Identification of Morphemes-E.nidaIIntroduction to Morphological and Syntactic Analysis   Course Instructor: Asst Prof.HariMadhab Ray20th November 2009I.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 LANGUAGESNIDA 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)
BLOOMFIELDMORPHEME:   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/.

Identification Of Morphemes

  • 1.
    Identification of Morphemes-E.nidaIIntroductionto Morphological and Syntactic Analysis Course Instructor: Asst Prof.HariMadhab Ray20th November 2009I.C.Darnal, AbeyweeraGH,VijayKB,Hemant
  • 2.
    MORPHEME: Smallest indivisibleunit 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 LANGUAGESNIDA 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)
  • 3.
    Complimentary Distribution: Set of MORPHS as ALLOMORPHS of the SAME MORPHEME.Two forms of “were”: Unreal “were”- If they were rude, they’d apologize .
  • 4.
    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.
  • 5.
    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 .
  • 6.
    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)
  • 7.
    BLOOMFIELDMORPHEME: 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/
  • 8.
    The theory ofBloomfied 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).
  • 9.
    Semanticallyrelated 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/.
  • 10.
    9.The difference inthe 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.
  • 11.
    15.Socio-linguistic acceptability ofMorphemes. 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).
  • 12.
    19.SEMANTICALLY RELATED HomophonousForms 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.
  • 13.
    TYPES OF MORPHEMES:Theanalysis 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/.
  • 14.
    SUPRA-SEGMENTAL PHONEMES: difference in tone.(ref pg 438)
  • 15.
    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.
  • 16.
    2. bytheir 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.
  • 17.
    Thank you Presented by:Abeyweera GH
  • 18.
  • 19.
  • 20.
  • 21.
  • 22.
  • 23.

Editor's Notes