The relationship between morphology syntax and semantics

On the relation between morphology and syntax.

the relationship between morphology syntax and semantics

Syntax. The term grammar is often used to refer to morphology (the study of distinguish between a level on which the unambiguous semantic structure of a. Review: Morphology; Phonology; Syntax; Semantics: Galani et al. The firstsection addresses the interfaces between morphology and syntax and the mapping relation between morphologicaltokens and syntactic atoms. Since morphology is interrelated with phonology, syntax, and semantics, changes First, he found a correlation between the preservation of prefixes and their.

The volume provides an introduction to a variety offrameworks and methodologies with comprehensive case studies. The book contains 11 papers divided into three thematic sections.

The firstsection addresses the interfaces between morphology and syntax and phonology. The second section examines the interfaces between morphology and semantics andlexicon. The final section contains two chapters discussing morphology inrelation to psycholinguistics and language acquisition. The following presents abrief summary of each paper with some general remarks. The introduction discusses central themes of the book,specifically interfaces between morphology and other modules.

The second partpresents a brief summary of the papers included here. Case assignment in FR clauses is an instance of caseconflict where the wh-phrase appears in a case different from what is predictedby its syntactic status in the clause. Spyropoulos examines the properties ofcase matching mechanisms in FR clauses and claims that the case properties ofthe wh-phrase in FR clauses are the result of a division of labour betweennarrow syntax and morphological structure.

Case assignment takes place in narrowsyntax but it only refers to those features that are relevant to the distinctionbetween structural and inherent case. The full specification of the featurebundles of case consequently takes place at the morphological structure. Spyropoulos proposes that the conflict between m-case matrix vs.

Alternativelyr-case is assigned in narrow syntax, whereas m-case is assigned to Do head, notto the wh-phrase itself; and Do features match the feature of the wh-phrase.

Reviews: Morphology and syntax

The paper focuses on Anderson's claim that special clitics are phrasal affixes controlled in a separatepostlexical component. They then discuss the prediction of phrasal affixation thatlexical morphological and phonological rules are not sensitive to the presenceof special clitics and therefore special clitics are not visible to thecomponent of lexical morphophonology.

The discussion builds on Catalan andSpanish clitics, proposing a theory of edge morphology where special clitics aretreated either as independent words features are transferred to heads or asaffixes features are transferred to edges. The edge morphology proposal isexemplified with the English genitive and the genitive noun phrase in OldGeorgian Suffixaufnahme. Such properties are a preverbal clitics can be separated by the verb by up to two particles and cantake a wide scope over coordinated verb phrases and b their preverbal positionis not dependent on the finiteness of the verb but on a specific set ofparticles and phrases in preverbal position.

Awealth of examples from European Portuguese shows the inflectional properties ofproclitics. The authors conclude that the complexity ofproclisis in European Portuguese can be accounted for at the morphology-syntaxinterface and therefore neither purely phrase structure configurations norpurely syntactic features can solely account for the nature of preverbal clitics. BELLBell argues against treating noun-noun constructions NNs as phrases syntacticconstructions in which the first noun modifies the second Giegerich, Building on Bauer's suggestion that NNs in English belong to a singlecategory, Bell proposes a syntactic analysis of NNs in English as compoundwords.

In contrast, the lack of inflectional marking doesnot allow for agreement between adjective and noun to be motivated in relationto inflection.

the relationship between morphology syntax and semantics

Bell then examines the internal structure of phrases andcompounds in English, focusing on adjective-noun and noun-noun constructions. Drawing on X bar theory Chomsky, and rules of recursion, Bell claims thatNNs in English can be accounted for by regular morphological compoundingmechanisms that apply to all Germanic languages. Bell concludes that English NNsdo not exhibit the essential characteristics of phrases and therefore it can beassumed that NNs belong to the single class of compounds.

Such values often embody the notions of aspect, modality and polarity tothe grammatical expression of tense TAMP. Kibort, following Stump ,assumes that the values of TAMP are identified through a paradigm whereinflected forms correlate to functions. Kibort consequently outlines therelevant feature types, focusing on the distinction between morphosyntactic andmorphosemantic features and their multi-representation in various domains syntactic phrase, verbal complex or semantic unit.

Morphological Change

Kibort distinguishesbetween contextual and inherent features, the former related to syntax but notthe latter Booij, A decision tree of six questions is offered as aheuristic process for establishing how a feature value has been realised on anelement agreement or government.

Kibort examines three instances of TAMP foragreement features from Kayardild, an Australian case-stacking language and theresult suggest that the selection of TAMP values is driven by semantic choice inKayardild rather than agreement or government.

Kibort concludes that tense isa morphosemantic rather than a morphosyntactic feature operating at theinterface of morphology and semantics; and as a result, syntax is not sensitiveto verbal tense. The paper builds on the fact that nominalisationshares properties of both nouns and verbs. Syntactic approaches tonominalisation identify the need of such properties to be split into layers.

Alexiadou investigates the relation of these layers nominal structure toaspectual distinctions, especially the ones associated with Aktionsart, first inRomanian nominalisations and then in Greek nominalisations.

The data analysisfocuses on aspectual properties of telicity, perfectivity and boundedness countand mass nouns and takes a closer look at the internal composition of Greeknominals, providing a series of examples and tests. The analysis shows thatcertain nominalisations in Greek are sensitive to aspectual properties. Alexiadou discusses the internal composition of Greek nominalisations in termsof the relationships between Number and Aspect and concludes that Greek derivednominalisations formed with the affix -m- are always atelic they blockculmination and therefore resist pluralisation.

Alexiadou also proposes twotypes of plurality, one available for count nouns and a second one onlyavailable for mass nouns the latter type not available in the nominalisations. Agreement between a noun and its determiner involves the distinction of twofeatures: CONCORD, a morphosyntactic feature related to the declension class ofa noun and INDEX a semantic feature related to the semantics of a noun and itsagreement with other units such as verb, adjective, pronoun.

Kazana discussedthe nature of the definite determiner agreement and gives examples of unexpectedagreement patterns of NP-coordination. NP-coordinates with either singular or plural conjuncts. For thesepatterns, she introduces two modifications to the CONCORD system, one forsingular coordinated nouns and the second for plural animate and inanimatenouns.

With these two constraints, Kazana assumes the existence a singledefinite determiner within the MG lexicon and concludes that such analysisprovides a preliminary solution to the problematic patterns, leaving this opento further research.

What this excursus has shown then is that on closer inspection morphological change is not that easy to define, which depends on the fact that the characteristics of morphology interrelate with phonology, syntax, and semantics. So it is not isolated from other parts of the grammar, and it cannot be entirely divorced from phonological, syntactic, and semantic concerns.

But this is also exactly why morphology and morphological change are so fascinating.

Levels of Language for Discourse Analysis

Because morphology has many facets, the standard view is that its processes can be divided into word formation and inflection. If we deal with the development of word structure, we ask the question of how a language acquired the morphological properties it has. Further possible questions are at which point conversion emerged as a process of word formation in English or what the origin of the linking element -s in German compounds is.

Studying morphological change can provide a window on the human mind from a historical perspective, at least for those who are also interested in cognitive and theoretical aspects of language.

From examples like these we see what speakers do when they are exposed to new data, how they process and produce language which, after all, is the basis for acquiring linguistic competence. What we see again is that borrowing can be seen as being part of morphological change because borrowed items affect the content of the lexicon.

Difference Between Morphology and Syntax

We have said that morphology relates to other parts of grammar. Words have phonological properties, when they are combined they form phrases and sentences, some of their forms reflect their syntactic functions, and often they are composed of smaller meaningful pieces.

Further, they form paradigms and are part of lexical families. This is why we can say that the field of morphology is central to linguistics and every linguist has to know about it. This also applies to changes in morphology. A more theoretical issue is—at least if we believe in the modularity of grammar—where morphology is located. This aspect is tightly linked with the history and development of linguistic theory.

During American structuralism Bloomfield applied this distinction to the study of morphology, and many works published at that time predominantly dealt with the phonology and morphology of a language L. For some reason, in Generative Grammar morphology was deprived of its importance and, if considered at all, was seen as being part of either phonology or syntax.

This is the approach taken in this article, and this is why the individual sections deal with the respective interfaces. More recently, modular approaches discussing constraints on the phonology—morphology, morphology—syntax, and morphology—semantics interface have been proposed.

One such model is Ackema and Neelemanp. This model assumes modules for semantics, syntax, and phonology, each of which contains submodules that generate phrasal representations and submodules that generate word-level representations.

What meaningful distinction is there between morphology and syntax? - Linguistics Stack Exchange

The syntax module contains a submodule for word syntax, which is seen as a morphological submodule. Further, the model is a system rich of interaction: By dealing with these interfaces many new insights into the parts of grammar have been gained, and the division of labor between these components has become clearer.

Yet there is still much to say, and this especially applies to the study of morphology as an autonomous module and to historical aspects of morphology.

In the same book, Joseph notes that from a synchronic perspective we can define when a phenomenon is part of pure morphology, but from a diachronic perspective we can also trace at which point a phenomenon crosses for example from morphology to syntax. In the next section we will deal with the causes of morphological change.

In Section 3 changes at the interfaces of morphology—phonology, morphology—syntax, and morphology—semantics will be discussed. Section 4 takes a closer look at the internal changes of morphology with a focus on analogy.

Section 5 summarizes and concludes. The examples for the types of morphological change given here are predominantly from English, sometimes supported by examples from other languages like German or French.

Generally they are meant to illustrate major patterns of change; examples for minor changes or for other, more exotic languages can be found in the works cited in the article.

the relationship between morphology syntax and semantics

From this small-scale study it seems that the material undergoing morphological change is already there in the language. When it comes to the question of what triggers change in the morphology of a language, historical linguists name two causes: Concerning the latter, we know that a large number of loan words came into English at several stages in its history, but a remarkable part of the derivational morphology is the result of lexical borrowing.

The question of what can be borrowed on the level of morphology is still debatable see, e.

the relationship between morphology syntax and semantics

The locus of morphological change can be seen in the process of transmission of a grammar from one generation to the next, under the assumption that aspects of grammar are generally underspecified by the data speakers are exposed to.

In this scenario speakers of a new generation may interpret data differently from the speakers of a previous generation, with the result that their grammar will ultimately differ from the grammar of their models.

Often opacity plays a crucial role in this process see Anderson, Surface forms of linguistic entities that are totally transparent for some speakers at some point in time may become less transparent in the course of time.

The structural regularities underlying these entities are no longer unambiguously recoverable for speakers, but since these surface forms are the basis on which speakers construct their grammars, a different grammar may be the result.