G Y
LO
H O
R P
O
M
A L
I C S
A
N
X
S
A
LE IM
A
H
T
FA
?WHAT IS LEXICAL MORPHOLOGY
lexical morphology studies the processes for the formation
of new words in the sense of new lexemes.
For instance, from write, we can yield writer and rewrite.
However, forms like wrote and write are considered by
inflectional morphology that is, a word is modified to
express different grammatical categories such as tense,
case, voice, aspect, person, number, gender, mood…etc.
WHAT IS LEXICAL MORPHOLOGY
The word writing is seen as:
Derivational formation in the sense of (handwriting).
It is formed by the nominal derivational suffix {-ING nm} which is found in words like
meetings, weddings, readings, writings.
The nominal {ING nm} is obviously derivational since it permits the addition of an
inflectional suffix to close it off. E.g. “Your writing is illegible”.
Inflectional formation when it is part of the verb group.
It is formed by the verbal inflectional suffix {ING vb} as in “He is writing a letter to his
wife”.
WHAT IS LEXICAL MORPHOLOGY
Inflectional morphology deals with the grammar.
While derivational morphology is concerned with these rules by means of which new
lexemes are formed.
Items like re- or – er are called lexical formatives rather than morphemes.
The stems to which lexical formatives added are called lexical stems. Lexical stems are
either:
I. Morphologically simple such as WRITE.
Or
II. Morphologically complex such as UN-REALISTIC.
THIS SUGGESTS THAT WORDS CAN BE ANALYZED AS HAVING INTERNAL CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE
:SUGGESTED FORMATION RULES
Adj + ist → N → real-ist
N + ic → Adj → angel-ic
Un + Adj → Adj → un-real
Adj + en → V → rip-en
V +ion → N → Confusion
:PHONOLOGICAL AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL CHANGES
Phonological changes: the noun angel is stressed on the first syllable, but when it is
converted into the adjective angelic, the stress is shifted to be on the second syllable.
Orthographical changes: the verb refuse loses the final letter -e when it is changed into the
noun refusal.
We do not call these rules as rewrite rules as they are inappropriate here. A rewrite rule
such as N → Adj = ist (i.e. a noun has the constituents adj+ -ist) captures the wrong
generalization.
WHY DO WE CONSIDER RULES LIKE THESE AS RULES FOR FORMING
NEW LEXICAL ITEMS RATHER THAN RULES BELONGING TO
?GRAMMAR
1) Formation rules are of limited rather than general productivity of inflectional rules.
Also, they apply to lexical stems in an arbitrary fashion, for instance, the verb refuse cannot be changed into noun as
refusion on the analogy of confuse → confusion.
However, some rules such as (-y) as in length-y or fox-y are an active product process and some seem no longer productive (-
th) as in Width, strength.
In conclusion, word formation rules are of limited rather than general productivity. Some are still productive, others are
fossilized. They have arbitrary application to particular stems. Grammatical rules are generally productive and of wide
application. (e.g. rule forming noun plurals).
2) From the point of view of grammar, the process by which a lexeme is formed is not relevant. For the adjective stupid
and foolish, it is not relevant that stupid is a root and foolish is a derived form. It is not possible to apply the rule
ascribing number to the string (realist) when it is part of the adjective (realistic). Plus, the string (realistic) cannot
be compared when it is part of the adjective unrealistic (* unmorerealistic ). We can conclude that the rule
ascribing number to a noun does not apply when a particular noun stem is itself dominated by an Adj node. It is
confirmed by the fact that the grammatical affixes are more peripheral to a word than derivational affixes.
We can find:
GA+DA+ STEM +DA +GA
BUT NOT
* DA+GA + DA+STEM + GA +DA
(i.e. GA= grammatical affixes and DA = derivational affixes)
In English, for instance, we find morph-eme-ic-iz-ed (STEM+DA+DA+DA+GA)
3)Thus, grammatical and word formation rules have to be separate. The
grammatical rules are part of grammar, and it is not relevant to the
grammar whether the lexeme is a root or a derived form.
Some of the rules mentioned in the previous diagram involve recategorization.
That is, some rules are class changing (i.e. change the category of the stem as
in Adj + ist → N→ real-ist) and others are class maintaining (i.e do not
change the category as in Un + Adj → Adj → un-real).
4) A derived lexeme generally has some semantic relation to the lexeme from
which it is derived, usually through the root they both share.
Examples:
BOYHOOD, KNIGHTHOOD, SISTERHOOD
The same can be said about the affixes. For instance, hood refers to state,
quality, rank (ABSTRACT) as in manhood. By contrast, it refers to concrete
instance, collectivity as in falsehood and brotherhood. Accordingly, such
changes of meaning are more appropriate to be tackled in the lexicon rather
than grammar.
COMPOUNDING (COMPOSITION)
It is another process for deriving new lexemes in English.
Examples:
BOOKMARK, TEATIME, HALFBACK.
The distinction between compounding and derivation is that each part of the
compounding is a lexical stem per se, and is a typically free morph as in that case of
bookmark that composed mark and book.
Compounds are sometimes written as follows:
a) As a single w
b) ord as in waterfall.
b) Hyphenated as in water-drop.
c) As two words as in water bottle.
CONCLUSION
Inflectional morphology:
1- It deals with the distribution of categories introduced by the grammar.
2- productive.
3- General.
Derivational morphology
1- It deals with production of new lexemes.
2- less productive.
3- It is often arbitrary in application.
Thus, it belongs to lexicon rather than grammar.
