| Term | Definition |
|---|
| Yes! | Is the relationship between inflection classes and paradigms close? |
| Groups of lexemes choose the same allomorphs for a whole series of affixes, not just one or two. | What is the point of talking about inflection classes? |
| It has the same paradigm as the other verbs in that class. | What does it mean when a verb belongs to the 1st conjugation? |
| classifies languages according to their structural characteristics instead of genetic affiliation | morphological typology |
| isolating, agglutinative, inflectional, polysynthetic | 4 classic types of morphological typology |
| use of morphology is extremely limited, categories marked morphological in other languages are marked here syntactically | isolating languages |
| morphology is almost entirely affixal, allomorphy is limited, nearly one-to-one relationship between meanings and affixal forms | agglutinative languages |
| morphs tend to be fusional, or portmanteau, by combining several pieces of (grammatical) meaning in one form, extensive allomorphy, there may be considerable use of base modification | inflectional languages |
| word-forms tend to be extremely complex, multiple lexemes can be combined together, in addition to a number of morphemes, most frequently object nouns incorporate into their verbs | polysynthetic languages |
| no language is a perfect example of any archetype, often hard to determine where it fits, defining criteria not consistent | Why is the classic four-way split problematic? |
| defined by only one criterion, probably a sub-type of the agglutinative type | What is the problem with the polysynthetic type? |
| typology uses agglutination as central reference point with other types as deviations | assumption of general agglutination |
| total lack of agglutination | isolating languages deviation |
| blur the boundaries of simple agglutinative string of sound-meaning units | inflection languages deviation |
| agglutinative morphology corresponds directly to the morphemic ideal | agglutinative correspondence |
| built on the idea that words are always built up out of smaller pieces, allows a clear connection to the syntactic structure | piece based theories |
| become complicated when explaining non-affixal morphology (base modification, reduplication, etc.) | disadvantage of piece-based theories |
| word-formation involves applying a series of processes to a base | process based theories |
| forms such as drove can be easily explained | advantage of process based theories |
| point of contact between morphology and syntax is lost | disadvantage of process based |
| meaning of a word form is built up with its overt form, pieces and process along the way each contribute to the final meaning | incremental theories |
| seperate the construction of the meaning of a word-form and how it is pronounced, meaning is first independently determined (perahps in the syntax), then the morphology has to figure out how to pronounce it | realizational theories |
| start with fact that we want a word-form meaning "agents of operating" a vehicle, then put together pieces or carry out a process on a lexeme to get the form and meaning | realizational theory example |
| better at dealing with complicated morphological phenomena that deviate from the ideal of matching form to meaning | Advantage of realizational theories |
Combine with other sets
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace