323 Morphology 2
323 Morphology 2
323 Morphology 2
A lexeme family, or less formally a word family, is a set of lexemes that are
related. They should share some phonological properties and be related
semantically. The latter is easier said than determined.
E.g. print, printable, unprintable, printer, printability, reprint.
This list is not necessarily complete.
Sometimes a lexeme with an affix occurs but the basic form does not
exist:
E.g. dis-gruntled but not *gruntled, in-cognito, but not *cognito,
un-gainly, but not*gainly.
Sometimes the expected affix does not occur but another affix does:
E.g. natural-ness in place *natural-ity.
Or the expected affix occurs with another meaning:
E.g. cook, cook-er (an instrument for cooking, not a person who
cooks, which is simply the noun ‘cook’.
Compound *lexeme) refers to words that are made up of two or more lexemes:
doghouse, catfish, greenhouse, whiplash, tattletale, and so forth.
2.2 Morphemes
A morpheme is the smallest constituent with a function. I prefer this distinction to
‘smallest constituent with meaning. There are some forms that appears to be
constituents but have no discernable meaning, but have a function in terms of word
building:
E.g. doof-us, radi-us, cf. radi-al, radi-an.
Some inflectional morphemes have no true meaning, but they have a grammatical
function:
E.g. he, him; who, whom; they, them,
The suffix ‘-m’ marks the accusative (objective) Case. This is a syntactic relation and no
meaning can be associated with it.
The term function includes meaning.
To go one step further than H., the hierarchy for constituents is:
Sentence -> phrase -> word -> morpheme.
Phrases are very important constituents in syntax.
In English the word dog, for example, is a root since it cannot be broken into
further morphological units:
E. g. ‘do’ is not a morpheme of dog, it is basically a verb. There is no
morpheme ‘og’ that has any kind of function.
Dog is also a base. It has lexical meaning.
The English word disgruntled consists of three morpheme dis-, gruntle, and
ed. ‘dis’ is a prefix, and ed’ is an inflectional affix marking the past tense among
other functions. The morpheme gruntle is a root, since two affixes are adjoined to it.
It is not a base, since it has no lexical meaning (what does gruntle mean?) Once
both affixes are adjoined to it, then disgruntled, which is a base, is a
lexical stem since it does have meaning.
Technically, the prefix ‘dis-’ is adjoined first to gruntle to form the base
‘disgruntle’. Apparently this form has no lexical meaning and remains a
base. Once the adjectival suffix ‘-ed’ is added to disgruntle then the base
receives lexical meaning and is a stem.
English has several words usually considered compounds, where at least one
member of the compound doesn’t behave like a normal prefix or affix.
2.4 Formal Operations
E. g. tele-graph. Although graph may have lexical meaning, tele- does not. It
does not occur in isolation. The form is borrowed from Greek where it means ‘far’.
It is more like a root that cannot become a stem in its own right, but it may be
adjoined to a stem to form a new stem.
With the addition of the above operations, the definition of a stem as a root plus affixes is obviously
insufficient.
definition: a stem is a root plus morphological operations (both concatenative and non-
concatenative).
I prefer to think of these morphological operations in terms of set theory. Set theory belongs to pure
logic and is used in various logic-related fields such as mathematics where extensive use of it is made.
I will delve in set theory just a tiny bit to enlighten the class.
2.4 Formal Operations
A set is a group of one object or two or more objects. Any two or objects can form a set. In linguistics,
we will restrict a set to two or more objects that are related in some linguistic way.
E. g. {noun, verb, adjective, adverb, quantifier (and so forth)}
E. g. {infix, suffix, prefix}
E. g. all vowels are a set: {a, e, o. I, u} in 5 vowel languages.
E. g. all lexemes are a set.
E. g. all phrases are a set.
E. g. each alternating vowel in a paradigm is a set: {i, a, u} in S_NG.
One vowel is consider the default or basic vowel, the others are marked in that they occur in specific
contexts.
E. g. ‘a’ occurs in the context of the past tense, and ‘u’ occurs in the context of the passive and
the perfect grammatical categories of the English verb sing. ‘I’ is the default, since it occurs in word-
formation: sing-er.
The evidence that is beginning to appear in neural representations of language is the formal lexical
representation of the lexeme SING is more properly S{I, A, U}NG. In the present tense, the default
vowel ‘I’ is selected from the set. In the past tense the vowel ‘a’ is selected from the set. I can’t go to
much further here at this time. I will make reference from time-to-time of set theory in linguistics, but I
will not make this the standard theory here.
2.4 Morphemes and Ållomorphs
We note from H that Korean has two allomorphs for the accusative singular suffix: {‘ul’ ‘lul’}. It is obvious
that ‘ul’ follows consonants and ‘lul’ follows vowels. If the phonological rules of Korean predict that
alter alternation ‘ø’ and ‘l’, then the alternation phonological. If it can’t be, then the alternation is
morphological.
2.4 Morphemes and Ållomorphs
In Turkish the first person possessive suffix has 5 forms: ‘im’, ‘üm’, ‘um’, / m’ and ‘m’. Turkish is well-
known of the vowel harmony which occurs in the language.. All these variations are part of the
phonological system. H p. 26.
In German final voiced stops ‘become’ voiceless at the end of a word or if they precede a voiceless
obstruent. H p. 26. Assimilation is definitely phonological and if word boundaries count as phonological
markers (they do), then we can consider obstruent devoicing as part of the phonological system. In
English there are subtle differences when the voicing stops in final voiced obstruents. This is purely
phonological.
In Russian and nearly all of the Slavic languages, the vowels /e/ and /o/ (which are reduced in Russian
and Byelorussian, are deleted if they are not stressed. This does not happen to all of them, just certain
classes. This is a morphological alternation and it is phonologically unpredictable.
Underlying Forms
The standards theories since about 1960 or so is that there is an underlying from for all the
allomorphs of a particular morpheme and all the allophones of a particular phoneme.
2.4 Morphemes and Ållomorphs