Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Morphology > Lex2 > Flashcards

Lex2 Flashcards

1
Q

Clipping

A

-removing some segments of an existing word to create a synonym (laboratory-lab)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Acronymization

A

words consisting of initial letters or syllables of complex words (economy)
- usa (united states of america), nato (north atlantic treaty org.)Blends – merging

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Gemination

A

ablaut g. – ticktack (alternation of the stem vowel)
- rhyme g. – willy-nilly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Reduplication

A

reapplication of a particular morpheme
- meaning is genuine (i don’t want a job. I want a job-job.) – i want a real job.
- in some languages it expresses plural (indonesian)
- could be used in onomatopoeia (haf-haf)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Compounding

A
  • difficult to distinguish between a compound and a phrase
  • compounds don’t have to be spelled together (flowerpot or flower-pot)
  • compound stress rule has too many exceptions (blue-eyed, easy-going)
  • integrity of compounds (a word cannot be inserted between constituents)
  • recursiveness – (n+n) = n (shop lamp) + production = (shop lamp production) …
  • classification – primary (root) – many potential meanings, not semantically transparent
    - (shop lamp)
    - synthetic (verbal) – contain verbal element (language teacher)
       - endocentric – consist of determinant and determinatum
          - shop lamp is a kind of lamp, blackboard a kind of board
   - exocentric – determinatum is not expressed
                - redskin is not a kind of skin, but a person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Affixation

A

-process of adding an affix to a base/most frequent WF process
affix – a bound morpheme
- infixation – abso-fucking-lutely → expletive, pseudo-infixation
- homeric infixation – saxo-ma-phone, secre-ma-tary
- to catch attention
- diddly flendarian infixation – ac-diddly-action
- iz/-izn – in hip-hop music – shit – shitiznt
- in sk – maličký – malililinký

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Conversion

A
  • the shift of a word belonging to one word class to another word class without adding an affix
  • ex. Lunch – to lunch; forest – to forest; cloud – to cloud (nouns to verbs)
  • ex. To hunt – hunt; to click – click; to break – break (verbs to nouns)
  • ex. Clean – to clean; yellow – to yellow; clear – to clear (adjectives to verbs)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Backformation

A
  • forming new words by deleting an element that is or appears to be an affix
  • ex. Edit was formed from editor by deleting -or (or act-actor)
  • ex. Burgle from burglar – it was a simple word of one morpheme, but it started to be perceived as complex with structure burgle + -er = reanalysis / folk (popular) etymology
  • marchand notes that nouns ending in -ation are older than verbs ending in -ate
  • ex. Alternation (1443) – alternate (1595); calculation (1393) – calculate (1570)
  • historically, the nouns in -ation were borrowed from french or latin
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Transformational hypothesis

A
  • Lees (1960) derives n + n compounds from kernel sentences through a series of transformations (first significant work)
    o A kernel sentence is transformed into a relative clause → the relative clause into an expression with a postnominal modifier → the final transformation results in a compound
    o The course is a snap → …course which is a snap… → …course a snap… → …snap course
    o Sharp criticism of his method
     Absence of morphological and semantic description
     Ambiguity of underlying sentence structures
    o Reaction to criticism
     Lees modified his approach by putting more emphasis on semantics → case roles (agent, instrument, patient, location, time etc.)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Moriss Halles model

A
  • 1973- morris halle, russian emigrant, closely collaborated with chomsky on generative phonology
  • He published short research paper know as prolegomena in which he outlined the first model of word formation in generative framework, had considerable impact on american derivational phonology
  • His model consists of a few components
  • List of morphemes
    o Morpheme= unit that can exist without meaning
    o Unilateral and bilateral morphemes
     Broth-er= pure form without meaning
  • Word formation rules
    o 1st type unilateral
     Stem + suffix (broth-er)
    o 2nd type bilateral
     Verb + suffix (decide- decision)
  • Filter
    o Filters out irregularities
    o Three different types
     Structural idiosyncrasies
    o Morris distinguishes between protentional and real words; the fact that they doesn’t exist now, doesn’t mean they cant be used in the future; over generative capacity of word formation rules; every word has to be marked
    o Arriv-al, *arriva-ion
    o *deriv-al, derivate-ion
    o Potention-al, potent-ion
     Phonological idiosyncrasies
    o Trisyllabic shortening rule= if there is long vowel or diphthong the vowel is shorten if suffix is added to this word
    o Entire- entirety
    o Obese- obesity
     Semantic idiosyncrasies
    o Predictable meaning of new word form
  • Dictionary of words
    o Stores new words that were produced by the word formation rules
  • Product
    o It’s the morpheme
  • Phonological component
    o Adjective + en = can only occur when it ends with an obstruent
     Soft+en= soften (t is silent)
    o Necessity of the phonological component
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Mark aronoff

A
  • Founder of modern american generative word formation
  • Introduced number of topics
  • Known as a representative of word based word formation
  • Main focus of research: affixation and phonological rules
  • He believes that wf rules must be based on bilateral units (signs)
    o Since not all morphemes meet this condition, his wf rules are based on units which always carry some meaning - on words → word-based theory of word-formation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Transaction rules

A
  • Based on deletion and substitution of affix
    By arnoff asi
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Allomorphy rules

A
  • Modifications of morphemes
    o Classi/fy/cation
  • Adjust the form of word-adjustment rules (transaction + allomorphy rules)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

BLocking theory

A

o Word is blocked if there is already a word with such a meaning in our mental lexicon (avoid synonymy principle)
- Operates when the following conditions are met – the blocking and the blocked units have:
o The same stem (for each stem, the lexicon can accept only one item)
o The same meaning
o None of them can be derived by productive WF Rules (labour – not a productive WF process, labouriosity – blocked, because was not produced by a productive WF process)
- Plays an important role in level-ordering theories

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Potentiation

A

Williams notion
- Certain affix increase productivity of other affix
o General- generalise- generalization

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Productivity

A
  • Degree to which individual WF processes, WF rules/types and/or affixes are used in generating new words
    o E.g. There are many more nouns in a language than adjectives → the number of words generated by the combination of a particular affix and nouns is much higher than that of some other affix combined with adjectives
  • WF should study productive WF processes only → only those capable of producing new complex words if need be
17
Q

Relativized approach/Aronoff productivity

A

By aronoff
- Examines productivity of an affix in relation to a particular WF base
o E.g. Reveals that #ness is more productive than the synonymous suffix +ity when attached to adjectives of the form Xive (perceptive), while +ity is more productive than #ness when attached to adjectives of the form Xile (servile)

18
Q

Semantic coherence

A

 Depends on the predictability of the meanings of words derived by a specific WF rule (the word with less meanings is semantically more coherent – language user will prefer the rule that creates a new word, the meaning of which is more transparent)
 E.g. The rule which derives abstract nouns from the WF base Xous by adding #ness is semantically more coherent because all the nouns of the form Xousness may have only one of three possible meanings (the Fact, the Extent, and the Quality/State of Action), while the number of possible interpretations of words of the form Xousity is much higher
o There is a direct correlation between semantic coherence and productivity

19
Q

Baayen productiovity

A
  • Uses a large corpus, and calculates productivity in relation to parole, notably to frequency – number of occurrences (tokens) of a particular derived word (type)
     N1 = hapax legomena – number of types (of words) with the evaluated affix occurring only once in the sample analysed
     N = the total number of tokens of all words with that given affix
     P = the potential application of a particular WFR – the rate at which new types are to be expected to appear when N tokens have been sampled
    o The lower the frequency of individual types, the higher their share of all different types
20
Q

WF type cluster

A

Stekauer
- This cluster encompasses a number of various WF types –
o Suffixation Action-Agent (work-er),
o Object-Action-Agent (language teach-er),
o Conversion of the type ACTION-SUBSTANCE (cheatn)

21
Q

Elsewhere condition principle

A
  • A blocking principle which ensures that the more specific rule applies first whereas the general rule applies elsewhere
    o Judge as a noun is formed by conversion of verb judge
     Conversion is a more specific rule of forming agent nouns derived from
    verbs than suffixation with -er, so the formation of the noun *judger is blocked
22
Q

Lexicalization

A
  • The process of losing semantic and/or formal links to the motivating constituents
  • Does not have to encompass all complex words
23
Q

Katovskys deinition of lexicalization

A
  • Integration of a WF syntagma in the lexicon with semantic and/or formal properties that cannot be fully derived from the constituents or a WF pattern
  • Includes idiomatization (lexicalization at the semantic level) and demotivation (lexicalization at the formal level)
24
Q

Headeness

A

Inheritance of features
- Concerns the way how a complex word inherits its morphosyntactic (word-class, transitiveness, countability etc.) And lexical features from its constituents
o E.g. Blackboard is a noun because its determinatum is a noun – its meaning is primarily determined by the latter: it is a kind of board

25
Q

IS A Condition

A

by allen
– expressed this aspect
- Grandfather IS A father, and IS A noun because father IS A noun etc.

26
Q

HEad

A

-That constituent in a complex word from which the features are transferred to the compelx word as a whole
(before introducing this term, Marchand’s notion of determinatum carried all the features of the head)

27
Q

Righthand head rule

A

Rule by williams
- In morphology, we define the head of a morphologically complex word to be the righthand member of the word.
-KAtovsky pointed out cases with left hand heads eg father in law

28
Q

Level ordering theories

A

Siegel
- Two classes of affixes differ in their phonological and morphological characteristics → based on these differences she formulated the Level-Ordering Hypothesis
Allen
- Extended Ordering Hypothesis: there are 3 levels in morphology at which rules of WF operate
o Level I rules are ordered before Level II rules, and both Level I and Level II rules are ordered before Level III rules
o Level I – all rules of +boundary affixation
o Level II – all rules of #boundary affixation
o Level III – rules of compounding, non-prefixation, and some other rules
o There should be no affixation after compounding
Selkirk (1982)
- Derivational affixes may appear outside compounds, e.g. Un-self-sufficient, non¬-weather-related, painstaking-ly
o Conclusion → Class II affixes may appear inside or outside compounds, while Class I affixes appear only inside compounds = principle of Compound-Affix Ordering Generalization
Strauss (1982)
- Class I suffixes can attach after Class I prefixes, and Class I prefixes can be attached outside Class II suffixes
o E.g. In ungrammaticality, the Class II prefix -un attaches to grammatical, not to the noun grammaticality
Kiparsky: Lexical Phonology and Morphology
- There are several levels (strata, layers), each of them characterised by certain WF rules followed by phonological rules
o Phonological rules of lexical phonology = lexical rules are cyclic → they are applied after each step of word-formation, and admit exceptions
o Postlexical phonological rules = rules that apply to syntax, to combinations of words in sentences → they are exceptionless and automatic, they apply whenever the conditions for their application are met → they are non-cyclic, can apply only once
o The output of lexical phonology may be used as an input for a WF process at a higher level
o Important feature of Kiparsky’s model – affixation and compounding are interspersed
 He places irregular inflection at level 1 – separates it from regular inflection at level 3
 The result of every layer of derivation is a lexical item

29
Q

Siegel’s class I vs class II affixes differences

A

Class I-Combine with words and stems, often come from non-native sources, suffixes typically move stress to the second/last syllable and prefixes are stressed
Class II prefixes-Only combine with words, no stress shift takes place and there is no vowel/consonant change

30
Q

Aronoff

A
31
Q

Semantic traits and status

A

The meaning of a lexical unit (LU) is determined by semantic traits, which vary in their value and contribution to the overall meaning of the LU. The significance of a lexical trait in defining the meaning of an LU is referred to as its status.

32
Q

Zero morpheme

A
  • a morpheme that has a meaning but zero form
  • sheep sheep singular vs. plural form, has no form but changes meaning
33
Q

Empty morph

A
  • belongs to the no morpheme; doesn’t have a meaning
  • Plural form children: it contains /r/- which is absent in the SG and therefore referred to as an empty morph.
  • Czechoslovakia – O in the word connects two units together but has not meaning on its own
34
Q

Seassures sign

A

Linguistic sign is a bilateral unit: link between a concept and sound image
- A concept is a general idea, a mental representation of something
- Sound image is an abstract mental representation of sound
- For the term concept he also introduced term signified (signifié) and for sound image term signifier (signifiant)

35
Q

overgenerating capacity

A

● the capacity of WF rules to generate potential words

36
Q

Pierce sign

A

Peirce also distinguishes 3 types of signs:
- Icons, they are based on resemblance with the designed object (e.x picture of a book)
o Images – direct similarity between signifier and signified
o Diagrams – analogy between the relations of signifier and signified
o Metaphors (metasigns) - similarity is based on similarity with other properties
- Indexes, point to the objects (e.x smoke indicates fire) or point to spatial and temporal relations of the utterance. (e.x here, there, yesterday)
- Symbols are based on conventions and unlike icons they do not resemble the objects and do not have a direct relation to the object like indexes. Symbols are connected with its object by virtue of the idea of the symbol using mind (e.x book, chair, table etc.)

37
Q

Conventionalization

A

each onomatopea undergoes conventionalization which means that sound is adjusted to the phonological system of a particular language

38
Q

Major vs MINOR wf processes

A

Major WF-compounding, suffixation, prefixation, zero-derivation, back-formation, reduplication
MINOR WF-clipping, acronymization, blending, gemination

Morphology (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions