• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Identification Of Morphemes
 

Identification Of Morphemes

on

  • 23,482 views

Nida's analysis of the theory of morpheme as described by Hockett,Bloch and Bloomfield and his suggestions of refinement.

Nida's analysis of the theory of morpheme as described by Hockett,Bloch and Bloomfield and his suggestions of refinement.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
23,482
Views on SlideShare
23,442
Embed Views
40

Actions

Likes
11
Downloads
0
Comments
2

4 Embeds 40

http://www.slideshare.net 18
http://aboutlinguistic.blogspot.com 11
http://aboutlinguistic.blogspot.in 6
http://pinterest.com 5

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • please me allow me to use this presentation.. Please
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Hello! I am interested to use this power point presentation for my report. please allow me to use...thanks!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • MMARTICAL

Identification Of Morphemes Identification Of Morphemes Presentation Transcript

  • Identification of Morphemes-E.nida
    I
    Introduction to Morphological and Syntactic Analysis
    Course Instructor: Asst Prof.HariMadhab Ray
    20th November 2009
    I.C.Darnal, AbeyweeraGH,VijayKB,Hemant
  • MORPHEME:
    Smallest indivisible unit of SEMANTIC CONTENT or GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION with which words are made.
    Morpheme as introduced by Hockett and Bloch:
    Has a STRUCTURAL SIMPLICITY which can be used in ALL LANGUAGES
    NIDA says:
    This STRUCTURAL SIMPLICITY can lead to following problems:
    Can give a FALSE IMPRESSION of SIMPLICITY
    Can MISREPRESENT FACTS.
    (P.S. : Nida is not criticizing the handling of datas by Hockett and Bloch rather he is showcasing the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES upon which DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICS is based. He suggests a REFINEMENT .)
    Theories:
    Shown : showed {Alternants) : Two Morphemes, one for each.
    Sing: sang-
    *The PAST TENSE form of “sing” is expressed by ZERO SUFFIX *There is a PHONETIC DIFFERENCE from “short I – to – ae (dipthong)
  • Complimentary Distribution:
    Set of MORPHS as ALLOMORPHS of the SAME MORPHEME.
    Two forms of “were”:
    • Unreal “were”- If they were rude, they’d apologize .
    • Simple Past Tense- If they were rude, they apologized.
    Here the Complimentary Distribution is Formally Same and Morphemically different.
    “was”; “were”:
    Two forms (“was” and “were” are alternants)
    Here the Complimentary Distribution is Formally different and Morphemically identical.
    LINGUISTIC MEANING AND NON-LINGUISTIC MEANING:
    • Linguistic Meaning: A unit that has a GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION and MEANING.
    • Non- Linguistic Meaning: A unit that has no GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION , MEANING and a CONTENT MEANING of it’s own.
    MORPHEMICALLY RELEVENT AND MORPHEMICALLY IRRELEVANT:
    In the words sequence: river, brother, sister, never etc. /er/ is MORPHEMICALLY IRRELEVANT.
    In the words sequence: walked, showed, dropped etc. /ed/ is MORPHEMICALLY RELEVANT .
  • PORMANTEAU ITEMS :
    A SINGLE MORPH SIMULTANEOUSLY representing a BUNDLE OF several DIFFERENT GRAMMATICAL ELEMENTS.
    Hockett says: MEN {one morph} which belongs simultaneously to two morphemes [ {man}, {s} ]
    Hockett does not say: MEN = Morphemic alternant of MAN + ZERO ALTERNANT of the plural suffix.
    Here MEN is a PORMANTEAU ITEM as {/man/ = noun}, {/s/ = plurality} .
    COMPLICATIONS TO PORMANTEAU ITEMS:
    /man/ ; /men/ - complimentary distribution, therefore number of morph = 1. Also, /men/ = one morph representing two morphemes [ {man}, {s} ].
    If this explanation of Hockett is applied in :
    /she/; /her/ - also in complimentary distribution, therefore number of morph = 1. However this is not the case. Here there are two morphemes
    /she/ ; /her/.
    Hockett says : If an ALTERNANT occurs after the NOUN it will NOT OCCUR after the VERB and vice-versa. Eg: The boys run (Alternant in noun)
    The boy runs (Alternant in verb)
  • BLOOMFIELD
    MORPHEME:
    • A LINGUISTIC FORM which bears no partial PHONETIC-SEMANTIC resemblance to
    ANY ANOTHER FORM.
    • Any COMBINATION of PHONEMES which has MEANING is a LINGUISTIC FORM.
    DIFFICULTIES:
    The distinction between Morphemes is not always clear.
    It does not define the nature and the relationship of it’s own parts.
    eg: cows {phonologically defined}
    oxen { not phonologically defined}
    Therefore, the nature and the relationship of /en/ is identified only when it is related to the morpheme /ox/
  • The theory of Bloomfied can be understood by the following principles:
    1. Forms which posses a common SEMANTIC DINTINCTIVENESS but which DIFFER in PHONEMIC FORM constitute a SINGLE MORPHEME PROVIDED that the distribution of Formal Differences can be PHONOLOGICALLY DEFINED.
    eg: houses - /iz/, talks -/s/, bags -/z/ .
    2. Forms which posses a common SEMANTIC DINTINCTIVENESS and IDENTICAL FORM in all their OCCURANCES constitute a SINGLE MORPHEME.
    eg: /er/ - dancer, walker, etc.
    3. SUPPLETIVE ALTERNANTS: Forms that do not exhibit the SAME ALTERNANT.
    Eg: wife-wives.
    4. In languages such as German the First Person Singular has one morpheme i.e./ne/.
    BUT
    The Morphemes for second Person Singular Pronoun have Three Distributional Morphemes
    i.e: /a/, /pe/, /ma/.(pg 424).
  • Semantically related forms in complementary distribution that occur in different combinations may belong to the same morpheme. Eg: ex- denotes past tense category; the same can be said of /t/, /d/, /ed/. (both the prefix and the suffix define a tense relationship).
    Phonologically defined Allomorphs – BASIC MORPHEME; /s/, /z/, /ez/.
    Morphologically defined Allomorphs- NON-BASIC MORPHEME. Oxen.
    Use of Morphemes is subject to Phonological Change.(assimilation, palatalization, reduction of clusters, Verner’s phenomenon).(ref: ppt3)
    An OVERT formal difference among related forms constitute a MORPHEME.eg: /sang/, /sing/ = A COVERT Zero Alternant of /ed/ and the OVERT replacement /i/ to /ae/.
  • 9.The difference in the CONSONANTS constitute a Sub-Morphemic replacement because it has a Semantic Value. Eg: strive –strife(ref pg 428).
    10.The difference in the SYLLABICS constitute a MORPHEMIC replacement because it as the only overt distinction between phones. eg: loose – lost (/uw/ - /o/.
    11.The Morpheme /z/ in “was” occur in First and Third Person Singular and /r/ in “were” occurs in all other situation. The meaning of /z/ and /r/ are essentially grammatical.
    12.The difference in the Environment constitute a difference in the meaning.eg: unreal and past-tense “were”(ref-first slide).
    13.A linguistic form which occur in DIFFERENT GRAMMATICAL ENVIRONMENTS {can be featured by both inflection and derivation} have different Morphemes.eg: “boy”(N) – “boyish”(Adj)
    14. According to Bloch there are “no actual synonyms”( i.e. they are formally different and identical in meaning) eg: plural markers that are formally different.
    /en/-unproductive
    /z/- productive as it has a distributional characteristics, therefore meaningful.
  • 15.Socio-linguistic acceptability of Morphemes.
    Eg: “shown”.
    16.According to Bloch - The forms /have, hav, av, v/ occur in environments that are CONNOTATIVELY DIFFERENT( speed of utterance, voice texture and the preciseness of articulation). Therefore, Bloch considers these to be 4 different Morphemes.
    17.A unit which is different PHONOLOGICALLY and SEMANTICALLY is not considered to be a morpheme as a morpheme is a distinct meaningful unit in its own.
    18.Homophonous Forms ( Phonologically same ) of different DISTRIBUTIONAL CLASSES consist of different Morphemes too with their OWN DISTINCT MEANING.eg: “read”(V), “reed”(N).
  • 19.SEMANTICALLY RELATED Homophonous Forms have ONLY ONE morpheme.
    eg: They fish(V) - {derived by zero affixation in the fish(N)
    The fish(N)
    (The possible semantic relationships between Homophonous forms can be referred to pg:435.)
    20. SEMANTICALLY RELATED Homophonous Forms have ONLY ONE morpheme with DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTIONAL-CLASS membership.
    eg: a run(N) in her stocking.
    they run(V) away.
    they run(V) the office.
    21. A Form(one) that do not occur in correspondingly DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT has as many morphemes as their meanings.
    Eg: He saw a saw.
    22.In some languages such as Greek each letter represent a morpheme.
    eg:/lusontai/ - /s/: future tense, /o/: indicative mode, /n/: plurality, /t/: third person.
  • TYPES OF MORPHEMES:
    The analysis of the types of morphemes may be based upon:
    1.The types of PHONEMES that comprise the Morphemes –
    • SEGMENTAL PHONEMES: growth, lost, sing – sang{/i/ - /ae/.
    • SUPRA-SEGMENTAL PHONEMES: difference in tone.(ref pg 438)
    • BOTH SEGMENTAL PHONEMES & SUPRA-SEGMENTAL PHONEMES:
    Languages such as Ngbaka Have INHERENT TONE
    eg: /li/ = it can have different meanings such as “face”, “name” & “water”
    in accordance to it’s SEGMENTAL PHONEMES / SUPRA-SEGMENTAL PHONEMES.
  • 2. by their POSITIONS with respect to other Morphemes –
    ADDITIVE: stems(eg : boy) and affixes(prefixes , infixes or suffixes)
    REPLACIVE: may consist of Segmental or Supra-segmental phonemes.
    .
    .
    ADDITIVE AND REPLACIVE: ref point no:1 sub-sec:3
    SUBTRACTIVE: combined into one morpheme on the basis of their SEMANTIC
    DISTINCTIVENESS and the PHONOLOGICAL DETERMINATION of their DISTRIBUTION.
    Eg: masculine Adjectives(in French): have VOWEL ENDING.
    feminine Adjectives(in French) : have CONSONANTAL ENDING.
  • Thank you
    Presented by:
    • Abeyweera GH
    • Vijay
    • Hemant
    • Ishwar
    • M.A.Linguistics 1st Semester
    • Centre for Linguistics
    • SLL/CS-JNU