Sample problems with solutions

Now that you have been introduced to some principles of morphological analysis, let us examine a data set. This one comes from the Veracruz dialect of Aztec, spoken in Mexico, and is taken from Nida (1965: 11):

Our task is to list all the morphemes and to give the meaning of each. Before reading the following discussion, try this out on your own. Then, if you run into trouble or want to check your answers, read on.

We begin by looking for recurring pieces that have a consistent meaning or function. The English glosses are useful for this. Consider (21a–c, j). All have something to do with ‘house’, and more specifically, ‘his house(s)’. Examining the forms carefully we find that they all contain the piece ikal- but have nothing else in common. We deduce from this that ikal- means ‘his house’. We include a hyphen after ikal- because, since it never appears on its own, we cannot know if Aztec requires that it be suffixed. The data set does not contain any other examples with an English gloss of ‘his’ or another possessive pronoun; nor does it contain any examples meaning ‘house’ without the possessor ‘his’. This means we cannot break ikal- down further.

Form (21a) ikalwewe ‘his big house’ contains the additional piece -wewe. Looking over the rest of the data, we find that -wewe also occurs in (21g) petatwewe ‘big mat’, (21d) komitwewe ‘big cooking-pot’, and (21n) ko·yamewewe ‘big male pig’. All of these also contain the meaning ‘big’. We conclude that -wewe means ‘big’. Again, we use the hyphen because in this particular data set, -wewe always appears attached to the stem.

One form contains the meaning ‘big’ but not the morpheme -wewe. This is (21o) ko·yameilama ‘big female pig’. We recognize the piece ko·yame- ‘pig’, which also appears in (21m–n, p). From the minimal data we have, we can only deduce that like -wewe, -ilama means ‘big’, but that it attaches only to a certain class of noun. Both (21o) ko·yameilama ‘big female pig’ and (21n) ko·yamewewe ‘big male pig’ appear to have the same stem, but one refers to a female animal and the other to a male animal.

On the basis of (21b–c) ikalsosol ‘his old house’ and ikalci·n ‘his little house’ we isolate the pieces -sosol ‘old’ and -ci·n ‘little’. This analysis is supported by other words in the data set, such as (21e–f) komitsosol ‘old cooking-pot’ and komitci·n ‘little cooking-pot’, which contain the same pieces. We can also isolate komit- ‘cooking-pot’.

In all, we can isolate the following nine morphemes:

This was fairly simple in the sense that there were no allomorphs, and the morphology was entirely morphemic – we found no evidence of non-segmental phenomena. However, there were a few difficulties. First, we did not have enough data to break down ikal- ‘his house’ further, and yet, since the English gloss clearly has two parts, you may have been tempted to break it into two parts, too. A second difficulty was the presence of both -ilama and -wewe ‘big’. We did not have enough data to describe the difference between them. Morphologists occasionally have to accept uncertainty when working with published data sets and written grammars. Sometimes there are gaps in what is presented. Morphologists doing field research have the advantage of native speaker consultants whom they can ask. But in order to ask the right questions, morphologists and other linguists must alternate data collection with data analysis and not wait to get back home to analyze their findings.

A final observation is that this data set was not presented in the IPA. For example, you probably were not familiar with Nida’s convention for marking long vowels: a raised dot, as in -ci·n ‘little’. This fact in itself should not have posed any problems. It is sometimes possible to isolate morphemes, particularly when there are no allomorphs or phonological interactions between them, without fully understanding the transcription system. That was the case here, although the presence of non-standard transcription symbols may have made the problem set seem more daunting.

As explained in the prefatory remarks, we chose to retain non-standard transcription systems despite the difficulties they present because as a linguist you will be faced with them time and time again. We hope the experience you gain will help you deal with such systems in your own research.

Our next sample problem set comes from French. It addresses different issues than the Aztec data discussed above. The French adjectives in the first column are masculine, and those in the second are feminine. Your task is to determine how masculine and feminine adjectives are differentiated and to outline a possible analysis. You may ignore changes in vowel quality.

As with the Aztec set, you should limit yourself to the data provided, although some of you may know French.

One way to begin is to see whether there is a single morpheme, which may or may not have allomorphs, that signals the difference between masculine and feminine. There is not. Masculine and feminine adjectives are differentiated by an alternation between Ø and [s] in (23a), Ø and [z] in (23b–c), Ø and [t] in (23d), Ø and [d] in (23e–f), Ø and [l] in (23g), Ø and [n] in (23h), Ø and [ʃ] in (23i), Ø and [ɡ] in (23j), Ø and [ʁ] in (23k–l), and Ø and [j] in (23m). The masculine and feminine forms of [nεt] ‘clean’ are identical. (It is important to focus on pronunciation and not spelling. Spelling conventions are not part of the mental grammar.) We cannot consider the many final sounds of the feminine forms to be allomorphs of one another. Phonetically, they are extremely varied. Their distribution overlaps, too. For example, we find both [ʃ] and [z] after [ε], in (23i) fraîche ‘fresh’ (f) and (23b) mauvaise ‘bad’ (f), respectively. There is no apparent reason why (23n) net, nette ‘clean’ should behave differently from the other words in the list in having only one form [nεt].

You may be thinking that the spelling can account for the final sound of the feminine forms. However, spelling often reflects the history of a word and not its synchronic analysis. Therefore, we cannot base our analysis on it.

So far it appears as if the final sound of the feminine forms of the adjectives is arbitrary. And yet, it cannot be wholly arbitrary, or speakers would not know which form the feminine takes. We have been treating this problem until now as if the feminine form is derived from the masculine one. A second possibility is that the opposite is true. We can form a hypothesis: perhaps the masculine form results when we remove the final sound of the feminine. This accounts for (23a–m). (Recall that we asked you to ignore changes in vowel quantity.) But this hypothesis fails when we apply it to (23n) net, nette ‘clean’. Both are pronounced [nεt]. Our current hypothesis, that we arrive at the masculine form by subtracting the last segment of the feminine form, cannot account for this fact.

At this point in the problem, you need to make a new hypothesis. There is room for more than one. One is that in French, adjectives have more than one stem, and both the masculine and feminine stems need to be memorized. This would mean that for (23b) mauvais, mauvaise, speakers memorize that the first is pronounced [movε] and the second [movεz]. A second reasonable hypothesis is that we were on the right track earlier, and that speakers arrive at the masculine form by dropping the final segment of the feminine form. The feminine form is the only one that needs to be memorized, then, since the masculine can be derived from it by a regularly applying rule. Under this hypothesis, (23n) net, nette ‘clean’, both pronounced [nεt], is an exception that speakers must memorize. Many would consider it an advantage that, on the basis of our data set, this hypothesis requires speakers to memorize fewer forms.

We may not have arrived at a single, neat solution to the French data, but we have analyzed them and presented the hypotheses that they suggest carefully. Presentation is important whenever you undertake to solve a linguistics problem. We close this topic with a few tips for writing one up. First, when you include examples from a data set in the text of your analysis, set them off by underlining them or using italics, as we have done. Second, whenever you present a foreign-language form, provide its gloss (an explanation of its meaning, a definition). The most standard linguistic practice is to put the gloss in single quotation marks, like this: ‘definition’. Finally, be sure you know what the problem is asking. If the problem asks for a list of morphemes, that is all you need to provide (but don’t forget to give their glosses, as well). If the problem asks for your analysis, present it carefully, as we have done above. In order to make your answer more compelling, you may need to explore analyses that do not work, as well. This is what we did in examining the French data.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تختتم فعاليات حفل التكليف المركزي الثامن بمشاركة أكثر من 6 آلاف تلميذة

من الخيام إلى الفتوى.. عرض مسرحي ضمن فعاليات اليوم الثاني لحفل التكليف

ضمن فعاليات اليوم الثاني من حفل التكليف المركزي الثامن تلميذات مدارس كربلاء يرددن نشيد التكليف

عرض فيلم عن مشروع الورود الفاطمية ضمن فعاليات اليوم الثاني من حفل التكليف المركزي الثامن

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

عوامل تضعف القدرات الإدراكية لدى الإنسان

طريقة جديدة لتجديد خلايا الدماغ

دراسة بريطانية: الأطعمة النباتية عالية الجودة تقلل خطر فشل القلب

7 أطعمة يومية "تسمم" جسمك بالبلاستيك دون أن تشعر

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

اكتشاف أثري في أوريغون الأمريكية قد يعيد كتابة تاريخ البشرية

اكتشاف كائن بحري مدرع بلسان "حديدي" في بحر اليابان

نظام كوكبي "مقلوب" يحير علماء الفلك

بسبب الذكاء الاصطناعي.. هذه الوظائف "ستختفي" بعد أشهر قليلة ؟!

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Analytic principles

Introduction to Morphological Analysis Two basic approaches: analysis and synthesis

Background and Beliefs

Abstract morphological facts

Novel words and word play

Morphemes

What is Morphology?

Clitics Conclusion

Second position clitics

Clitics

Non-linear morphology Conclusion

Inflectional rules