On the Relation Between Morphology And Syntax - Oxford Handbooks
Syntax. The term grammar is often used to refer to morphology (the study of word forms) and syntax (the study of sentence structure) together. Languages can be. Word order is a part of syntax because it decides how to build different kinds of On the other hand word relationship is a part of morphology. One of the central issues in relation to the morphology-syntax interaction is to . inflection and Case- were located in the Lexicon provided support for a strong.
While the associations indicated between the concepts in each item in that list are very strong, they are not absolute. Morpheme-based morphology[ edit ] Morpheme-based morphology tree of the word "independently" In morpheme-based morphology, word forms are analyzed as arrangements of morphemes.
A morpheme is defined as the minimal meaningful unit of a language. In a word such as independently, the morphemes are said to be in- depend, -ent, and ly; depend is the root and the other morphemes are, in this case, derivational affixes.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
More recent and sophisticated approaches, such as distributed morphologyseek to maintain the idea of the morpheme while accommodating non-concatenated, analogical, and other processes that have proven problematic for item-and-arrangement theories and similar approaches. Morpheme-based morphology presumes three basic axioms: Roots and affixes have the same status as morphemes. As morphemes, they are dualistic signs, since they have both phonological form and meaning.
Bloomfield's "lexical morpheme" hypothesis: Morpheme-based morphology comes in two flavours, one Bloomfieldian  and one Hockettian. For him, there is a morpheme plural using allomorphs such as -s, -en and -ren. Within much morpheme-based morphological theory, the two views are mixed in unsystematic ways so a writer may refer to "the morpheme plural" and "the morpheme -s" in the same sentence.
- Are word order and word relationships aspects of semantics, morphology, syntax, or orthography?
- Morphology and Syntax
Lexeme-based morphology[ edit ] Lexeme-based morphology usually takes what is called an item-and-process approach. Instead of analyzing a word form as a set of morphemes arranged in sequence, a word form is said to be the result of applying rules that alter a word-form or stem in order to produce a new one. An inflectional rule takes a stem, changes it as is required by the rule, and outputs a word form; a derivational rule takes a stem, changes it as per its own requirements, and outputs a derived stem; a compounding rule takes word forms, and similarly outputs a compound stem.
Word-based morphology[ edit ] Word-based morphology is usually a word-and-paradigm approach. The theory takes paradigms as a central notion. Instead of stating rules to combine morphemes into word forms or to generate word forms from stems, word-based morphology states generalizations that hold between the forms of inflectional paradigms. The major point behind this approach is that many such generalizations are hard to state with either of the other approaches.
Word-and-paradigm approaches are also well-suited to capturing purely morphological phenomena, such as morphomes. Examples to show the effectiveness of word-based approaches are usually drawn from fusional languageswhere a given "piece" of a word, which a morpheme-based theory would call an inflectional morpheme, corresponds to a combination of grammatical categories, for example, "third-person plural".
Morpheme-based theories usually have no problems with this situation since one says that a given morpheme has two categories.
Reviews: Morphology and syntax
Item-and-process theories, on the other hand, often break down in cases like these because they all too often assume that there will be two separate rules here, one for third person, and the other for plural, but the distinction between them turns out to be artificial.
The approaches treat these as whole words that are related to each other by analogical rules. Words can be categorized based on the pattern they fit into. This applies both to existing words and to new ones. Application of a pattern different from the one that has been used historically can give rise to a new word, such as older replacing elder where older follows the normal pattern of adjectival superlatives and cows replacing kine where cows fits the regular pattern of plural formation.
Morphology and Syntax | Department of Linguistics
Morphological typology In the 19th century, philologists devised a now classic classification of languages according to their morphology. Some languages are isolatingand have little to no morphology; others are agglutinative whose words tend to have lots of easily separable morphemes; others yet are inflectional or fusional because their inflectional morphemes are "fused" together.
That leads to one bound morpheme conveying multiple pieces of information. A standard example of an isolating language is Chinese. An agglutinative language is Turkish.
Latin and Greek are prototypical inflectional or fusional languages.
It is clear that this classification is not at all clearcut, and many languages Latin and Greek among them do not neatly fit any one of these types, and some fit in more than one way. A continuum of complex morphology of language may be adopted.
I ask because it reminds me a bit though only a bit, in the sense that they appear to have more of a holistic and top-down, rather than bottom-up, approach to language analysis of inferential role semantics and a common criticism of that school of thought is that it is non-compositional, or at least not compositional in the classical sense.
More abstract constructions allow for more compositionality, while more specific ones allow for less. Idioms are an example of constructions that allow almost no compositionality in meaning. If you look at the history of Chomskyan linguistics, you will find the chapter in which a group of people were working on deep structures so much that they actually were doing semantics and not syntax.
Moreover, anaphors and quantifiers became really problematic for the framework, so it became insufficient to explain the linguistc phenomena under discussion. But Chomsky and others were not happy about the division, and today there are many syntacticians who keep themselves away from the "dangerous" interface with semantics. Now, to be more specific about your question, but still general about the definitions, I think that you could see syntax as independent from semantics but not the other way around.
Let's say the goal of syntax is to develop theories about the similarities and differences between linguistic structures within and across languages. Let's also assume that we can study elements that are necessary for those structures to be well-formed, and that their meaning is not essential for the interpretation of the whole structure.
Then it is possible to say that syntax does not need semantics, or that it is structure what determines meaning. Whether that is interesting or helpful is up to the syntacticians who work under such view.