Download II) As for the morphological typology of languages, the relationship

Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
17th February, 2014
Typology of languages
I)
All of us study more languages. While memorising new words, we happen to
find words similar to ones in another language. All of us visit different countries so we cannot
avoid being influenced by the linguistic context. Once we can realise that words we
unintentionally acquire resemble similar words in another language. Thus on the grounds of
personal experience a parallel can be drawn between the two languages. E.g. Slovak dobre,
Polish dobrze and Czech dobře have the same sense, usage and very similar phonetic forms. It
can be concluded that these languages must belong to one group because these
nations/peoples all live in Central Europe, their speech is very similar, people of different
nationalities can even understand each other.
It may be supposed that
the ways in which languages differ from each other are not entirely random,
but show various types of dependencies among those properties of languages
which are not invariant differences statable in terms of the ‘type’. The
construct of the ‘type’ is, as it were, interposed between the individual
language in all its uniqueness and the unconditional or invariant features to be
found in all languages (Greenberg 1974:54–5).
Languages can be classified from very different aspects. The categorisation linguists
have carried out so far is as below:
1. If languages are studied diachronically, their historical roots are explored. It
is called genetic classification. Its field is historical linguistics. The main
classes are.
(a) natural languages and
(b) artificial languages.
2. If languages are examined from a synchronic aspect, their typology is
determined and described. Language typology is concerned with the
ahistorical comparison of languages.
(a) Morphological typology (based on morphological characteristics)
(b) Morphosynthetic typology (based on semantic roles: agent, patient,
instrument; semantic relations)
(c) Syntactic typology (based on word order)
(d) Pragmatic typology (based on given~new information division)
II)
As for the morphological typology of languages, the relationship between
morphemes and words is observed. A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of grammar.
A word is a lexical item which belongs to a lexical category having an identifiable meaning
1
Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
and/or grammatical function and a fairly consistent phonological shape. Words are free
morphemes, affixed are bound.
In the early nineteenth century, Wilhelm von Humboldt classified languages into three
types. The classification can be made up with a fourth group.
1)
An ideal isolating language is one in which there is a one-to-one
correspondence between words and morphemes, i. e. a word typically consists
of a single morpheme, as in Vietnamese or Chinese. Words tend to be one
syllable long and invariable in form. The function of words in a sentence is
shown primarily by word order.
Ni
men
to
hua
wo pu tu
tung. (Chinese)
you / plural / possessor / language / I / not / all / understand
‘I do not entirely understand your language.’
‘Egyáltalán nem értem a nyelvedet.’
Tôi chỏi bóng rổ. (Vietnamese) (Agent+Event+Instrument denoted by
four words)
‘I play basketball.’ (Agent+Event+Instrument denoted by three words)
‘Kosárlabdázom.’ (Agent+Event+Instrument denoted in a single word)
It is a common feature of isolating languages that the lack of grammatical
variability is compensated by intonation called tones within syllables. This tonic
feature is displayed by the diacritics seen in the Vietnamese example.
2)
An agglutinating or agglutinative language is one which attaches separable
affixes (bound morphemes) to stems (free morphemes) so that there may be
several morphemes in a word but the boundaries between them are always
clear. Each morpheme has a reasonably invariant form. Turkish, Swahili and
Hungarian belong to the class. Different bound morphemes (prefixes and
suffixes) are attached to a free morpheme (a word/stem).
leg | ki
| dolg | o
|
z
| o | tt | a | bb
| an
prefix +preverb +stem/+ linking+ derivational + link. + der. + link.+ compar- + case
root vowel
suffix
V
suff. V
ative
suffix
suffix
3)
A polysynthetic or incorporating language makes great use of affixation and
often incorporates what English would represent with nouns and adverbs in the
element that resembles a verb, e. g. Eskimo. A Hungarian example:
Látok. — I can see.
Látom. — I can see it.
2
Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
Látlak. — I can see you. (The Hungarian verb form incorporates both
the agent (subject) and the patient (object) of the event expressed by it.
By contrast, the parts of the English sentence/clause name the elements
of the event one by one.)
Let’s compare the lexical items listed in the table below.
Table 1 The agent and the patient are the same person.
Hungarian
fésül
fésülködik
borotvál
borotválkozik
mos
mosakodik
Polish
czesać
czesać się
golić
ogolić się
myć
myć się
Slovak
česať
česať sa
holiť
holiť sa
umyvať
umyvať sa
German
kämmen
sich kämmen
rasieren
sich rasieren
waschen
sich waschen
Italian
pettinare
pettinarsi
radere
radersi
lavare
lavarsi
Both the agent
and patient are
incorporated in
the verb form
expressing the
event (visszaható
ige).
The patient is
denoted by a
reflexive
pronoun.
The patient is
denoted by a
reflexive
pronoun.
The patient is
denoted by a
reflexive
pronoun.
Both the agent
and patient are
incorporated in
the verb form
expressing the
event.
A: Mit csinálsz már annyi ideig a fürdiben?
B: Borotválkozom.
In German:
4
A: Was machst du so lange im Badezimmer?
B: Ich rasiere mich.
A flective/inflecting/flectional/fusional language is one in which morphemes
are represented by affixes but in which it is difficult to assign morphemes
precisely to the different parts of the affixes, e. g. Latin, German, Slavic
languages. There are cases in the declension of nouns. While each affixe in
agglutinative languages have a distinct grammatical function, these functions
cannot be separated in suffixes of cases. E.g. although in the form chłopcu it
can be claimed that two morphemes can be identified, i.e. a zero singular suffix
and a –u dative suffix but in the case of chłopcom the suffix –om incorporates
elements of both the plural and the dative because it is not a separate element
expressing plurality that could be contrasted with the zero singular suffix.
Table 2 Declension of nouns
3
Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
Polish
Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive
Dative
Instrumental
Locative
Vocative
Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive
Dative
Instrumental
Locative
Vocative
chłopiec
chłopca
chłopca
chłopcu
chłopcem
chłopcu
chłopcze!
chłopcy
chłopców
chłopców
chłopcom
chłopcami
chłopcach
chłopcy!
German
indef. /def.
(k)ein / der Knabe
(k)einen / den Knaben
(k)eines / des Knaben
(k)einem / dem Knaben
-------
Romanian
indef. /def.
un băiat / băiatul
un băiat / băiatul
unui băiat / băiatului
unui băiat / băiatului
----băiete!
die Knaben
die Knaben
den Knaben
der Knaben
-------
indef. /def.
nişte băieţi / băieţii
nişte băieţi / băieţii
unor băieţi / băieţilor
unor băieţi / băieţilor
----băieţilor!
Suffixes mark the very different grammatical functions conspicuously:
Puellam bellam amo. (Latin) — ‘I love the beautiful girl.’
Puell | am
||
feminine
singular
accusative
bell | am
||
feminine
singular
accusative
4
am | o.
first person
singular
present
active
indicative
subject
Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
III)
Very few languages fall clearly into one of the above categories. There are no
pure cases. Theoretically speaking languages may locate themselves at any point on the scale
from analytic to polysynthetic:
1) Analytic (word = morpheme)
isolating languages
agglutinative languages
2) Synthetic (word > morpheme)
flective languages
3) Polysynthetic (word = clause)
5
incorporating languages
Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
IIII)
How can English be classified as regards the system of morphology?
There are not unambiguous examples of this kind of classification. ‘True’ instances turn out to
be false. Not any one language will fall neatly into one type. Therefore English displays
simultaneously various characteristics listed below:
1) It may show the characteristic features of an isolating language :
Would you shut the door?
It must have been found in the street the day when the tall boy met his
friends from the school not far from the sea in Hull the town of great
fêtes of new year’s nights.
Long live the Queen!
2) Although there are very few prefixes and suffixes in English, the majority of
them are rooted in foreign languages, derived word forms can very often be
found in everyday texts. This feature is of an agglutinative language. Even
words belonging to the core of the vocabulary can be derivational forms:
unfriendliness
friend  friendly — A suffix is added to the root. An adjective is
derived from a noun.
friendly  unfriendly — A prefix is added to the stem. Another
adjective is derived from an adjective.
unfriendly  unfriendliness — A suffix is added to the stem. A noun
is derived from an adjective.
An exceptionally long English word reads below:
antidisestablishmentauthoritarianism
6
Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
3) The characteristic feature of a flective language is displayed in the declension of personal pronouns in English. Despite the fact
that three cases can be distinguished in the declension of pronouns, the isolating nature of pronoun forms is claimed to be true.
They cannot be inflected thus a consistent system of pronoun forms cannot be identified.
Table 3 Declension of English personal pronouns
I = the person who is speaking, 1st person
you = the person who is being spoken to, 2nd person
he/she/it = the person who is being spoken of, 3rd person
Number 
Person 
Singular
st
Gender 
Case
nd
1
---
2
---
I
you
me
rd
st
Plural
2nd
---
3rd
---
3
Feminine
Neuter
1
---
he
she
it
we
you
they
you
him
her
it
us
you
them
my
your
his
her
its
our
your
their
mine
yours
his
hers
its
ours
yours
theirs
my own
your
own
his own
her own
its own
our own
your
own
their own
myself
yourself
himself
herself
itself
our
selves
yourselves
themselves
Masculine

Common case
Nominative case
Subjective case
Oblique case
Accusative case
Objective case
Genitive case
(Possessive pronouns)
Attributive
(Premodifier)
Substantive
(Substitution)
Own-form
Reflexive (/Emphatic) pronouns
7
Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
4) English can evince the nature of an incorporating language as can be seen
in the table below:
Table 4 Verbs showing reflexitivity
Hungarian
fésül
fésülködik
borotvál
borotválkozik
mos
mosakodik
Polish
czesać
czesać się
golić
ogolić się
myć
myć się
Slovak
česať
česať sa
holiť
holiť sa
umyvať
umyvať sa
German
Kämmen
sich kämmen
Rasieren
sich rasieren
Waschen
sich waschen
Italian
pettinare
pettinarsi
radere
radersi
lavare
lavarsi
English
comb
comb
shave
shave
wash
wash
Both the agent
and patient are
incorporated in
the verb form
expressing the
event.
E.g.:
A: What is she doing?
B: Combing in the bedroom.
8
Contrasted Linguistics BTANN603SZM
Töltéssy Zoltán
Week 1
Sources:
Eifring, Halvor and Theil, Rolf. (2005) Linguistics for Students of Asian and African Languages.
<http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ikos/EXFAC03-AAS/h05/larestoff/linguistics/index.html> Released: 2005 Retrieved:
11-01-2010
Greenberg, J.H. (1974) Language typology : a historical and analytic overview. The Hague : Mouton, 1974. 82 p. ; 23 cm
(Janua linguarum. Series minor, ISSN --- ; no. 184),
Lyons, John. (1992) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Reprinted. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1992,
©1968. x, 519 p. ; 21.4 cm ISBN 0-521-09510-7
Malmkjær, Kirsten (ed.). (1995) The linguistics encyclopedia. North American consultant editor James M. Anderson.
Paperback edition. London ; New York : Routledge, 1995. xx, 575 p. ISBN 0-415-12566-9
McArthur, Tom. (1992) The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press,
1992. xxvii, 1184 p. ISBN 0-19-214183-x
McArthur, Tom (ed.). (1998) Concise Oxford companion to the English language. Assistant editor Roshan McArthur.
Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1998. xx, 692 p. : ill. ; 19.7 cm (Oxford paperback reference, ISSN ---)
ISBN 0-19-280061-2
Törkenczy, Miklós. (2002) Practical Hungarian grammar. Budapest : Corvina, 2002. 184 p. ISBN 963-13-131-9
9