1

المرجع الالكتروني للمعلوماتية

Grammar

Tenses

Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous

Past

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous

Past Simple

Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous

Passive and Active

Parts Of Speech

Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective

Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pre Position

Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition

Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

Interjections

Express calling interjection

Grammar Rules

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Semantics

Pragmatics

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced

English Language : Linguistics : Phonology :

Integration of phonology and morphology

المؤلف:  APRIL McMAHON

المصدر:  LEXICAL PHONOLOGY AND THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

الجزء والصفحة:  55-2

2024-11-28

167

Integration of phonology and morphology

One vital choice for LP is whether or not the model should be interactionist, with morphological and phonological operations interspersed. This interaction was one of the major motivations for the development of LP, and remains for many phonologists an attractive feature of the model; but it is not without its problems.

 

Some of these difficulties seem relatively minor. For instance, certain affixes appear to display properties of both Class I and Class II; thus,-ism is stress-shifting in Cathólicism from Cátholic, but stress-neutral in Prótestantism from Prótestant. Other morphological concerns are less tractable; thus, the existence of so-called bracketing paradoxes (like the famous ungrammaticality; see Badecker 1991) has led to Aronoff and Sridhar's (1983) contention that the Affix Ordering Generalization is invalid, and morphological level-ordering untenable. Further critiques of the same sort are included in Sproat (1985) and Szpyra (1989). Halle and Vergnaud (1987), for example, consequently adopt a non-interactionist model, with a separate morphological module which precedes all phonology, and contact between the two components limited to the fact that `morphology ... creates the objects on which the rules of phonology operate' (1987: 78).

 

We can respond to these developments in two ways. First, we might agree with Badecker (1991: 131) that `there is substantial content to the role of morphology in Lexical Phonology even when Level Ordering is subtracted out'; and indeed, Halle and Vergnaud (1987) still find it necessary to account for the behavior of stress-neutral versus stress sensitive suffixes, for instance. On the other hand, we might wish to maintain an integrationist approach, with level ordering retained and respected for both morphology and phonology; this stronger version of LP is more in keeping with the origins of the model, and is the approach I adopt here. Hargus (1993), in a defence of interactionism, demonstrates that phonology must precede morphology in some cases, since morph ology may necessarily refer to a derived phonological property, often stress. Furthermore, the domain of phonological rules may exclude material reflecting a morphological process: thus, spirantization in Luiseño fails to apply to reduplicative structures, while nasal harmony in Sundanese must precede and follow plural infixation. Hargus argues that, although some cases previously seen as supporting interaction have been reanalyzed, not all can be. Giegerich (in press) also argues strongly for interaction, albeit in a model of base-driven stratification rather different from standard LP. Giegerich highlights failures of the Affix Ordering Generalization, and the large number of affixes with at least potentially dual membership of Levels 1 and 2, but claims that these are only problematic when the stratal distinction is driven by affix behavior.

 

If we assume instead that properties of the base are predominantly at issue, with Level 1 being the domain of roots and Level 2 of words, we can derive stratification while allowing dual membership as the norm for derivational suffixes in English, for instance. There are many consequences of this change in perspective. Others, for instance Giegerich's argument that morphology on Level 1 will effectively involve listing, with each root being stored along with the list of Level 1 affixes it can potentially attract (from which follows the unproductive and semantically idiosyncratic nature of Level 1 morphology), cannot be fully developed here. Nonetheless, morphological developments of this kind, as well as the arguments given earlier, may justify retaining an integrated model.

EN

تصفح الموقع بالشكل العمودي