10/1/2014

LNGT0101 Questions? Introduction to Linguistics • Any questions on Homework #2?

Lecture #8 Oct 1st, 2014

Prescriptivism can cost you $$$ Morphological cartoon of the day

• On game shows: • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCuUaUHjcXo

Today’s agenda Back‐formation

• Back‐formation of results when a • More on word‐formation processes. is formed from another word by taking off • Overview of . what looks like a typical in the . • This was the case with the verb edit, which • Presentation and discussion of Myth 10. entered English as a back‐formation from editor. • Same applies to the pairs television‐televise, self‐destruction‐self‐destruct, donation‐ donate.

6

1 10/1/2014

Acronyms Clipping

• Acronyms are words created from the initial letters of several words. Typical examples are • Another process of word‐formation is clipping, NATO, FBI, CIA, UN, UNICEF, FAQ, WYSIWYG, which is the shortening of a longer word. radar, laser. Clipping in English gave rise to words such as • Sometimes acronyms are actually created first fax from facsimile, gym from gymnasium, and to match a word that already exists in the lab from laboratory. language, e.g., MADD (Mothers against Drunk Drivers).

7 8

Blending Eponyms

• Blending is another way of combining two words to form a new word. The difference • Eponyms are words derived from proper between blending and compounding, however, is that in blending only parts of the names, e.g., “sandwich” from the Earl of words, not the whole words, are combined. Sandwich; “lynch” after William Lynch. Here’s a couple of examples: • LINK smoke + fog  smog motor + hotel  motel information + commercial  infomercial

9 10

What process(es) is invovled?

• Terra firma • Webcam • Facebook • CEO • Enabler • Execs • Blog (noun) and blog (verb)

11 12

2 10/1/2014

Synthesis: How many does your Morphological typology language have per word? • One aspect of morphological variation has to do with synthesis: Some choose to “stack” morphemes on top of one another How do languages differ in their within words; others elect to use at most one word structure? per word, and many others will fall somewhere between these two extremes. • Let us start by comparing Yay to Oneida (examples from Whaley 1997:127):

13 14

Synthesis: How many morphemes does your Morphological typology: Index of synthesis language have per word? Yay: • On the so‐called index of synthesis for morphological a. mi ran tua Nwa lew typology (Comrie 1989), understood as a continuum, Yay is considered an , whereas not see CLASS snake CMPLT Oneida would be closer to the synthetic end of the “He did not see the snake.” scale, with English closer to the Yay‐end than to the Oneida: Oneida‐end: b. yo‐nuhs‐a‐tho:lé: 3.NEUT.PAT‐room‐epenthetic‐be.cold.STAT Isolating <‐x‐‐‐‐‐‐‐x‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐x‐‐‐>Synthetic “The room is cold.” Yay English Oneida

15 16

Morphological typology: Index of synthesis Morphological typology: Index of synthesis

• Some languages take synthesis to the extreme, • Or Eskimo: marking all grammatical relationships on the verb iglu‐kpi‐yuma‐laak‐tu‐Na with extensive affixation, thereby creating long and house‐build‐intend‐anxious‐reflexive‐I complex words that would correspond to whole sentences in languages like English, as in Tiwa “I’m anxious to build a house.” (example from Whaley 1997:131): • Or Mohawk (from Baker 2001:88): men‐mukhin‐tuwi‐ban Katerihwaiénstha’ dual‐hat‐buy‐PAST “I am a student. [Literally: I habitually “You two bought a hat.” cause myself to have ideas.]”

17 18

3 10/1/2014

Morphological typology: Index of fusion Morphological typology: Index of synthesis One‐to‐one or one‐to‐many? • Or Mohawk again, though rather more • Synthetic languages, in turn, differ in whether ridiculously: morphemes are easily segmentable or not. Consider this paradigm from Michoacan , for example: Washakotya’tawitsheraherkvhta’se’ “He made the thing that one puts on one’s no-kali “my house” no-pelo “my dog” body (i.e., the dress) ugly for her.” no-kali-mes “my houses” mo-pelo “your dog”

mo-kali “your house” mo-pelo-mes “your dogs” • We call languages like Tiwa, Eskimo, and Mohawk, polysynthetic languages. i-kali “his house” i-pelo “his dog”

19 20

Morphological typology: Index of fusion Morphological typology: Index of fusion

• But now compare with Ancient Greek: • On the so‐called index of fusion for lu‐ō “1sg.Pres.Active.Indicative (I am releasing)” morphological typology, also conceived of as a lu‐ōmai “1sg.Pres.Active.Subjunctive (I should release)” continuum, Michoacan Nahuatl is considered lu‐omai “1sg.Pres.Passive.Indicative (I am being released)” an , whereas Ancient lu‐oimi “1sg.Pres.Active.Optative (I might release)” Greek would be closer to the fusional end of lu‐etai “3sg.Pres.Active.Indicative (He is being released)” the scale:

Agglutinative <‐‐‐x‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐x‐‐>Fusional Nahuatl Greek

21 22

Zulu Turkish

4 10/1/2014

Swedish Presentation and discussion

• Myth 10: Some languages have no grammar.

25

Next class agenda

• Syntax: Continue to read Chapter 3 until p. 108.

5