E-Book
36,99 €

Morphology E-Book

Jeffrey P Punske

0,0

36,99 €

Sammeln Sie Punkte in unserem Gutscheinprogramm und kaufen Sie E-Books und Hörbücher mit bis zu 100% Rabatt.

Mehr erfahren.

Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
Sprache: Englisch

Beschreibung

The first comprehensive morphology textbook written in the framework of Distributed Morphology, firmly grounded in cross-linguistic theory

Distributed Morphology is the theoretical framework that views morphology as syntactic, proposing that there is no divide between the construction of words and the construction of sentences. The first text of its kind, Morphology: A Distributed Morphology Introduction provides a thorough overview of Distributed Morphology using data and problem sets from a diverse selection of the world's languages. Divided into two parts, this valuable resource begins by describing the basics of morphology and then moves into an exploration of more advanced topics in morphology including morphosyntactic operations, cyclic derivation, the Mirror Principle, and non-compositional language. Each chapter includes a glossary of key terms, learning objectives, further readings, and illustrative examples to reinforce learning. Exercises and problem sets encourage students to develop their understanding and build confidence in the application of theory to practice. Through this valuable text, students will develop comprehension in morphological parsing and glossing, the concept of the lexicon, the different types of morphemes, the idea of paradigms, the basic practice of morphological analysis, and more.

Offering detailed yet accessible coverage of morphological theory from the perspective of Distributed Morphology, this textbook:

Introduces the methodology used in morphology, the basic assumptions of Distributed Morphology, and key concepts from lexical grammatical approaches to language
Covers essential phonology, feature interaction, paradigms as linguistic objects, core ideas of syntax and syntactic derivation, and derivation and inflection in Distributed Morphology
Includes a Quick Reference Guide with glossing abbreviations from the Leipzig Glossing Rules, a full IPA chart with instructions, and charts of phonological features
Provides access to a companion website containing solutions to problem sets and additional instructor resources

Morphology: A Distributed Morphology Introduction is the ideal textbook for advanced undergraduates and graduate students in morphology courses or with an interest in specializing in morphology. Offering students an unparalleled overview of this growing field of morphology, this text will ensure that developing morphologists are well-equipped to employ the latest methods in Distributed Morphology to their own research and study.

Details

Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:

Android

iOS

von Legimi
zertifizierten E-Readern

Seitenzahl: 439

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Bewertungen

0,0

Rezensionen(0 Rezensionen)

Leseprobe

Cover

Table of Contents

Title Page

Dedication

Author’s Note

Note to Instructors

List of Abbreviations

part 1: Understanding Morphology

chapter 1: Defining Morphology

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. WORDHOOD

2. DOING MORPHOLOGY

3. THEORIES OF MORPHOLOGY

4. CONCLUSIONS

5. ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in this Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

chapter 2: Types of Morphemes

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. GENERAL TYPES OF MORPHEMES

2. MORPHOLOGICAL UNIVERSALS

3. CATEGORY

4. GLOSSING CONVENTIONS

5. THE MORPHOLOGICAL PROCESS

6. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

chapter 3: Basic Morphology Analysis

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. SOURCES OF DATA

2. APPROACHING THE DATA

3. BASIC MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

4. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

chapter 4: Morphophonology

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. DEFINING PHONOLOGY

2. BASIC CONCEPTS IN PHONOLOGY

3. DEFINING MORPHOPHONOLOGY

4. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

chapter 5: Advanced Morphological Analysis

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. SYLLABLE STRUCTURE

2. MARKEDNESS

3. DISSIMILATION

4. PIVOTS: REDUPLICATION AND INFIXATION

5. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules and Principles Introduced in this Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

part 2: Building a Framework

chapter 6: Features

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. FEATURES AND THE SUBSET PRINCIPLE

2. IMPOVERISHMENT

3. DEFINING AND CONSTRAINING FEATURES

4. DOING FEATURAL ANALYSIS

5. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

Chapter 7: Morphology and Syntax

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. SYNTAX

2. A GENERATIVE LEXICON AND THE MIRROR PRINCIPLE

3. MORPHOLOGY AS SYNTAX

4. SYNTACTIC OPERATIONS

5. POST-SYNTACTIC MORPHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS

6. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

chapter 8: Lexical Semantics

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. LEXICAL SEMANTICS AND STRUCTURE

2. ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

3. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

Chapter 9: Root and Pattern Morphology

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. A TIERED APPROACH

2. ROOT AND PATTERN IN THE SYNTAX

3. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

chapter 10: Incorporation and Compounding

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. INCORPORATION

2. COMPOUNDING

3. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

chapter 11: Non‐compositionality

0. PRELIMINARIES

1. DEFINING NON-COMPOSITIONALITY

2. DERIVING NON-COMPOSITIONALITY

3. EXPANDING THE MODEL

4. CONCLUSIONS

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in This Chapter

Further Reading

General Problem Sets

Challenge Problem Sets

chapter 12: Concluding Remarks

0. DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY AND LINGUISTIC THEORY

Final Model of Distributed Morphology

Problems and Discussion

Further Reading

IPA Quick Guide

Language Glossary

Glossary

References

Index

End User License Agreement

Guide

Cover Page

Title Page

Dedication Page

Author’s Note

Note to Instructors

List of Abbreviations

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

IPA Quick Guide

Language Glossary

Glossary

References

Index

Wiley End User License Agreement

Pages

iii

xii

xiii

xiv

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

Morphology

A Distributed Morphology Introduction

Jeffrey P. Punske

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Carbondale, IL, USA

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750‐8400, fax (978) 750‐4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748‐6011, fax (201) 748‐6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.

Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974, outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our website at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data applied forPaperback ISBN 9781119667834

Cover Design: WileyCover Image(s): © oxygen/Getty Images

Dedication

No academic work is the product of a singular person. This book is certainly no exception. I am indebted to those who have taught me and mentored me, particularly Drs. Andrew Barss, Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, Simin Karimi, and Richard Larson. Beyond that, I owe a particular debt to my students at Southern Illinois University, particularly Max Bruns, Melissa Cronin, Selikem Gotah, Annan Kirk, and Airica Thomas who have offered numerous suggestions throughout the development. I am further indebted to those who provided me with data and problems for this volume: Karen Baertsch, Andrew Carnie, Jaehoon Choi, Ian Clayton, Amy Fountain, Heidi Harley, Cathy Hicks Kennard, Bob Kennedy, Matt Pearson, Sylvia Schreiner, and Vladimir Valchev. Finally, I am indebted to anonymous reviewers who helped improve this text throughout. All errors and omissions remain my own.

I also want to thank Wiley‐Blackwell for their patience as we worked through delays due to Covid‐19 and health concerns. Finally, and most importantly, to my wife, Allegra Frazier, who has offered continued support and patience throughout the process of writing.

Author’s Note

The goal of this text is to provide an introduction into the core concepts of theoretical morphology, particularly from the perspective of Distributed Morphology. As this is a primarily pedagogical text, there is some variation from the relevant literature. Since its inception, Distributed Morphology has had numerous key proposals, modifications, and disputes. Key work beyond Halle and Marantz (1993) includes but is not limited to Arregi and Nevins (2012), Bobaljik (1995, 2002a, and 2012), Bobaljik and Harley (2017), Embick (2007a, 2010, 2015, and 2020), Embick and Marantz (2008), Embick and Noyer (1999, 2007), Halle (1997), Halle and Marantz (1994), Harley (2009, 2011, and 2014), Harley and Ritter (2002), Harley and Noyer (1999), and Marantz (1997). This text synthesizes and occasionally modifies proposals from this literature and more. The core proposals concerning the architecture of Distributed Morphology are found throughout this literature. The intellectual genesis of every idea presented within this text belongs to others that came before. As this is a text meant primarily to introduce common, core ideas of Distributed Morphology, the internal citations differ from standard research volumes. This book should not be cited; citation belongs to the relevant original literature.

An important note on the data used throughout this book: The data presented may be modified in various ways, including but not limited to, simplifying grammatical operations, excluding exceptional forms, and simplifying/altering glosses. The data is not intended to be used in external scholarship but to aid in the exposition of key concepts. Where possible, refer to the original sources of the data when needed.

Note to Instructors

Morphology tends to live in very different places across various linguistics curriculums. In some, it is a course that generally requires no prerequisite knowledge. In others, it is a course that serves as something like a capstone after students have completed extensive coursework in syntax, phonology, semantics, and other linguistic subject areas. This text tries to serve both populations. As with anything that is trying to serve such a wide array of needs, there are aspects where it will fall short.

As I noted in my general note, this is not a text that is meant to fully explain the state‐of‐the‐art in Distributed Morphology. There are several places where I diverge from standard approaches to Distributed Morphology for ease of explanation or other similar reasons. The goal is rather to provide enough details for the ways of thinking in Distributed Morphology so that students may analyze novel morphological data with that mindset and explore primary literature in Distributed Morphology with an understanding of the background.

At the time of completion of this volume, there has been a recent surge in the use of Large Language Models, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Bard. The development and public availability of these have created a number of concerns regarding academic integrity and related issues. As part of this text, I have developed some assignments that utilize output from such LLMs. The goal of these assignments is to show the limitations of LLMs and utilizing something they are presently not good at – critically analyzing their own outputs. Of course, that may change as these models continue to develop.

I encourage you to disagree with this text in your classes and illustrate some of the shortcomings of the approaches discussed. In my own classes, I frequently discuss where arguments fall short or types of data that are difficult for the framework to capture.

List of Abbreviations

person

1/2

or 2

person

absolutive

ABL

ablative

ACC

accusative

ADJ

adjective

AGNT

agent

animate

AOR

aorist

antipassive

APPL

applicative

AUTH

author

BEN

benefactive

complementizer

consonant

CAUS

causative

CIRC

circumfix

CIRCUMESS

circumessive

CMP

comparative

CNTR

counterexpectational

complementizer phrase

CPA

completive aspect

determiner

DAT

dative

DEF

definite

DIM

diminutive

DIR

directional

DISB

distributive

dual

determiner phrase

dual

DUR

durative

ergative

EMPH

emphatic

EVID

evidential

EXCL

exclusive

ezafe

feminine

FOC

focus

GEN

genitive

GER

gerund

HAB

habitual

imperfect

inanimate

INCL

inclusive

INDC

indicative

INST

instrumental

INTR

intransitive

ITER

iterative

logical Form

linker

LOC

locative

masculine

nominalizing head

noun

NEG

negation

NOM

nominative

OBV

obviate

PASS

passive

phonological Form

PFV

preverb

plural

PLR

pluractional

PRES

present

PRF

perfect

POSS

possessive

PROG

progressive

PROX

proximate

PST

past

question

REC

recent

REFL

reflexive

subject (used in combination with another abbreviation)

singular

specific

status suffix

SUB

subject

SUBP

subject agreement particle

tense

TAM

tense‐aspect‐mood

TOP

topic

tense phrase

transitive

verb

verbalizing head

vowel

verb phrase

VTA

verb transitive animate

VTI

verb transitive inanimate

part 1Understanding Morphology

chapter 1Defining Morphology

Learning Objectives

Define what morphology is as a field.

Tackle the challenges of defining a “word.”

Learn the basics of the three‐line gloss.

Overview the Distributed Morphology framework.

0. PRELIMINARIES

Morphology, at its core, is the study of the word. Perhaps outside of a linguistics class, we rarely grapple with the question of “what is a word?” In a game of Scrabble or in another context where someone uses a term we are unfamiliar with, we may turn to one of our favorite dictionaries to confirm something’s wordhood. Even then, we recognize that the dictionary is slow to adapt to new usages and coinages – further, it does not always recognize what is basically productive about our linguistic system. For instance, if your boss instructed you to “recollate the files in the conference room,” you might grumble to yourself about the tediousness of the task. However, you probably would not point out that Merriam‐Webster Dictionary does not recognize “recollate” as a word of English – therefore the task makes no sense. You certainly would not point this out if you planned on keeping that job for any time.

Wordhood is not defined by whether or not the given item is listed in an official document. In our recollate case, we recognize that this is an English word, even if it is completely novel to us, because it follows predictable rules of English word formation: we combine two separated elements re‐ (a prefix meaning “do again”) with collate (a verb stem meaning “to put into order”). This prefix re‐ generally may occur with verbs and as speakers of English, we are aware of this and may use this to produce new and novel forms. Thus, our mental capacity for words may generate new forms and may do so far faster than any physical dictionary could keep up with. This mental capacity is part of our mental grammar. It is this grammar that we are studying throughout this book.

1. WORDHOOD

Fun Fact: While European writing traditions now involve spacing between words, this was not always the case. Early medieval and classical writing was done in a tradition known as scriptio continua. In this style of text, breaks were not found between words but instead where pauses would naturally be found, even within a word, when the text was being spoken.

Much as we must discard the idea that wordhood is associated with being listed in an official registry (a dictionary), we must consider and reject a few other common ideas about defining a word. In the first place, as readers of English, one common assumption about wordhood is that a word is a unit of language, which has spaces on both sides of it. This may be an adequate description of the general situation with English writing (though later in the book we will argue that complex terms with many spaces like pickle jar lid factory shift supervisor are, in fact, a single word). However, it certainly fails to account for spoken English, which does not put a pause between each word, let alone languages with other written traditions or the roughly 70% of languages that linguists estimate have no major written tradition.

Another common misconception is that there is a one‐to‐one correspondence between a word and a concept. We have already seen with our recollate example that words can be built of multiple concepts – in this case, our concepts “do again” and “put in order.” But perhaps a skeptic will object that re‐ is some form of lesser concept and that words are built solely out of a single core concept. There are many ways to meet this skeptic’s objection. First, we may look at the case of English compounds, which combine two otherwise independent words/concepts to form a single unit:

(1) blackbird

But, perhaps even more compelling, we may look to other languages of the world where a single word may express the equivalent of an English sentence. Such languages are known as polysynthetic, and we will look more at their properties throughout this book. An illustrative example is given below from the language Central Alaskan Yup’ik provided by first‐language speaker George Charles via Mithun (1999):

(2)

kaipiallrulliniuk

kaig

‐piar

‐llru

‐llni

‐u

‐k

be.hungry ‐really ‐

PST

‐apparently ‐

INDICATIVE

‐they.two

“the two of them were apparently really hungry”

To be able to read and interpret all of the details of this example is not yet critical for us, though we will soon begin to cover the concept of glossing. What is critical about this example is that what would be a full sentence made up of independent words in other languages, such as English, is a single word in Central Alaskan Yup’ik. Further, this process of word building is fully productive in languages like Central Alaskan Yup’ik.

We will use the term productive throughout this text although there is not a precise definition for what it means. Generally, the term is used to describe morphological processes that are common in the language or morphological forms that occur regularly. We contrast it with nonproductive that describes morphological processes and forms that are found in a language but only rarely – perhaps due to historical change or language contact. For example, the English plural marker ‐s is productive because it is commonly found and applies to new words introduced to the language. The English plural marker ‐ren found in children is nonproductive as it is limited to one exceptional form.

What, then, makes a good definition for “word?” Haspelmath (2011) makes a compelling case that it may be impossible to generate an acceptable definition that will account for all languages. Nonetheless, we will continue to use this term “word” in an informal sense, but we will need to exercise caution making any formal reference to the concept of a word. What we should notice is that regardless of the status of the concept of “word,” languages build meaningful units out of other smaller meaningful units. Sometimes those units may stand on their own and be meaningful or usable as in the case of black and bird in blackbird, but in many cases, these units must combine with other units to be usable such as re‐ in recollate. These units, termed morphemes, are ultimately what this book is about. In many introductory textbooks, morphemes are defined as something like the “smallest unit of meaning.” Throughout this book, we will question and refine this definition. But, in a general sense (for now), a morpheme is the smallest of the units of meaning in language. An independent word containing no sub‐morphemes, such as bird, is itself a morpheme. Our goal is to understand the universal properties, distributions, and restrictions of morphemes. We will also study how they interact with other systems of grammar, such as phonology and syntax.

The study of morphology goes well beyond defining the concept of words. Our study will involve analyzing the internal components of words and how these components interact with other grammatical systems. It is our hope that by understanding morphology and its role in our broader linguistic systems we can better understand the nature of language itself.

2. DOING MORPHOLOGY

Linguists study morphology by breaking apart language (words, phrases, and sentences) into smaller component pieces: morphemes. Ultimately, this work is a form of scientific hypothesis building and is subject to the same scientific process as any other science.

We apply the scientific method in morphology in the following ways:

Observe:

Collect the relevant data from the

target language.

Hypothesize:

Analyze, parse, and

gloss

the data.

Predict:

Make testable statements about the distribution and order of the morphemes you identified in your hypothesis.

Test:

Examine new data or contexts and determine how your statements behave.

A critical point is that just as there is no master list of words, there is no master list of morphemes. Doing morphology is a process of scientific discovery, which includes trial and error. Not every hypothesis will be correct. Sometimes, elements will appear to be morphemes when they are not or will appear to not be when they are. It is only through repeated observation and testing of our hypotheses that can we begin to be sure.

Morphology, like all scientific practice, is governed by the principle of simplicity of explanation, also known as Occam’s Razor. The basic idea is that if you have multiple viable competing solutions to the same problem, whichever requires the least amount of explanatory effort is most likely correct. In morphology, this typically means that we look to have fewer rules and constraints and we like to avoid having the same morpheme serving different functions without a clear understanding of why.

Occam’s Razor: Occam’s Razor is named after the English medieval theologian and philosopher William of Ockham (Occam) to whom the idea is most often attributed. Whether he ever overtly expressed these ideas is questionable (see Thorburn 1918). But the core idea remains a guiding principle of both scientific and philosophical thinking.

Linguists express their hypotheses about the morphological structure of a language in a particular format known as the three‐line or interlinear gloss. Glossing is a technique that requires attention to detail and precision because each gloss is a hypothesis. The conventions are defined by the Leipzig Glossing Rules, though many linguists use variations on these conventions to suit their individual needs. A full list of the abbreviations used in this volume is found at the beginning of the book.

Interlinear Glossing

The first line of an interlinear or three‐line gloss is in the target language, which is the language that is being studied. The target language is typically written in IPA, the language’s orthography if it is sufficiently close to the metalanguage’s, or an orthographic representation like that of the metalanguage. This line is annotated with special symbols to mark where the linguist believes morpheme boundaries exist.

Sometimes there is a line provided above this line, which provides the target language’s orthography or an example without the morpheme boundaries. We saw an example of this optional fourth line in our Central Alaskan Yup’ik example in (2). Again, the primary goal in glossing is to be maximally informative to your potential readers about your hypotheses about the structure of the language’s structure.

The second line of an interlinear gloss is the item‐by‐item translation. This line is written in the metalanguage, which is a term for the language of analysis, along with the conventions of glossing. There are numerous conventions of this line and the interaction of the first and second line is the most critical to understanding an interlinear gloss.

Line three is the free translation. This line is also written in the metalanguage, but it is a looser translation. It is easiest to think of this as the type of translation you might find in a guidebook or other similar travel guide.

We will spend much more time on glossing during the next few chapters, but let us examine the basics of a gloss. Recall that the goal of a gloss is to hypothesize about the morphological structure of a given word or phrase. Even though we questioned the status of the word to begin this chapter, we will continue to utilize the concept in our glosses. Each word boundary is marked by a space. Morphemes found internal to words are separated with a hyphen.

A period is used in glossing when there are multiple functions or concepts contained within a single morpheme. This concept is illustrated in the data below from Hiaki (Uto‐Aztecan, Arizona, and Sonora) taken from Bobaljik and Harley (2017).

Key Basics of Interlinear Glossing

Each word is perfectly aligned between lines 1 and 2.

There are equal numbers of “‐” found in corresponding words in lines 1 and 2.

A period is used when there is a difference in function, but no obvious boundary

grammatical and functional.

One of the great challenges of working on morphology are the ways that morphology interact with other systems of grammar, particularly phonology, syntax, and semantics. You might be coming to this book with considerable background in these areas, or you might be relatively new to these areas. Regardless of your background, we will introduce the necessary terms and concepts throughout this book in all related subareas of linguistics – even if you are quite familiar with these other areas, pay attention to details we build in this text; our study of morphology will cause us to revise and expand our approaches to all of these other areas.

Let us examine some data from English pluralization to see how morphology interacts with some of these other systems. To do this, we will use the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) to represent the sounds of English. We will examine the IPA further in the coming chapters.

Step 1 Observe: Our first job is to examine the data and to determine what the morpheme(s) might be and what their distribution might be. Looking at the English data, we should notice three different forms of the plural – each a suffix. The three forms are ‐s, ‐z, and ‐əz. This will form the basis of our hypothesis generation.

Step 2 Hypothesize: As part of our hypothesis building, we will put some of the forms we are examining into three‐line, interlinear glosses. Recall that the claim that ‐s, ‐z, and, ‐əz are independent morphemes is a hypothesis in itself. Our other goal is to try to determine anything we can about the contextual distribution to allow us to make predictions.

(5)

kæt ‐s

(6)

dɑg ‐z

cat ‐

dog ‐

“

cats

”

“dogs”

(7)

læʃ ‐əz

(8)

ɜɹ ‐əz

lash ‐

church ‐

“

lashes

”

“churches”

(9)

frem ‐z

(10)

kʌp ‐s

frame ‐

cup ‐

“

frames

”

“cups”

(11)

ʌ ‐əz

(12)

‐z

judge ‐

eye ‐

“

judges

”

“eyes”

Step 3 Predict: As we examine our glosses, a clearer pattern should emerge. The suffix ‐əz occurs when the final sound of the base it is attaching to is one of the set of sounds {s, ʃ, , }. If we are previously familiar with phonology, we will note that each of these sounds is a sibilant, which include the sounds {s, z, ʃ, ʒ, , }. Thus, we may make a testable about the distribution of ‐əz: “The suffix ‐əz occurs when the final sound of the word it is attaching to is a sibilant.” Looking then at the distribution of ‐s, we should notice that it occurs when the final sound has the following properties: it is both voiceless and non‐sibilant. Finally, looking at ‐z we should notice that it occurs when the final sound of the base is both voiced and non‐sibilant. We should then state these in testable statements.

Testable Statements of Predictions:

The plural suffix in English is represented by three different forms: ‐əz is used when the final sound of the base is a sibilant. ‐s is used when the final sound of the base is a voiceless, non‐sibilant. ‐z is used when the final sound of the base is a voiced, non‐sibilant.

Step 4 Test: For this step, we want to examine and gloss new but related examples. Our goal is to see how our testable statements work in examples different from the ones we originally examined. Because this is a sample exercise, the examples we choose will be carefully constructed.

(13)

pɛn

“pen”

pɛnz

“pens”

(14)

ɹɑk

“rock”

ɹɑks

“rocks”

(15)

pəteto

“potato”

pətetoz

“potatoes”

(16)

pʌts

“putz”

pʌtsəz

“putzes”

Thus, based on this data we could conclude that our statements were indeed valid and stop. Of course, we have not tested all or even most of the English nouns.

Step 5 Observe: The key with good science is that we are never truly done, and we are always looking for new examples to prove or disprove our account. In the case of English plural, let us examine the following data:

(17)

“child”

ɪldɹən

“children”

*ldz

(18)

“mouse”

“mice”

*msəz

(19)

dɪɹ

“deer (sg.)”

dɪɹ

“deer (pl.)”

*dɪɹz

(20)

fʊt

“foot”

fit

“feet”

*fʊts

The symbol * means that a particular example is deemed ungrammatical by first‐language speakers of the language. What should strike us about this data is that it does not obey the testable predictions we made about the behavior of English plurals in Step 3. Our next steps would be to go through the same processes as before attempting to account for both our new data and the data that we had previously developed testable predictions for, but we will instead stop here and reflect on what we have learned.

There are multiple lessons to be learned from this data. This data exhibits multiple forms of (contextual) allomorphy. In our early examples, the allomorphy is predictable and driven by the sounds. This means that the allomorphy is both regular and phonological. In the data we saw in Step 5, the allomorphy is no longer predictable – first‐language speakers just need to know which plural suffix (or lack of suffix) goes with which form. This type of allomorphy is irregular. The most extreme form of irregularity is where the morphological context changes the base entirely. This is known as suppletion. An example of this is seen in the Russian (Russia) example below taken from Moskal (2015):

(21)

rebënok “child”

deti “children”

In many cases, there are historical reasons for the irregular or suppletive status of a particular morphological form, but we need to be very careful referencing such reasons in our explanations. Throughout this book, we are trying to build an explanation of how the morphological component works in a first‐language speaker’s linguistic system or grammar. Our grammars are part of our mind‐internal processes. What we learn about our speech community’s language and our knowledge of morphology must come through environmental exposure. Historical context is likely to be learned much later than the irregular or suppletive forms; understanding the historical development of a given word in a given speech community is information that is learned much later, if it is learned at all.

This is not to say that studying historical context and historical change is not important. The areas of historical linguistics and historical reconstructions are vital parts of the field and have taught us much about the structure of language. Looking at the ways languages change over time, analyzing the patterns, and reconstructing the earlier forms is known as diachronic linguistics. Our primary focus is on the way speakers’ internal knowledge and use of language presents in a given moment in time (typically in the present, though we may also analyze older forms of a language) – such an approach is synchronic.

3. THEORIES OF MORPHOLOGY

It is our goal throughout this book to understand the rules and constraints that govern how morphemes combine together. We will do this primarily through the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). Linguists have developed a number of different competing theories and frameworks for how the morphology part of the grammar functions. Examples include Word‐and‐Paradigm Morphology (Blevins 2016) and Lexical Phonology/Morphology (Kiparsky 1982). The focus of this book is on Distributed Morphology, and we will not take the time to contrast this approach with all of the alternatives. However, since most general introductions assume a simplified form of Lexicalism or Lexical Morphology, we will contrast Distributed Morphology with such an approach.

In a lexical approach to morphology, there is an independent component of the grammar known as the Lexicon where words are stored and where morphological operations occur. In many (perhaps even most) lexical theories of morphology, this lexicon is what serves as the input to syntax. Within these frameworks, there is a need to capture the fact that there is often overlap between what happens within the syntax and in the lexicon. Which, if they were truly independent components, would not be expected. Principles such as THE MIRROR PRINCIPLE (Baker 1985) restrict the types of operations that can occur in the syntax and lexicon and force a correspondence.

(22)

THE MIRROR PRINCIPLE

Baker (

1985

)

Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa).

If we examine how THE MIRROR PRINCIPLE functions, we will notice that it causes a doubling of grammatical operations in a lexical approach. First, a morphological operation must occur in the lexicon. Then, an equivalent syntactic operation must occur in the syntax. While this might ultimately be the correct solution, under the scientific principles of simplicity of explanation, if there is a way to accomplish the same results with fewer steps, then that solution should be preferred. That essentially is the core of Distributed Morphology: to reduce complexity by eliminating the lexicon and the associated redundancy of operations in it. In Distributed Morphology, syntax and morphology are the same.

Distributed Morphology is generally situated within Chomsky’s Minimalist Program. Key features of this program are the hypothesis that language is a “optimal solution” and, as a consequence, a focus on economy. Many of these features fall within the domain of the simplicity of explanation (modulo our assumptions). One core development of the Minimalist Program is the so‐called Y‐model of syntactic derivation.

In the Y‐model, the syntax pulls the items (words and morphemes) it will be manipulating and then applies morphosyntactic operations to them. At some point in this process, the grammar decides to “spell‐out” the sentence or phrase being produced. This sentence or phrase is then sent to two different components of the grammar: P(honological) F(orm) (where it is pronounced) and L(ogical) F(orm) (where meaning is interpreted). Morphosyntactic operations can continue to happen on the paths to both of the final versions of PF and LF, so the pronounced form and the interpreted form often diverge from each other.You may or may not be familiar with this model of grammar – the details are not immediately essential to us, so do not worry if this is Martian to you. We will cover this model in much more detail in Part 2 of this book. But, it is important to consider the questions that this model raises for the framework of morphology. In particular, we should ask ourselves what constitutes the “input” to such a model if we no longer posit a lexicon where morphological operations occur. Such questions will remain with us for most of this book.

The core ideas of Distributed Morphology may seem radical at first. They certainly run counter to our basic intuitions about how language is organized and functions. As we work our way through this book and develop the theory and framework together, we will begin to see how these ideas obey the core scientific principles of simplicity of explanation (Occam’s Razor) that were presented earlier in this chapter.

4. CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we explored some challenges with defining the concept of the “word.” We noted that there is no entirely consistent definition that perfectly captures the informal notion of word that is used widely by linguists (and others). This presents an obvious challenge when trying to understand the processes of word formation in natural language. Despite this issue, we developed a first‐look approach to morphology, which is fundamentally a theory about word formation.

In this discussion, we examined how scientific investigation should proceed and how we may utilize the elements of the scientific method to examine word formation in language. We also introduced the core ideas of the framework, Distributed Morphology, that we will be developing throughout this book. One critical aspect of Distributed Morphology is that it distributes the processes of word formation across the syntax that allows us to capture the significant overlaps found between syntactic and morphological processes. Throughout this book, we will develop and refine this approach to word formation.

5. ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

This book is organized into two separate parts. Part 1 containing this chapter and subsequent chapters through Chapter 5 is more of a traditional morphology textbook but through the lens of Distributed Morphology. The focus of this part is on doing morphological parsing, glossing, and analysis. It is possible to use this book only for this part. Part 2 of this book develops the syntactic elements of Distributed Morphology. Since Distributed Morphology holds that syntax and morphology are the result of the same fundamental structure‐building operations, it is essential to introduce these ideas. It therefore rapidly adds more sophisticated theoretical technology and terminology than Part 1. If you are using this book for self‐study, prepare to spend more time on each chapter in Part 2.

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in this Chapter

A notation that linguists use to mark that an example (word, phrase, and sentence) is ungrammatical.

Note: this notation has a different usage in historical linguistics where it is used to mark that a form is reconstructed

Base:

A morphological form to which other morphemes are added.

(Contextual)Allomorphy:

A circumstance wherein a morpheme changes its form based on its surrounding context.

Diachronic:

Related to language change over time.

Glossing:

A form of linguistic hypothesis building where morpheme boundaries are illustrated and labeled and a translation is provided.

Grammar:

The mind‐internal rules, constraints, and principles that govern the structure and use of language.

Irregular:

A term used to describe morphological processes that are generally unpredictable based solely on general context. Contrast with

regular

Lexicalism:

One of a family of approaches to grammar wherein there are separate and independent components for morphology and syntax.

Lexicon:

In lexical approaches to grammar, the lexicon is the component of grammar where words are stored and morphological operations occur. Frequently used in a less formal sense in other approaches to describe a speaker’s internal list of morphemes.

Logical Form:

The point of the syntactic derivation where meaning is computed.

Metalanguage:

The language of linguistic analysis.

Minimalist Program:

Chomsky’s syntactic program centered around principles of “perfection,” economy, and simplicity.

Morpheme:

The smallest unit of linguistic meaning (to be revised).

Occam’s Razor:

The scientific principle that the simplest solution is typically the correct one.

Phonological Form:

The point of a syntactic derivation where the phonology and pronunciation are computed.

Phonology(Phonological):

The formal study of sounds and gestures in context.

Polysynthetic(Language):

A language that allows words to be built of complex morphology including having a single word function as a sentence.

Prefix:

A morpheme that attaches at the beginning of a word.

Productive:

An informal term used to describe morphological processes and forms that are common in a given language.

Regular:

A term used to describe morphological processes that are generally predictable based on general context. Contrast with

irregular

Semantics:

The formal study of meaning in language.

Sibilant:

A set of speech sounds defined by their higher amplitude or distinctive hiss. English sounds of this category include {s, z, ʃ, ʒ, , }.

Suffix:

A morpheme that attaches to the end of a word.

Suppletion:

An extreme form of morphological irregularity where the target morpheme is replaced entirely with a phonological dissimilar form.

Syntax:

The formal study of the structure of phrases and sentences.

Target Language:

The language being studied.

The Mirror Principle:

A proposed grammatical principle of grammar that demands that morphological operations that occur in the lexicon must be matched by syntactic operations and syntactic operations must be matched by morphological operations in the lexicon.

Voiced:

A speech sound produced with vibration in the vocal folds.

Voiceless:

A speech sound produced without vibration in the vocal folds.

General Problem Sets

GP1. PRODUCTIVITY [Basic]

Generate a list of at least 10 English words using prefixes like re‐ or un‐ that you feel are grammatical but are unlikely to hear very often. Then, look each up in standard dictionary – note which ones have dictionary entries and which ones do not. Describe any patterns you find.

GP2. DEFINING “WORDHOOD” [Basic]

In this chapter, we observed that the word recollate does not have an entry in the Merriam‐Webster Dictionary; however, it does have an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. What does this type of mismatch between dictionaries mean for wordhood definitions based on dictionary entries?

GP3. GLOSSING PRACTICE [Basic]

Provide full three‐line glosses for the following sentences and phrases.

Oscar recollated the documents.

Selikem unraveled the spool.

Fifteen hungry hippos

GP4. ANALYSIS AND GLOSSING [Intermediate]

Consider the following data from Hiaki, an Uto‐Aztecan language spoken primarily in Arizona and Sonora, concerning plurals. Examine the differences between the singular and the plural forms. Examine any differences that you find between different forms of plural. Hypothesize about what the morphological boundaries are for these Hiaki forms and provide glosses for each. Describe if you can what differences exist in the plural and why.

(A)

chiiva “goat”

(B)

chiivam “goats”

(C)

vo’ovok “toad”

(D)

vo’ovokim “toads”

(E)

kuupis “firefly”

(F)

kuupisim “fireflies”

(G)

uusi “child”

(H)

uusim “children”

(I)

maaso “deer (sg.)”

(J)

maasom “deer (pl.)”

(K)

tekil “job”

(L)

tekilim “jobs”

(M)

miisi “cat”

(N)

miisim “cats”

(O)

tevos “gopher”

(P)

tevosim “gophers”

(Q)

kameeyo “camel”

(R)

kameeyom “camels”

Problem thanks to Amy Fountain and Heidi Harley.

GP5. ANALYSIS AND GLOSSING – TATAR [Intermediate]

Examine the following data from Tatar, a Turkic language spoken primarily in Russia, and answer the questions below.

(A)

koščïklar

“little birds”

(B)

koščïklarnïŋ

“of the little birds”

(C)

koštan

“from the bird”

(D)

košïbïz

“our bird”

(E)

balïklarïbïz

“our fish (pl.)”

(F)

kaplar

“bags”

(G)

koščïk

“little bird”

(H)

balïkïm

“my fish”

(I)

kapčïk

“little bag”

(J)

balïkčïkïbïz

“our little fish”

(K)

balïknïŋ

“of the fish”

(L)

kapčïktan

“from the little bag”

(M)

kapka

“toward the bag”

(N)

balïklar

“fish (pl.)”

(O)

kapïbïznïŋ

“of our bag”

(P)

balïkka

“toward the fish (sg.)”

Part 1: Give the Tatar morphemes for the English equivalents of “bird,” “fish,” “bag,” and “my.”

Part 2: Provide glosses for examples A, B, C, I, J, L, and M.

Part 3: Based on the evidence you have from Parts 1 and 2, provide glosses for these new Tatar forms:

(Q) koščïkïbïz

(R) balïklarïmnïŋ

Part 4: Provided hypothesized Tatar translations of the following English phrases based on the evidence you have gathered:

(S) “of my little bag”

(T) “toward the little bird”

Problem thanks to Karen Baertsch based on data from Poppe (1963).

GP6. ANALYSIS AND GLOSSING [Intermediate]

Consider the following data in the table below from St. Lawrence Island/Central Siberian Yupik (Eskimo‐Aleut) spoken by about 900 people on St. Lawrence Island in Alaska and Chukotka Peninsula of Russia.

English translation

Stem (verb)

he/she/it “verb”ed

they (pl.) “verb”ed

die

tuqu‐

tuquuq

tuquut

come

tagi‐

tagiiq

tagiit

cry

qiya‐

qiyaaq

qiyaat

vacation

aqii‐

aqiiguq

aqiigut

go out

aane‐

aanuq

aanut

Laugh

nenglagh‐

nenglaghtuq

nenglaghtut

eat

negh‐

neghtuq

neghtut

Parse each form and provide a gloss for the forms found in the final two columns of the table. Describe and explain any allomorphy found in the data.

Problem thanks to Sylvia Schreiner based on data from Jacobson (2001).

GP7. DEFINING WORD [Intermediate]

Consider this definition of the term “word” generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT (and edited somewhat). What does this definition get correct? What does it miss out on? Large Language Models work, in large part, by drawing from existing texts. What, if anything, does this tell us about the general perception of words?

The concept of “word” is fundamental to human language, and understanding what a word is and how it functions is essential for effective communication. At its most basic level, a word is a unit of language that conveys meaning. Words are the building blocks of language, and they are combined in various ways to form sentences, paragraphs, and entire texts. A word can be a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a pronoun, a preposition, a conjunction, or an interjection, and each type of word has a specific function in a sentence.

One of the key characteristics of a word is its form. A word can be spoken or written, and it is made up of sounds or symbols that represent those sounds. In spoken language, a word is made up of one or more sounds that are pronounced together. For example, the word “cat” is made up of three sounds: /k/, /æ/, and /t/. In written language, a word is represented by one or more symbols that are usually grouped together with spaces between them. For example, the word “cat” is represented by three symbols: c, a, and t.

One of the challenges of defining a word is that it can be used in many different ways. For example, the word “run” can be used as a verb (e.g. “I run every morning”), a noun (e.g., “I went for a run”), or an adjective (e.g., “He's a run‐down old building”). Each of these uses of the word “run” has a slightly different meaning and function, but they are all still considered to be the same word.

Despite these challenges, linguists have developed several different ways of defining a word. One common definition is that a word is a unit of language that is separated by spaces in written language or pauses in spoken language. Using this definition, “cat” and “run” would be considered words, but “unbelievable” might be considered multiple words. Another definition is that a word is a unit of language that has a distinct meaning and can stand alone as a complete thought or idea. Using this definition, “unbelievable” would be considered a single word because it has a distinct meaning and can stand alone as a complete thought.

Part 2: Rewrite the above passage putting it in line with our discussion in this chapter.

Part 3: If available, use OpenAI’s ChatGPT (or a similar conversational model) to ask the question “what is a word?”. Provide the response that you get and explain what the response gets correct and what it gets incorrect. How does it differ from the response provided here?

Part 4: Rewrite the new passage putting it in line with our discussion in this chapter.

Challenge Problem Sets

CP. PRODUCTIVITY OF RE- [Challenge]

In this chapter, we claimed that re‐ could occur with most English verbs; however, we can note that it results in ungrammaticality with the following verbs. What commonalities can you note about these verbs? (Previous exposure to syntactic theory is helpful but not required.)

*The train rearrived.

*The bus redeparted.

*The vase resat on the table. (Note: “The hostess resat the party” is acceptable.)

CP2. PLURAL IN ENGLISH [Challenge]

Consider the following examples from English given in Set I. Consider and describe the contexts that make the plural morphology grammatical (consult with multiple speakers). Compare these to the examples in the chapter in your discussion.

Set I

(A)

“fish”

“fishes”

(B)

“sand”

“sands”

(C)

“water”

“waters”

Now consider the data in Set II. This data exhibits yet a different pattern when it comes to plural morphology. Describe it and discuss what it might mean for our approach to morphology.

Set II

(A)

“*pant (noun)”

“pants”

(B)

“*short (noun)”

“shorts”

(C)

“*scissor (noun)”

“scissors”

CP3. HAUSA [Challenge]

Consider the following data from Hausa (Niger, Nigeria, and Chad):

(A)

bugā`

“beat”

(B)

bubùgā

“keep on beating”

(C)

dafā`

“cook”

(D)

daddàfā

“keep on cooking”

(E)

nē`mā

“look for”

(F)

nànnēmā`

“look all over for”

(G)

kirā

“call”

(H)

kikkirā

“call various people”

In plain terms, describe how the “intensive” meaning (the meaning associated with continuing or successive action) is formed. You do not need to worry about the tones (indicated with the diacritic marks on the vowels).

Data from Kraft and Kirk‐Greene (1990[1973]).

Tausende von E-Books und Hörbücher

Ihre Zahl wächst ständig und Sie haben eine Fixpreisgarantie.

Sie haben über uns geschrieben: