Successfully reported this slideshow.
Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Identification Of Morphemes

30,917 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education, Technology
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• nice work

Are you sure you want to  Yes  No

Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
• 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  Yes  No

### Identification Of Morphemes

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