Morphemes

Audience participation: Identify the morphemes in Die alte Katze nagt lustlos an fauligem Fisch. die, alt, e, katze, nag, t, lust, los, an, faul, ig, em, fisch Audience participation: classify these morphemes into free and bound bound morphemes: free: die, alt, katze, nag, lust, an, faul, fisch bound: all others (e, t, los, ig, em)
Grammatical / Inflectional Morpheme: creates different form of the same lexeme Lexical / Derivational Morpheme: creates different lexeme

Audience participation: which of the bound morphemes are grammatical, grammatical, which are lexical? grammatical: e, t, em lexical: los, ig

Morphemes
The basic unit of morphology is the morpheme. A morpheme can be described as a set of equivalent morphs, ie. linguistic linguistic signs that can not be dissected into smaller signs and can thus be glossed 'smallest meaningful units'. In many cases, the set of morphs representing a morpheme has only only one element. In other cases, depending on the respective environment of the morpheme, it may be represented by a number of different morphs, ie. its allomorphs. Morphemes can be further subdivided into those that can appear on on their own (free morphemes) and those that can only appear in combination combination with other morphemes (bound morphemes). On a 'functional' stratum, we can distinguish between grammatical grammatical morphemes (creating different wordword-forms of the same lexeme) and lexical morphemes (creating different lexemes)

Affix, Root, Stem, Base

When analyzing words that have some internal structure, we may feel feel that the morphemes the words consist of do not have equal status: status: some morphemes of complex words seem to be more 'central' than other elements. Audience Participation: Identify the 'central' elements: helpful, sending, unjust, hymns, breakage, renew, grandly helpful, sending, unjust, hymns, breakage, renew, grandly Root A root is the base form of a word which cannot be further analysed analysed without total loss of identity. It is that part of the word left when all the affixes are removed. Audience Participation: Identify the roots: knowingly, brainlessness, ministerially, untainted, actions, paranormality, paranormality, unreheated, rediscover, insufferable, disinherited knowingly, brainlessness, ministerially, untainted, actions, paranormality, unreheated, rediscover (arguably! more to come!), insufferable, disinherited

Affix, Root, Stem, Base

Affix The term 'affix' is a collective term for the types of morphemes that can only be used in combination with other morphemes - ie for bound morphemes. Depending on the position where the affix is attached we can differentiate between
Prefix A prefix is an affix preceedes a base: unun-tidy, disdis-honest, irir-regular Suffix A suffix is an affix which follows a base: dogdog-s, kickkick-ed, ed, nationalnational-ise Infix An infix is an affix which is added within a base. Infixation is not a morphological process in English. Compare German German stan stand - stehen. Often cited: Homer Simpson (vio(vio-mama-lin, saxosaxo-mama-phone), expletive infixation (fan(fan-fuckingfucking-tastic) Circumfix A circumfix is an affix which spans a base. Circumfixation is not a morphological process in English. Compare Compare Berber amdakul: "friend" / tt- amdakul -t "friend (Fem)"

Affix, Root, Stem, Base

We can futher distinguish between grammatical (=inflectional) and and lexical (=derivational) affixes. Grammatical/inflectional affixes serve to distinguish the various various wordwordforms within a lexeme, ie kick, kickkick-s, kickkick-ed - horse, horsehorse-s - sick, sicksick-er, er, sicksick-est Lexical/derivational affixes serve to create a new lexeme, ie touch, touchtouch-able, able, unun-touchable, respect, respectrespect-ful, ful, disdis-respectful Audience Participation: Identify all roots and affixes in the following following words. Are the affixes prepre- or suffixes, grammatical or lexical? actors - unreheated - hymns - disinherited - renew - ministerially grandly - linked - unlocking - lockable roots: act - heat - hymn - inherit - new - minister - grand - link - lock prefix (lexical): unun-, rere-, disdis-, reresuffix (lexical): -or, -ial, -ly, -able suffix (grammatical): -s, -ed, -ing

Affix, Root, Stem, Base

Stem A stem is that part of a word to which grammatical / inflectional affixes are added. It may consist - amongst others a) solely of a single root morpheme (i.e. a simple stem as in dog), or of b) two root morphemes (i.e. a compound stem, as in blackbird), or of c) a root morpheme plus a derivational affix (i.e. a complex stem, stem, as in unscrew) a): cats: single root morpheme: cat + inflectional suffix -s b): crowbars: two root morphemes (crow + bar) + inflectional suffix -s c): inventions: root morpheme invent + lexical suffix -ion + inflectional suffix -s Audience Participation: Identify and describe the stems in the following following words: housewives - tightened - consultants - unbuckles
housewives: stem housewife / two root morphemes house + wife tightened: stem tighten / root morpheme tight + lexical suffix -en consultants: stem consultant / root morpheme consult + lexical suffix suffix -ant unbuckles: stem unbuckle / root morpheme buckle + lexical prefix unun-

Affix, Root, Stem, Base

Base Every form to which an affix can be added is a base. Every root and every stem is a thus a base. The set of bases, however, is larger than the union of all roots and stems, because the process of affixation applies recursively. EXAMPLE: untouchable Lexical prefix unun- + touchable. touchable is not a root (it is complex, consisting of the root touch + lexical suffix -able). touchable is not a stem, either - it is not an inflectional form. untouchable
lexical prefix

unun-

touchable
base

touch
root (base)

lexical suffix

-able

Affix, Root, Stem, Base

Base Any structure to which an affix may be added Stem Any base to which a grammatical affix may be added Root Morpheme on which the rest of the word is built Grammatical affix adds grammatical meaning to the meaning of the stem it is attached attached to Lexical affix forms seperate lexemes by being attached to a base

Audience Participation: analyse the following words: handbags, presently, misstatement, truthfulness, reinvent, bathrooms bathrooms

Affix, Root, Stem, Base

handbags, presently, misstatement, truthfulness, reinvent, bathrooms bathrooms handbags
(base) stem: handbag, two roots: hand / bag, grammatical suffix -s

presently
(base) root: present, lexical suffix -ly

truthfulness
(base) root: truth, lexical suffix -ful, base truthful, lexical suffix -ness

reinvent
(base) root: invent, lexical prefix re-

bathrooms
(base) stem: bathroom, two roots: bath / room, grammatical suffix -s

misstatements
(base) root: state, lexical prefix mis-, base misstate, lexical suffix -ment, (base) stem misstatement, grammatical suffix -s

Reading CarstairsCarstairs-McCarthy (CMC)

Auf den n nchsten Slides geht es um das 3. Kapitel aus der Introduction to English Morphology von CarstairsCarstairs-McCarthy. Sie hatten f fr die Lekt Lektre der ersten 3 Kapitel, die einen Seitenumfang von ca. 25 Seiten haben, drei Wochen Zeit. Der Text richtet sich an Studierende der Anglistik, ist also kein Fachtext f fr Linguisten. Es ist also wenig Text auf studentengerechten Niveau. Wie Sie selbst gemerkt haben, konnten aber nur die wenigsten (in der MittwochMittwoch-Session: ein einziger Teilnehmer) auf die Fragen, die in der Sitzung zu diesem Text gestellt wurden, sinnvoll antworten. Auf den nchsten Seiten geht es darum, a) gezielt die Textstellen zu zeigen bzw. zu besprechen, die f fr die Frage jeweils relevant sind b) aufzuzeigen, dass zum 'richtigen' Verst Verstndnis eines Fachtextes sehr viel mehr geh gehrt, als ggf. eine Reihe der im Text vertretenen Fakten als kleine isolierte Wissenseinheiten zu 'pauken'

Reading CMC
Question 1: Are affixes always bound morphemes? Question 2: In today's class, we have defined the root as...

How does this definition compare with what CMC says about roots? Question 3: If affixes are always bound anyway, why do we need the terms 'affix' 'affix' and 'root' - why not just use 'bound' and 'free' morpheme? Question 4: Part 1: Which analyses of reduce does CMC discuss (Section 3.5)? Part 2: Which arguments does CMC present against the monomorphemic analysis? Part 3 (and this is the kriegsentscheidende question): Which general point does CMC try to exemplify by discussing this problem?

the base form of a word which cannot be further analysed without total loss of identity. It is that part of the word left when all the affixes are removed.

Reading CMC
Question 1: Are affixes always bound morphemes?
This is a pretty straightstraight-forward question, and you will find just as as straightstraightforward an answer in CMC (page 20). If you are asked to read something something which contains uncontested statements of this sort, you are in fact expected expected to know them. A possible answer to Question 1 is thus: according to CMC, affixes are always bound morphemes.

Note the fact that CMC refers to a set of prefixes and suffixes, which are not part of the Flie Flietext on page 20. Instead, they appear on page 19: This is something you will encounter frequently in linguistic texts. In cases like these, make sure to look up the examples again. This furthers understanding and helps to 'flesh out' the abstract statements with concrete data. Do not read a book like CMC 'from start to end' - be prepared to flick forward and back when dealing with this kind of literature.

Reading CMC
Question 2: In today's class, we have defined the root as...
the base form of a word which cannot be further analysed without total loss of identity. It is that part of the word left when all the affixes are removed. removed.

How does this definition compare with what CMC has to say about roots?
A first thing to note is the fact that CMC introduces the concept concept 'root' without actually calling it that - he glosses it the 'core' of a word (p. 18), and only later introduces the term 'root'. With respect to the word helpfulness, CMC writes:

Reading CMC
Question 2: In today's class, we have defined the root as...
the base form of a word which cannot be further analysed without total loss of identity. It is that part of the word left when all the affixes are removed. removed.

How does this definition compare with what CMC has to say about roots?
As you can see, the two descriptions of 'root' are not identical. identical. The important point, though, is that they do in fact relate to one another: What is being referred to as a 'total loss of identy' in the description description given in class correlates with CMC's 'most precise and concrete element in its meaning'. Applied to the word helpfulness, this results in the same element as a root: help. The 'part of the word left when all affixes are removed' correlates with CMC's CMC's analysis of help being that part that alone can stand on its own. CMC implicitly mentions a further aspect of roots, namely the fact fact that they are quite often shared as central elements by a number of different words - he mentions helper, helpfulness, unhelpful etc. in connection with the root help. This ascpect of the concept 'root' may exceed the definition given in class - still, these two description can be mapped. The thing for you to note is that constructs like root (or stem, affix, morpheme, noun, verb and so on) will be presented differently by different authors. It is your job to find similiarities (and possible differences) between different different approaches and relate them to one another - if you don't do this, these constructs will for ever remain elusive.

Reading CMC
Question 3: If affixes are always bound anyway, why do we need the terms 'affix' 'affix' and 'root' - why not just use 'bound' and 'free' morpheme?
You find the passage relevant for this question on page 20:

The important thing to note about this passage is not its actual content, but they manner in which this content is presented to the reader.

Reading CMC
Question 3: If affixes are always bound anyway, why do we need the terms 'affix' 'affix' and 'root' - why not just use 'bound' and 'free' morpheme?
Note that CMC does not just state the appropriate answer (affixes (affixes may all be bound, but roots are not necessarily always free). Instead, he seems seems to anticipate a certain reaction the readers may have in response to what read: read: a question like 'If affixes are always bound, do not 'bound morpheme' and 'affix' 'affix' mean essentially the same' is not a questions that CMC asks but a question that he he presumes YOU may ask. To profit from the answer given, you must first have an understanding understanding of the question. That means that you have to follow the authors' line of of argumentation. This is not achieved if you regard a linguistic text (or any other other scientific text) as a conglomeration of facts to be learned or even learned 'by heart' - you are not dealing with Paukstoff here, but with scientific reasoning. Note that in the passage cited, CMC yet again refers to a set of linguistic data that is not itself part of the passage (or even the page) - again, you are expected to recapitulate the examples in question.

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 1: Which analyses of reduce does CMC discuss (Section 3.5)? A) reduce is bimorphemic, can thus be divided into re- and -duce, rere- is a morpheme with two allomorphs: /ri/ and /r/

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 1: Which analyses of reduce does CMC discuss (Section 3.5)? B) reduce is bimorphemic, can thus be divided into re- (/r/) and -duce, /ri/ and /r/ are two different morphemes:

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 1: Which analyses of reduce does CMC discuss (Section 3.5)? C): C): reduce is monomorphemic, can not be divided into smaller units

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 1: Which analyses of reduce does CMC discuss (Section 3.5)? CMC thus presents 3 different ways of dealing with a word like reduce: reduce

bimorphemic: rere- + -duce

monomorphemic: [reduce]
Rejects bimorphemic analysis and treats reduce as a root

{/ri/, /r/}
reduce, revisit, rewrite, reconstruct, remind etc.: morpheme {re} comprises two allomorphs. Meaning: something like again, backward movement (NOTE: this is not a very clear description)

{/ri/} {/r/]}
return, restore: /rtn/ / n/ vs /ritn ritn/ / vs /rist / /rst st/ rist/

Different meanings of r and ri, therefore two different morphemes

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 2: Which arguments does CMC present against the monomorphemic analysis?

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 2: Which arguments does CMC present against the monomorphemic analysis?

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 2: Which arguments does CMC present against the monomorphemic analysis? a) reduce - induce - seduce - produce b) reduction - induction - seduction - production Compare: a) receive - conceive - deceive - perceive b) reception - conception - deception - perception If the words in the aa-list were considered to be monomorphemic, there would be no way of describing the systematic relation between sets sets a and b respectively.

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 3: Which general point does CMC try to exemplify by discussing this problem?

Note that CMC refers to the section in question at the very beginning of the 3rd chapter, when he makes mention of the fact that it is 'risky to tie the identification fo morphemes too closely to their meaning'.

Reading CMC
Question 3: Part 3: Which general point does CMC try to exemplify by discussing this problem?
At the end of the 3rd chapter, CMC critically discusses the definitions of the term 'morpheme' which refer to it as a unit of meaning. Although this correlation does exist in many cases, there are certain words in which this mapping is not given. The case of reduce was one example. As you can see, you are quite falsch gewickelt if you want a linguistic linguistic (or any scientific) text to provide you with readyready-made statements to be learned by heart. Instead, you can expect different approaches to one and the same problem, each of which may have its own advantages and disadvantages. You will have have to follow the arguments presented and the line of argumentation the author employs employs in order to really and fully grasp what you read. Favorite quote in this context context (courtesy of F. v. Bhm): die Universit Universitt ist keine Talibanschule.