<
>
Download

Zusammenfassung
Linguistik

Universität Zürich - UZH

Frühlingssemester 2017

George K. ©
8.00

1.48 Mb
sternsternsternsternstern_0.2
ID# 65896







Morphologie

·         Herkunft: Mittlerer Osten in der Antike (sehr alt)

·         Als Wissenschaft: jüngstes Teilgebiet in der Linguistik, ca. 150 Jahre alt

Morphologie = Studium der

·         Wortstruktur

·         Kombination von Morphemen zu einer grösseren Einheit

à Beispielmorpheme:

o   ‚Cats’ = 2 Morpheme: ‚Cat’ + ‚s’ (konkatenativ)

o   Mütter = 2 Morpheme, welche nicht trennbar sind (nicht konkatenativ)

Morphologie = Studium der Ko-Variation in Worten

·         Dog à dogs (SG à PL)

·         Tree à trees (SG à PL)

à sehr klar und einfach im Englischen, jedoch viel schwieriger beispielsweise im Deutschen aufgrund von Umlauten, irregulären Formen etc.


Syntheselevel einer Sprache = Anzahl Morpheme pro Wort

·         Analytic/isolating language (ca. 1 Morphem pro Wort) à z.B. Grönländisch (1.06)

·         (Poly)synthetic language (viele Morpheme pro Wort) à Vietnamesisch (3.72)

à diese Analyse kann problematisch sein aufgrund der nicht einheitlichen Definition von „Wort“

Lexeme: Everything that can’t be predicted

·         E.g. „Mann“ needs to be listed in the dictionary; „Mannes“ doesn’t need to, because there’s a rule for it à „Mannes“ is a word form

·         Adjectives like „windig“, „kindisch“, „männlich“ are lexemes, because due to their different and unpredictional ending they have to be listed

·         Lexemes are written in capital letters: MANN


Paradigm: Group of word forms in relation with each other

·         Mann, Mannes, Männern, etc.

à Inflections


Word/Lexeme family: group of lexemes in relation with each other but with different meanings

·         E.g. Mann, Mannschaft, bemannen, Männlichkeit, etc.

à Derivations


Aufgabe: forget, forgets, forgetting, forgetful, unforgetable:

·         1. Word form vs. Lexeme?

o   FORGET, FORGETFUL, UNFORGETABLE = lexemes

o   Forget, Forgets, forgetting = word forms of FORGET

·         2. Paradigm vs. Word family?

o   Forget, forgets, forgetting = paradigm (à inflection)

o   FORGET, FORGETFUL, UNFORGETABLE = word family (à derivation)


Base: relative starting point for morphological analysis (always last step back)

·         Read is the base of readable, readable is the base of readability

à only one step back only


Root: absolute base (never changes)

·         Read is the root of readable and readability

à back to the root



Bound

free

lexical

Cran(-berry) (Bound Roots)

Dog, house (Roots)

grammatical

-s, -ing, -able, un-,(Affixes)

And, of, in, not (Particles)

Aufgabe: unforgetfulness: Root, Base, Affixes

·         Root: forget

·         Base: unforgetful/forgetfulness

·         Affixes:

o   Prefix: un-

o   Suffix: -ful, -ness


Other Affixes:

·         Circumfixes: e.g. GE-gang-EN

·         Infixes: e.g. is-T-agala (arabic)


Allomorph: different realisations with the same meaning/function

·         E.g. plural form in English: –s is pronounced in different ways ([s] in „cats“, [z] in „dogs“, [ez] in „houses“

àphonological allomorphs

·         E.g. time in Spanish (Verb „gehen“):

o   Va-mos = present

o   Fu-imos = past

o   Ir-emos = future

à va-, fu-, ir- = Morphological conditioned allomorphs

·         E.g. plural forms: -s in „cats“, -en in „oxen“, 0 in „sheep“

Two operations:

·         Concatenative: involves the combination of segmentable morphological material

o   Cats à cat + s

o   Houses à house + s

·         Non-concatenative: change in morphological form that cannot be described in terms of segmentable material

o   Woman à women

o   Mouse à mice


Four classes of morphological operations:

·         Affixation: cats à cat + s

= word with specific content + grammatical morpheme

·         Compounding: school building à school + building

= two words with specific content

·         Base modification: arabic: darasa (learn) à darrasa (teach = make somebody learn); murle: nyoon (lamb) à nyoo (lambs); hindi: mar (die) à ma:r (kill); english: import (N) à import (V)

·         Reduplication

o   Complete: malagasy: hafa (different) à hafa-hafa (somewhat different)

o   Partial: ponpean: weak (confess) à weakak (be confessing)

o   With duplifix: somali:

§  buug (book) à buug-ag (books)

§  Fool (face) à fool-al (faces)

§  Koob (cup) à koob-ab (cups)

à one might argue duplifixation is a special case of affixation!

·         Conversion: hammer (V) à hammer (N); plant (V) à plant (N); etc.

à Affixation, Compounding, (Reduplication) = concatenative

à Base Modification, Reduplication, Conversion = non-concatenative


Exercise:

·         Kitab à kutub = base modification

·         Hortus à horto = affixation (standard cases in latin with the stam „hort“)

·         Savali à savavali = partial reduplication

·         [oef] à [oe] = base modification?

·         Dobry à najlepszy = Suppletion


Two Models

·         Morpheme-based model

o   Concatenative operations as prototype of morphological operations

o   Assumes that Morphology can be described in the same way as syntax

o   Morphological rules can either be formalized as word-structure rules or as lexical entries

à Phrase structure rules

§  Noun phrase English: NP à DET + ADJ + N

§  Determiner: DET = the

§  Adjective: ADJ = red

§  Noun: N = house

à the red house

à Word structure rules

§  Word form: WF à STEM (+ -ISFX)

§  Stem: ST à (DPFX- +) Root (+ -DSFX)

§  Root: ROOT = happy

§  Derivational prefix: DPFX = un-

§  Inflactional suffix: DSFX = -er

à un-happi-er

o   Lexical Entries are written as follows:

o   Advantages:

§  Treats Concatenation as the most fundamental type of morphological operation and thus offers a natural explanation for the dominance of this pattern

§  Can show the well-known model similarities between morphology and syntax in terms of linear ordering and hierarchical arrangement

à in syntax:

·         We need more (intelligent leaders)

·         We need (more intelligent) leaders

à in morphology:

·         Un-(do-able)

·         (un-do-)able

o   Disadvantages:

§  Difficulties to accommodate non-concatenative patterns like base modification and conversion à too restricted


·         Word-based model

o   No segmentation of complex words into concatenative segments, but formulation of word-schemas that represent features common to morphologically related words

o   Morphological rules are modeled as morphological correspondences which describe form-meaning correlations between different schemas and also specify the combinatorial potential of the relevant schemas

o   à Word schema for singular nouns:

à Word schema for plural nouns:

à Morphological correspondence between SG nouns scheme and PL nouns schema:

à other example:

§  Advantages:

ú  Non-concatenative patterns can be described naturally

ú  Can explain back-formations in elegant  manner: baby + sitter à babysitter à to babysit; à babsitter gab es vor babysit

à the morpheme-based model just assumes that new words are formed by combining morphemes (e.g. baby + to sit à to babysit) and not by subtracting (e.g. babysitter à to babysit)

ú  Can explain cross-formation in an elegant manner: To attract à attraction ßà attractive; *to aggress à aggression ßà aggressive;

à verb attract exists, aggress doesn’t

à the morpheme-based model just assumes that morphologically complex words have to be derived from a root. If that root doesn’t exist, the very existence of the derived words cant be explained!

·         Disadvantages:

o   Is non-restrictive and allows morphological processes that do not exist in natural languages

o   Has no good explanation for the dominance of concatenation

What is the lexicon?

·         Language user’s mental dictionary, which contains all the information necessary to create and understand words


What is inside of the lexicon?

·         Information not predictable from general rules

·         But disagreement whether the lexicon also contains predictable information


Theoretical approaches

·         Morpheme lexicon

·         Strict Word-form lexicon

·         Moderate word-form lexicon

Morpheme lexicon

·         Basic unit:individual morphemes, which are combined into complex words. Treats morphology like syntax: language users do not store every possible sentence, same for words

·         Advantage:

o   Small number of stems and affixes allows to create a massive amount of inflected word-forms (economical)

·         Disadvantages:

o   Cant model

§  non-concatenative morphology

ú  Mutter à Mütter

§  cumulative expressions

ú  Hort-us (garden-NOM.SG.M)

ú  hort-orum (garden-GEN.PL.M)

à not only one, but two meanings (Case & Number)

§  zero expressions

ú  Oli-n (i was)

ú  Oli-t (you where)

ú  Oli (he/she was)

§  empty morphs

ú  Absolutive: Sew

ú  Genitive: Sew-re-n

ú  Dative: Sew-re-z

ú  Subessive: Sew-re-k

§  non-compositional (additional) meaning

ú  e.g. read- + -er (someone who reads OR lecturer) à possible additional meanings are excluded

o   Can’t explain unproductive patterns

§  e.g. action nouns like arriv-al, deni-al, refus-al etc. are stable and not growing anymore and so are not always built anew from e.g. arrive and –al!

Strict word-form lexicon

·         Basic unit: entire word-forms, both simple and complex. Basic unit of analysis is the word (or word-form)

·         Advantage:

o   Can handle non-concatenative morphology

o   Can handle unproductive patterns

·         Disadvantage:

o   Not elegant/economical: even predictable forms are stored in the lexicon

o   Speakers of agglutinative languages (e.g. turkish = language with extremly morpheme-rich word-forms) don’t memorize thousands of possible word-forms

o   Phonological (e.g. rules of intonation (e.g. „there must be an ‘s’ when between to vocals“) and morphological patterns (e.g. „ge-kauft“ but „be-sprochen“) in certain languages that make reference to morphemic structure

Moderate morpheme-based lexicon

·         Basic unit: word-forms are primary, but morphological patterns are allowed as a second type of lexical entry. Some lexical words are listed, others are created on the fly

·         Word-schemas are created for different cases: e.g. „always if you have X, there are the suffixes z“. Or for example:

ê this listing gives the schema:

·         Challenge:

o   What is stored (direct route) and what is derived (decomposition)?

o   Process of looking up a word in the mental lexicon = “lexical acces”

o   Decomposition: eg. In- + sane à insane; direct route: eg. Insane à insane

§  Frequency (+ direct) à sane – insane vs. Helpful - unhelpful

§  Segmentability (+ decomposition) à man – men (built non-concenatively) vs. Dog – dogs (built concatenatively)

§  Allomorphy (+ direct) à divine [dɪvaɪn]divinity [dɪvɪnɪti]vs. Child – childhood

o   à this gives us a three-dimensional continuum, in which every word-form can be posited

à a word form is most likely to be stored, if

§  allomorphy is high

§  frequency is high

§  segmentability is low

Flow of language

·         There is not one lexicon shared by all speakers of a language. Rather, each speaker has his own lexicon, depending on education, profession, origin, etc.

·         Dictionaries contain the basic vocabulary of a language that consists of actually existing and common words that are expected to be shared by most speakers. These are called actual words

·         Additional, there are possible words that could theoretically exist, but are rarely or never used (e.g. „bagelize“ from the noun „bagel“)

Inflection and Derivation

·         Inflection = Relationship between the word-forms of a lexeme (usually listed in the dictionary)

o   E.g. Latin: insula, insulam, insulae, . à predictable forms

o   Always expresses certain functions, which are referred to as inflectional values

o   values can be classified into groups of values (inflectional categories) if they

§  express the same semantics (gleiche Bedeutung, z.B. number)

§  are mutually exclusive (schliessen sich gegenseitig aus, z.B. Singular und Plural)

o   E.g. read, readable, unreadable, reader, readability, reread, . à not predictable

Inflectional categories

·         On nouns, pronouns:

o   Number, case, gender, person

·         On Verbs

o   Number, person

o   only on verbs:

§  tense (present, future, past, .)

ú  specifies the temporal location of an event

§  aspect (perfective, imperfective, habitual, .)

ú  specifies the internal temporal structure of an event (e.g. he was cooking vs. He cooked)

§  mood (indicative, subjunctive, imperative, .)

ú  specifies the speaker’s subjective attitude to the event (e.g. he cooks vs. He might cook vs. He should cook)

à Interferences

§  Tense, aspect and mood are not always to keep apart because there are strong interferences between individual categories: e.g. value “perfective” and “present” are not compatible, because a perfective event has necessarily been completed and hence must belong to the past

§  Because of these interferences, the three categories are often subsumed under the umbrella term „TAM“ = time, aspect, mood

·         (On Adjectives, Demonstratives, Relative pronouns, Adpositions

o   Number, case, gender, person)

Derivation:

·         Usually described in terms of the word class of the input and the output

o   Input: noun (denominal), verb (deverbal), adjective (deadjectival)

o   output: noun (nominalizer), verb (verbalizer), adjective (adjectivizer)

o   inputs and outputs can be combined freely. For example:

§  -er: driver, dancer, singer = deverbal nominalizer

§   -al: national, professional, proportional = denominal adjectivizer

§  -al: atomize, authorize, popularize = denominal/deadjectival verbalizer

§  –bar: machbar = deverbal adjectivizer

§  -end: singend = deverbal adjectivizer

§  –lich: sterblich = deverbal adjectivizer

§  –ig: gläubig = deverbal adjectivizer

§  –ern: verschönern = deadjectival verbalizer

§  –en: kürzen = deadjectival verbalizer

§  –heit: Schönheit = deadjectival nominalizer

§  –tum: Reichtum = deadjectival nominalizer

§  –nis: Finsternis = deadjectival nominalizer

Dichotomy or continuum?

·         Is the distinction between inflection and derivation

o   gradual (continuum approach) or

o   absolute (dichotomy approach)

à before answering this question, one must think about the different parameters that set inflection and derivation apart from each other


Differences between inflection and derivation:

·         Relevance to syntax:

o   inflection is relevant to the syntax

o   derivation is not relevant to the syntax

à Problem: tense, aspect and mood are not obviously relevant for syntax, TAM-value of a verb does usually not depend on the presence/absence of other words in the same sentence

·         Obligatoryness:

o   inflectional features are obligatorily expressed on all applicable word-forms (eg. Latin noun: case is obligatory)

o   Derivational meanings are not obligatory expressed

·         Limitations:

o   inflectional values can be applied to their base without arbitrary limitations

o   derivational formations may be limited in an arbitrary way

à Problem: certain verb forms may have defective paradigms, they may simply lack certain inflectional forms = gaps in paradigms: E.g. english modals lack an infinitve and a gerund (*to can, *canning, *to may, *maying, etc.)

·         Same concept as base

o   canonical inflected word-forms express the same concept as the base (e.g insula/insulae à both refer to an island)

o   canonical lexemes express a new concept (e.g. schön/Schönheit à different concepts)

à Problem: sometimes there are meaning splits in inflected form (eg. Brother – brothers/brethren, which demonstrates that inflected word forms can become associated with idiosyncratic meaning

·         Abstractness:

o   inflectional values express a relatively abstract meaning

o   derivational meanings are relatively concrete

à Problem: derivational meaning can be highly abstract (eg. -hood), while inflectional meaning can be relatively concrete (eg. dual forms)

·         Meaning compositionality:

o   canonical inflected word-forms have compositional meaning

o   canonical derived lexemes have non-compositional meaning

à Problem: some derivational affixes have an entirely compositional meaning (e.g. German: -in)

·         Position relative to base

o   canonical inflection is expressed at the periphery of words

o   canonical derivation is expressed close to the root

à Problem: there are cases of inflection affixes being closer to the root than derivational suffixes (e.g. ver-schön-er-n)

·         Base Allomorphy

o   Inflection induces less base allomorphy

o   derivation induces more base allomorphy

à Problem: while the tendency may be correct, inflection may induce base allomorphy as well (e.g. sterblich (derivation), starb (inflection), stürbe (inflection))

·         Word-class change:

o   canonical inflection does not change the word-class of the base

o   derivational affixes may change the word-class of the base

à Problem: there are instances of derivation in which the base of a derivational processes still retains some morphosyntactic autonomy (e.g. mojeho bratr-ow-e dzeci = lit. My brotherly children à ‘mojeho’ agrees not with dzeci, but with bratrowe, and bratrowe agrees with dzeci)

·         Cumulative ecpressions:

o   inflectional values may be expressed cumulatively

o   derivational meaning are not expressed cumulatively

à Problem: some derivational affixes may express more than one meaning at a time (e.g. Dutch ‘-ster’ = female + agent)

·         Iteration:

o   inflectional values cannot be iterated

o   derivational meaning can sometimes be iterated

à Problem: while iterative derivation is attested, it is far too rare to be helpful as a diagnostic between inflection and derivation

·         Dichotomy approach: First three parameters are the most important

·         Continuum approach: No arbitrary line between ‘more important’ and ‘less important’! A morpheme may be more inflecional with regard to one property and more derivational wih regard to another aspect

·         Other Linguists: trichotomic view of inflection and postulate a distinction between inherent and contextual inflection

o   Inherent inflection comprises features that convey information that is usually independent of the syntactic context  (z.B. „das Mädchen“ ist Singular und sachlich)

o   Contextual inflection comprises features that convey information that is demanded by the syntactic context (z.B. „das Mädchen“ ist Akkusativ)

Inherent inflection often shares properties with derivation, whereas contextual inflection tends not to do so. Inherent inflection

·         is more prone to develop idiosynscratic meanings than contextual inflection (- same concept as base)

·         tends to be closer to the root than contextual inflection (position relative to base)

·         is more likely to induce base allomorphy than contextual inflection (+ base allomorphy)

Architecture of grammar

·         Dichotomy approach: derivation is always presyntactic, inflection is always post-syntactic (split-component-hypothesis à derivation happens first)

·         Continuum approach: derivation and inflectoin are part of one and the same grammatical component (single-component-hypothesis à both happens at the same time)

What is Productivity?

·         A property of morphological patterns and determines the likelihood that an extant morphological pattern is used to derive a new form

·         Productive patterns have a high likelihood to derive new forms, whereas non-productive patterns have a low likelihood

why worry about it?

·         Linguists interested in speaker’s competence (knowledge of rules), not performance (use of rules in discourse)

·         Some linguists argue that

o   productivity is a diachronic phenomenon that does not matter for synchronic description (= nicht nachvollziehbar/regelbasiert)

à but if productivity wouldn’t matter from a synchronic perspective, how would speakers know that the past tense form of the verb ‘to mide’ is ‘mided’ rather than ‘mid?

à productivity is an integral part of a speaker’s knowledge about the morphology of a language and morphological patterns cannot be adequately described without reference to it!

·         Some linguists argue that

o   Productivity can be reduced to selectional restrictions. So differences in productivity are just differences in selectional restrictions in terms of phonology, morphology, semantics, etc.

à but there are certain morphemes that are not restricted in any obvious way (e.g. the English ‘-let’), but are not productive at all!

Productivity and creativity

·         Some linguists draw a sharp line between productivity and creativity: productive formations are coined unconsciously and look natural/do not strike as new, whereas creative formations are coined consciously and look new/noticeable.

o   Problem:

§  what does consciousness/intentionality refer to here and how can we measure it?

§  Many neologisms are equally remarkable and noticeable

o   Solution:

§  creativity is the violation of language norms, the use of nonproductive patterns to form a new word

§  Creativity is thus not a concept that is distinct from productivity, but a concept that depends on (un)productivity

§  Productivity is not a dichotomic notion (productive/unproductive), but a gradient scale on which morphological patterns are arranged into more/less productive patterns

Productivity and restrictions on word-formation rules

·         Many morphological patterns are subject to some kind of selectional restrictions. E.g. nominalizer ‘–ity’ does not attach to adjectives ending in ‘-ish’, ‘y’, or ‘ful’: its domain of application is restricted

o   Definition of productivity with regard to domains: morphemes are productive if they can be routinely used to create new words within a domain à a morpheme with highly restrictive domain can still be productive

o   Definition of productivity irrespective of domains but in relation to the entire lexicon à a morpheme with highly restrictive domain can never be productive

Problem:

·         Even if one assumes that productivity is related to domain restrictions, morphological patterns can be largely unrestricted and still differ in terms of their productivity

·         Has something to do with the way that words are stored in the lexicon

Processing restrictions:

·         when an affix often occurs in words that are decomposed, it has a high probability of being stored as a separate morpheme and hence a high memory strength, others have a low memory strength

à high memory strength correlates with high productivity

·         if a complex word is less frequent than it’s base, it will be decomposed and contribute to the memory strength of the affix

à (e.g. modernity > modern + -ity)

·         if a complex word is more frequent than it’s base, it will be stored and not contribute to the memory strenght of the affix

à (e.g. security > secure + -ity)

·         So Productivity can be used as parsing ratio (for each affix: the proportion of words that are estimated to be decomposed à more words estimated decomposed = stronger productivity)

Synonymy blocking

·         Different morphological patterns can restrict each other through synonymy blocking

à e.g in English the suffix ‘-ity’ is highly productive, but there is a blocking of the adverb ‘*goodly’ because it already exists an adverb ‘well’

·         synonymy blockling related to the frequency of the blocking form

à highy productivity can be outdone by synonymy blocking!

Productivity and analogy

·         Analogical extension: sting – stung à fling – X ? àhow can such a restricted pattern still be productive?

·         analogical extension = application of a productive word-based rule (Bild oben)

à diese Regel ist strikt, lässt aber trotzdem neue Formen zu, wenn die Form passt

·         Productivity is tied to words in the lexicon! The number of words that instantiate (realisieren) a certain pattern determines the strength of the pattern


·         Number of actual words formed according to a certain pattern= type frequency

o   Problem: type-frequency not the same as productivity: e.g. English ‘-ment’ is extremely frequent but not productive

o   Extremely good dictionary needed

·         Number of possible words that can be formed by a certain pattern

o   Problem: restrictions on possible formations are often too elusive (schwer fassbar, flüchtig) to be captured: e.g. random restrictions on English en- / em-)

o   Difficult question: what actually is a possible word?

·         Ratio of actual words to possible words formed with a pattern

o   Problem: builds on the problematic concept of the “possible word”

·         Number of neologisms (new word forms) with a certain pattern within a fixed time period (diachronic productivity)

o   Advantage: reasonable proxy for productivity

o   But extremely good dictionary/corpus needed

·         Category-conditioned productivity: the ratio of hapax legomena with a given pattern to the total token frequency of words with that pattern

o   hapax legomenon = a word that occurs only once within a context, either in the written record of an entire language, in the works of an author, or in a single text


o   Extremely good dictionary/corpus needed

o   Only diachronic study is possible

·         Hapax-conditioned productivity: the ratio of hapax legomena with a given pattern to the total number of all hapax legomena


o   Advantages: reasonable proxy for productivity, can measure productivity at any point in time

o   But extremely good dictionary/corpus needed

Compound = lexeme consisting of two or more base lexemes

·         N + N (z.B. Hausdienst)

·         A + N (z.B. Hardware)

·         V + N (z.B. Laufjunge)

·         N + V (z.B. babysit)

·         N + A (z.B. vogelfrei)

·         A + A (z.B. bittersüss)


Heads

·         Semantic head:

o   Semantically more important member of the compound

o   Determines what the compound “is about”

·         Formal head

o   Morphosyntactically more important member of the compound

o   Locus of morphosyntactic marking/morphosyntactic properties


Side of formal head

·         Right-headed compounds

o   Formal Head = the right member of the compound (e.g. English light year à light years)

·         Left-headed compounds

o   Formal Head = left member of the compound (e.g. Spanish año luz àaños luz)


·         Endocentric compounds

o   Semantic Head = member of the compound

§  English: “lipstick” = Lippenstift

§  Spanish: “pez espada” =Schwertfisch

§  Swedish: “spraklärare” = Sprachlehrer)

·         Exocentric compounds

o   Semantic Head is outside of the compound

§  German: “Taugenichts” = Jemand, der für nichts gut ist

§  Greek: “kako-bios” = having a bad life

§  Italian: “lavapiatti” = lit. washing dishes = dishwasher

·         Coordinative compounds

o   Two semantic heads with equal status denoting separate referents

§  English: “bitters-weet

§  Hindi “mata|pita” = Mother and father

·         Appositional compounds

o   Two semantic heads with equal status denoting the same referent

§  English “player-coatch

§  Spanish “poeta-pintor” = poet who is also a painter

§  English “bitter-sweet


Typological differences between languages, e.g.:

·         Unrestricted compounding

o   In German: Eintopf à Fleischeintopf à Rindfleischeintopf à Hochlandrindfleischeintopf

·         Restricted compounding

o   In French: potage à *boeuf potage

·         Frequent N-V compounding

o   In Alutor: “I washed my hands” is said as literally “I hand-washed” (= (noun) incorporation) à N-V-Compounding doesn’t exist in e.g. English or German


Morphological trees

·         Hierarchical structure in compounds can be illustrated with morphological trees

Hierarchical structure in derivation

·         Derived lexemes can also be modeled with morphological trees

·         Derived lexemes can also display an internal hierarchical structure

Excursus: scope

·         English “You must not come” vs. German “du musst nicht kommen” à substantial difference in necessity meaning (it is necessary for you not to come vs. it is not necessary for you to come)


Parallels between Syntax and morphology

·         Morphology can – at least to some extent – be described with the same methods like syntax

·         Question: how similar are morphology and syntax?

o   Theory 1: compounds and derived lexemes both have internal structure/formal heads, so word-internal structure is governed by syntactic principles!

o   Theory 2: the formal differences between morphology and syntax are substantial, so word-internal structure is independent of syntactic principle!

·         How strong are the parallels between syntax and compounds/ derivation? Four criterias:

o   locus of marking (full parallels)


o   government (no parallels)

o   agreements (no parallels)


o   Visualization of Locus of Marking, Government and Agreement:

o   Summary: how strong are the parallels?


Two relations between linguistic units:

·         Syntagmatic: words standing next to each other, e.g. “ich – sehe – den - Hund

·         Paradigmatic: units in the syntagmatic relation that can be replaced by other units, e.g. ich – schlage/beisse/rufe – den – Hund/Mann/Mäuserich

à morphology can be analyzed from both points of view:

Inflection classes = set of paradigms with the same inflectional pattern

·         e.g. o- and u-declension in Latin (see picture) à these both are inflection classes, because every Latin noun ending with ‘-us’ follows one of the two classes

·         can be due to

o   phonological criteria (e.g. classes due to amount of syllables)

o   morphological criteria (e.g. classes due to specific base)

o   semantic criteria (e.g. classes due to transitivity/intransitivity)

·         inflection class and gender

o   inflection classes sometimes correspond with gender, but there are exceptions! E.g. la man-o (Italian), el agu-a (Spanish)

o   New inflectional classes generally tend to absorb loanwords and neologisms and also attract members from less productive classes


Paradigmatic relations

·         We’ve already seen: Relations between the members of a lexeme family with morphological correspondence schemes

·         Also relations between members of a paradigm

·         Inflectional class shift

o   inflectional class shift can be described in terms of morphological correspondences between paradigmsà shift to another class because of same forms

inheritance hierarchies = inflectional classes grouped into hierarchies of rule-schemes

·         abstraction over two paradigms (slides à V=Vowel, Z = any segment including zero)



ê

·         Default rule

o   Allow lower-level nodes to override specifications inherited from higher-level nodes. The relevant forms are marked by an exclamation mark in brackets <(!)>

Other important concepts

·         Prisianic forms = forms in a paradigm that are derived from another form in that paradigm

·         Syncretism = formal identity of functionally distinct forms (e.g. er spielt, ihr spielt; wir spielen, sie spielen)

o   Systematic = show up systematical in all paradigms

o   If syncretic forms can be described in terms of the same inflectional values, they are said to form a natural syncretism (e.g. wir spielen, sie spielen: beide Plural)

·         Defectiveness = unmotivated lack of word-forms for a lexeme

o   E.g. im Spanischen gibt es für das Verb “abolir” im Präsens nur die 1. und 2. Person Plural (= Lücken im Paradigma ‘Personangabe im Präsens)

·         Deponency = expression of an inflectional value with the “wrong” marker

o   E.g. hortor (Latin) ist marked as passive word, but has a active meaning

·         Periphrasis = expression of an inflectional value by means of a multi-word phrase

o   Lexical: lack of word-forms for certain values in specific lexemes

§  E.g. active, *activer, *activest (à active, more active, most active)

o   Paradigmatic: lack of word-forms for certain values in an entire word-class (here passive + perfect/pluperfect)

o   Categorical: lack of word-forms in an entire word-class for a specific grammatical category

What is a word?


| | | | |
Tausche dein Hausarbeiten