Appunti di Morfosintassi inglese

WFProcesses for coinage of new lexemes from existing ones

FEAR > gives birth to, produces > FEARLESS > ear = noun (denotes a state/ condition); fearless= adjective(denotes a property) > suffixation

It is the suffix that is responsible for the shift in meaning > the suffix has a meaning on its own(ex: selfless, useless, homeless > they all are adjectives -from a grammatical point of view- and theirmeaning can be paraphrased as “without something”) > the lexemes that share a formal feature share alsothe meaning

LARGE > ENLARGE > adjective; + prefix > verb > prefixation

The lexemes that begin with en- are very likely to be verbs coined out from existing adjectives

BOOK & SHOP > BOOKSHOP > compounding

Each element contributes to the overall meaning of the new lexeme. There is a shift in meaning and in thegrammatical category

PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER > PIN > each letter in PIN stands for a lexeme > putting together theinitials

letters of a phrase > acronyms

Much shorter; unless you know the original lexeme, it is difficult to understand what each letter stands for

BREAKFAST & LUNCH > BRUNCH > we squeeze together the words > blending

Etc….➢ They share some part of the word. The new lexeme (output lexeme) still maintains a part or some parts of the original lexeme/s (input lexeme)

The output lexeme tends to be more complex (longer) than the input lexeme> formal aspect

+ Shortening > umbrella term that can include different type of word-formation processes

Aspects and features to take into account when we refer to shortening:

Origin

Features involved

Productivity

Context

Degree of formality

Relationship between existing lexeme(s) and new one(s)

Formal?

Semantic?

Both?

Some related words in English

Column 1

They are all common countable nouns + they all denote a person of some kind > semantic feature

• relationship in lexical meaning: ‘person’ of some kind

• not reflected in

any shared form - they don't share a formal feature

Man / woman - pronounced differently

Beggar / mother - Same pronunciation - spelled differently

Semantic relatedness BUT no shared morphological structure

The lexemes within column one share a semantic feature, but this is not reflected in any formal feature

Column 2 Relationship reflected in:

• a shared form - But men/women: internal modification same function as ending
• They are all plural forms and they all are regular plurals, except "men" and "women" which are irregular plurals - they exhibit a formal likeness by the final "s"
• a shared grammatical meaning: 'plural number'

Column 3 Relationship reflected in:

• a shared form
• Their relationship is reflected by the same form (they all end in -ly) and a shared class - they all belong to the same grammatical class = they are all adjectives
• a shared lexical meaning: 'of a person'

• a shared form = they all end in -ness
• a shared lexical meaning: ‘condition of a person/ the state of’ of some kind

• Shopkeeper
• Party-goer
• Singer
• Higher

element into which a word can be segmented: morph

Deforestation > de-forest-ation

Dogs > dog-s

Parliamentarian > parliament-ar(y)i-an

Inexpensive > in-expens(e)-ive

Laughed > laugh-ed

Active > act-ive

Types of morphs

Each morph can’t be further segmented but some of them can stand on their own: they are in fact lexemes of PDE vocabulary = free morphs > they have a meaning of their own. They can stand as independent lexical units/ elements (within a language)

Others need to be attached (can’t stand on their own) = bound morphs > not all of them possess a meaning of their own

This distinction particularly applies to languages which are poor in inflection (/ inflectional morphology), such as English

This distinction relies on the meaning the morphs convey

Roots > original input lexeme, original morph of a lexeme. it conveys the core meaning of the lexeme > A morph which conveys the core meaning of a lexeme (It can’t be furthermore subdivided)

Most roots are

also free morphs in PDE

Affixes > morphs which can’t be turned into roots

They can either precede the root = prefixes (they are all derivational) but they can also follow it = suffixes

Suffixes can be subdivided >A further distinction has to be made. It is based on the function that the suffixes perform

Derivational > they create a new lexeme

Infl. Affix > they create word-forms

Only some verbs admit -ment, only some verbs admit -ance or -ence > these restrictions are called constraints (and they depend on the characteristics of the input lexeme)

De- was added before than -ation > if you add -ation before than -de, what you get is a lexeme that doesn’t exist

Through the derivative process you always have to get a lexeme which exists in the language and has a meaning

- Function words: for, at, in, and, do/did, have/has/had (aux), be/was/were (aux), etc.

Conjunctions, prepositions

(en)clitics (i.e. contracted auxiliaries and contracted negatives): ˈs, ˈm, ˈre,

‘ve, Vn’t

FREE or BOUND?

From a phonetic point of view, they can stand on their own (we are not focusing on meaning or grammar). They can be considered independent lexical units, free morphs. They don’t need any other elements to function

In terms of their meaning, they behave more like inflectional suffixes > they are required by the grammar of the language, but they don’t have a meaning of their own (they can’t be roots)

convert, revert, subvert, etc.

perceive, deceive, receive, etc.

transmit, commit, remit, admit, submit, etc.;

transfer, refer, prefer, defer, confer, etc.

dental, dentist, dentistry, etc.

Relatedness in any shared form between words in each group?

All the words in the first 4 groups are verbs

Con + vert; re + vert; sub + vert

Per + ceive

Neither morph within each lexeme is free. How can we have lexemes formed by only bound morphs?

These are all lexemes which English has borrowed from Latin (all the elements that compose them are borrowed)

In the last group,

they all share dent- (which was borrowed from Latin) and they can be distinguished by the suffixes (which weren’t borrowed)

The shared element is responsible for the core meaning of each lexeme

From a synchronic point of view they are bound morphs, but they were free in the source language. In addition, we can understand their meaning only if we refer to their meaning in the source language > If we simply focus on their internal structure and we put together the meaning of the two bound morphs it is difficult to understand their meaning

Bound morphs:

> bound roots: often foreign borrowings; were free in source language, but not in English

Very difficult to state their meaning; we need to know the language they come from, their history or etymology

Types of morph based on form and distribution

Productive inflectional endings of modern English

Productive vs. non-productive or remnant morphs > they indicate how the language functioned before. They testify to how English used to sound

and function. Also called "linguistic fossils"+ All the word forms that don't exhibit an -s in the plural number are words that have been in the language for a very long time

How many morphs can there be?•English: an upper normal limit of 6

Number of morphs into which a lexeme can be broken down/ subdivided

The longest lexeme in PDE consists of 7 morphs (including derivational and inflectional ones)

Summary of morph types

Prefixes and suffixes > division based on their distribution

Endings = inflectional suffixes

Dual-use suffixes in PDE vocabulary

There are a few English suffixes that seem to be on the border between inflection and derivation. The deverbal suffix -er is one such. One of its functions is to produce an agent noun from a verb – the form of the noun you use when you want to talk about someone who is performing the action represented by the verb from which the noun has been coined: Sue is a singer (< to sing). That use is clearly derivational.

The suffix has another function, too, however – it turns verbs/nouns into nouns that reference the tool/instrument used to carry out the action represented by the verb from which they are coined (i.e. cooker) or the affected object, i.e. the object/entity affected by the verbal action (e.g. tooth-picker, etc.). That use is also derivational.

The suffix has also an inflectional use - it inflects monosyllabic adjectives and adverbs into the comparative degree. That use is required by the grammar of the language (You can’t say *Bill is high than Thomas.)

Some morphs provide lexical meaning (which can be paraphrased, and it is the type that