When studying linguistics, students are confronted with a high degree of terminology right on from the beginning of their studies. One might assume that understanding it should not really be a problem if one considers a standard dictionary or inquires other scholars in order to find an answer to one’s lack of knowledge. However, in some cases it is simply not that easy. In the following we will take a look at the notion of the morpheme. The problem is that several different definitions exist and scholars have to be 100% aware of the meaning when confronted with linguistic literature. The Oxford Concise English Dictionary (OCED) claims the morpheme to be: “A meaningful morphological unit of a language that cannot be further divided” (OCED 1999:926) But is this a sufficient definition of the term? Are morphemes really always meaningful units? In order to understand the different opinions scholars have when referring to the morpheme, one has to have a good look at their different point of views of the field of morphology. Some scholars consider a morpheme-based approach to be the correct way of dealing with morphemes, in which they either emphasize meaning or grammatical function of morphemes, whereas others rather identify themselves with the word-form based approach, by which they entirely reject the significance of morphemes for the meaning of the sign, while concentrating on word-forms. In the following we will take a closer look at several definitions of themorpheme,established by scholars of different diachronical environments in order to find a solution to this problem and a more or less concrete definition. In the second part, the importance of the morpheme with reference to the concept of allomorphy will be examined to understand how they function and how they are realized.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Definitions of the morpheme
i. The Morpheme – A general overview of definitions
ii. Problems of the traditional approach
III. Allomorphy and its implications for the notion of morphemes
i. What is allomorphy?
ii. Phonological and lexical conditioning
iii. Morphological Conditioning and the idea of recurring partials
IV. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the multifaceted definition of the morpheme in linguistic theory, critically evaluating the traditional "minimal meaningful unit" approach in favor of a more functional, word-based perspective. It examines how various scholars have attempted to categorize morphemes and how the concept of allomorphy complicates these definitions.
- Historical and contemporary definitions of the morpheme
- Challenges within the traditional semantic-based approach
- The role of allomorphy in morphological analysis
- Distinctions between phonological, lexical, and morphological conditioning
- The concept of recurring partials in word formation
Excerpt from the Book
ii. Problems of the traditional approach
Why is there such a high variety of different definitions of the morpheme? And why cannot there be a generally accepted one? The answer is as follows: Every single definition of the morpheme is confronted with several problems which make it rather difficult to find an adequate definition of its notion. Therefore every scholar has to find out for himself which of all these different definitions is the appropriate one for their means. In the following, several types of problems that these definitions are confronted with will be looked at in order to explain the defining difficulties.
One major problem of finding an adequate definition of the morpheme is that there are some linguistic forms that only occure in one word-form and for which it is impossible to account any meaning at all. The most frequent example of such a phenomenon is the notion of cranberry-morphs. If we consider the word cranberry it is definitely no a hard task to seperate it into two segments, cran- and -berry. Even though we, as English-speakers, are aware of the meaning of –berry, we cannot find any eplanation for cran-, since it neither occurs in any other compound nor is it any kind of free form. Leonard Bloomfield realized this problem as well and confronted it by considering the cran- constituent as the qualifier of –berry (Bloomfield 1933: 160). Even though we do not know what cran- means, it is certainly clear to any English native speaker what kind of berry we are dealing with. This, nevertheless, must be learned because cranberry is lexicalised. However, Bloomfield did not include the notion of meaning into his definition of the morpheme and was, thus, able to avoid the confrontation with this problem. Nevertheless Bloomfield’s opinion of the morpheme as a “same of form and meaning” does not work out quite well either, as the cranberry-morph certainly has a form but no meaning without its counterpart -berry (Bloomfield 1933: 161).
Chapter Summaries
I. Introduction: This chapter introduces the challenges of defining terminology in linguistics and outlines the objective to examine the morpheme from different historical and theoretical perspectives.
II. Definitions of the morpheme: This section provides a comprehensive overview of how scholars like Bloomfield, Hockett, and Aronoff have defined the morpheme, while addressing the inherent difficulties and contradictions in the traditional semantic approach.
III. Allomorphy and its implications for the notion of morphemes: This chapter analyzes how different realizations of the same morpheme (allomorphs) are conditioned by phonological, lexical, and morphological factors, challenging the simple one-to-one mapping of form and meaning.
IV. Conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes the arguments, suggesting that while a universal definition remains elusive, adopting a word-based, functional approach is more productive than strictly adhering to semantic definitions.
Keywords
Morpheme, Morphology, Allomorphy, Linguistics, Semantics, Word-formation, Bloomfield, Hockett, Aronoff, Phonological conditioning, Lexical conditioning, Morphological conditioning, Recurring partials, Minimal sign.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper examines the theoretical challenges surrounding the definition of the "morpheme" and how various linguists have struggled to reconcile the concept of a morpheme with linguistic phenomena that do not fit traditional semantic models.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The core themes include historical definitions of morphemes, the "cranberry-morph" problem, the classification of allomorphs, and the distinction between various types of conditioning in word formation.
What is the primary research question?
The study asks how scholars can reach a functional and adequate definition of the morpheme given the presence of meaningless constituents and complex allomorphic variations.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The work utilizes a theoretical, comparative literature analysis, examining the evolving definitions provided by key linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield, Charles Hockett, and Mark Aronoff.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body focuses on the limitations of defining morphemes based solely on meaning, discusses the concept of allomorphy, and details the three main types of conditioning: phonological, lexical, and morphological.
What are the essential keywords defining this work?
The work is centered around terms like Morpheme, Allomorphy, Morphology, Word-formation, and the specific conditioning factors that govern these linguistic units.
How does the author explain the "cranberry" problem?
The author uses the "cranberry" example to show that some linguistic forms are clearly segments (cran- and -berry) but lack independent meaning, which contradicts definitions that insist a morpheme must always have a defined semantic value.
What role does Mark Aronoff play in the author's argument?
The author leans heavily on Aronoff’s functional, word-based perspective, which prioritizes the rules of word formation and the role of the morpheme as a phonetic string over a strictly semantic definition.
What is meant by "morphological conditioning" in this context?
Morphological conditioning refers to situations where the choice of a specific allomorph is determined not by sound (phonology) or specific vocabulary (lexicon), but by the presence of other morphemes, as seen in certain latinate verb patterns.
- Quote paper
- Carsten Krumdiek (Author), 2004, The morpheme - An approach to its meaning and function, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/71319
