In linguistics, morphology is the study of words, how they are formed, their relationship to other words in the same language. It analyzes the structure of words and parts of words, such as stems, root words and suffixes. Morphology looks at parts of speech and stress, the ways context can change a word's pronunciation and meaning. Morphology differs from morphological typology, the classification of languages based on their use of words, lexicology, the study of words and how they make up a language's vocabulary. While words, along with clitics, are accepted as being the smallest units of syntax, in most languages, if not all, many words can be related to other words by rules that collectively describe the grammar for that language. For example, English speakers recognize that the words dog and dogs are related, differentiated only by the plurality morpheme "-s", only found bound to noun phrases. Speakers of English, a fusional language, recognize these relations from their innate knowledge of English's rules of word formation.
They infer intuitively. By contrast, Classical Chinese has little morphology, using exclusively unbound morphemes and depending on word order to convey meaning; these are understood as grammars. The rules understood by a speaker reflect specific patterns or regularities in the way words are formed from smaller units in the language they are using, how those smaller units interact in speech. In this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word formation within and across languages and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers of those languages. Phonological and orthographic modifications between a base word and its origin may be partial to literacy skills. Studies have indicated that the presence of modification in phonology and orthography makes morphologically complex words harder to understand and that the absence of modification between a base word and its origin makes morphologically complex words easier to understand. Morphologically complex words are easier to comprehend.
Polysynthetic languages, such as Chukchi, have words composed of many morphemes. The Chukchi word "təmeyŋəlevtpəγtərkən", for example, meaning "I have a fierce headache", is composed of eight morphemes t-ə-meyŋ-ə-levt-pəγt-ə-rkən that may be glossed; the morphology of such languages allows for each consonant and vowel to be understood as morphemes, while the grammar of the language indicates the usage and understanding of each morpheme. The discipline that deals with the sound changes occurring within morphemes is morphophonology; the history of morphological analysis dates back to the ancient Indian linguist Pāṇini, who formulated the 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology in the text Aṣṭādhyāyī by using a constituency grammar. The Greco-Roman grammatical tradition engaged in morphological analysis. Studies in Arabic morphology, conducted by Marāḥ al-arwāḥ and Aḥmad b. ‘alī Mas‘ūd, date back to at least 1200 CE. The linguistic term "morphology" was coined by August Schleicher in 1859; the term "word" has no well-defined meaning.
Instead, two related terms are used in morphology: word-form. A lexeme is a set of inflected word-forms, represented with the citation form in small capitals. For instance, the lexeme eat contains the word-forms eat, eats and ate. Eat and eats are thus considered. Eat and Eater, on the other hand, are different lexemes. Thus, there are three rather different notions of ‘word’. Here are examples from other languages of the failure of a single phonological word to coincide with a single morphological word form. In Latin, one way to express the concept of'NOUN-PHRASE1 and NOUN-PHRASE2' is to suffix'-que' to the second noun phrase: "apples oranges-and", as it were. An extreme level of this theoretical quandary posed by some phonological words is provided by the Kwak'wala language. In Kwak'wala, as in a great many other languages, meaning relations between nouns, including possession and "semantic case", are formulated by affixes instead of by independent "words"; the three-word English phrase, "with his club", where'with' identifies its dependent noun phrase as an instrument and'his' denotes a possession relation, would consist of two words or just one word in many languages.
Unlike most languages, Kwak'wala semantic affixes phonologically attach not to the lexeme they pertain to semantically, but to the preceding lexeme. Consider the following example:kwixʔid-i-da bəgwanəmai-χ-a q'asa-s-isi t'alwagwayu Morpheme by morpheme translation: kwixʔid-i-da = clubbed-PIVOT-DETERMINERbəgwanəma-χ-a = man-ACCUSATIVE-DETERMINERq'asa-s-is = otter-INSTRUMENTAL-3SG-POSSESSIVEt'alwagwayu = club"the man clubbed the otter with his club."That is, to the speaker of Kwak'wala, the sentence does not contain the "words"'him-the-otter' or'with-his-club' Instead, the markers -i-da, referring to "man", attaches not to the noun bəgwanəma but to the verb.
V2 word order
In syntax, verb-second word order places the finite verb of a clause or sentence in second position with a single constituent preceding it, which functions as the clause topic. V2 word order is common in the Germanic languages and is found in Northeast Caucasian Ingush, Uto-Aztecan O'odham, fragmentarily in Rhaeto-Romansh Sursilvan. Of the Germanic family, English is exceptional in having predominantly SVO order instead of V2, although there are vestiges of the V2 phenomenon. Most Germanic languages do not use V2 order in embedded clauses, with a few exceptions. In particular, German and Afrikaans revert to VF word order after a complementizer. Kashmiri VF order in relative clauses; the following examples from German illustrate the V2 principle: Sentences a–d have the finite verb spielten in second position, with varying constituents in first position. Sentences e and f sentences are unacceptable because the finite verb no longer appears in second position. V2 word order allows any constituent to occupy the first position as long as the second position is occupied by the finite verb.
The V2 principle regulates the position of finite verbs only. Non-finite verbs in V2 languages appear in varying positions depending on the language. In German and Dutch, for instance, non-finite verbs appear after the object in clause final position in main clauses. Swedish and Icelandic, in contrast, position non-finite verbs after the finite verb but before the object; that is, V2 operates on only the finite verb. Germanic languages vary in the application of V2 order in embedded clauses, they fall into three groups. In these languages, the word order of clauses is fixed in two patterns of conventionally numbered positions. Both end with positions for non-finite verb forms, and, adverbials. In main clauses, the V2 constraint holds; the finite verb must be in sentence adverbs in position. The latter include words with meanings such as'not' and'always'; the subject may be position, but when a topical expression occupies the position, the subject is in position. In embedded clauses, the V2 constraint is absent.
After the conjunction, the subject must follow. Thus, the first four positions are in the fixed order conjunction, sentence adverb, finite verb The position of the sentence adverbs is important to those theorists who see them as marking the start of a large constituent within the clause, thus the finite verb is seen as inside that constituent in embedded clauses, but outside that constituent in V2 main clauses. Swedish Danish So-called Perkerdansk is an example of a variety. Norwegian Faroese Unlike continental Scandinavian languages, the sentence adverb may either precede or follow the finite verb in embedded clauses. A slot is inserted here for the following sentence adverb alternative. In these languages there is a strong tendency to place some or all of the verb forms in final position. In main clauses, the V2 constraint holds; as with other Germanic languages, the finite verb must be in the second position. However, any non-finite forms must be in final position; the subject may be in the first position, but when a topical expression occupies the position, the subject follows the finite verb.
In embedded clauses, the V2 constraint does not hold. The finite verb form must be adjacent to any non-finite at the end of the clause, with different word-order in different languages. German grammarians traditionally divide sentences into fields. Subordinate clauses preceding the main clause are said to be in the first field, clauses following the main clause in the final field; the central field contains most or all of a clause, is bounded by left bracket and right bracket positions. In main clauses, the initial element is said to be located in the first field, the V2 finite verb form in the left bracket, any non-finite verb forms in the right bracket. In embedded clauses, the conjunction is said to be located in the left bracket, the verb forms in the right bracket. In German embedded clauses, a finite verb form follows any non-finite forms. German Dutch This analysis suggests a close parallel between the V2 finite form in main clauses and the conjunctions in embedded clauses; each is seen as an introduction to its clause-type, a function which some modern scholars have equated with the notion of specifier.
The analysis is supported in spoken Dutch by the placement of clitic pronoun subjects. Forms such as ie cannot stand alone, unlike the full-form equivalent hij; the words to which they may be attached are those same introduction words: the V2 form in a main clause, or the conjunction in an embedded clause. Equivalent rules exist in vernacular German, for example regarding the reduced pronunciation of du. Hence, this pronoun may be pronounced or following verbs and conjunctions, but not otherwise. Dutch differs from German in its word order in subordinate clauses. In Dutch subordinate clauses two word orders are possible for the verb clusters and are referred to as the "
In linguistics, a word is the smallest element that can be uttered in isolation with objective or practical meaning. This contrasts with a morpheme, the smallest unit of meaning but will not stand on its own. A word may consist of a single morpheme, or several, whereas a morpheme may not be able to stand on its own as a word. A complex word will include a root and one or more affixes, or more than one root in a compound. Words can be put together to build larger elements of language, such as phrases and sentences; the term word may refer to a spoken word or to a written word, or sometimes to the abstract concept behind either. Spoken words are made up of units of sound called phonemes, written words of symbols called graphemes, such as the letters of the English alphabet; the difficulty of deciphering a word depends on the language. Dictionaries categorize a language's lexicon into lemmas; these can be taken as an indication of what constitutes a "word" in the opinion of the writers of that language.
The most appropriate means of measuring the length of a word is by counting its syllables or morphemes. When a word has multiple definitions or multiple senses, it may result in confusion in a debate or discussion. Leonard Bloomfield introduced the concept of "Minimal Free Forms" in 1926. Words are thought of as the smallest meaningful unit of speech; this correlates phonemes to lexemes. However, some written words are not minimal free forms; some semanticists have put forward a theory of so-called semantic primitives or semantic primes, indefinable words representing fundamental concepts that are intuitively meaningful. According to this theory, semantic primes serve as the basis for describing the meaning, without circularity, of other words and their associated conceptual denotations. In the Minimalist school of theoretical syntax, words are construed as "bundles" of linguistic features that are united into a structure with form and meaning. For example, the word "koalas" has semantic features, category features, number features, phonological features, etc.
The task of defining what constitutes a "word" involves determining where one word ends and another word begins—in other words, identifying word boundaries. There are several ways to determine where the word boundaries of spoken language should be placed: Potential pause: A speaker is told to repeat a given sentence allowing for pauses; the speaker will tend to insert pauses at the word boundaries. However, this method is not foolproof: the speaker could break up polysyllabic words, or fail to separate two or more linked words. Indivisibility: A speaker is told to say a sentence out loud, is told to say the sentence again with extra words added to it. Thus, I have lived in this village for ten years might become My family and I have lived in this little village for about ten or so years; these extra words will tend to be added in the word boundaries of the original sentence. However, some languages have infixes; some have separable affixes. Phonetic boundaries: Some languages have particular rules of pronunciation that make it easy to spot where a word boundary should be.
For example, in a language that stresses the last syllable of a word, a word boundary is to fall after each stressed syllable. Another example can be seen in a language that has vowel harmony: the vowels within a given word share the same quality, so a word boundary is to occur whenever the vowel quality changes. Not all languages have such convenient phonetic rules, those that do present the occasional exceptions. Orthographic boundaries: See below. In languages with a literary tradition, there is interrelation between orthography and the question of what is considered a single word. Word separators are common in modern orthography of languages using alphabetic scripts, but these are a modern development. In English orthography, compound expressions may contain spaces. For example, ice cream, air raid shelter and get up each are considered to consist of more than one word. Not all languages delimit words expressly. Mandarin Chinese is a analytic language, making it unnecessary to delimit words orthographically.
However, there are many multiple-morpheme compounds in Mandarin, as well as a variety of bound morphemes that make it difficult to determine what constitutes a word. Sometimes, languages which are close grammatically will consider the same order of words in different ways. For example, reflexive verbs in the French infinitive are separate from their respective particle, e.g. se laver, whereas in Portuguese they are hyphenated, e.g. lavar-se, in Spanish they are joined, e.g. lavarse. Japanese uses orthographic cues to delim
Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, is the earliest historical form of the English language, spoken in England and southern and eastern Scotland in the early Middle Ages. It was brought to Great Britain by Anglo-Saxon settlers in the mid-5th century, the first Old English literary works date from the mid-7th century. After the Norman conquest of 1066, English was replaced, for a time, as the language of the upper classes by Anglo-Norman, a relative of French; this is regarded as marking the end of the Old English era, as during this period the English language was influenced by Anglo-Norman, developing into a phase known now as Middle English. Old English developed from a set of Anglo-Frisian or Ingvaeonic dialects spoken by Germanic tribes traditionally known as the Angles and Jutes; as the Anglo-Saxons became dominant in England, their language replaced the languages of Roman Britain: Common Brittonic, a Celtic language, Latin, brought to Britain by Roman invasion. Old English had four main dialects, associated with particular Anglo-Saxon kingdoms: Mercian, Northumbrian and West Saxon.
It was West Saxon that formed the basis for the literary standard of the Old English period, although the dominant forms of Middle and Modern English would develop from Mercian. The speech of eastern and northern parts of England was subject to strong Old Norse influence due to Scandinavian rule and settlement beginning in the 9th century. Old English is one of the West Germanic languages, its closest relatives are Old Frisian and Old Saxon. Like other old Germanic languages, it is different from Modern English and difficult for Modern English speakers to understand without study. Old English grammar is similar to that of modern German: nouns, adjectives and verbs have many inflectional endings and forms, word order is much freer; the oldest Old English inscriptions were written using a runic system, but from about the 9th century this was replaced by a version of the Latin alphabet. Englisc, which the term English is derived from, means'pertaining to the Angles'. In Old English, this word was derived from Angles.
During the 9th century, all invading Germanic tribes were referred to as Englisc. It has been hypothesised that the Angles acquired their name because their land on the coast of Jutland resembled a fishhook. Proto-Germanic *anguz had the meaning of'narrow', referring to the shallow waters near the coast; that word goes back to Proto-Indo-European *h₂enǵʰ- meaning'narrow'. Another theory is that the derivation of'narrow' is the more connection to angling, which itself stems from a Proto-Indo-European root meaning bend, angle; the semantic link is the fishing hook, curved or bent at an angle. In any case, the Angles may have been called such because they were a fishing people or were descended from such, therefore England would mean'land of the fishermen', English would be'the fishermen's language'. Old English was not static, its usage covered a period of 700 years, from the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain in the 5th century to the late 11th century, some time after the Norman invasion. While indicating that the establishment of dates is an arbitrary process, Albert Baugh dates Old English from 450 to 1150, a period of full inflections, a synthetic language.
Around 85 per cent of Old English words are no longer in use, but those that survived are basic elements of Modern English vocabulary. Old English is a West Germanic language, it came to be spoken over most of the territory of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms which became the Kingdom of England. This included most of present-day England, as well as part of what is now southeastern Scotland, which for several centuries belonged to the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria. Other parts of the island – Wales and most of Scotland – continued to use Celtic languages, except in the areas of Scandinavian settlements where Old Norse was spoken. Celtic speech remained established in certain parts of England: Medieval Cornish was spoken all over Cornwall and in adjacent parts of Devon, while Cumbric survived to the 12th century in parts of Cumbria, Welsh may have been spoken on the English side of the Anglo-Welsh border. Norse was widely spoken in the parts of England which fell under Danish law. Anglo-Saxon literacy developed after Christianisation in the late 7th century.
The oldest surviving text of Old English literature is Cædmon's Hymn, composed between 658 and 680. There is a limited corpus of runic inscriptions from the 5th to 7th centuries, but the oldest coherent runic texts date to the 8th century; the Old English Latin alphabet was introduced around the 9th century. With the unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms by Alfred the Great in the 9th century, the language of government and literature became standardised around the West Saxon dialect. Alfred advocated education in English alongside Latin, had many works translated into the English language. In Old English, typical of the development of literature, poetry arose before prose, but King Alfred the Great chiefly inspired the growth of prose. A literary standard, dating from the 10th century, arose under the influence of Bishop Æthelwold of Winchester, was followed by such writers as the prolific Ælfric of Eynsham. Th
Morphological typology is a way of classifying the languages of the world that groups languages according to their common morphological structures. The field organizes languages on the basis of. Analytic languages contain little inflection, instead relying on features like word order and auxiliary words to convey meaning. Synthetic languages, ones that are not analytic, are divided into two categories: agglutinative and fusional languages. Agglutinative languages rely on discrete particles for inflection, while fusional languages "fuse" inflectional categories together allowing one word ending to contain several categories, such that the original root can be difficult to extract. A further subcategory of agglutinative languages are polysynthetic languages, which take agglutination to a higher level by constructing entire sentences, including nouns, as one word. Analytic and agglutinative languages can all be found in many regions of the world. However, each category is dominant in some families and regions and nonexistent in others.
Analytic languages encompass the Sino-Tibetan family, including Chinese, many languages in Southeast Asia, the Pacific, West Africa, a few of the Germanic languages. Fusional languages encompass most of the Indo-European family—for example, French and Hindi—as well as the Semitic family and a few members of the Uralic family. Most of the world's languages, are agglutinative, including the Turkic and Bantu languages and most families in the Americas, the Caucasus, non-Slavic Russia. Constructed languages take a variety of morphological alignments; the concept of discrete morphological categories has not been without criticism. Some linguists argue that most, if not all, languages are in a permanent state of transition from fusional to analytic to agglutinative to fusional again. Others take issue with the definitions of the categories, arguing that they conflate several distinct, if related, variables; the field was first developed by August von Schlegel. Analytic languages show a low ratio of morphemes to words.
Sentences in analytic languages are composed of independent root morphemes. Grammatical relations between words are expressed by separate words where they might otherwise be expressed by affixes, which are present to a minimal degree in such languages. There is little to no morphological change in words: they tend to be uninflected. Grammatical categories are indicated by bringing in additional words. Individual words carry a general meaning. In analytic languages context and syntax are more important than morphology. Analytic languages include some of the major East Asian languages, such as Chinese, Vietnamese. Note that the ideographic writing systems of these languages play a strong role in regimenting linguistic continuity according to an analytic, or isolating, morphology. Additionally, English is moderately analytic, it and Afrikaans can be considered as some of the most analytic of all Indo-European languages. However, they are traditionally analyzed as fusional languages. A related concept is the isolating language, one in which there is only one, or on average close to one, morpheme per word.
Not all analytic languages are isolating. Synthetic languages form words by affixing a given number of dependent morphemes to a root morpheme; the morphemes may be distinguishable from the root. They may be fused among themselves. Word order is less important for these languages than it is for analytic languages, since individual words express the grammatical relations that would otherwise be indicated by syntax. In addition, there tends to be a high degree of concordance. Therefore, morphology in synthetic languages is more important than syntax. Most Indo-European languages are moderately synthetic. There are two subtypes of synthesis, according to whether morphemes are differentiable or not; these subtypes are fusional. Morphemes in fusional languages are not distinguishable from the root or among themselves. Several grammatical bits of meaning may be fused into one affix. Morphemes may be expressed by internal phonological changes in the root, such as consonant gradation and vowel gradation, or by suprasegmental features such as stress or tone, which are of course inseparable from the root.
The Indo-European and Semitic languages are the most cited examples of fusional languages. However, others have been described. For example, Navajo is sometimes categorized as a fusional language because its complex system of verbal affixes has become condensed and irregular enough that discerning individual morphemes is possible; some Uralic languages are described as fusional the Sami languages and Estonian. On the other hand, not all Indo-European languages are fusional. Agglutinative languages have words containing several morphemes that are always differe