complete lists of English words formed through compounding, clipping, and blending, please download the following free printable vocabulary lists:

Learning Vocabulary With Word Forms

How to Use Word Forms to Improve and Broaden Your English Vocabulary

TESOL Diploma, Trinity College London
M.A., Music Performance, Cologne University of Music
B.A., Vocal Performance, Eastman School of Music

There are a wide variety of techniques used to learn vocabulary in English. This learning vocabulary technique focuses on using word forms as a way to broaden your English vocabulary. The great thing about word forms is that you can learn a number of words with just one basic definition. In other words, word forms relate to a specific meaning. Of course, not all of the definitions are the same. However, the definitions are often closely related.

Start off by quickly reviewing the eight parts of speech in English:

Examples

Not all eight parts of speech will have a form of each word. Sometimes, there are only noun and verb forms. Other times, a word will have related adjectives and adverbs. Here are some examples:

Noun: student
Verb: to study
Adjective: studious, studied, studying
Adverb: studiously

Some words will have more variations. Take the word care:

Noun: care, caregiver, caretaker, carefulness
Verb: to care
Adjective: careful, careless, carefree, careworn
Adverb: carefully, carelessly

Other words will be especially rich because of compounds. Compound words are words made up by taking two words and putting them together to create other words! Take a look at words derived from power:

Noun: power, brainpower, candlepower, firepower, horsepower, hydropower, powerboat, powerhouse, powerlessness, powerlifting, powerpc, powerpoint, superpower, willpower
Verb: to power, to empower, to overpower
Adjective: empowered, empowering, overpowered, overpowering, powerable, powered, powerful, powerless
Adverb: powerfully, powerlessly, overpoweringly

Not all words have so many compound word possibilities. However, there are some words that are used to construct numerous compound words. Here’s a (very) short list to get you started:

Exercises for Using Your Words in Context

Exercise 1: Write a Paragraph

Once you’ve made a list of a few words, the next step will be to give yourself the opportunity to put the words you’ve studied into context. There are a number of ways to do this, but one exercise I especially like is to write an extended paragraph. Let’s take a look at power again. Here’s a paragraph I’ve written to help me practice and remember words created with power:

Writing a paragraph is a powerful way to help you remember words. Of course, it takes plenty of brainpower. However, by writing out such a paragraph you will empower yourself to use this words. For example, you might find creating a paragraph in powerpoint on a PowerPC takes a lot of willpower. In the end, you won’t feel overpowered by all these words, you’ll feel empowered. No longer will you stand there powerlessly when confronted with words such as candlepower, firepower, horsepower, hydropower, because you’ll know that they are all different types of power used to power our overpowering society.

I’ll be the first to admit that writing out a paragraph, or even trying to read such a paragraph from memory might seem crazy. It certainly isn’t good writing style! However, by taking the time to try to fit as many words made up with a target word you’ll be creating all sorts of related context to your word list. This exercise will help you imagine what type of uses can be found for all these related words. Best of all, the exercise will help you ‘map’ the words in your brain!

Exercise 2: Write Sentences

An easier exercise is to write out individual sentences for each word in your list. It’s not as challenging, but it’s certainly an effective way to practice the vocabulary you’ve taken the time to learn.

Оценка статьи:

5 звезд

Загрузка…

Adblock
detector

LIMITED WORD FORMS, VARYING IN MEANING
CONTEXT	WORD FORM
NOUN
ADJECTIVE
ADVERB

Источник

In linguistics, morphology (^[1]) is the study of words, how they are formed, and their relationship to other words in the same language.^[2]^[3] It analyzes the structure of words and parts of words such as stems, root words, prefixes, and suffixes. Morphology also looks at parts of speech, intonation and stress, and the ways context can change a word’s pronunciation and meaning. Morphology differs from morphological typology, which is the classification of languages based on their use of words,^[4] and lexicology, which is the study of words and how they make up a language’s vocabulary.^[5]

While words, along with clitics, are generally accepted as being the smallest units of syntax, in most languages, if not all, many words can be related to other words by rules that collectively describe the grammar for that language. For example, English speakers recognize that the words dog and dogs are closely related, differentiated only by the plurality morpheme «-s», only found bound to noun phrases. Speakers of English, a fusional language, recognize these relations from their innate knowledge of English’s rules of word formation. They infer intuitively that dog is to dogs as cat is to cats; and, in similar fashion, dog is to dog catcher as dish is to dishwasher. By contrast, Classical Chinese has very little morphology, using almost exclusively unbound morphemes («free» morphemes) and it relies on word order to convey meaning. (Most words in modern Standard Chinese [«Mandarin»], however, are compounds and most roots are bound.) These are understood as grammars that represent the morphology of the language. The rules understood by a speaker reflect specific patterns or regularities in the way words are formed from smaller units in the language they are using, 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.

Phonological and orthographic modifications between a base word and its origin may be partial to literacy skills. Studies have indicated that the presence of modification in phonology and orthography makes morphologically complex words harder to understand and that the absence of modification between a base word and its origin makes morphologically complex words easier to understand. Morphologically complex words are easier to comprehend when they include a base word.^[6]

Polysynthetic languages, such as Chukchi, have words composed of many morphemes. For example, the Chukchi word «təmeyŋəlevtpəγtərkən», meaning «I have a fierce headache», is composed of eight morphemes t-ə-meyŋ-ə-levt-pəγt-ə-rkən that may be glossed. The morphology of such languages allows for each consonant and vowel to be understood as morphemes, while the grammar of the language indicates the usage and understanding of each morpheme.

The discipline that deals specifically with the sound changes occurring within morphemes is morphophonology.

HistoryEdit

The history of morphological analysis dates back to the ancient Indian linguist Pāṇini, who formulated the 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology in the text Aṣṭādhyāyī by using a constituency grammar. The Greco-Roman grammatical tradition also engaged in morphological analysis.^[7] Studies in Arabic morphology, conducted by Marāḥ al-arwāḥ and Aḥmad b. ‘alī Mas’ūd, date back to at least 1200 CE.^[8]

The linguistic term «morphology» was coined by August Schleicher in 1859.^[a]^[9]

Fundamental conceptsEdit

Lexemes and word-formsEdit

The term «word» has no well-defined meaning.^[10] Instead, two related terms are used in morphology: lexeme and word-form. Generally, a lexeme is a set of inflected word-forms that is often represented with the citation form in small capitals.^[11] For instance, the lexeme eat contains the word-forms eat, eats, eaten, and ate. Eat and eats are thus considered different word-forms belonging to the same lexeme eat. Eat and Eater, on the other hand, are different lexemes, as they refer to two different concepts.

Prosodic word vs. morphological wordEdit

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». An extreme level of the theoretical quandary posed by some phonological words is provided by the Kwak’wala language.^[b] 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», in which ‘with’ identifies its dependent noun phrase as an instrument and ‘his’ denotes a possession relation, would consist of two words or even one word in many languages. Unlike most other languages, Kwak’wala semantic affixes phonologically attach not to the lexeme they pertain to semantically but to the preceding lexeme. Consider the following example (in Kwak’wala, sentences begin with what corresponds to an English verb):^[c]

kwixʔid-i-da

clubbed-PIVOT—DETERMINER

bəgwanəma_i-χ-a

man-ACCUSATIVE—DETERMINER

q’asa-s-is_i

otter-INSTRUMENTAL—3SG—POSSESSIVE

«the man clubbed the otter with his club.»

(Notation notes:

accusative case marks an entity that something is done to.
determiners are words such as «the», «this», and «that».
the concept of «pivot» is a theoretical construct that is not relevant to this discussion.)

That is, to a 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 the noun bəgwanəma («man») but to the verb; the markers —χ-a (ACCUSATIVE-‘the’), referring to otter, attach to bəgwanəma instead of to q’asa (‘otter’), etc. In other words, a speaker of Kwak’wala does not perceive the sentence to consist of these phonological words:

i-da-bəgwanəma

PIVOT-the-man_i

s-is_i-t’alwagwayu

with-his_i-club

A central publication on this topic is the volume edited by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2002), examining the mismatch between prosodic-phonological and grammatical definitions of «word» in various Amazonian, Australian Aboriginal, Caucasian, Eskimo, Indo-European, Native North American, West African, and sign languages. Apparently, a wide variety of languages make use of the hybrid linguistic unit clitic, possessing the grammatical features of independent words but the prosodic-phonological lack of freedom of bound morphemes. The intermediate status of clitics poses a considerable challenge to linguistic theory.^[12]

Inflection vs. word formationEdit

Given the notion of a lexeme, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of morphological rules. Some morphological rules relate to different forms of the same lexeme, but other rules relate to different lexemes. Rules of the first kind are inflectional rules, but those of the second kind are rules of word formation.^[13] The generation of the English plural dogs from dog is an inflectional rule, and compound phrases and words like dog catcher or dishwasher are examples of word formation. Informally, word formation rules form «new» words (more accurately, new lexemes), and inflection rules yield variant forms of the «same» word (lexeme).

The distinction between inflection and word formation is not at all clear-cut. There are many examples for which linguists fail to agree whether a given rule is inflection or word formation. The next section will attempt to clarify the distinction.

Word formation includes a process in which one combines two complete words, but inflection allows the combination of a suffix with a verb to change the latter’s form to that of the subject of the sentence. For example: in the present indefinite, ‘go’ is used with subject I/we/you/they and plural nouns, but third-person singular pronouns (he/she/it) and singular nouns causes ‘goes’ to be used. The ‘-es’ is therefore an inflectional marker that is used to match with its subject. A further difference is that in word formation, the resultant word may differ from its source word’s grammatical category, but in the process of inflection, the word never changes its grammatical category.

Types of word formationEdit

There is a further distinction between two primary kinds of morphological word formation: derivation and compounding. The latter is a process of word formation that involves combining complete word forms into a single compound form. Dog catcher, therefore, is a compound, as both dog and catcher are complete word forms in their own right but are subsequently treated as parts of one form. Derivation involves affixing bound (non-independent) forms to existing lexemes, but the addition of the affix derives a new lexeme. The word independent, for example, is derived from the word dependent by using the prefix in-, and dependent itself is derived from the verb depend. There is also word formation in the processes of clipping in which a portion of a word is removed to create a new one, blending in which two parts of different words are blended into one, acronyms in which each letter of the new word represents a specific word in the representation (NATO for North Atlantic Treaty Organization), borrowing in which words from one language are taken and used in another, and coinage in which a new word is created to represent a new object or concept.^[14]

Paradigms and morphosyntaxEdit

A linguistic 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 declensions of nouns. Also, arranging the word forms of a lexeme into tables, by classifying them according to shared inflectional categories such as tense, aspect, mood, number, gender or case, organizes such. For example, the personal pronouns in English can be organized into tables by using the categories of person (first, second, third); number (singular vs. plural); gender (masculine, feminine, neuter); and case (nominative, oblique, genitive).

The inflectional categories used to group word forms into paradigms cannot be chosen arbitrarily but must be categories that are relevant to stating the syntactic rules of the language. Person and number are categories that can be used to define paradigms in English because the language has grammatical agreement rules, which require the verb in a sentence to appear in an inflectional form that matches the person and number of the subject. Therefore, the syntactic rules of English care about the difference between dog and dogs because the choice between both forms determines the form of the verb that is used. However, no syntactic rule shows the difference between dog and dog catcher, or dependent and independent. The first two are nouns, and the other two are adjectives.

An important difference between inflection and word formation is that inflected word forms of lexemes are organized into paradigms that are defined by the requirements of syntactic rules, and there are no corresponding syntactic rules for word formation.

The relationship between syntax and morphology, as well as how they interact, is called «morphosyntax»;^[15]^[16] the term is also used to underline the fact that syntax and morphology are interrelated.^[17] The study of morphosyntax concerns itself with inflection and paradigms, and some approaches to morphosyntax exclude from its domain the phenomena of word formation, compounding, and derivation.^[15] Within morphosyntax fall the study of agreement and government.^[15]

AllomorphyEdit

Above, morphological rules are described as analogies between word forms: dog is to dogs as cat is to cats and 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», and the second «two or more of X», and the difference is always the plural form -s (or -es) affixed to the second word, which signals the key distinction between singular and plural entities.

One of the largest sources of complexity in morphology is that the one-to-one correspondence between meaning and form scarcely applies to every case in the language. In English, there are word form pairs like ox/oxen, goose/geese, and sheep/sheep whose 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 regarded as regular, such as -s, are not so simple; the -s in dogs is not pronounced the same way as the -s in cats, and in plurals such as dishes, a vowel is added before the -s. Those cases, in which the same distinction is effected by alternative forms of a «word», constitute allomorphy.^[18]

Phonological rules constrain the sounds that can appear next to each other in a language, and morphological rules, when applied blindly, would often violate phonological rules by resulting in sound sequences that are prohibited in the language in question. For example, to form the plural of dish by simply appending an -s to the end of the word would result in the form *[dɪʃs], which is not permitted by the phonotactics of English. To «rescue» the word, a vowel sound is inserted between the root and the plural marker, and [dɪʃɪz] results. Similar rules apply to the pronunciation of the -s in dogs and cats: it depends on the quality (voiced vs. unvoiced) of the final preceding phoneme.

Lexical morphologyEdit

Lexical morphology is the branch of morphology that deals with the lexicon that, morphologically conceived, is the collection of lexemes in a language. As such, it concerns itself primarily with word formation: derivation and compounding.

ModelsEdit

There are three principal approaches to morphology and each tries to capture the distinctions above in different ways:

Morpheme-based morphology, which makes use of an item-and-arrangement approach.
Lexeme-based morphology, which normally makes use of an item-and-process approach.
Word-based morphology, which normally makes use of a word-and-paradigm approach.

While the associations indicated between the concepts in each item in that list are very strong, they are not absolute.

Morpheme-based morphologyEdit

Morpheme-based morphology tree of the word «independently»

In morpheme-based morphology, word forms are analyzed as arrangements of morphemes. A morpheme is defined as the minimal meaningful unit of a language. In a word such as independently, the morphemes are said to be in-, de-, pend, -ent, and -ly; pend is the (bound) root and the other morphemes are, in this case, derivational affixes.^[d] In words such as dogs, dog is the root and the -s is an inflectional morpheme. In its simplest and most naïve form, this way of analyzing word forms, called «item-and-arrangement», treats words as if they were made of morphemes put after each other («concatenated») like beads on a string. More recent and sophisticated approaches, such as distributed morphology, seek to maintain the idea of the morpheme while accommodating non-concatenated, analogical, and other processes that have proven problematic for item-and-arrangement theories and similar approaches.

Morpheme-based morphology presumes three basic axioms:^[19]

Baudouin’s «single morpheme» hypothesis: Roots and affixes have the same status as morphemes.
Bloomfield’s «sign base» morpheme hypothesis: As morphemes, they are dualistic signs, since they have both (phonological) form and meaning.
Bloomfield’s «lexical morpheme» hypothesis: morphemes, affixes and roots alike are stored in the lexicon.

Morpheme-based morphology comes in two flavours, one Bloomfieldian^[20] and one Hockettian.^[21] For Bloomfield, the morpheme was the minimal form with meaning, but did not have meaning itself.^{[clarification needed]} For Hockett, morphemes are «meaning elements», not «form elements». For him, there is a morpheme plural using allomorphs such as -s, -en and -ren. Within much morpheme-based morphological theory, the two views are mixed in unsystematic ways so a writer may refer to «the morpheme plural» and «the morpheme -s» in the same sentence.

Lexeme-based morphologyEdit

Lexeme-based morphology usually takes what is called 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;^[22] 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 morphologyEdit

Word-based morphology is (usually) a word-and-paradigm approach. The 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. Word-and-paradigm approaches are also well-suited to capturing purely morphological phenomena, such as morphomes. Examples to show the effectiveness of word-based approaches are usually drawn from fusional languages, 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 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. The 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 from 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 superlatives) and cows replacing kine (where cows fits the regular pattern of plural formation).

Morphological typologyEdit

In the 19th century, philologists devised a now classic classification of languages according to their morphology. Some languages are isolating, and have little to no morphology; others are agglutinative whose words tend to have many easily separable morphemes; others yet are inflectional or fusional because their inflectional morphemes are «fused» together. That leads to one bound morpheme conveying multiple pieces of information. A standard example of an isolating language is Chinese. An agglutinative language is Turkish. Latin and Greek are prototypical inflectional or fusional languages.

It is clear that this classification is not at all clearcut, and many languages (Latin and Greek among them) do not neatly fit any one of these types, and some fit in more than one way. A continuum of complex morphology of language may be adopted.

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. The item-and-process and word-and-paradigm approaches usually address fusional languages.

As there is very little fusion involved in word formation, classical typology mostly applies to inflectional morphology. Depending on the preferred way of expressing non-inflectional notions, languages may be classified as synthetic (using word formation) or analytic (using syntactic phrases).

ExamplesEdit

Pingelapese is a Micronesian language spoken on the Pingelap atoll and on two of the eastern Caroline Islands, called the high island of Pohnpei. Similar to other languages, words in Pingelapese can take different forms to add to or even change its meaning. Verbal suffixes are morphemes added at the end of a word to change its form. Prefixes are those that are added at the front. For example, the Pingelapese suffix –kin means ‘with’ or ‘at.’ It is added at the end of a verb.

ius = to use → ius-kin = to use with

mwahu = to be good → mwahu-kin = to be good at

sa- is an example of a verbal prefix. It is added to the beginning of a word and means ‘not.’

pwung = to be correct → sa-pwung = to be incorrect

There are also directional suffixes that when added to the root word give the listener a better idea of where the subject is headed. The verb alu means to walk. A directional suffix can be used to give more detail.

-da = ‘up’ → aluh-da = to walk up

-di = ‘down’ → aluh-di = to walk down

-eng = ‘away from speaker and listener’ → aluh-eng = to walk away

Directional suffixes are not limited to motion verbs. When added to non-motion verbs, their meanings are a figurative one. The following table gives some examples of directional suffixes and their possible meanings.^[23]

Directional suffix	Motion verb	Non-motion verb
-da	up	Onset of a state
-di	down	Action has been completed
-la	away from	Change has caused the start of a new state
-doa	towards	Action continued to a certain point in time
-sang	from	Comparative

FootnotesEdit

^ Für die lere von der wortform wäle ich das wort « morphologie», nach dem vorgange der naturwißenschaften […] (Standard High German «Für die Lehre von der Wortform wähle ich das Wort «Morphologie», nach dem Vorgange der Naturwissenschaften […]», «For the science of word-formation, I choose the term «morphology»….»
^ 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.
^ Example taken from Foley (1998) using a modified transcription. This phenomenon of Kwak’wala was reported by Jacobsen as cited in van Valin & LaPolla (1997).
^ 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, that was only the case in Latin, not in English. English borrowed such 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.

ReferencesEdit

^ Jones, Daniel (2003) [1917], Peter Roach; James Hartmann; Jane Setter (eds.), English Pronouncing Dictionary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 3-12-539683-2
^ Anderson, Stephen R. (n.d.). «Morphology». Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Macmillan Reference, Ltd., Yale University. Retrieved 30 July 2016.
^ Aronoff, Mark; Fudeman, Kirsten (n.d.). «Morphology and Morphological Analysis» (PDF). What is Morphology?. Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved 30 July 2016.
^ Brown, Dunstan (December 2012) [2010]. «Morphological Typology» (PDF). In Jae Jung Song (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. pp. 487–503. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0023. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 August 2016. Retrieved 30 July 2016.
^ Sankin, A.A. (1979) [1966]. «I. Introduction» (PDF). In Ginzburg, R.S.; Khidekel, S.S.; Knyazeva, G. Y.; Sankin, A.A. (eds.). A Course in Modern English Lexicology (Revised and Enlarged, Second ed.). Moscow: VYSŠAJA ŠKOLA. p. 7. Retrieved 30 July 2016.
^ Wilson-Fowler, E.B., & Apel, K. (2015). «Influence of Morphological Awareness on College Students’ Literacy Skills: A path Analytic Approach». Journal of Literacy Research. 47 (3): 405–32. doi:10.1177/1086296×15619730. S2CID 142149285.
^ Beard, Robert (1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany: NY: State University of New York Press. pp. 2, 3. ISBN 0-7914-2471-5.
^ Åkesson 2001.
^ Schleicher, August (1859). «Zur Morphologie der Sprache». Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg. VII°. Vol. I, N.7. St. Petersburg. p. 35.
^ Haspelmath & Sims 2002, p. 15.
^ Haspelmath & Sims 2002, p. 16.
^ Word : a cross-linguistic typology. Robert M. W. Dixon, A. I︠U︡. Aĭkhenvalʹd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. ISBN 978-0-511-48624-1. OCLC 704513339.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
^ Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 74, 75. ISBN 9780521378666.
^ Plag, Ingo (2003). «Word Formation in English» (PDF). Library of Congress. Cambridge. Retrieved 2016-11-30.
^ ^a ^b ^c
Dufter and Stark (2017) Introduction — 2 Syntax and morphosyntax: some basic notions in Dufter, Andreas, and Stark, Elisabeth (eds., 2017) Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG
^ Emily M. Bender (2013) Linguistic Fundamentals for Natural Language Processing: 100 Essentials from Morphology and Syntax, ch.4 Morphosyntax, p.35, Morgan & Claypool Publishers
^ Van Valin, R. D., van Valin Jr, R. D., van Valin Jr, R. D., LaPolla, R. J., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function, p.2, Cambridge University Press.
^ Haspelmath, Martin; Sims, Andrea D. (2002). Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold. ISBN 0-340-76026-5.
^ Beard 1995.
^ Bloomfield 1933.
^ Hockett 1947.
^ Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 11, 13.
^ Hattori, Ryoko (2012). Preverbal Particles in Pingelapese. pp. 31–33.

External linksEdit

Lecture 7 Morphology in Linguistics 001 by Mark Liberman, ling.upenn.edu
Intro to Linguistics – Morphology by Jirka Hana, ufal.mff.cuni.cz
Morphology by Stephen R. Anderson, part of Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, cowgill.ling.yale.edu
Introduction to Linguistic Theory — Morphology: The Words of Language by Adam Szczegielniak, scholar.harvard.edu
LIGN120: Introduction to Morphology by Farrell Ackerman and Henry Beecher, grammar.ucsd.edu
Morphological analysis by P.J.Hancox, cs.bham.ac.uk

Источник

7. Typologies of meaning. Lexical and grammatical meaning.

Students also viewed

Recent flashcard sets

Sets found in the same folder

Other sets by this creator

Verified questions

Recommended textbook solutions

Other Quizlet sets

Types of Word Formation Processes

Word Forms

Recognize meanings of noun, verb, adjective and adverb forms

Multiple Word Forms vs. Limited Word Forms

Word Form Entry into English

Source of word and the addition of other forms

Word Forms

Bright Hub Education

Word Formation

Compounding Words

Clipping Words

Blending Words

Word Formation Sample Downloads

Learning Vocabulary With Word Forms

How to Use Word Forms to Improve and Broaden Your English Vocabulary

Examples

Exercises for Using Your Words in Context

HistoryEdit

Fundamental conceptsEdit

Lexemes and word-formsEdit

Prosodic word vs. morphological wordEdit

Inflection vs. word formationEdit

Types of word formationEdit

Paradigms and morphosyntaxEdit

AllomorphyEdit

Lexical morphologyEdit

ModelsEdit

Morpheme-based morphologyEdit

Lexeme-based morphologyEdit

Word-based morphologyEdit

Morphological typologyEdit

ExamplesEdit

See alsoEdit

FootnotesEdit

ReferencesEdit

Further readingEdit

External linksEdit