Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

316 Morphology: Optimality Theory McCarthy J J & Prince A (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity.

In Beckman J, Walsh Dickey L & Urbanczy S (eds.) University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. 249384. [Available at Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-103.] McCarthy J J & Prince A (1999). Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In Kager R, van der Hulst H & Zonneveld W (eds.) The prosodymorphology interface. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 218309. Onn F M (1976). Aspects of Malay phonology and morphology. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Parker S & Weber D (1996). Glottalized and aspirated stops in Cuzco Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 62, 7085. Plag I (1998). Morphological haplology in a constraintbased morpho-phonology. In Kehrein W & Wiese R (eds.) Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages. Tu bingen, Germany: Niemeyer. 199215. [Available at Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-344.] Prentice D J (1971). The Murut languages of Sabah. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University. Prince A & Smolensky P (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell. [Available at Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-537.] Roca I (ed.) (1997). Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Russell K (1997). Optimality Theory and morphology. In Archangeli D & Langendoen D T (eds.) Optimality Theory: an overview. Oxford: Blackwell. 102133. Samek-Lodovici V (1993). A unified analysis of crosslinguistic morphological gemination. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University. [Available at Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-149.] Tranel B (1996). French liaison and elision revisited: A unified account within Optimality Theory. In Parodi C, Quicoli C, Saltarelli M & Zubizarreta M L (eds.) Aspects of Romance linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 433455. [Available at Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-15.] Urbanczyk S (2001). Patterns of reduplication in Lushootseed. New York: Garland. [Available at Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-215.] Zoll C (1998). Parsing below the segment in a constraintbased framework. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [Available at Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-143.]

Relevant Website
http://roa.rutgers.edu Rutgers Optimality Archive.

Morphology: Overview
L Bauer, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Morphology is concerned with the relationship between the form of a word and its meaning. For example, if we consider the words manage, manages, managed, managing, management, manager, and managerial we find that there is a common core of meaning corresponding to the meaning of manage, and if we consider the words managing, obliging, refusing, seeking, and teaching, there is also a common element of meaning (even if it may be quite difficult to specify that meaning precisely) that is reflected in the recurrent -ing. Etymologically, the term morphology seems to indicate the study of forms, though it can be seen from the preceding that form alone does not provide an object of study within morphology. Morphologists are not interested in the fact the word notable might be considered to contain the orthographic forms no and table because neither no nor table as a unit provides any meaning that can be found in notable. It is where form and meaning reflect each other directly,

either because a certain formal sequence can be seen as being regularly correlated with a particular meaning (as in the examples above) or because there is a regular patterning of semantic relationships, and a particular form can be seen as filling a cell in the pattern. Thus, worse is taken to be in the same relationship to bad that bigger is to big or frailer is to frail, not because of any regularity of form but because of the equivalence of the cells in the pattern or paradigm. Since morphology is concerned with form, it is related to the study of phonology (see Morphophonemics), and since it is concerned with meaning, it is related to the study of semantics. It is also related to the study of syntax in that many of the meanings that find expression in morphology are related to syntactic function: for example, the comparative, past tense and present participles illustrated above. Morphology is also related to lexis in that morphological patterns can be used in the creation of new lexical items, as illustrated by manager and management above. This cross-road (Kastovsky, 1977) nature of morphology means that it has been open to influence from phonological and syntactic theories, as well as to changing ideas about the nature of the lexicon. All this is reflected in morphological theorizing.

Morphology: Overview 317

Morphology is often viewed in terms of the operations that apply to simpler units (like manage) to create more complex ones (like manager and managerial). This view of morphology is reflected in the articles in this encyclopedia on affixation, backformation, neoclassical compounding, conversion, incorporation, internal modification, morphotactics, and reduplication. It can also be viewed through the notion of related sets of words like go, went, going, etc. This is reflected in the article on paradigm. There are also various problems inherent in morphological study, which are discussed in the articles for inflection and derivation, lexicalization, morpheme, productivity, suppletion, and syncretism. Theoretical approaches to morphology are discussed in a-morphous morphology, autosegmental phonology, declarative morphology, distributed morphology, lexeme-morpheme based morphology, lexical phonology and morphology, onomasiological theory of word-formation, optimality theory in morphology, paradigm function morphology, seamless morphology, sign-based morphology, syntax of words, and template morphology. Morphological typology and linguistic universals are discussed in some of the articles mentioned above, but also in the articles on morphological typology and morphological universals, and the articles on Arabic as an introflecting language, Chinese as an isolating language, Finnish as an agglutinating language, Italian as a fusional language, and Central Siberian Yupik as a polysynthetic language. Other aspects of morphology are discussed in acquisition of morphological knowledge during the school years, clitics, dictionaries and inflectional morphology, folk etymology, history of morphology, metathesis in morphology, morphology and language processing, morphology and word formation in corpus linguistics, morphology in pidgins and creoles, splinters, subtraction, and word.
See also: A-Morphous Morphology; Autosegmental Pho-

nology; Distributed Morphology; Language Policies: Policies on Language in Europe; Lexeme-Morpheme-Based Morphology; Lexical Phonology and Morphology; Morphology: Optimality Theory; Onomasiological Theory of Word Formation; Paradigm Function Morphology; SignBased Morpology; Syntax of Words; Template Morphology; Whole Word Morphology.

Bibliography
Anderson S R (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronoff M (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Aronoff M (1994). Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baker M C (1988). Incorporation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Bauer L (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer L (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology (2nd edn.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Beard R & Szymanek B (1988). Bibliography of morphology 19601985. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bergenholtz H & Mugdan J (1979). Einfu hrung in die Morphologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Bloomfield L (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin. Booij G & Marle J v (eds.) (1988). Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [19881990, published by Foris.] Booij G, Lehmann C & Mugdan J (eds.) (2000). Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Morphology: an international handbook on inflection and word-formation) (vol. 1). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Bybee J L (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Carstairs-McCarthy A (1992). Current morphology. London and New York: Routledge. Carstairs-McCarthy A (2002). An introduction to English morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Coates R (1999). Word structure. London and New York: Routledge. Dressler W U, Mayerthaler W, Panagl O & Wurzel W U (1987). Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Haspelmath M (2002). Understanding morphology. London: Arnold. Jensen J T (1990). Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Joos M (ed.) (1957). Readings in linguistics I. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press. Kastovsky D (1977). Word-formation, or: at the crossroads of morphology, syntax, semantics and the lexicon. Folia Linguistica 10, 133. Katamba F (1993). Morphology. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Katamba F (ed.) (2003). Morphology. London: Routledge. ` la morphologie Kilani-Schoch M (1988). Introduction a naturelle. Berne: Lang. Lieber R (1992). Deconstructing morphology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Lockwood D G (1993). Morphological analysis and description. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers. Marle J v (1985). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris. Matthews P H (1972). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews P H (1991). Morphology (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nida E A (1949). Morphology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

318 Morphology: Overview Pinker S (1999). Words and rules. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Plank F (ed.) (1991). Paradigms. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rice K (2000). Morpheme order and semantic scope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scalise S (1984). Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Selkirk E O (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Spencer A (1991). Morphological theory. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Spencer A & Zwicky A M (eds.) (1998). The handbook of morphology. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Blackwell. Stump G (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wurzel W U (1989). Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Morphophonemics
R Coates, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Morphophonemics
Morphophonemics (henceforth MP) is an area of considerable complexity. The basic subject matter is easy to grasp; the ways of treating it in linguistic and psycholinguistic theory are what generate the complexity. All MP is a problem for (structural) linguistics, for reasons that will be spelled out below. As an instance of an MP problem, consider the fact that, in English, the word nature changes its pronunciation when the suffix -al is added; the vowel of the first syllable of natural is short, low, and not a diphthong, unlike the corresponding one in nature. The scare-quotes around the word changes hint at one of the problematic issues that will be dealt with below. It must be emphasized at the outset that there is no single agreed approach to MP among linguists, and much remains very controversial. It is therefore impossible to avoid a substantial amount of technicality in this article. The term morphophonemics is used in a broader and a narrower sense (the former including the study of phonetically driven regular correspondences or alternations), and it is used in the broader sense here. The range of phenomena that might be covered can best be seen in Dressler (1985: 316317); MP might include changes in the form of morphemes that may be described by phonetically natural or unnatural rules, by rules that effect fusion between adjacent phonemes or do not, by rules that are subject to grammatical or lexical limitations on their applicability, and by rules describing correspondences that are phonologically unnatural or mere historical residues (CarstairsMcCarthy, 1983: 237238). An attempt has been made to find a middle way through the competing terminologies used for the phenomena and constructs of MP without dwelling on the differences. The best comprehensive, well-exemplified, introductory survey of MP as a field is Matthews (1991: Chap. 8).

Languages show a great deal of typological difference with respect to MP. Some languages have an immense number of such phenomena, for instance classical Sanskrit and Latin, the Celtic languages, and some Amerindian languages such as Tu batulabal and Yawelmani Yokuts. At the other extreme, there is remarkably little in the indigenous languages of Australia. Others show next to none; a case in point is Vietnamese, it is often claimed. However, even these preliminary comments are problematic, for the very definition of MP, and therefore of what is an instance of it, is linked to the theoretical assumptions one makes. Classical Morphophonemics and PostStructuralist Approaches of this article roughly follow the historical order of developments within the subject since the 1930s.

The Place of Morphophonemics Within Linguistics


MP is an area of study that sits astride the boundary between the major subdisciplines of phonology and orthography on the one hand and grammar and the lexicon on the other. Its subject matter concerns the fact that the same grammatical or lexical information may be encoded in different ways, phonologically and orthographically, though there are cases of such multiple encoding that are not in the domain of MP as usually understood (see the mention of suppletion below). MP is a phonological and/or orthographical matter in that it studies variation in the spoken or written shape of words, or, more strictly, of individual morphemes (see Morpheme). It is a grammatical matter in that some, but by no means all, of such variation is a consequence of placing individual words together in grammatically organized structures; and a lexical one in the sense that some of the variation found is a consequence of structuring complex lexical items out of individual morphemes. MP therefore has as its basis the comparison of (1) the shapes that words/morphemes have in different grammatical and lexical

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi