[back to list of essays]
- Define morphology and the other major subfields of
linguistic theory.
- Trace the fortunes of morphology over the years.
- Sketch the traditional tripartite typology of languages.
- What led many structural linguists to attach less
importance to the word?
- What is necessary to explain the change of dived
to dove as the simple past of English dive,
and what does this have to do with the existence of
morphology as a subfield of linguistics?
- Why should the patterning of lexical and grammatical
elements be considered the primary articulation of
language (rather than the secondary)?
- Comment on the following sentence from M. (top of p. 16),
"Indeed, whatever we think of ageing or dying
in a Verbal construction of the type He's aging or
He's dying, do we still want to say that they are
forms of the Verbs 'age' or 'die' when they appear in the
phrase his ageing father or in Yeats's those
dying generations?
- What is the relation between cynics and dogs?
- Comment on the -er/-or endings in butcher,
grocer, peddler, editor, and ironmonger.
- If separating off the -st in east and west,
and the -th in north and south
constitutes subanalysis, where does one draw the line
between analysis and subanalysis?
- How do phonaesthemes differ from morphemes? Give some
examples.
- Compare and contrast Hockett's three models of
grammatical description/analysis. Give examples.
[back to list of essays]
- Exemplify and explain the three senses in which the word
"word" is used.
- Give examples of inter- and intra-lexemic homonymy. To
what does the term syncretism apply?
- Compare and contrast the morphosyntactic categories of
English and Latin nouns.
- Compare and contrast the British and American schemes of
the branches of morphology.
- In this chapter M. refers to the use of concordances in
literary criticism. Can you think of morphology tasks in
which concordances might be helpful? What are some other
tools that can help in doing morphology? To what extent
are such tools language-specific? What English-specific
tools are listed in Matthews's bibliography? (To focus
your thinking, here are some possible tasks: (1) find all
instances of a certain affix; (2) find when it first
entered the language or "became an affix." Are
different tools needed for prefixes and suffixes?)
[back to list of essays]
- How do paradigms relate to the inflection-derivation
distinction, according to M.?
- The word-form trying is homonymous and may
represent what two lexemes, according to M.?
- Can one rely on part-of-speech classification to decide
whether more than one lexeme is involved? Give examples.
- Give two examples of inflection shading into derivation,
or vice versa, from M.
- A recurring theme in the main section of the chapter (WHY
THE DISTINCTION?) is:
- "If Nouns and Verbs have a different syntax
. . ." (bottom p. 43)
- ". . . words which are given separately in
dictionaries are often syntactically
similar." (lower p. 44)
- ". . . we must look at the syntactic
relations which these words enter into . .
." (middle p. 46)
- ". . .whatever the construction it happens
to appear in . . ." (lower p. 47)
- "The answer is again supplied by the syntax
of the phrases." (top p. 48)
- ". . . justify themselves within the
framework of the same syntactic analysis."
(bottom p. 48)
- ". . . we will find other constructions in
which the Positive and Comparative are not freely
substitutable . . ." (upper p. 50)
- "Such is the case seen, as it were, from the
grammarian's viewpoint." (upper p. 51)
How does this theme relate to the
inflection-derivation distinction? What are some
rules-of-thumb that may be used?
[back to list of essays]
- What are two reasons why M. prefers the term
"word-formation" instead of
"derivation."
- Whereas it seems to make little difference whether, in a
language like English, one speaks of the word-form
"generation" being derived from the word-form
"generate", or the lexeme GENERATION being
derived from the lexeme GENERATE, in a language like
Latin it is preferable to refer only to lexemes when
discussing derivation. Why?
- Discuss the relation of TREPID to intrepid
and trepidation, of JUBIL to jubilee
and jubilation, and of BUTCH to butcher.
- "In brief, the meaning of derived words is in part
synthetic and in part analytic." Discuss, using
examples such as direction, generation, action,
unsavory, unholy, jailer, prisoner.
- Discuss, with respect to both productivity and semantic
nuances, pairs such as immeasurable, unmeasurable;
unrenewable, nonrenewable; unaligned, nonaligned;
immoral, amoral; disinterested, uninterested.
- What factors may inhibit or stimulate productivity? Give
examples.
- Is the distinction M. attempts to draw between
"formation by rule" and "creation by
analogy" a valid one. How does it relate to the
diachronic-synchronic distinction, and to the
inflection-derivation distinction? What is his own answer
to the first question, as to whether that distinction is
valid?
- How would O'Grady, Dobrovolsky, and Aronoff (Contemporary
Linguistics, 3d ed., New York: St. Martins, 1997)
show the structure of the words below? Which of the
affixes that you find in these words are in Table 4.13
(p. 129), or could be added to it? (Note that at least
two or three parallel examples are needed in order for an
affix to be placed in the table.) (1) receive, (2) renew,
(3) repay, (4) replacement, (5) rewrite, (6) retrace, (7)
restore, (8) justice, (9) redisposal, (10) delight, (11)
possible, (12) comparable, (13) optionality, (14)
seasonal, (15) comfortable, (16) horrify, (17) inane,
(18) uncouth, (19) unkempt, (20)disease.
[back to list of essays]
- "One source of opaque compounds is the process known
as 'popular etymology'." In what sense are cockroach
and sparrowgrass opaque? In what sense, if any,
are blackbird, greyhound, and nuthatch opaque?
- "Another reason [why, in practice, compounds must be
entered in the dictionary] is that compounding, like word
formation, in not fully productive." Explain, using
forms such as meat-eater, egg-eater, lady-killer,
nun-killer, whisky-drinker, Cheroot-smoker, etc.
- "Any compound may, in principle, be an immediate
constituent of a further compound." Give examples.
- Give arguments for and against "the syntactic
view" of compounding.
- Distinguish between endocentric and exocentric compounds.
Give examples.
- Discuss minimalist and maximalist approaches to the
classification of English compounds, giving examples.
- M. gives three limitations to such classification
schemes: their inability to uniquely specify the meanings
of the compounds thus classified; indeterminacies in
applying the classification; their inability to deal with
opaque compounds. Clarify and gives examples of each
limitation.
- Should words like policeman and postman be
considered compounds or derived words? Give evidence for
and against.
- Should words like bridegroom, hiccough, magpie,
pullover, and lord be considered compounds?
Discuss these and other such problematic examples in
detail.
-
- Discuss in detail criteria for distinguishing compounds
from syntactic constructions, and problems that arise
from relying on any single criterion:
- morphological: socio-economic, attorney
general
- semantic: pull one's socks up, mental
hospital, topless bar
- phonological: mental hospital, madman,
socio-economic, snow-white, Seventh Avenue, Main
Street
- syntactic: put out, sick joke, Ger. Ausmachen
- Consider whether or not (or the extent to which) each of
the following words should be considered a compound,
using the tests of 10.a.; cite two or three other words
formed according to the same pattern; and indicate
anything else especially noteworthy about the word: (1)
lady, (2) cupboard, (3) heir apparent, (4) mother-in-law,
(5) cockroach, (6) winchat, (7) linch pin, (8)
offside(s), (9) downsize (v.), (10) crybaby, (11)
spacewalk, (12) falling out, (13) cranberry, (14) madman,
(15) postman, (16) overbook, (17) ongoing, (18) inbred,
(19) offload, (20) outdistance, (21) through-put, (22)
accident prone, (23) lackluster, (24) plea bargain, (25)
failsafe, (26) passer-by, (27) come to, (28) turn off
(v.), (29) add up, (30) lay off.
[back to list of essays]
- How did the view of the morpheme held by the
Neo-Bloomfieldians differ from that held by Bloomfield
himself? In summarizing the two views, M. says that
"Some of this belongs to history." What remains
for him? (Answering this question involves distinguishing
among three views of the morpheme.)
- Using examples, distinguish between contrastive and
complementary distribution of phones. Of morphs.
- What is the relation between automatic alternations and
"the phonological structure of words in
general" ( = PHONOTACTICS)?
- Distinguish between the phonological and morphological
conditioning of alternations.
- Summarize Turkish vowel harmony in a few succinct prose
statements.
[back to list of essays]
- How do the "Item and Arrangement" model of
Chapter 6 and the "Item and Process" model as
set forth by M. in Chapter 7 differ? Is one more or less
linear or sequential than the other? Do both involve
morphemes? How does the past participle of English come
fare in each?
- What major categories of morphological processes does M.
identify? Where does reduplication fit into his scheme?
Although he says that "a detailed typology might
arguably be too tedious for this kind of book," what
are the various subtypes that he does mention?
- In some cases, M. seems concerned with questions of
"directionality." Explain his concern, as you
understand it. Is this an important question, and if so,
do you see any way to settle it?
[back to list of essays]
- To what extent is this chapter about phonology rather
than morphology?
- What is morphophonemics?
- Compare and contrast sandhi rules and those of generative
phonology.
- Discuss the proposition that in order to use a morpheme
approach to the description of fusional languages, it is
necessary to convert them into agglutinative languages.
What evidence for such a proposition is to be found in
this chapter?
- What is a diacritic feature? Of what use is it?
[back to list of essays]
For this chapter, we depart from the approach of study
questions, and simply provide several bits of advice intended to
help the reader glean what we consider the main points of the
chapter with minimal effort.
- Reflect on the significance of the distinction between
the two extracts in the first paragraph, one of which
shows "SEA + Plural" in left-to-right sequence,
and the other of which shows "Plural" placed
above "SEA" within square brackets. One extends
the sequencing of syntax into the interior of the word;
the other asserts an absence of linear sequencing within
words. Which does Matthews appear to favor, and for what
reasons?
- Matthews attempts to distinguish between the terms
"fusional" and "flectional" in
referring to language types. He is prepared to use the
term "fusional" for the operation of fusion as
it takes place, for example, in the formation of the word
"çocuum" 'my child', wherein the stem-final
velar (the Turkish "soft-g") disappears, but
for some reason appears unwilling to extend the term to
the type of language in which such processes are
widespread, calling them instead "flectional."
He then goes on to suggest that a language might be
"flectional" but not "fusional." I do
not view this as especially helpful, and would advise
students studying morphology with me not to pursue this
distinction, to simply use the term "fusional"
for languages such as Greek and Latin (the type of
"language for which the 'Item and Arrangement' model
works badly," to quote Matthews) and avoid the term
"flectional." Substitute "fusion" for
"flection" as you read the section on
"flection"--except, of course, in the word
"inflection," which has a currency of its own
independent of "flection."
- Look carefully at the Greek example "elelykete"
as Matthews dissects it, and as it is displayed in the
extract at the top of page 174. If you have several
shades of highlighting pens, use a different color for
each of its morphosyntactic properties in the extract, to
highlight their OVERLAP, CUMULATION, and--in the case of
PAST--their DISCONTINUITY.
- Do not expend great effort learning Matthews's proposed
classification of types of exponence, other than to
consider whether CUMULATIVE EXPONENCE might furnish some
welcome relief to the American-grown term PORTMANTEAU
MORPH. (It would seem to be a draw!)
- Can matrix permutation be put to work to discover and
highlight exponence?
- Final advice for Chapter 9: look at exponence not as the
sort of analysis required by the 'Word and Paradigm'
model, but as the sort of analysis that shows why
morpheme-based models work badly for fusional languages,
why a 'Word and Paradigm' model is necessary. Turn to
Chapter 10 to learn more about the WP model.
[back to list of essays]
- For this chapter, we attempt to be helpful by pointing to
the key concepts. Do you understand what each of the
following is, and what it entails?
- paradigm: how paradigms and inflection go hand in
hand; do paradigms with cumulative exponence look
different from those without?
- exemplary paradigm: what makes a good one?
- leading form: basis for choosing?
- analogy, or "one inflection tends to predict
another"
- What sort of analysis, if any, do people engage in as
they perform "the method of exemplary
paradigms?"
[back to list of essays]
- Give four answers to the question, "What are
words?"
- Under "problems and discrepancies," we find the
Latin examples "virumque" and "amatus
sum" at two ends of the spectrum. Explain the
problems/discrepancies they present for the definition of
wordhood. What technical terms are used for the phenomena
they exempify? [back to list of
essays]