In linguistics, morphology ( ) is the study of words, how they are formed, and their relationships with other words in the same language. It analyzes the structure of words and parts of words, such as bars, root words, prefixes, and suffixes. Morphology also looks at parts of speech, intonation and stress, and the way context can change the pronunciation and meaning of words. Morphology differs from morphological typology, which is the classification of language based on the use of their words, and lexicology, which is the study of words and how they make the language vocabulary.
While words, together with klitika, are generally accepted as the smallest syntactic unit, in most languages, if not all, many words can be associated with other words with rules that collectively describe the grammar for that language. For example, English speakers recognize that the words dog and dog are very closely related, distinguished only by the plurality morph "-s", found only bound to the noun phrase. English speakers, fusional language, recognize this connection from their innate knowledge of the rules of English word formation. They intuitively conclude that dogs are dogs such as cat is cat ; and, in the same way,
Phonological and orthographic modifications between the word base and its origin may be partly for literacy skills. Studies have shown that the presence of modifications in phonology and orthography makes complex morphological words difficult to grasp and that the lack of modification between the word and its origin makes morphologically complex words easier to grasp. Words that are morphologically complex are easier to understand when they enter the word base.
Polysynthetic languages, like Chukchi, have words consisting of many morphemes. The word Chukchi "t? Mey ?? levtp? T? Rk? N", for example, which means "I have a ferocious headache", consists of eight morphemes t -? - mey? -? - levt-p ?? t -? - rk? n that may be polished. The morphology of these languages ​​enables each consonant and vowel to be understood as a morpheme, while grammar shows the use and understanding of each morpheme.
The specific discipline associated with the sound changes occurring in morphemes is morphophonology.
Video Morphology (linguistics)
Histori
The history of morphological analysis originated from the ancient Indian linguist P ?? this, which formulated 3,959 Sanskrit morphological rules in the text A ??? dhy? Y? using constituent grammar. Greco-Roman grammar tradition is also involved in morphological analysis. Studies in Arabic morphology, conducted by Mar ?? al-arw ?? fund? mad b. 'Al? Mas'? D, date back to at least 1200 CE.
The term "morphology" linguistics was invented by August Schleicher in 1859.
Maps Morphology (linguistics)
Basic concepts
Lexemes and the word form
The term "word" has no clear meaning. In contrast, two related terms are used in morphology: lexem and word-form. Generally, the lexeme is a set of reflected words that are often represented in the form of quotations in small capitals. For example, lexem eat contains forms of the word eat, eat, eat, and eat . Eating and eating are thus considered different word forms that belong to the same lexeme eat . Eating and eaters , on the other hand, is a different lexeme, because they refer to two different concepts. So, there are three rather different 'word' terms.
Prosodic v. morphological words
Here is an example of another language about the failure of one phonological word to coincide with a single morphological word form. In Latin, one way to express the concept of NOUN-PHRASE 1 and NOUN-PHRASE 2 '( as in "apples and oranges") is the '-que' suffix for the second noun phrase: "orange apple and", as it were. The extreme degree of this theoretical difficulty posed by some phonological words is given by the Kwak'wala language. In Kwak'wala, as in many other languages, meaning the connection between nouns, including ownership and "semantic cases", is formulated by affixes, not by independent "words". The English phrase is three words, "with his club", where "by" identifies the noun phrases that depend on it as an instrument and his "proprietary" relationship, will consist of two words or even just one word in many languages. Unlike most languages, the Kwak'wala semantic affixes are phonologically not attached to the semantically intended lexemes, but to the previous lexemes. Consider the following example (in Kwak'wala, the sentence begins with what corresponds to the English verb):
kwix? id-i-da b? gwan? ma i -? - a q'asa-s-is i t'alwagwayu
Morfem based on morpheme translation:
-
- kwix? id-i-da = clubbed- PIVOT-DETERMINER
-
- b? gwan? ma -? - a = man- ACCUSATIVE-DETERMINER
-
- q'asa-s-is = beaver- INSTRUMENTAL-3SG-POSSESSIVE
-
- t'alwagwayu = club
- "the guy bangs a club with his club."
(Notation notes:
- The accusative case marks the entity that does something for.
- Determinators are words like "the", "this", "that".
- the concept of "pivot" is a theoretical construct that is not relevant to this discussion.)
That is, for Kwak'wala's speakers, the phrase does not contain "he-the-beaver" or "with-his-club" words instead. Markers - i-da < span> PIVOT - 'the'), refers to "man", not attached to the noun b? gwan? ma ("man") but with the verb; marker - ? - a ( ACCUSATIVE - 'the'), refers to beavers , attaching to b? gwan? ma rather than to q'asa ('beavers'), etc. In other words, a speaker Kwak'wala does not see the phrase consisting of these phonological words:
kwix? id i-da-b? gwan? ma? -a-q'asa s-is i -t'alwagwayu
clubbed PIVOT-the-man i hit-the-beaver with its i -club
A central publication on this topic is a recent volume edited by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2007), examining the discrepancies between the prosodis-phonological and grammatical definitions of "words" in various Amazon, Australian Aborigines, Caucasians, Eskimos, Indo-Europeans, Native North America, West Africa, and sign language. Apparently, various languages ​​use the hybrid linguistic klitika, having the grammatical characteristics of independent words, but the phonological lack of honesty of bound morpheme freedom. The medium status of clitics poses considerable challenges to linguistic theory.
Inflection vs. word formation
Given the idea of ​​a lexeme, it is possible to distinguish two types of morphological rules. Some morphological rules relate to different forms of the same lexeme; while other rules relate to different lexemes. The first type rule is the inflection rule, while the second rule is the rule of word formation. Generations of the plural English dog of dogs are inflame rules, while combined phrases and words like dog catcher or dishwasher i> is an example of word formation. Informally, the rules of word formation form the word "new" (more precisely, the new lexeme), while the inflection rules produce the variant form of the word "sama" (lexeme).
The difference between inflection and word formation is not entirely clear. There are many instances where the linguist fails to agree whether the given rule is inflection or word formation. The next section will try to clarify this difference.
Word formation is a process whereby one combines two complete words, whereas with inflection you can combine the suffix with several verbs to change its shape into the subject of a sentence. For example: in the infinite time now, we use 'go' with the subject I/we/you/they and plural nouns, whereas for the singular third person pronoun (he/she/it) and the single noun we use 'walk '. So this -es' is an inflectional marker and is used to match the subject. The further difference is that in the formation of words, the word produced may differ from the grammatical category of the word source while in the process of inflection the word never changes its grammatical category.
Type of word formation
There are further differences between the two main types of morphological word formation: derivation and compounding. Compounding is the process of word formation that involves the incorporation of complete word forms into a single compound form. Dog catchers , therefore, are compounds, because both dogs and captors are complete word forms in their own right but are then treated as part of one form. Derivation involves binding of bound forms (ie non-independent) to existing leksem, where the addition of affixes comes from the new lexeme. The word independent , for example, comes from the word dependent by using the prefix in - , while depends itself comes from the verb dependent . There is also a word formation in the clipping process where some words are removed to create a new, mixing in which two parts of different words are mixed together, an acronym in which each letter of the new word represents the specific word in the representation of NATO for the Atlantic Treaty Organization North, borrowing where words from one language are taken and used in other languages, and finally the currency in which the new word is made to represent a new object or concept.
Paradigms and morphosyntax
The linguistic paradigm is the complete set of related word forms associated with the given lexeme. Examples of known paradigms are verb conjugations and noun declarations. Also, set the lexemic word form into the table, by classifying it based on shared inflexional categories such as tense, aspect, mood, number, gender or case, set it like that. For example, a person pronoun in English can be arranged into a table, using categories of people (first, second, third); numbers (singular vs plural); gender (masculine, feminine, neutral); and case (nominative, oblique, genitive).
The inflectional categories used to group word forms into paradigms can not be arbitrarily chosen; they must be relevant categories to state the syntactic rules of the language. Persons and numbers are categories that can be used to define paradigms in English, because English has a grammatical agreement rule that requires a verb in a sentence to appear in inflect form that matches the person and subject number. Therefore, English syntactical rules care about the difference between dogs and dogs, since the choice between these two forms determines the verb form used. However, there is no syntactical rule for the difference between dog and dog catcher , or dependent and standalone . The first two are the nouns and the second two are adjectives.
The important difference between inflection and word formation is the shape of the reflected leksem words that are structured into a paradigm defined by the requirements of the syntactic rules, and no syntactical rules are appropriate for word formation. The relationship between syntax and morphology is called "morphosyntax" and attention itself with inflections and paradigms, not by word formation or compounding.
Allomorphy
Above, the morphological rule is depicted as an analogy between the word form: dog is a dog like a cat is a cat and as a < i> dish is dish . In this case, the analogy applies both to the form of words and to the meaning: in each pair, the first word means "one of X", while the second "two or more than X", and the difference is always the plural -s (or -es ) is embedded in the second word, indicating the key difference between a single entity and a plural.
One of the greatest sources of complexity in morphology is that a one-to-one correspondence between meaning and form hardly applies to every case in the language. In English, there are word-form pairs such as ox/oxen , goose/goose, and sheep , where the difference between singular and plural are marked in a way that departs from the usual pattern, or are not marked at all. Even the usual cases, like -s , are not so simple; -s in dog is not pronounced the same way as -s in cat ; and, in plural like plates , vowels are added before -s . These cases, in which the same difference is influenced by alternative forms of "word", are allomorphy.
The phonological rules limit which sounds can appear next to each other in language, and morphological rules, when applied blindly, will often violate phonological rules, by producing a banned sequence of sounds in the language in question. For example, to form plural of dish by simply adding a -s to the end of the word will result in the form * [d ?? s] , which is not permitted by English phonotactics. To "save" the word, the vowel sound is inserted between the root and plural markers, and [d ??? z] result. A similar rule applies to the pronunciation of -s in dog and cat : it depends on the quality (voiced voiceless) from the end of the previous phoneme.
Lexical morphology
Lexical morphology is a morphological branch associated with the lexicon, which, morphologically understood, is a collection of lexes in the language. Thus, it mainly concerns the formation of words: derivation and compounding.
Model
There are three main approaches to morphology and each tries to capture the above differences in different ways:
- Morphology-based morphology, which uses the item-setting approach.
- Lexeme-based morphology, which typically uses an item-and-process approach.
- Word-based morphology, which typically uses a word-and-paradigm approach.
While the associations shown between the concepts in each item on the list are very strong, they are not absolute.
Morphology-based morpheme
In morpheme-based morphology, the word form is analyzed as a morpheme arrangement. Morphem is defined as the minimal meaningful unit of a language. In words like independently , morphemes are said to be in - , dependent , - two , and ly ; dependent is the root and the other morpheme, in this case, the derivational affix. In words like dog , dog is root and -s is an inflexional morpheme. In its simplest and most naive form, this way of analyzing the word form, called "arrangement of goods and arrangements", treats words as if they are made of morphemes placed after each other ("joined") like beads on rope. Newer and more sophisticated approaches, such as distributed morphology, seek to defend the morpheme idea while accommodating unconventional, analogical, and other processes that have proven problematic for item-and-arrangement theory and similar approaches.
Morphology-based morphism presupposes three basic axioms:
- Baudoin's "single morpheme" hypothesis: Roots and affixes have the same status as morphemes.
- Bloomfield's "basic sign" morpheme hypothesis: As morphemes, they are dualistic signs, because they have both (phonological) forms and meanings.
- Bloomfield morpheme "morpheme lexical": morphemes, affixes and roots alike are stored in the lexicon.
Morphology-based morphemes come in two flavors, one Bloomfieldian and one Hockettian. For Bloomfield, the morpheme is a minimal form with meaning, but it has no meaning in itself. For Hockett, morphemes are "elements of meaning", not "form elements". To him, there are plural morphemes using alomorph such as -s , -en and -ren . In many theory-based morphologies, the two views are mixed in a non-systematic way so that a writer can refer to "plural morphemes" and "morphemes -s " in the same sentence. Lex3-based Lexeme-based_morphology> Lexeme-based morphology
Lexeme-based morphology typically takes on the so-called item-and-process approach. Instead of analyzing the word form as a series of sequentially arranged morphemes, the word form is said to be the result of applying a rule that changes the shape of a word or a bar to produce a new one. The inflexional rules take the stem, change them according to the rules, and produce the word form; derivational rules take the stem, change it according to their own needs, and produce derived rods; merging rules take the form of a word, and also produce a compound rod.
morphology based word
Word-based morphology is (usually) a word-and-paradigm approach. This theory takes the paradigm as a central idea. Instead of declaring a rule to incorporate a morpheme into a word form or to produce a word form from a stem, the morphology of words expresses the generalization that holds between the forms of the inflexional paradigm. The main point behind this approach is that many such generalizations are difficult to express with any of the other approaches. These examples are usually derived from the fusional language, in which the "piece" of a particular word, which morpheme theory would be called an inflexional morpheme, corresponds to a combination of grammatical categories, for example, "plural third person". Morpheme-based theories usually have no problem with this situation because one says that a particular morpheme has two categories. The goods-and-process theories, on the other hand, often fail in cases like these because they too often assume that there will be two separate rules here, one for the third person, and the other for the plural, but the difference between them artificial. These treat approaches treat all words related to each other by analogical rules. Words can be categorized according to the appropriate pattern. This applies both to existing and new words. The application of a different pattern from what has been used historically can lead to new words, such as older replacing elders (where older follows the superlative normal pattern adjectiva) and cows replaces kine (where cow corresponds to the general pattern of plural formations).
Morphological typology
In the 19th century, philologists designed the classical classification of language according to their morphology. Some languages ​​isolate, and have little or no morphology; others are agglutinative whose words tend to have many easily separated morphemes; others have not been inflexional or fusional because their inflexional morphemes "coalesce" together. It leads to a bound morpheme that conveys a lot of information. Standard examples of isolation languages ​​are Chinese. Aggutinative language is Turkish. Latin and Greek are prototypical inflexional or fusional languages.
It is clear that this classification is not at all clear, and many languages ​​(Latin and Greek among them) do not fit neatly with any of these types, and some fit in more than one way. A complex morphological language continuum can be adopted.
The three morphological models stem from attempts to analyze languages ​​more or less corresponding to the different categories in this typology. The item-and-arrangement approach fits perfectly with the agglutinative language. The item-and-process approach and word-and-paradigm usually discuss fusional language.
Because very little fusion is involved in word formation, classical typology mostly applies to inflexional morphology. Depending on the preferred way to express non-inflection ideas, language can be classified as synthetic (using word formation) or analytic (using syntactic phrases).
Example
Pingelapese is a Micronesian language used in pingolap atol and on two islands of eastern Caroline, called the high island of Pohnpei. Similar to other languages, words in Pingelapese can take different forms to add or even change their meaning. A verbal suffix is ​​a morpheme added at the end of a word to change its shape. Prefix is ​​added in front. For example, the Pingelapese suffix - kin means 'with' or 'at.' This is added at the end of the verb.
ius = for use - & gt; i-kin = to use together
mwahu = to be good - & gt; mwahu-kin = be clever
at - is an example verbal prefix. It is added to the beginning of the word and means 'no.'
pwung = true - & gt; right = wrong
There are also targeted suffixes that when added to the root word give the listener a better idea of ​​where the subject is headed. The verb alu means running. A targeted suffix can be used to give more details.
-da = 'ride' - & gt; aluh-da = running
-d i = 'down' - & gt; all-in = goes down
-eng = 'away from speakers and listeners' - & gt; al-eng = go
The directional endowment is not limited to motion verbs. When added to a non motion verb, it means an allusion. The following table provides some examples of targeted suffixes and their possible meanings.
References
Further reading
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments