CHAPTER II MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

§ 1. The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic structure of words. It follows from this that morphology as part of grammatical theory faces the two segmental units: the morpheme and the word. But, as we have already pointed out, the morpheme is not identified otherwise than part of the word; the functions of the morpheme are effected only as the correspond­ing constituent functions of the word as a whole.

For instance, the form of the verbal past tense is built up by means of the dental grammatical suffix: train- ed [-d]; publish- ed [-t]; meditat- ed [-id].

However, the past tense as a definite type of grammatical meaning is expressed not by the dental morpheme in isolation, but by the verb (i.e. word) taken in the corresponding form (realized by its morphemic composition); the dental suffix is immediately related to the stem of the verb and together with the stem constitutes the temporal correlation in the paradigmatic system of verbal categories.

Thus, in studying the morpheme we actually study the wordinthe necessary details of its composition and functions.

§ 2. It is very difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time universal definition to the word, i.e. such a definition as would un­ambiguously apply to all the different word-units of the lexicon. This difficulty is explained by the fact that the word is an extremely complex and many-sided phenomenon. Within the framework of dif­ferent linguistic trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal potential sentence, the minimal free linguistic form, the el­ementary component of the sentence, the articulate sound-symbol, the grammatically arranged combination of sound with meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately identifiable lingual unit, the uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc., etc. None of these defini­tions, which can be divided into formal, functional, and mixed, has the power to precisely cover all the lexical segments of language without a residue remaining outside the field of definition.

The said difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from ac­cepting the word as the basic element of language. In particular, American scholars - representatives of Descriptive Linguistics founded by L. Bloomfield - recognized not the word and the sentence, but the phoneme and the morpheme as the basic categories of linguistic de­scription, because these units are the easiest to be isolated in the continual text due to their "physically" minimal, elementary segmen­tal character: the phoneme being the minimal formal segment of language, the morpheme, the minimal meaningful segment. Accord­ingly, only two segmental levels were originally identified in language by Descriptive scholars: the phonemic level and the morphemic level; later, a third one was added to these-the level of "constructions", i.e. the level of morphemic combinations.

In fact, if we take such notional words as, say, water, pass, yel­low and the like, as well their simple derivatives, e.g. watery, passer, yellowness, we shall easily see their definite nominative function and unambiguous segmental delimitation, making them beyond all doubt into "separate words of language". But if we compare with the given one-stem words the corresponding composite formations, such as waterman, password, yellowback, we shall immediately note that the identification of the latter as separate words is greatly complicated by the fact that they themselves are decomposable into separate words. One could point out that the peculiar property distinguishing com­posite words from phrases is their linear indivisibility, i.e. the impos­sibility for them to be divided by a third word. But this would-be rigorous criterion is quite irrelevant for analytical word-forms, e.g.: has met-has never met; is coming-is not by any circumstances coming.

As for the criterion according to which the word is identified as a minimal sign capable of functioning alone (the word understood as the "smallest free form", or interpreted as the "potential minimal sentence"), it is irrelevant for the bulk of functional words which cannot be used "independently" even in elliptical responses (to say nothing of the fact that the very notion of ellipsis is essentially the opposite of self-dependence).

In spite of the shown difficulties, however, there remains the unquestionable fact that each speaker has at his disposal a ready stock of naming units (more precisely, units standing to one another in nominative correlation) by which he can build up an infinite number of utterances reflecting the ever changing situations of real­ity.

This circumstance urges us to seek the identification of the word as a lingual unit-type on other lines than the "strictly operational definition". In fact, we do find the clarification of the problem in taking into consideration the difference between the two sets of lin­gual phenomena: on the one hand, "polar" phenomena; on the other hand, "intermediary" phenomena.

Within a complex system of interrelated elements, polar phenom­ena are the most dearly identifiable, they stand to one another in an utterly unambiguous opposition. Intermediary phenomena ate lo­cated in the system in between the polar phenomena, making up a gradation of transitions or the so-called "continuum". By some of their properties intermediary phenomena are similar or near to one of the corresponding poles, while by other properties they are similar to the other, opposing pole. Either of the two poles together with the intermediary elements connected with it on the principle of gra­dation, forms a "field". The polar elements of this field constitute its "centre", the non-polar elements, respectively, its "periphery".

The analysis of the intermediary phenomena from the point of view of their relation to the polar phenomena reveal their own sta­tus in the system. At the same time this kind of analysis helps evaluate the definitions of the polar phenomena between which a continuum is established.

In this connection, the notional one-stem word and the mor­pheme should be described as the opposing polar phenomena among the meaningful segments of language; it is these elements that can be defined by their formal and functional features most precisely and unambiguously. As for functional words, they occupy intermediary positions between these poles, and their very intermediary status is gradational. In particular, the variability of their status is expressed in the fact that some of them can be used in an isolated response po­sition (for instance, words of affirmation and negation, interrogative words, demonstrative words, etc.), while others cannot (such as prepositions or conjunctions).

The nature of the element of any system is revealed in the character of its function. The function of words is realized in their nominative correlation with one another. On the basis of this corre­lation a number of functional words are distinguished by the "negative delimitation" (i.e. delimitation as a residue after the identification of the co-positional textual elements),* e.g.: the/people; to/speak; by/way/of.

* See: Смирницкий А.И. К вопросу о слове (проблема «отдельности сло­ва»). // Вопросы теории и истории языка. М., 1955.

The "negative delimitation" immediately connects these functional words with the directly nominative, notional words in the system. Thus, the correlation in question (which is to be implied by the conventional term "nominative function") unites functional words with notional words, or "half-words" (word-morphemes) with "full words". On the other hand, nominative correlation reduces the mor­pheme as a type of segmental signeme to the role of an element in the composition of the word.

As we see, if the elementary character (indivisibility) of the mor­pheme (as a significative unit) is established in the structure of words, the elementary character of the word (as a nominative unit) is realized in the system of lexicon.

Summing up what has been said in this paragraph, we may point out some of the properties of the morpheme and the word which are fundamental from the point of view of their systemic status and therefore require detailed investigations and descriptions.

The morpheme is a meaningful segmental component of the word; the morpheme is formed by phonemes; as a meaningful com­ponent of the word it is elementary (i.e. indivisible into smaller segments as regards its significative function).

The word is a nominative unit of language; it is formed by mor­phemes; it enters the lexicon of language as its elementary compo­nent (i.e. a component indivisible into smaller segments as regards its nominative function); together with other nominative units the word is used for the formation of the sentence - a unit of informa­tion in the communication process.

§ 3. In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic struc­ture of the word was conducted in the light of the two basic crite­ria: positional criterion (the location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones) and semantic or functional criterion (the correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the word). The combination of these two criteria in an integral de­scription has led to the rational classification of morphemes that is widely used both in research linguistic work and in practical lingual tuition.

In accord with the traditional classification, morphemes on the upper level are divided into root-morphemes (roots) and affixal mor­phemes (affixes). The roots express the concrete, "material" part of the meaning of the word, while the affixes express the specificational part of the meaning of the word, the specifications being of lexico-semantic and grammatico-semantic character.

The roots of notional words are classical lexical morphemes.

The affixal morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and inflexions (in the tradition of the English school, grammatical inflexions are commonly referred to as "suffixes"). Of these, prefixes and lexical suffixes have word-building functions, together with the root they form the stem of the word; inflexions (grammatical suffixes) express different morphological categories.

The root, according to the positional content of the term (i.e. the border-area between prefixes and suffixes), is obligatory for any word, while affixes are not obligatory. Therefore one and the same morphemic segment of functional (i.e. non-notional) status, depending on various morphemic environments, can in principle be used now as an affix (mostly, a prefix), now as a root. Cf.:

out - a root-word (preposition, adverb, verbal postposition, adjec­tive, noun, verb);

throughout - a composite word, in which -out serves as one of the roots (the categorial status of the meaning of both morphemes is the same);

outing - a two-morpheme word, in which out- is a root, and -ing is a suffix;

outlook, outline, outrage, out-talk, etc. - words, in which out- serves as a prefix;

look-out, knock-out, shut-out, time-out, etc. - words (nouns), in which -out serves as a suffix.

The morphemic composition of modern English words has a wide range of varieties; in the lexicon of everyday speech the prefer­able morphemic types of stems are root stems (one-root stems or two-root stems) and one-affix stems. With grammatically changeable words, these stems take one grammatical suffix (two "open" gram­matical suffixes are used only with some plural nouns in the posses­sive case, cf:. the children's toys, the oxen's yokes).

Thus, the abstract complete morphemic model of the common English word is the following: prefix + root + lexical suffix + grammatical suffix.

The syntagmatic connections of the morphemes within the model form two types of hierarchical structure. The first is characterized by the original prefixal stem (e.g. prefabricated), the second is charac­terized by the original suffixal stem (e.g. inheritors). If we use the symbols St for stem, R for root, Pr for prefix, L for lexical suffix, Gr for grammatical suffix, and, besides, employ three graphical sym­bols of hierarchical grouping-braces, brackets, and parentheses, then the two morphemic word-structures can be presented as follows:

§ 4. Further insights into the correlation between the formal and functional aspects of morphemes within the composition of the word may be gained in the light of the so-called "allo-emic" theory put forward by Descriptive Linguistics and broadly used in the cur­rent linguistic research.

In accord with this theory, lingual units are described by means of two types of terms: allo-terms and eme-terms. Eme-terms denote the generalized invariant units of language characterized by a certain functional status: phonemes, morphemes. Allo-terms denote the con­crete manifestations, or variants of the generalized units dependent on the regular co-location with other elements of language: allo-phones, allomorphs. A set of iso-functional allo-units identified in the text on the basis of their co-occurrence with other lingual units (distribution) is considered as the corresponding eme-unit with its fixed systemic status.

The allo-emic identification of lingual elements is achieved by means of the so-called "distributional analysis". The immediate aim of the distributional analysis is to fix and study the units of language in relation to their textual environments, i.e. the adjoining elements in the text.

The environment of a unit may be either "right" or "left", e.g.: un-pardon-able.

In this word the left environment of the root is the negative prefix un-, the right environment of the root is the qualitative suffix -able. Respectively, the root -pardon- is the right environment for the prefix, and the left environment for the suffix.

The distribution of a unit may be defined as the total of all its environments; in other words, the distribution of a unit is its envi­ronment in generalized terms of classes or categories.

In the distributional analysis at the morphemic level, phonemic distribution of morphemes and morphemic distribution of morphemes are discriminated. The study is conducted in two stages.

At the first stage, the analysed text (i.e. the collected lingual materials, or "corpus") is divided into recurrent segments consisting of phonemes. These segments are called "morphs", i.e. morphemic units distributionally uncharacterized, e.g.: the/boat/s/were/gain/ing/ speed.

At the second stage, the environmental features of the morphs are established and the corresponding identifications are effected.

Three main types of distribution are discriminated in the distributional analysis, namely, contrastive distribution, non-contrastive dis­tribution, and complementary distribution.

Contrastive and non-contrastive distributions concern identical environments of different morphs. The morphs are said to be in contrastive distribution if their meanings (functions) are different. Such morphs constitute different morphemes. Cf. the suffixes -(e)d and -ing in the verb-forms returned, returning. The morphs are said to be in non-contrastive distribution (or free alternation) if their meaning (function) is the same. Such morphs constitute "free alter-nants", or "free variants" of the same morpheme. Cf. the suffixes -(e)d and - t in the verb-forms learned, learnt.

As different from the above, complementary distribution concerns different environments of formally different morphs which are united by the same meaning (function). If two or more morphs have the same meaning and the difference in their form is explained by dif­ferent environments, these morphs are said to be in complementary distribution and considered the allomorphs of the same morpheme. Cf. the allomorphs of the plural morpheme /-s/, /-z/, /- iz / which stand in phonemic complementary distribution; the plural allomorph - en in oxen, children, which stands in morphemic complementary distribution with the other allomorphs of the plural morpheme.

As we see, for analytical purposes the notion of complementary distribution is the most important, because it helps establish the identity of outwardly altogether different elements of language, in particular, its grammatical elements.

§ 5. As a result of the application of distributional analysis to the morphemic level, different types of morphemes have been dis­criminated which can be called the "distributional morpheme types". It must be stressed that the distributional classification of morphemes cannot abolish or in any way depreciate the traditional morpheme types. Rather, it supplements the traditional classification, showing some essential features of morphemes on the principles of environ­mental study.

We shall survey the distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs of immediate correlation.

On the basis of the degree of self-dependence, "free" mor­phemes and "bound" morphemes are distinguished. Bound mor­phemes cannot form words by themselves, they are identified only as component segmental parts of words. As different from this, free morphemes can build up words by themselves, i.e. can be used "freely".

For instance, in the word handful the root hand is a free morpheme, while the suffix -ful is a bound morpheme.

There are very few productive bound morphemes in the mor­phological system of English. Being extremely narrow, the list of them is complicated by the relations of homonymy. These mor­phemes are the following:

1) the segments -(e)s [ -z, -s, -iz]: the plural of nouns, the pos­sessive case of nouns, the third person singular present of verbs;

2) the segments -(e)d [-d, -t, -id]: the past and past participle of verbs;

3) the segments -ing: the gerund and present participle;

4) the segments -er, -est the comparative and superlative degrees of adjectives and adverbs.

The auxiliary word-morphemes of various standings shouldbeinterpreted in this connection as "semi-bound" morphemes, since, being used as separate elements of speech strings, they form categorial unities with their notional stem-words.

On the basis of formal presentation, "overt" morphemes and "covert" morphemes are distinguished. Overt morphemes are gen­uine, explicit morphemes building up words; the covert morpheme is identified as a contrastive absence of morpheme expressing a certain function. The notion of covert morpheme coincides with the notion of zero morpheme in the oppositional description of grammatical cat­egories (see further).

For instance, the word-form clocks consists of two overt mor­phemes: one lexical (root) and one grammatical expressing the plural. The outwardly one-morpheme word-form clock, since it expresses the singular, is also considered as consisting of two morphemes, i.e. of the overt root and the covert (implicit) grammatical suffix of the singular. The usual symbol for the covert morpheme employed by linguists is the sign of the empty set: Ø.

On the basis of segmental relation, "segmental" morphemes and "supra-segmental" morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as supra-segmental morphemes in distributional terms are intonation contours, accents, pauses.

The said elements of language, as we have stated elsewhere, should beyond dispute be considered signemic units of language, since they are functionally bound. They form the secondary line of speech, accompanying its primary phonemic line (phonemic complexes). On the other hand, from what has been stated about the morpheme proper, it is not difficult to see that the morphemic in­terpretation of supra-segmental units can hardly stand to reason. In­deed, these units are functionally connected not with morphemes, but with larger elements of guage: words, word-groups, sentences, supra-sentential constructions.

On the basis of grammatical alternation, "additive" morphemes and "replacive" morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as additive morphemes are outer grammatical suffixes, since, as a rule, they are opposed to the absence of morphemes in grammatical alternation. Cf. look + ed, small + er, etc. In distinction to these, the root phonemes of grammatical interchange are considered as replacive morphemes, since they replace one another in the paradigmatic forms. Cf. dr-i-ve - dr-o-ve - dr-i-ven; m-a-n - m-e-n; etc.

It should be remembered that the phonemic interchange is ut­terly unproductive in English as in all the Indo-European languages. If it were productive, it might rationally be interpreted as a sort of replacive "infixation" (correlated with "exfixation" of the additive type). As it stands, however, this type of grammatical means can be understood as a kind of suppletivity (i.e. partial suppletivity).

On the basis of linear characteristic, "continuous" (or "linear") morphemes and "discontinuous" morphemes are distinguished.

By the discontinuous morpheme, opposed to the common, i.e. uninterruptedly expressed, continuous morpheme, a two-element grammatical unit is meant which is identified in the analytical grammatical form comprising an auxiliary word and a grammatical suffix. These two elements, as it were, embed the notional stem; hence, they are symbolically represented as follows:

be... ing - for the continuous verb forms (e.g. is going);

have... en - for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone);

be... en -for the passive verb forms (e.g. is taken).

It is easy to see that the notion of morpheme applied to the an­alytical form of the word violates the principle of the identification of morpheme as an elementary meaningful segment: the analytical "framing" consists of two meaningful segments, i.e. of two different morphemes. On the other hand, the general notion "discontinuous constituent", "discontinuous unit" is quite rational and can be help­fully used in linguistic description in its proper place.

Поиск по сайту: