Download 1 - UCL Phonetics and Linguistics

PLIN X101: PRINCIPLES OF LINGUISTIC THEORY
LECTURE 4: MORPHOLOGY
Morphology is the study of words. Morphologists try to develop a theory that explains why
certain complex words are grammatical (such as expect-ation), while others (such as *ationexpect) are not. A complex word is ruled in if it can be assigned a structure that satisfies the
principles of morphological theory. In this lecture, I will try to give an idea of the kind of
problems that morphologists work on.
1. The structure of words
Native speakers have clear intuitions that complex words consist of parts. For example, the word
in (1) can be divided into seven morphemes, as in (1b). One of these is itself a word (establish);
the others can only be used as parts of larger words. They are called affixes:
(1)
a.
b.
antidisestablishmentarianism
anti-dis-establish-ment-ari-an-ism
It is not just the case that complex words consist of different types of morphemes. Their
semantics suggests that it is important in what order these morphemes are combined. This can
easily be demonstrated using English compounds (complex words whose parts are themselves
words). As (2) shows, it matters whether a compound consisting of three parts has a leftbranching or a right-branching structure. (Notice that the change in meaning corresponds with a
change in the position of the compound’s main stress.)
(2)
a.
b.
a [kitchen [tówel rack]]
(i) a towel rack for in the kitchen
(ii) *a rack for kitchen towels
a [[kítchen towel] rack]
(i) *a towel rack for in the kitchen
(ii) a rack for kitchen towels
The constituency suggested by the semantics is confirmed by independent tests. In (3), for
example, the omitted nouns must correspond with a morphological constituent. Hence,
compounds with different structures allow different types of noun omission.
(3)
a.
b.
A [bathroom [e]] and a [kitchen [towel rack]]
(i) a towel rack for in the bathroom and a towel rack for in the kitchen
(ii) *a rack for bathroom towels and a rack for kitchen towels
A [[bathroom towel] e] and a [[kitchen towel] rack]
(i) *a towel rack for in the bathroom and a towel rack for in the kitchen
(ii) a rack for bathroom towels and a rack for kitchen towels
The same is true of one substitution in (4):
1
(4)
a.
b.
A [kitchen [towel rack]] and a [bathroom [one]]
(i) a towel rack for in the kitchen and a towel rack for in the bathroom
(ii) *a rack for kitchen towels and a rack for bathroom towels
A [[kitchen towel] rack] and a [[bathroom towel] one]
(i) *a towel rack for in the bathroom and a towel rack for in the kitchen
(ii) a rack for kitchen towels and a rack for bathroom towels
2. The right-hand head rule
One important insight into complex words is that not all of their parts make an equal contribution
to the properties of the word as a whole. For example, a kitchen towel rack is a rack, and not a
towel or a kitchen. In general, the right-hand part of a compound seems to determine what kind
of thing the compound refers to:
(5)
a.
b.
[table bath]
(i) a special bath that can be put on a table
(ii) *a special table to put a bath on
[bath table]
(i) *a special bath that can be put on a table
(ii) a special table to put a bath on
The word that makes the main contribution to the properties of a complex word is called the head
of the word. In Germanic languages, such as English, the position of the head is determined by
the right-hand head rule:
(6)
The Right-hand Head Rule
The head of a complex word W is the right-most morpheme contained in W
Crucially, the right-hand head rule does not only regulate the semantics of complex words, but
also their category:
(7)
a.
b.
c.
d.
[N blackA birdN]
[A stoneN blindA]
[V chomskyN adjoinV]
[N whetV stoneN] (to whet means to sharpen)
The right-hand head rule makes an interesting prediction about affixes. Suppose an affix
combines with a word to form a new word with a different category. It seems fair to say that the
affix determines the category of the new word. This, however, suggests that the affix is the head
of the word, which in turn predicts that it is subject to the right-hand head rule (it must be a
suffix). Indeed, category-changing affixes are typically suffixes in the Germanic languages:
(8)
a.
a’.
b.
[N blindA nessN]
*[N nessN blindA]
[N driveV erN]
2
b’.
c.
c’.
d.
*[N erN driveV]
[V centralA izeV]
*[V izeV centralA]
[A washV ableA]
Conversely, if we can show that an affix does not determine the category of a newly derived
word, then it must be a prefix, rather than a suffix. This is because the other part of the word
must be the head, and hence be in final position. A case in point is the English affix counter:
(19)
a.
a’.
b.
b’.
c.
c’.
[N counterX revolutionN]
*[N revolutionN counterX]
[V counterX sinkV]
*[V sinkV counterX]
[A counterX productiveA]
*[A productiveA counterX]
3. Silent structure
Just like in syntax, there are problems in morphology that can be solved by assuming
phonologically empty categories. For a start, many nouns in English can be verbed and vice
versa: a hammer – to hammer, a bottle – to bottle, to laugh – a laugh, to wish – a wish, etc.
Simplifying things a bit, there are two hypotheses we should consider in connection to this. First,
we could assume that all these words are lexically ambiguous (this is of course not very
interesting). Second, we could assume that they are headed by morphemes that remain
unpronounced:
(9)
a.
b.
to [V bottleN eV]
a [N wishV eN]
In English, it is hard (but not impossible) to decide between these proposals. But in Dutch there
is straightforward evidence in favour of derivation by empty morphemes. Dutch has two kinds of
nouns: neuter nouns, which take the definite determiner het, and non-neuter nouns, which take
the definite determiner de:
(10)
a.
b.
het/*de huis
the house
de/*het regen
the rain
Dutch also has two types of verbs: those like huizen (to house) and regenen (to rain), which are
inflected regularly, and those like lopen (to walk) that are inflected irregularly:
(10)
a.
huizen – huisde – heeft gehuisd
to house – housed – has housed
3
b.
c.
regenen – regende – heeft geregend
to rain – rained – has rained
lopen – liep – heeft gelopen
to walk – walked – has walked
If we now look at words that can be used as either a noun or a verb, we see that there are three
well-attested patterns. But the fourth pattern one might expect to find is not attested at all:
(11)
a.
a’.
b.
b’.
c.
c’.
d.
Nde – Vreg
de regen – regenen
the rain – to rain
Nhet – Vreg
het huis – huizen
the house – to house
Nde – Virreg
de loop – lopen
the walk – to walk
Not attested: Nhet – Virreg
The proposal that noun-verb pairs result from lexical ambiguity has nothing to say about this.
The data can be explained by the alternative theory if Dutch is assumed to have two
phonologically empty affixes, a verbal one that derives regular verbs, and a nominal one that
derives non-neuter nouns. One this view, there is no possible derivation for the pair in (11d).
(12)
a.
b.
het huisN – [huis eV] (huizen is a regular verb; see (10a))
the house – to house
lopenV – de [loop eN] (lopen is an irregular verb; see (10c))
to walk – the walk
4. Apparent exceptions to the right-hand head rule
In many languages there are apparent exceptions to the right-hand head rule. In English, for
example, there are nominal compounds whose reference does not seem to be determined by their
right-most part.
(13)
a.
b.
a [buck tooth]
a [saber tooth] (a kind of tiger, not a kind of tooth)
Of course, we can simply list this word in the lexicon as an idiom. But it might be more
interesting to hypothesize that its strange interpretation is due to a zero morpheme:
(14)
[N [saber tooth] eN]
This hypothesis predicts, correctly, that saber tooth has a regular plural. It follows from the righthand head rule that (15d) cannot be the plural of (14).
4
(15)
a.
a’.
b.
b’.
*two [[buck tooth] s]
two [buck teeth]
two [[N [saber tooth] eN] s]
*two [N [saber teeth] eN]
A more systematic violation of the right-hand head rule is found with several Dutch prefixes.
One of these is ver, which seems to derive verbs:
(16)
a.
b.
c.
[V verX denkV]
VER think
‘suspect’
[V verX newA]
VER new
‘renew’
[V verX zoolN]
VER sole
‘resole’
Again we have a choice. We could say that the right-head head rule simply does not work for
verbs derived by prefixation. On that view, we might assign ver the category V, and suggest that
it is a head, despite its being a prefix:
(17)
a.
b.
c.
[V verV denkV]
VER think
[V verV nieuwA]
VER new
[V verV zoolN]
VER sole
Alternatively, we could analyze ver as a prefix that exclusively attaches to verbs. The apparent
violations of the right-hand head rule in (16b,c) can then be attributed to a zero affix that has
turned nieuw ‘new’ and werk ‘work’ into verbs prior to prefixation by ver:
(18)
a.
b.
c.
[V verX denkV]
VER think
[V verX [V nieuwA eV]]
VER new
[V verX [V zoolN eV]]
VER sole
We have already seen that Dutch has a zero affix that can turn a noun into a verb (see section 3).
It also seems to have one that turns adjectives into verbs (as expected such verbs always have
regular inflection):
5
(19)
a.
b.
wit – witten (structure: [V witA eV])
white – to white-wash
open – openen (structure: [V openA eV])
open – to open
The proposed analysis would receive some support if ver-verbs derived from adjectives and
nouns behave differently from ver-verbs derived from a verbal base. This is because in (18b) and
(18c) there is an empty affix that is absent in (18a). There is indeed an asymmetry of the relevant
type. Verbs derived from adjectives or nouns very often have a causative or agentive meaning:
(20)
a.
b.
c.
d.
[V witA eV]
to white-wash (to cause to be white)
[V openA eV]
to open (to cause to be open):
[V deelN eV]
to part (‘divide’; to cause to be in (equal) parts)
[V hamerN eV]
to hammer (to cause to be in frequent contact with a hammer)
This semantic property can also be found in ver-verbs derived from adjectives and nouns:
(21)
a.
b.
[V verX [V nieuwA eV]]
VER new
‘renew’ (to cause to be new)
[V verX [V zoolN eV]]
VER sole
‘to resole’ (to cause to have new soles)
However, ver-verbs derived from verbs cannot have a causative meaning unless the verb from
which they are derived is itself causative:
(22)
a.
b.
[V verX vallenV]
VER fall
‘to go to ruin’ (not: to cause to go to ruin)
[V verX groeienV]
VER grow
‘to grow out of shape’ (not: to cause to grow out of shape)
Hence, the causative meaning of the verbs in (21) cannot be attributed to the prefix ver. It must
have its origin in a different element: the null affix. (Notice that the competing theory in (17) has
nothing to say about these facts).
Reading
Fromkin, V. et al. (eds.) 2000. Linguistics; An Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell. Chapter 2, pages 25-57.
6
7