DOCSLIB.ORG

Information Structure and Object Marking: a Study Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information Structure and Object Marking: a Study Of INFORMATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECT MARKING: A STUDY OF THE OBJECT PREPOSITION ʾET IN BIBLICAL HEBREW A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES HEBREW UNION COLLEGE—JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION BY PETER JOSEPH BEKINS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ________________________________ First Reader: Dr. Stephen A. Kaufman ________________________________ Second Reader: Dr. W. Randall Garr NOVEMBER 2012 © Copyright by Peter Joseph Bekins 2012 All rights reserved Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking my readers for their tireless work. My advisor, Stephen Kaufman, was everything that one could ask for in a first reader—direct and quick. I have benefited greatly from my years studying under him and completing this project with him. My second reader, Randall Garr, graciously took on this project despite the fact that we had never previously spoken, much less met. He proved to be the perfect complement with an eye to detail, and this work was improved immeasurably by his participation. I would like to thank my professors and colleagues at Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion. The faculty of the graduate school, including Sam Greengus, David Weisberg !"#, Nili Fox, David Aaron, Jason Kalman, and Adam Kamesar, have all contributed to my growth as a scholar and a person. I thank my fellow graduate students for their friendship, fellowship, and encouragement. I would like to thank the other scholars who have taken an interest in my work and provided both support and encouragement. Robert Holmstedt and John Hobbins have given feedback and encouragement in various stages of the project. I particularly thank Giorgio Iemmolo for sharing early drafts of his dissertation with me. I would also like to thank Kirk Lowery and the Westminster Hebrew Institute for sharing a copy of their MORPH database of the Hebrew Bible for use in my research. i I end by thanking my family and friends. I particularly thank my parents, Randell and Diana Bekins, for their support and encouragement, and my in-laws, James and Susan Meyers for support and timely babysitting during the early phases of the project. David Palmer and Dave Hansen took me under their wings when I first arrived in Cincinnati as both friends and mentors. I thank my boys, Henry and Jack, for their patience while dad sat at the table with the laptop for hours on end. Yes, I can play with you now. Finally, my wonderful wife who shared my dream and was willing to sacrifice for it—thank you. ii To Jack Jack, my Henry, and my sweet Jenny Jean iii Abstract This dissertation investigates the variable use of the object preposition ʾet in Biblical Hebrew as an example of Differential Object Marking. Two categories of variation were examined. Asymmetric case alternations involve the variation between overt marking of the direct object with ʾet and zero coding of the object within canonical transitive clauses. Symmetric case alternations involve the variation between the overt marking of the object with ʾet and the realization of this argument as an oblique phrase headed by a preposition. Chapters 1-4 summarize the previous research on the topic and introduce the theoretical framework for this study including a discussion of the functional-typological literature on Differential Object Marking. Chapter 5 presents the results of a corpus-based study of asymmetric DOM within SBH narrative prose. It is argued that these alternations have discourse-pragmatic motivations related largely to the information status of the referent of the object phrase. Several other parameters are also examined which correlated to particularly low frequencies of object marking. Chapter 6 then examines common examples of symmetric alternations within Biblical Hebrew. These alternations are typically semantic in nature and related to the ‘patient-ness’ of the argument, though the exact effect varies based on the cognitive frame of the verb involved and the semantic roles which it selects. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements................................................................................................... i Abstract..................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents...................................................................................................... v List of Tables............................................................................................................. vii List of Figures........................................................................................................... x List of Abbreviations................................................................................................ xi Transliteration of Hebrew......................................................................................... xii Chapter 1. Introduction.............................................................................................. 1 1.1. Statement of Problem............................................................................. 1 1.2. Outline.................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2. Descriptions of Case in Biblical Hebrew................................................. 13 2.1. Overview................................................................................................ 13 2.2. The Accusative in Biblical Hebrew Grammars...................................... 16 2.2.1. Object Accusatives.................................................................. 17 2.2.2. Adverbial Accusatives............................................................. 20 2.3. The Distribution of ʾet............................................................................ 23 2.4. The Function of ʾet................................................................................. 30 2.5. Case Alternations in Biblical Hebrew.................................................... 41 2.6. Summary................................................................................................ 45 Chapter 3. Differential Object Marking.................................................................... 47 3.1. Introduction............................................................................................ 47 3.2. Subject and Object in Functionalist Theories......................................... 48 3.2.1. Subject and Object Morphosyntax.......................................... 49 3.2.2. Semantic Roles........................................................................ 51 3.2.3. Pragmatic Roles....................................................................... 55 3.2.4. Arguments, Obliques, and Adjuncts........................................ 56 3.2.5. Summary..................................................................................59 3.3. Asymmetric DOM.................................................................................. 60 3.3.1. Motivations for Asymmetric Marking.....................................60 3.3.2. Variation in Asymmetric DOM............................................... 64 3.4. Symmetric DOM.................................................................................... 68 3.4.1. Canonical Transitive Verbs..................................................... 68 v 3.4.2. Non-Canonical Transitives...................................................... 76 3.4.3. Summary................................................................................. 81 3.5. Conclusions............................................................................................ 82 Chapter 4. Individuation and Information Structure................................................. 85 4.1. Overview................................................................................................ 85 4.2. Definiteness and Identifiability.............................................................. 86 4.3. Identifiability, Accessibility, and Givenness.......................................... 91 4.4. Animacy................................................................................................. 101 4.5. Topic, Topicality, and Grammatical Role.............................................. 102 4.6. Conclusions............................................................................................ 107 Chapter 5. Asymmetric DOM in SBH...................................................................... 108 5.1. Introduction............................................................................................ 108 5.2. Overview of Corpus and Method........................................................... 109 5.3. Definiteness and Object Marking in SBH.............................................. 111 5.3.1. Object Marking and the Definiteness Hierarchy..................... 112 5.3.2. Referring Expressions Found in the Optional Range.............. 115 5.3.2.1. Demonstratives......................................................... 116 5.3.2.2. The Universal Quantifier.......................................... 118 5.3.2.3. Interrogative Pronouns............................................. 120 5.3.2.4. Free Relatives........................................................... 123 5.3.3 Summary.................................................................................. 125 5.4. Discourse-Pragmatic Motivations.......................................................... 126 5.4.1. Identifiability..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Dimasa Grammar
    F. Jacquesson with the kind help of G.K. Thaosen A Dimasa Grammar Contents Acknowledgments 5 Glosses 7 Sentence types 9 Verbs 20 Nouns 40 Pronouns 52 Numerals and Classifiers 55 Observations on lexicon 57 Acknowledgements and history of the essay This study began, years ago, in Haflong with the very kind help of G. K. Thaosen. Most of the information here provided comes from him. Other details came later, either from Bikash Roy Debbarma when in Agartala, or from Uttam Bathari and friends when we travelled together (March 2007) to record Dimasa dialects. To have a look at this later work, see: Jacquesson François. 2006. La reconstruction linguistique du passé : le cas des langues boro- garo , Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 101/1, 273-302. On the whole I devoted some time to the variants of Dimasa. I think I could show (see above) François Jacquesson June 2008. Glosses see A Agent Abl 3.4.5. Ablative : -ni-praŋ Acc 3.4.2. Accusative : -ke Adj 2.3. Adjective prefix : gV- Apt 2.2.3.2.3. Actual Present : -du Ass 2.2.3.2.2. Assertive : -bi Aux Auxiliary verb Cl 5.2. Classifier (with number) Cnt 2.2.1.4. Continuative : -sai- Com 2.2.2.4. Comitative-Reflexive : -pa- D 3.3. determinative, genitive : -ni Dat 3.4.8. Dative : -ne, -tane Def 2.2.4. Negative imperative : da²- Dis 2.2.1.1. Distal : -ha- Dw 2.2.1.3. from up down : -klei- Ela 3.4.5. Elative : -ni-ha² Emp 2.2.3.2.11 Emphatic particle : ti Exs 1.2.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar
    Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar Rolf Kailuweit, Lisann Künkel, Eva Staudinger NIHIN Studies This volume is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Website links in this book All website links mentioned in this book were operational at the time of publishing. Publica- tions available on the Role and Reference Grammar website are referenced as “available on RRG website”, and no links are provided. At the time of publication, the RRG website was accessible at http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rrgpage/rrg.html. List of abbreviations ABS absolutive case DET determiner ACC accusative case DIR directional ADJ adjective DM discourse marker ADV adverb DL dual AFFIR affirmative DOB direct object ALL allative case DOM differential object marking ANTI antipassive ERG ergative case ARG argument EVQ event quantification ART article EXL exclusive ASP aspect F feminine AUX auxiliary verb FOC focus CH case hierarchy FUT future CLD clitic left dislocation GEN genitive case CLI clitic IF illocutionary force CLM clause linkage marker INT intensifier COM comitative IO indirect object COMP comparative IMP imperative COMPL completive IPFV imperfective aspect COND conditional IMPS impersonal CONJ conjunction INAN inanimate CONT continuous INC inclusive COP copula INE inessive case DAT dative case INF infinitive DCA domain of case assignment INGR ingressive DCM differential case marking INS instrument/instrumental DEIC deictic INT intensifier DEM demonstrative KP kontrast position DES desiderative
    [Show full text]
  • Te Reo the Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand
    Te Reo the Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand Volume 62 Issue 1 (Special Issue): Issue in Honour of Frantisek Lichtenberk Research Article 2019 pp. 93–115 September 2019 Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking Martin Haspelmath Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Linguistic and Cultural Evolution (Jena) This paper is a peer-reviewed contribution from https://www.nzlingsoc.org/journal/current-issue/ ©Te Reo – The Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand Guest Editors: Andreea S. Calude & Suzanne Kemmer Martin Haspelmath 93 Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking Martin Haspelmath Abstract This paper compares the concept pair indexing/flagging with the well-known concept pair head/dependent marking that is widely used in typology. It shows that a general concept of flagging (comprising case and adpositional marking) is needed, and it sketches the advantages of the indexing concept over the older idea of “person agreement”. It then points out that the notions of head and dependent are hard to define (apart from the two basic domains of clauses and nominals), and that the head/dependent marking typology does not take the function of syntactic relation markers into account. On a functional view, both flags and indexes can be seen as role- identifiers, as opposed to concordants (attributive agreement markers). After discussing three further issues with the head/dependent marking typology, involving construct markers, concordants, and cross-indexes, I conclude that the concept pair indexing/flagging is more suitable for typological purposes than head/dependent marking. Keywords argument indexing, flagging, head marking, dependent marking, case marking, adpositions, language typology 1 Comparative concepts for cross-linguistic grammatical comparison Over the last few decades, we have come to understand the extent of the grammatical differences between languages much better, due in large measure to our ability to compare language structures through comparative concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • ENGLISH AS an ANALYTIC LANGUAGE – the Importance of Word Order
    ENGLISH AS AN ANALYTIC LANGUAGE – the importance of word order In linguistic typology, an analytic language is a language that primarily conveys relationships between words in sentences by way of helper words (particles, prepositions, etc.) and word order, as opposed to utilizing inflections (changing the form of a word to convey its role in the sentence) (Wiki) AFFIRMATIVE SENTENCES subject verb(s) object I speak English I can speak English subject verb(s) indirect object direct object place time I will tell you the story at school tomorrow. NEGATIVE SENTENCE The word order in negative sentences is the same as in affirmative sentences. Note, however, that in negative sentences we usually need an auxiliary verb*: subject verbs indirect object direct object place time I will not tell you the story at school tomorrow. *An auxiliary verb helps the main (full) verb and is also called a "helping verb." With auxiliary verbs, you can write sentences in different tenses, moods, or voices. Auxiliary verbs are: be, do, have, will, shall, would, should, can, could, may, might, must, ought, etc. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES In questions, the word order subject-verbs-object is the same as in affirmative sentences. The only thing that is different is that you usually have to put the auxiliary verb (or the main verb “be”) before the subject. Interrogatives (Question Words) are put at the beginning of the sentences: interrogative auxiliary *verb subject other verb(s) indirect object direct object place time What would you like to tell me Did you have a party in your flat yesterday? When were you here? Question Words in English The most common question words in English are the following: WHO is only used when referring to people.
    [Show full text]
  • To Ba Or Not to Ba Differential Object Marking in Chinese
    î To ba or not to ba Differential Object Marking in Chinese Geertje van Bergen I To ba or not to ba Differential Object Marking in Chinese Geertje van Bergen PIONIER Project Case Cross-linguistically Department of Linguistics Radboud University Nijmegen P.O. Box 9103 6500 HD Nijmegen the Netherlands www.ru.nl/pionier [email protected] III To ba or not to ba Differential Object Marking in Chinese Master’s Thesis General Linguistics Faculty of Arts Radboud University Nijmegen November 2006 Geertje van Bergen 0136433 First supervisor: Dr. Helen de Hoop Second supervisor: Prof. Dr. Pieter Muysken V Acknowledgements I would like to thank Lotte Hogeweg and the members of the PIONIER-project Case Cross-linguistically for the nice cooperation during the past year; many thanks go to Monique Lamers for the pleasant teamwork. I am especially grateful to Yangning for the close cooperation in Beijing and Nijmegen, which has laid the foundation of ¡ £¢ this thesis. Many thanks also go to Sander Lestrade for clarifying conversations over countless cups of coffee. I would like to thank Pieter Muysken for his willingness to be my second supervisor and for his useful comments on an earlier version. Also, I gratefully acknowledge the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO) for financial support, grant 220-70-003, principal investigator Helen de Hoop (PIONIER-project ‘Case cross-linguistically’). Especially, I would like to thank Helen de Hoop for her great support and supervision, for keeping me from losing courage and keeping me on schedule, for her indispensable comments and for all the opportunities she offered me to develop my research skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation in the Ergative Pattern of Kurmanji Songül Gündoğdu, Muş
    Variation in the Ergative Pattern of Kurmanji Songül Gündoğdu, Muş Alparslan University, Muş, Turkey LANGUAGE KEYWORDS: Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji) AREA KEYWORDS: Middle East (Turkey) ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) Kurdish-Kurmanji (or Northern Kurdish) belongs to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. This study is dedicated to a deeper understanding of a specific grammatical feature typical of Kurmanji: the ergative structure. Based on the example of this core structure, and with empirical evidence from the Kurmanji dialect of Muş in Turkey, I will discuss the issues of variation and change in Kurmanji, more precisely the ongoing shift from ergative to nominative-accusative structures. The causes for such a fundamental shift, however, are not easy to define. The close historical vicinity to Turkish and Armenian might be a trigger for the shift; another trigger is language-internal (diachronic) change. In sum, the investigated variation sheds light on a fascinating grammatical change in a language that is also sociopolitically in a situation of constant change, movement, and upheaval. ABSTRACT (DEUTSCH) Kurdisch-Kurmanci (oder Nordkurdisch) gehört zum iranischen Zweig der indoeuropäischen Sprachfamilie. Eine zentrale und charakteristische grammatische Struktur dieser Sprache ist der Ergativ; ihm ist der vorliegende Beitrag gewidmet. Am Beispiel des Ergativ werde ich Variation und Wandel im Kurmanci diskutieren und insbesondere auf den Dialekt von Muş (Türkei) eingehen. Dabei zeigt sich, dass sich derzeit im Kurmanci der Wandel von einer Ergativ- zu einer Nominativ-Akkusativ-Sprache vollzieht. Die Ursachen für einen derart grundlegenden Wandel sind nicht leicht zu benennen. Ein Grund mag in der schon historisch engen Nachbarschaft zum Türkischen und Armenischen liegen; ein anderer Grund mag im sprach-internen (diachronen) Wandel des Kurmanci selbst zu finden sein.
    [Show full text]
  • Analytic and Cognitive Language in Instagram Captions
    ISSN 2474-8927 SOCIAL BEHAVIOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE Open Journal Brief Research Report What Were They Thinking? Analytic and Cognitive Language in Instagram Captions Sheila Brownlow, PhD1*; Makenna Pate, BA2; Abigail Alger, BA [Student]2; Natalie Naturile, BA2 1Department of Psychology, Catawba College, Salisbury NC 28144, USA *Corresponding author Sheila Brownlow, PhD Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, Catawba College, Salisbury NC 28144, USA; E-mail: [email protected] Article Information Received: June 15th, 2019; Revised: July 8th, 2019; Accepted: July 15th, 2019; Published: July 16th, 2019 Cite this article Brownlow S, Pate M, Alger A, Naturile N. What were they thinking? Analytic and cognitive language in Instagram captions. Soc Behav Res Pract Open J. 2019; 4(1): 21-25. doi: 10.17140/SBRPOJ-4-117 ABSTRACT Background We examined content and expression of Instagram captions of major celebrities who differed according to sex and status, with a focus on determining whether these variables influenced the use of analytic language and cognitive content. Method Instagram captions (n=942) were analyzed with the linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC), which delineated percentage of language reflecting analytical thought and various cognitive mechanisms, such as causality and discrepancy. Results Men and low-status persons used more functional analytic language, demonstrating critical thought; in contrast, high-status celeb- rities showed more causality. Women more than men “qualified” their speech with discrepancy. These findings were not a function of sentence length. Conclusion Status increased the tendency to construct and explain, perhaps because higher status celebrities (particularly women) knew that they could hold followers’ attention with complex content.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridity Versus Revivability
    40 Hybridity versus revivability HYBRIDITY VERSUS REVIVABILITY: MULTIPLE CAUSATION, FORMS AND PATTERNS Ghil‘ad Zuckermann Abstract The aim of this article is to suggest that due to the ubiquitous multiple causation, the revival of a no-longer spoken language is unlikely without cross-fertilization from the revivalists’ mother tongue(s). Thus, one should expect revival efforts to result in a language with a hybridic genetic and typological character. The article highlights salient morphological constructions and categories, illustrating the difficulty in determining a single source for the grammar of Israeli, somewhat misleadingly a.k.a. ‘Modern Hebrew’. The European impact in these features is apparent inter alia in structure, semantics or productivity. Multiple causation is manifested in the Congruence Principle, according to which if a feature exists in more than one contributing language, it is more likely to persist in the emerging language. Consequently, the reality of linguistic genesis is far more complex than a simple family tree system allows. ‘Revived’ languages are unlikely to have a single parent. The multisourced nature of Israeli and the role of the Congruence Principle in its genesis have implications for historical linguistics, language planning and the study of language, culture and identity. “Linguistic and social factors are closely interrelated in the development of language change. Explanations which are confined to one or the other aspect, no matter how well constructed, will fail to account for the rich body of
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Defining a Prototypical Transitive Sentence Typologically
    PROBLEMS IN DEFINING A PROTOTYPICAL TRANSITIVE SENTENCE TYPOLOGICALLY Seppo Kittilei Department of General Linguistics Horttokuja 2 20014 University of Turku FINLAND Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper is trying to show that the concept of the prototypical transitive sentence is very useful in the study of transitivity, but is as such not so unproblematic as has often been assumed. This is achieved by presenting examples from different languages that show the weaknesses of the "traditional" prototype. The prototype proposed here remains, however, a tentative one, because there are so many properties that cannot be described typologically because of their language-specific nature. 1. INTRODUCTION Transitivity has been defined in many different ways during the history of linguistics. Traditionally transitivity was understood to be a semantic phenomenon: Transitive sentences were sentences which describe events that involve a transfer of energy from subject to object (e.g. 'he killed the man'). Structurally these are mostly sentences with a grammatical subject and a direct (accusative) object (at least in the languages that were the targets of description). In the golden era of formal grammars transitivity became a purely formal concept: Verbs (or more rarely sentences) with a direct object were classified as transitive and those without one as intransitive without taking their semantics into account (see e.g. Jacobsen 1985:89 [4]). Formal definitions very rarely allow any intermediate forms, i.e. every transitive sentence is equally prototypical (because there are no adequate criteria by means of which the prototypicality could be measured). Therefore, the concept of a prototypical transitive sentence is irrelevant in the formal descriptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Infant Segmentation of Two Morphologically Diverse Languages
    Modeling infant segmentation of two morphologically diverse languages Georgia Rengina Loukatou1 Sabine Stoll 2 Damian Blasi2 Alejandrina Cristia1 (1) LSCP, Département d’études cognitives, ENS, EHESS, CNRS, PSL Research University, Paris, France (2) University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland [email protected] RÉSUMÉ Les nourrissons doivent trouver des limites de mots dans le flux continu de la parole. De nombreuses études computationnelles étudient de tels mécanismes. Cependant, la majorité d’entre elles se sont concentrées sur l’anglais, une langue morphologiquement simple et qui rend la tâche de segmen- tation aisée. Les langues polysynthétiques - pour lesquelles chaque mot est composé de plusieurs morphèmes - peuvent présenter des difficultés supplémentaires lors de la segmentation. De plus, le mot est considéré comme la cible de la segmentation, mais il est possible que les nourrissons segmentent des morphèmes et non pas des mots. Notre étude se concentre sur deux langues ayant des structures morphologiques différentes, le chintang et le japonais. Trois algorithmes de segmentation conceptuellement variés sont évalués sur des représentations de mots et de morphèmes. L’évaluation de ces algorithmes nous mène à tirer plusieurs conclusions. Le modèle lexical est le plus performant, notamment lorsqu’on considère les morphèmes et non pas les mots. De plus, en faisant varier leur évaluation en fonction de la langue, le japonais nous apporte de meilleurs résultats. ABSTRACT A rich literature explores unsupervised segmentation algorithms infants could use to parse their input, mainly focusing on English, an analytic language where word, morpheme, and syllable boundaries often coincide. Synthetic languages, where words are multi-morphemic, may present unique diffi- culties for segmentation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Turkic Languages the Structure of Turkic
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Turkic Languages Lars Johanson, Éva Á. Csató The Structure of Turkic Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203066102.ch3 Lars Johanson Published online on: 21 May 1998 How to cite :- Lars Johanson. 21 May 1998, The Structure of Turkic from: The Turkic Languages Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203066102.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 The Structure 0/ Turkic Lars lohanson Introduction Throughout their history and in spite of their huge area of distribution, Turkic languages share essential structural features. Many of them are common to Eurasian languages of the Altaic and Uralic types. While often dealt with in typologically oriented linguistic work, most aspects of Turkic structure still call for more unbiased and differentiated description.
    [Show full text]
  • ٧٠٩ Morphological Typology
    جامعة واسط العـــــــــــــــدد السابع والثﻻثون مجلــــــــة كليــــــــة التربيــــــة الجزء اﻷول / تشرين الثاني / 2019 Morphological Typology: A Comparative Study of Some Selected Languages Bushra Farhood Khudheyier AlA'amiri Prof. Dr. Abdulkareem Fadhil Jameel, Ph.D. Department of English, College of Education/ Ibn Rushud for Humanities Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq Abstract Morphology is a main part of English linguistics which deals with forms of words. Morphological typology organizes languages on the basis of these word forms. This organization of languages depends on structural features to mould morphological, patterns, typologising languages, assigning them to analytic, or synthetic types on the base of words segmentability and invariance, or measuring the number of morphemes per word. Morphological typology studies the universals in languages, the differences and similarities between languages in the structural patterns found in different languages, which occur within a restricted range. This paper aims at distinguishing the various types of several universal languages and comparing them with English. The comparison of languages are set according to the number of morphemes, the degree of being analytic ,or synthetic languages by given examples of each type. Accordingly, it is hypothesed that languages are either to be analytic, or synthetic according to the syntactic and morphological form of morphemes and their meaning relation. The analytical procedures consist of expressing the morphological types with some selected examples, then making the comparison between each type and English. The conclusions reached at to the point of the existence of similarity between these morphological types . English is Analytic , but it has some synythetic aspects, so it validated the first hypothesis and not entirely refuted the second one.
    [Show full text]