MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF WORDS
LECTURE 5
1. Types of Morphemes
It has been stated that words are indivisible contrary to phrases, which are divisible. But their statement is true only in the sense that no other word can cut in between its parts. In other senses words may be divided into smaller parts: for example, there exists division into syllables (e.g., o/ver/po/pu/la/tion). Here the constituents – syllables – are meaningless, the division has only phonetic value. But the same word may be divided into smaller meaningful parts (e.g., over/popul/ation). This is division into morphemes, which are defined as the smallest meaningful units of language (Gr. morphe «form», -eme «smallest»).
According to the type of meaning and linguistic function morphemes are divided into 2 types: roots and affixes. Roots are bearers of invariable lexical meaning: e.g., beautiful, dancer. Affixes serve to form new words and transform the meaning of the word in a certain way. They are subdivided into suffixes and prefixes. Suffixes may be derivational, which serve to form new words, e.g., leader, gladly and functional, serving to build different forms of the same, word, e.g., played, asks. Derivational suffixes are the object of lexicology; functional suffixes are dealt with in grammar. So, a suffix (a derivational one) is a derivational morpheme following the stem and forming a new derivative in a different part of speech or a different class of words, e.g., broad (n) – broaden (v), just (adj.) – justly (adv.), child (class noun) – childhood (abstract noun).
A prefix is a derivational morpheme standing before the root and modifying its meaning in a certain way (e.g., to negation – unjust, to degree – overpopulation, to time – aftereffects, etc.). Prefixes form new words mostly in the same part of speech, except with verbs (e.g., to belittle, to endear) and words of the category of state (e.g., asleep, abroad). So, the difference between suffixes and prefixes is not only positional, but also functional and semantic.
When affixes are taken away a stem remains. Stems may be simple (e.g., -true in untrue) or derived (e.g., untru- in untruly).
Morphemes may be free and bound. Free morphemes can stand alone, bound ones cannot, e.g., move- is a free stem, and -ment is a bound suffix.
There are some borderline cases between roots and affixes, free and bound forms. E.g., the form -man in sportsman looks the same as the noun man, but its meaning is more generalized. In this generalized meaning it does not occur alone. These borderline forms are called semi-affixes. Here also belong such suffixes as -like, -proof, -monger, -wise, -friendly, etc. They are also semi-bound (child-like, kiss-proof, clockwise, computer-friendly).
Some morphemes may vary in their sound and/or graphic form due to their environment. Their meanings remain unchanged. These positional variants of morphemes are called allomorphs (Gr. alios – «other», morphe – «form»). Allomorphs exist among all kinds of morphemes: among roots (e.g., poor -poverty), suffixes (e.g., generation, admission, justification, etc.), prefixes (e.g., incapable, illiterate, impossible, irrational, enslave, embed).
2. Ways of Analyzing Morphemic Structure
Every time we come across a polymorphic word we try to find out its meaning by means of analyzing it into its constituent parts. E.g., indescribable is analyzed into in-, -describ-, -able. When doing so, we consciously or unconsciously compare the structure of the given word with other words related to it in structure. E.g., comparing indescribable with untrue, unhappy and with eatable, readable, etc., we single out similar elements of their structure and derive the meaning of the word in question. Linguistic methods of analysis are aimed at explicating these half-conscious ways. They are wholly based on the concept of system in language: analysis of even single words is based on their relations with other words in their subsystem.
The notion of system lies at the basis of the widely used Analysis into Immediate Constituents. (IС analysis)
Immediate Constituents (IС’s) are two meaningful parts into which any utterance (a word, a word-group, or a sentence) immediately falls, e.g.: good / boy; un/mistakable.
This method is based on the idea that morphologically divisible words are involved in a set of structural relations. So, the adjective unmistakableis comparable with untrue, unlike, etc. The prefix un- recurs in all these words, therefore it can be isolated as a morpheme. Analyzing the stem mistakable further (into IС’s) we isolate -able by analogy with mistakable, comparable, readable. Mistake- further falls into mis- and -take(Cf.: misjudge, mispronounce). As a result of analyzing the remaining stem into Immediate Constituents at all the stages we get Ultimate Constituents (UC's) – the morphemes which the word falls into. The stages of the IС analysis can be shown in a formula: un + [(mis + tak) + able].
The IС analysis is aimed at making clear the motivation of the word. In many cases it also shows its word-building history, as in the example above, though it is not always so. E.g., to blacklist falls into the IC's black- and -list, but its structure does not explain how the verb was derived.
The Method of Oppositions brings out the word-building history of the word better. An opposition is a relation of partial difference between partially similar elements, as in bore: boredom (: is the sign of opposition). Here the similar feature bore is the basis of opposition, and -dom is its distinctive element. An opposition is real if it recurs in language at least twice. The opposition bore: boredom is real because it is part of the correlation bore: boredom = slave: slavedom. It brings out the morphological structure of the words boredom and slavedom, as well as their motivation and the way in which they were formed.
But in other cases the morphological structure of the words cannot explain their word-building history. For example, the verb to blacklist obviously consists of two stems, but it is not coined by means of composition. It is the result of conversion, in the same way as to tiptoe, to bottle, or to sound. Its word-building history can be found by means of the method of opposition:
to blacklist : blacklist(n) = to tiptoe : tiptoe(n) = to sound : sound(n). So the possibilities of the method of opposition are broader. Cf. also: to vacuum-clean : vacuum-cleaner = to baby-sit: babysitter = to beg: beggar, where the IC's are vacuum- and -clean, baby- and -sit, but the verbs to vacuum-clean, to baby-sit are formed from the nouns vacuum-cleaner and babysitter by means of taking away the suffix -er.
3. Some Dubious Cases of Segment ability of Words.
Unique Morphemes and Pseudomorphemes
A morpheme should satisfy two conditions:
1) it must be recurrent in at least 2 words;
2) it must be meaningful.
But in some cases only one of them is fulfilled, so it is doubtful whether the words are divisible or not.
I. Let us consider the words: conceive, receive, contain, retain. The segments con-, re-, -tain, -ceive recur in at least two words. But they are meaningless. So it is doubtful if these words are divisible into morphemes. Opinions differ on this account: some linguists consider that they belong to the «conditional» type of segmentability, and that their IC's are conditional «pseudomorphemes». They only serve to distinguish between words and have no meaning of their own. Others consider such words indivisible.
II. In the noun pocket the suffix -et stands out very clearly. It has a diminutival meaning, it occurs in other words (locket, trinket). So it is undoubtedly a morpheme. But its first IС pock- is never repeated. This kind of segmentability is known as «defective», and the morpheme, which does not recur in other words, is called a «unique» morpheme. Some more examples of unique morphemes: ham- in hamlet, cran- in cranberry.
4. Morphemic Structure of Words
Words may be analyzed from the point of view of their morphemic composition (morphemic types of words) and from the point of view of their word-building history (word-building types). Compare several approaches:
I. Morphemic Types of Words:
 |
II. Word-building Types of Words (according to I.V. Arnold):
1. Simple root words, e.g., blue.
2. Derivative words (affixal derivatives), e.g., bluish.
3. Compound words, e.g., sky-blue, bluebell.
4. Derivational compounds, e.g., blue-eyed.
III. Classification of structural types of words (according to T.I. Arbekova):
1) Simple words:
1. root words
a) full, e.g., history
b) shortened, e.g., story
2. derivatives
a) full, e.g., miserable
b) shortened, e.g., mizzy
2) Compound words:
1. non-affixal
a) including full simple stems, e.g., love-lost, love-affair
b) including one or more shortened stems, e.g., V-day, lab-work, D.C.
2. compound derivatives
a) including full simple and derived stems, e.g., wood-pecker, opener-upper
b) including full derived and shortened stems, e.g., lab-assistant.