chapter 1

Defining Morphology

AL
RI
Learning Objectives
TE
MA
Define what morphology is as a field.
Tackle the challenges of defining a “word.”
Learn the basics of the three-line gloss.
D

Overview the Distributed Morphology framework.

TE
GH

0. Preliminaries
Morphology, at its core, is the study of the word. Perhaps outside of a linguistics class, we
RI

rarely grapple with the question of “what is a word?” In a game of Scrabble or in another
context where someone uses a term we are unfamiliar with, we may turn to one of our
PY

favorite dictionaries to confirm something’s wordhood. Even then, we recognize that the
dictionary is slow to adapt to new usages and coinages – further, it does not always rec-
ognize what is basically productive about our linguistic system. For instance, if your boss
CO

instructed you to “recollate the files in the conference room,” you might grumble to yourself
about the tediousness of the task. However, you probably would not point out that
Merriam-­Webster Dictionary does not recognize “recollate” as a word of English –
­therefore the task makes no sense. You certainly would not point this out if you planned
on keeping that job for any time.

Morphology: A Distributed Morphology Introduction, First Edition. Jeffrey P. Punske.

© 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4 Understanding Morphology

Wordhood is not defined by whether or not the given item is listed in an official
­ ocument. In our recollate case, we recognize that this is an English word, even if it is
d
completely novel to us, because it follows predictable rules of English word formation:
we combine two separated elements re-­(a prefix meaning “do again”) with collate (a verb
stem meaning “to put into order”). This prefix re-­generally may occur with verbs and as
speakers of English, we are aware of this and may use this to produce new and novel
forms. Thus, our mental capacity for words may generate new forms and may do so far
faster than any physical dictionary could keep up with. This mental capacity is part of
our mental grammar. It is this grammar that we are studying throughout this book.

1. Wordhood
Much as we must discard the idea that wordhood is associated with being listed in an
official registry (a dictionary), we must consider and reject a few other common ideas
about defining a word. In the first place, as readers of English, one common assumption
about wordhood is that a word is a unit of language, which has spaces on both sides of it.
This may be an adequate description of the general situation with English writing (though
later in the book we will argue that complex terms with many spaces like pickle jar lid
­factory shift supervisor are, in fact, a single word). However, it certainly fails to account for
spoken English, which does not put a pause between each word, let alone languages with
other written traditions or the roughly 70% of languages that linguists estimate have no
major written tradition.

Fun Fact: While European writing traditions now involve spacing between words, this
was not always the case. Early medieval and classical writing was done in a tradition
known as scriptio continua. In this style of text, breaks were not found between words but
instead where pauses would naturally be found, even within a word, when the text was
being spoken.

Another common misconception is that there is a one-­to-­one correspondence between

a word and a concept. We have already seen with our recollate example that words can be
built of multiple concepts – in this case, our concepts “do again” and “put in order.” But
perhaps a skeptic will object that re-­ is some form of lesser concept and that words are
built solely out of a single core concept. There are many ways to meet this skeptic’s objec-
tion. First, we may look at the case of English compounds, which combine two otherwise
independent words/concepts to form a single unit:

(1) blackbird

But, perhaps even more compelling, we may look to other languages of the world where
a single word may express the equivalent of an English sentence. Such languages are
known as polysynthetic, and we will look more at their properties throughout this book.
 Chapter 1: Defining Morphology 5

An illustrative example is given below from the language Central Alaskan Yup’ik
­provided by first-­language speaker George Charles via Mithun (1999):

(2) kaipiallrulliniuk
kaig -­piar -­llru-­llni -­u -­k
be.hungry -­really -­pst -­apparently -­indicative -­they.two
“the two of them were apparently really hungry”

To be able to read and interpret all of the details of this example is not yet critical for us,
though we will soon begin to cover the concept of glossing. What is critical about this
example is that what would be a full sentence made up of independent words in other
languages, such as English, is a single word in Central Alaskan Yup’ik. Further, this pro-
cess of word building is fully productive in languages like Central Alaskan Yup’ik.
We will use the term productive throughout this text although there is not a precise
definition for what it means. Generally, the term is used to describe morphological pro-
cesses that are common in the language or morphological forms that occur regularly. We
contrast it with nonproductive that describes morphological processes and forms that are
found in a language but only rarely – perhaps due to historical change or language con-
tact. For example, the English plural marker -­s is productive because it is commonly
found and applies to new words introduced to the language. The English plural marker
-­ren found in children is nonproductive as it is limited to one exceptional form.
What, then, makes a good definition for “word?” Haspelmath (2011) makes a com-
pelling case that it may be impossible to generate an acceptable definition that will
account for all languages. Nonetheless, we will continue to use this term “word” in an
informal sense, but we will need to exercise caution making any formal reference to the
concept of a word. What we should notice is that regardless of the status of the concept of
“word,” languages build meaningful units out of other smaller meaningful units.
Sometimes those units may stand on their own and be meaningful or usable as in the case
of black and bird in blackbird, but in many cases, these units must combine with other units
to be usable such as re-­in recollate. These units, termed morphemes, are ultimately what
this book is about. In many introductory textbooks, morphemes are defined as something
like the “smallest unit of meaning.” Throughout this book, we will question and refine
this definition. But, in a general sense (for now), a morpheme is the smallest of the units
of meaning in language. An independent word containing no sub-­morphemes, such as
bird, is itself a morpheme. Our goal is to understand the universal properties, distribu-
tions, and restrictions of morphemes. We will also study how they interact with other
systems of grammar, such as phonology and syntax.
The study of morphology goes well beyond defining the concept of words. Our study
will involve analyzing the internal components of words and how these components
interact with other grammatical systems. It is our hope that by understanding morphol-
ogy and its role in our broader linguistic systems we can better understand the nature of
language itself.
6 Understanding Morphology

2. Doing Morphology
Linguists study morphology by breaking apart language (words, phrases, and sentences)
into smaller component pieces: morphemes. Ultimately, this work is a form of scientific
hypothesis building and is subject to the same scientific process as any other science.

Scientific method
Observe

Hypothesize

Predict

Test

We apply the scientific method in morphology in the following ways:

Observe: Collect the relevant data from the target language.

Hypothesize: Analyze, parse, and gloss the data.
Predict: Make testable statements about the distribution and order of the m
­ orphemes
you identified in your hypothesis.
Test: Examine new data or contexts and determine how your statements behave.

A critical point is that just as there is no master list of words, there is no master list of
morphemes. Doing morphology is a process of scientific discovery, which includes trial
and error. Not every hypothesis will be correct. Sometimes, elements will appear to be
morphemes when they are not or will appear to not be when they are. It is only through
repeated observation and testing of our hypotheses that can we begin to be sure.
Morphology, like all scientific practice, is governed by the principle of simplicity of
explanation, also known as Occam’s Razor. The basic idea is that if you have multiple
viable competing solutions to the same problem, whichever requires the least amount of
explanatory effort is most likely correct. In morphology, this typically means that we look
to have fewer rules and constraints and we like to avoid having the same morpheme serving
­different functions without a clear understanding of why.

Occam’s Razor: Occam’s Razor is named after the English medieval theologian
and philosopher William of Ockham (Occam) to whom the idea is most often
attributed. Whether he ever overtly expressed these ideas is questionable (see
­
Thorburn 1918). But the core idea remains a guiding principle of both scientific and
­philosophical thinking.
 Chapter 1: Defining Morphology 7

Linguists express their hypotheses about the morphological structure of a language in

a particular format known as the three-­line or interlinear gloss. Glossing is a technique that
requires attention to detail and precision because each gloss is a hypothesis. The ­conventions
are defined by the Leipzig Glossing Rules, though many linguists use variations on these
conventions to suit their individual needs. A full list of the abbreviations used in this
­volume is found at the beginning of the book.

Interlinear Glossing
The first line of an interlinear or three-­line gloss is in the target language, which is the
language that is being studied. The target language is typically written in IPA, the lan-
guage’s orthography if it is sufficiently close to the metalanguage’s, or an orthographic
representation like that of the metalanguage. This line is annotated with special symbols
to mark where the linguist believes morpheme boundaries exist.
Sometimes there is a line provided above this line, which provides the target lan-
guage’s orthography or an example without the morpheme boundaries. We saw an
example of this optional fourth line in our Central Alaskan Yup’ik example in (2). Again,
the primary goal in glossing is to be maximally informative to your potential readers
about your hypotheses about the structure of the language’s structure.
The second line of an interlinear gloss is the item-­by-­item translation. This line is
written in the metalanguage, which is a term for the language of analysis, along with the
conventions of glossing. There are numerous conventions of this line and the interaction
of the first and second line is the most critical to understanding an interlinear gloss.
Line three is the free translation. This line is also written in the metalanguage, but it
is a looser translation. It is easiest to think of this as the type of translation you might find
in a guidebook or other similar travel guide.

We will spend much more time on glossing during the next few chapters, but let us exam-
ine the basics of a gloss. Recall that the goal of a gloss is to hypothesize about the morpho-
logical structure of a given word or phrase. Even though we questioned the s­ tatus of the
word to begin this chapter, we will continue to utilize the concept in our glosses. Each
word boundary is marked by a space. Morphemes found internal to words are ­separated
with a hyphen.

Left edge of each word is aligned Grammatical/functional

between lines 1 and 2 categories are labeled with small
caps, like tense and number: PL
for “plural” and PST for “past”,
(3) Airica re-copi-ed the file-s
respectively, in our example
Airica re-copy-PST the file-PL
“Airica copied the files again”

Internal alignment does not matter for

line 3
8 Understanding Morphology

A period is used in glossing when there are multiple functions or concepts contained
within a single morpheme. This concept is illustrated in the data below from Hiaki
(­Uto-­Aztecan, Arizona, and Sonora) taken from Bobaljik and Harley (2017).

Again, recall that the left edge of each Note that while we must be
word is aligned between lines 1 and 2 sure to make sure there are
matching numbers of hyphens
between corresponding words
(4) vempo uka koowi-ta me’a-k in like 1 and 2, there is no such
3PL the.SG pig-ACC.SG kill.SG-PRF requirement for the period.
“They killed the pig” The period is also only used
in line 2.

Key Basics of Interlinear Glossing

Each word is perfectly aligned between lines 1 and 2.
There are equal numbers of “-­” found in corresponding words in lines 1 and 2.
A period is used when there is a difference in function, but no obvious boundary
grammatical and functional.

One of the great challenges of working on morphology are the ways that morphology
interact with other systems of grammar, particularly phonology, syntax, and semantics.
You might be coming to this book with considerable background in these areas, or you
might be relatively new to these areas. Regardless of your background, we will introduce
the necessary terms and concepts throughout this book in all related subareas of linguis-
tics – even if you are quite familiar with these other areas, pay attention to details we
build in this text; our study of morphology will cause us to revise and expand our
approaches to all of these other areas.
Let us examine some data from English pluralization to see how morphology inter-
acts with some of these other systems. To do this, we will use the International Phonetic
Alphabet (IPA) to represent the sounds of English. We will examine the IPA further in the
coming chapters.

kæt “cat” ~ kæts “cats” Plural is marked with –s

dɑg “dog” ~ dɑgz “dogs”
ɹʌm “rum” ~ ɹʌmz “rums”
kʌp “cup” ~ kʌps “cups”
læʃ “lash” ~ læʃəz “lashes” Plural is marked with –z
frem “frame” ~ fremz “frames”
mʌg “mug” ~ mʌgz “mugs”
bʌs “bus” ~ bʌsəz “buses”
aj͡ “eye” ~ ajz͡ “eyes” Plural is marked with –əz
͡ ͡ “church”
tʃɜɹtʃ ~ ͡ ͡
tʃɜɹtʃəz “churches”
͡
dʒʌdʒ ͡ “judge” ~ dʒʌdʒəz
͡ ͡ “judges”
 Chapter 1: Defining Morphology 9

Step 1 Observe: Our first job is to examine the data and to determine what the
morpheme(s) might be and what their distribution might be. Looking at the English data,
we should notice three different forms of the plural – each a suffix. The three forms are -­s,
-­z, and -­əz. This will form the basis of our hypothesis generation.

Step 2  Hypothesize: As part of our hypothesis building, we will put some of the forms
we are examining into three-­line, interlinear glosses. Recall that the claim that -­s, -­z, and,
-­əz are independent morphemes is a hypothesis in itself. Our other goal is to try to deter-
mine anything we can about the contextual distribution to allow us to make predictions.

(5) kæt -­s (6) dɑg -­z

cat -­pl dog -­pl
“cats” “dogs”

(7) læʃ -­əz (8) t͡ʃɜɹt͡ʃ -­əz

lash -­pl church -­pl
“lashes” “churches”

(9) frem -­z (10) kʌp -­s

frame -­pl cup -­pl
“frames” “cups”

(11) d͡ʒʌd͡ʒ -­əz (12) a͡j -­z

judge -­pl eye -­pl
“judges” “eyes”

Step 3 Predict: As we examine our glosses, a clearer pattern should emerge. The suffix
-­əz occurs when the final sound of the base it is attaching to is one of the set of sounds
{s, ʃ, t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ}. If we are previously familiar with phonology, we will note that each of these
sounds is a sibilant, which include the sounds {s, z, ʃ, ʒ, t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ}. Thus, we may make a test-
able about the distribution of -­əz: “The suffix -­əz occurs when the final sound of the word
it is attaching to is a sibilant.” Looking then at the distribution of -­s, we should notice that
it occurs when the final sound has the following properties: it is both voiceless and non-­
sibilant. Finally, looking at -­z we should notice that it occurs when the final sound of the
base is both voiced and non-­sibilant. We should then state these in testable statements.

Testable Statements of Predictions: The plural suffix in English is represented by

three different forms: -­əz is used when the final sound of the base is a sibilant. -­s is
used when the final sound of the base is a voiceless, non-­sibilant. -­z is used when the
final sound of the base is a voiced, non-­sibilant.
10 Understanding Morphology

Step 4 Test: For this step, we want to examine and gloss new but related examples. Our
goal is to see how our testable statements work in examples different from the ones we
originally examined. Because this is a sample exercise, the examples we choose will be
carefully constructed.

(13) pɛn “pen” ~ pɛnz “pens”

(14) ɹɑk “rock” ~ ɹɑks “rocks”
(15) pəteto “potato” ~ pətetoz “potatoes”
(16) pʌts “putz” ~ pʌtsəz “putzes”

Thus, based on this data we could conclude that our statements were indeed valid
and stop. Of course, we have not tested all or even most of the English nouns.
Step 5 Observe: The key with good science is that we are never truly done, and we are
always looking for new examples to prove or disprove our account. In the case of English
plural, let us examine the following data:

(17) t͡ʃa͡jld “child” ~ t͡ʃɪldɹən “children” ~ *t͡ʃa͡jldz

(18) ma͡ws “mouse” ~ ma͡js “mice” ~ *ma͡wsəz
(19) dɪɹ “deer (sg.)” ~ dɪɹ “deer (pl.)” ~ *dɪɹz
(20) fʊt “foot” ~ fit “feet” ~ *fʊts

The symbol * means that a particular example is deemed ungrammatical by first-­

language speakers of the language. What should strike us about this data is that it does
not obey the testable predictions we made about the behavior of English plurals in Step 3.
Our next steps would be to go through the same processes as before attempting to account
for both our new data and the data that we had previously developed testable predictions
for, but we will instead stop here and reflect on what we have learned.
There are multiple lessons to be learned from this data. This data exhibits multiple
forms of (contextual) allomorphy. In our early examples, the allomorphy is predictable
and driven by the sounds. This means that the allomorphy is both regular and phono-
logical. In the data we saw in Step 5, the allomorphy is no longer predictable – first-­
language speakers just need to know which plural suffix (or lack of suffix) goes with
which form. This type of allomorphy is irregular. The most extreme form of irregularity
is where the morphological context changes the base entirely. This is known as supple-
tion. An example of this is seen in the Russian (Russia) example below taken from
Moskal (2015):

(21) rebënok “child” ~ deti “children”

In many cases, there are historical reasons for the irregular or suppletive status of a
­particular morphological form, but we need to be very careful referencing such reasons
 Chapter 1: Defining Morphology 11

in our explanations. Throughout this book, we are trying to build an explanation of how
the morphological component works in a first-­language speaker’s linguistic system or
grammar. Our grammars are part of our mind-­internal processes. What we learn about
our speech community’s language and our knowledge of morphology must come
through environmental exposure. Historical context is likely to be learned much later
than the irregular or suppletive forms; understanding the historical development of a
given word in a given speech community is information that is learned much later, if it is
learned at all.
This is not to say that studying historical context and historical change is not important.
The areas of historical linguistics and historical reconstructions are vital parts of the field
and have taught us much about the structure of language. Looking at the ways languages
change over time, analyzing the patterns, and reconstructing the earlier forms is known as
diachronic linguistics. Our primary focus is on the way speakers’ internal knowledge and
use of language presents in a given moment in time (typically in the p ­ resent, though we
may also analyze older forms of a language) – such an approach is synchronic.

3. Theories of Morphology
It is our goal throughout this book to understand the rules and constraints that govern
how morphemes combine together. We will do this primarily through the framework of
Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). Linguists have developed a number
of different competing theories and frameworks for how the morphology part of the
grammar functions. Examples include Word-­and-­Paradigm Morphology (Blevins 2016)
and Lexical Phonology/Morphology (Kiparsky 1982). The focus of this book is on
Distributed Morphology, and we will not take the time to contrast this approach with all
of the alternatives. However, since most general introductions assume a simplified form
of Lexicalism or Lexical Morphology, we will contrast Distributed Morphology with
such an approach.
In a lexical approach to morphology, there is an independent component of the gram-
mar known as the Lexicon where words are stored and where morphological operations
occur. In many (perhaps even most) lexical theories of morphology, this lexicon is what
serves as the input to syntax. Within these frameworks, there is a need to capture the fact
that there is often overlap between what happens within the syntax and in the lexicon.
Which, if they were truly independent components, would not be expected. Principles
such as The mirror Principle (Baker 1985) restrict the types of operations that can occur
in the syntax and lexicon and force a correspondence.

(22) The mirror Principle Baker (1985)

Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations
(and vice versa).

If we examine how The mirror Principle functions, we will notice that it causes
a doubling of grammatical operations in a lexical approach. First, a morphological
12 Understanding Morphology

operation must occur in the lexicon. Then, an equivalent syntactic operation must
occur in the syntax. While this might ultimately be the correct solution, under the sci-
entific principles of simplicity of explanation, if there is a way to accomplish the same
results with fewer steps, then that solution should be preferred. That essentially is the
core of Distributed Morphology: to reduce complexity by eliminating the lexicon and
the ­associated redundancy of operations in it. In Distributed Morphology, syntax and
morphology are the same.
Distributed Morphology is generally situated within Chomsky’s Minimalist
Program. Key features of this program are the hypothesis that language is a “optimal
solution” and, as a consequence, a focus on economy. Many of these features fall
within the domain of the simplicity of explanation (modulo our assumptions). One
core development of the Minimalist Program is the so-­called Y-­model of syntactic
derivation.

(23) The Y-model of Syntactic Derivation

input

Spellout

Pronunciation (PF) Meaning (LF)

In the Y-­model, the syntax pulls the items (words and morphemes) it will be manipulat-
ing and then applies morphosyntactic operations to them. At some point in this process,
the grammar decides to “spell-­out” the sentence or phrase being produced. This sentence
or phrase is then sent to two different components of the grammar: P(honological) F(orm)
(where it is pronounced) and L(ogical) F(orm) (where meaning is interpreted).
Morphosyntactic operations can continue to happen on the paths to both of the final ver-
sions of PF and LF, so the pronounced form and the interpreted form often diverge from
each other.
You may or may not be familiar with this model of grammar – the details are not
immediately essential to us, so do not worry if this is Martian to you. We will cover this
model in much more detail in Part 2 of this book. But, it is important to consider the ques-
tions that this model raises for the framework of morphology. In particular, we should
ask ourselves what constitutes the “input” to such a model if we no longer posit a lexicon
where morphological operations occur. Such questions will remain with us for most of
this book.
The core ideas of Distributed Morphology may seem radical at first. They certainly
run counter to our basic intuitions about how language is organized and functions. As we
work our way through this book and develop the theory and framework together, we will
begin to see how these ideas obey the core scientific principles of simplicity of explana-
tion (Occam’s Razor) that were presented earlier in this chapter.
 Chapter 1: Defining Morphology 13

4. Conclusions
In this chapter, we explored some challenges with defining the concept of the “word.” We
noted that there is no entirely consistent definition that perfectly captures the informal
notion of word that is used widely by linguists (and others). This presents an obvious
challenge when trying to understand the processes of word formation in natural lan-
guage. Despite this issue, we developed a first-­look approach to morphology, which is
fundamentally a theory about word formation.
In this discussion, we examined how scientific investigation should proceed and how
we may utilize the elements of the scientific method to examine word formation in lan-
guage. We also introduced the core ideas of the framework, Distributed Morphology, that
we will be developing throughout this book. One critical aspect of Distributed Morphology
is that it distributes the processes of word formation across the syntax that allows us to
capture the significant overlaps found between syntactic and morphological processes.
Throughout this book, we will develop and refine this approach to word formation.

5. Organization of this book

This book is organized into two separate parts. Part 1 containing this chapter and subse-
quent chapters through Chapter 5 is more of a traditional morphology textbook but
through the lens of Distributed Morphology. The focus of this part is on doing morphologi-
cal parsing, glossing, and analysis. It is possible to use this book only for this part. Part 2 of
this book develops the syntactic elements of Distributed Morphology. Since Distributed
Morphology holds that syntax and morphology are the result of the same fundamental
structure-­building operations, it is essential to introduce these ideas. It therefore rapidly
adds more sophisticated theoretical technology and terminology than Part 1. If you are
using this book for self-­study, prepare to spend more time on each chapter in Part 2.

Concepts, Ideas, Rules, and Principles Introduced in this Chapter

*: A notation that linguists use to mark that an example (word,
phrase, and sentence) is ungrammatical. Note: this notation has a
different usage in historical linguistics where it is used to mark that a
form is reconstructed.
Base: A morphological form to which other morphemes are added.
(Contextual)
Allomorphy: A circumstance wherein a morpheme changes its form based on
its surrounding context.
Diachronic: Related to language change over time.
Glossing: A form of linguistic hypothesis building where morpheme bounda-
ries are illustrated and labeled and a translation is provided.
14 Understanding Morphology

Grammar: The mind-­internal rules, constraints, and principles that govern

the structure and use of language.
Irregular: A term used to describe morphological processes that are gen-
erally unpredictable based solely on general context. Contrast
with regular.
Lexicalism: One of a family of approaches to grammar wherein there are
separate and independent components for morphology
and syntax.
Lexicon: In lexical approaches to grammar, the lexicon is the component
of grammar where words are stored and morphological opera-
tions occur. Frequently used in a less formal sense in other
approaches to describe a speaker’s internal list of morphemes.
Logical Form: The point of the syntactic derivation where meaning
is computed.
Metalanguage: The language of linguistic analysis.
Minimalist Program: Chomsky’s syntactic program centered around principles of
“perfection,” economy, and simplicity.
Morpheme: The smallest unit of linguistic meaning (to be revised).
Occam’s Razor: The scientific principle that the simplest solution is typically the
correct one.
Phonological Form: The point of a syntactic derivation where the phonology and
pronunciation are computed.
Phonology
(Phonological): The formal study of sounds and gestures in context.
Polysynthetic
(Language): A language that allows words to be built of complex morphol-
ogy including having a single word function as a sentence.
Prefix: A morpheme that attaches at the beginning of a word.
Productive: An informal term used to describe morphological processes
and forms that are common in a given language.
Regular: A term used to describe morphological processes that are gen-
erally predictable based on general context. Contrast with
irregular.
Semantics: The formal study of meaning in language.
Sibilant: A set of speech sounds defined by their higher amplitude or dis-
tinctive hiss. English sounds of this category include {s, z, ʃ, ʒ,
t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ}.
Suffix: A morpheme that attaches to the end of a word.
Suppletion: An extreme form of morphological irregularity where the target
morpheme is replaced entirely with a phonological dis-
similar form.
Syntax: The formal study of the structure of phrases and sentences.
 Chapter 1: Defining Morphology 15

Target Language: The language being studied.

The Mirror Principle: A proposed grammatical principle of grammar that demands
that morphological operations that occur in the lexicon must be
matched by syntactic operations and syntactic operations must
be matched by morphological operations in the lexicon.
Voiced: A speech sound produced with vibration in the vocal folds.
Voiceless: A speech sound produced without vibration in the vocal folds.

Further Reading
Aronoff, Mark and Kristen Fudeman. 2022. What is Morphology? 3rd Edition. Oxford:
Wiley-­Blackwell.
Another introductory textbook on morphology that is designed to focus less on
­theoretical approaches to morphology. Excellent resource for students looking for
additional support in the fundamentals of morphological analysis.
de Belder, Marijke and Jan Don. 2022. Distributed morphology: an oratio pro domo.
Nederlandse Taalkunde 27: 75–104.
Paper that explains the fundamental concepts of Distributed Morphology meant for a
nonspecialist audience.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of
Inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger,
ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 111–176.
One of foundational papers in Distributed Morphology. Advanced reading but a
good resource for understanding the reasoning and methodology in Distributed
Morphology. Consider rereading after completing this volume.
Harley, Heidi. 2006. English Words: A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-­Blackwell.
Introductory and accessible text focused on English morphology. Develops a less tech-
nical version of Distributed Morphology to account for English morphology.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of
morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45: 31–80.
A thorough breakdown as to why the concept of the “word” does not have clear
­scientific definition.
Thorburn, William M. 1918. The myth of Occam’s Razor. Mind 27: 345–353.
A philosophy paper outlining some challenges to Occam’s Razor as a fundamental
concept in science.
16 Understanding Morphology

General Problem Sets

GP1. Productivity [Basic]

Generate a list of at least 10 English words using prefixes like re-­ or un-­that you feel
are grammatical but are unlikely to hear very often. Then, look each up in standard
­dictionary – note which ones have dictionary entries and which ones do not. Describe any
­patterns you find.

GP2. Defining “wordhood” [Basic]

In this chapter, we observed that the word recollate does not have an entry in the Merriam-­
Webster Dictionary; however, it does have an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.
What does this type of mismatch between dictionaries mean for wordhood definitions
based on dictionary entries?

GP3. Glossing Practice [Basic]

Provide full three-­line glosses for the following sentences and phrases.
(A) Oscar recollated the documents.
(B) Selikem unraveled the spool.
(C) Fifteen hungry hippos

GP4. Analysis and Glossing [Intermediate]

Consider the following data from Hiaki, an Uto-­Aztecan language spoken primarily in
Arizona and Sonora, concerning plurals. Examine the differences between the singular
and the plural forms. Examine any differences that you find between different forms of
plural. Hypothesize about what the morphological boundaries are for these Hiaki forms
and provide glosses for each. Describe if you can what differences exist in the
­plural and why.

(A) chiiva “goat” (B) chiivam “goats”

(C) vo’ovok “toad”
(E) kuupis “firefly”
(G) uusi “child”
(I) maaso “deer (sg.)”
(K) tekil “job”
(M) miisi “cat”
(O) tevos “gopher”
(Q) kameeyo “camel”
(D) vo’ovokim “toads”
(F) kuupisim “fireflies”
(H) uusim “children”
(J) maasom “deer (pl.)”
(L) tekilim “jobs”
(N) miisim “cats”
(P) tevosim “gophers”
(R) kameeyom “camels”

Problem thanks to Amy Fountain and Heidi Harley.

 Chapter 1: Defining Morphology 17

GP5. Analysis and Glossing – Tatar [Intermediate]

Examine the following data from Tatar, a Turkic language spoken primarily in Russia,
and answer the questions below.

(A) koščïklar “little birds” (B) koščïklarnïŋ “of the little birds”
(C) koštan “from the bird” (D) košïbïz “our bird”
(E) balïklarïbïz “our fish (pl.)” (F) kaplar “bags”
(G) koščïk “little bird” (H) balïkïm “my fish”
(I) kapčïk “little bag” (J) balïkčïkïbïz “our little fish”
(K) balïknïŋ “of the fish” (L) kapčïktan “from the little bag”
(M) kapka “toward the bag” (N) balïklar “fish (pl.)”
(O) kapïbïznïŋ “of our bag” (P) balïkka “toward the fish (sg.)”

Part 1: Give the Tatar morphemes for the English equivalents of “bird,” “fish,” “bag,”
and “my.”
Part 2: Provide glosses for examples A, B, C, I, J, L, and M.
Part 3: Based on the evidence you have from Parts 1 and 2, provide glosses for these new
Tatar forms:
(Q) koščïkïbïz
(R) balïklarïmnïŋ
Part 4: Provided hypothesized Tatar translations of the following English phrases based
on the evidence you have gathered:
(S) “of my little bag”
(T) “toward the little bird”
Problem thanks to Karen Baertsch based on data from Poppe (1963).

GP6. Analysis and Glossing [Intermediate]

Consider the following data in the table below from St. Lawrence Island/Central Siberian
Yupik (Eskimo-­Aleut) spoken by about 900 people on St. Lawrence Island in Alaska and
Chukotka Peninsula of Russia.

English translation Stem (verb) he/she/it “verb”ed they (pl.) “verb”ed

die tuqu-­ tuquuq tuquut
come tagi-­ tagiiq tagiit
cry qiya-­ qiyaaq qiyaat
vacation aqii-­ aqiiguq aqiigut
go out aane-­ aanuq aanut
Laugh nenglagh-­ nenglaghtuq nenglaghtut
eat negh-­ neghtuq neghtut
18 Understanding Morphology

Parse each form and provide a gloss for the forms found in the final two columns of the
table. Describe and explain any allomorphy found in the data.
Problem thanks to Sylvia Schreiner based on data from Jacobson (2001).

GP7. Defining Word [Intermediate]

Consider this definition of the term “word” generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT (and edited
somewhat). What does this definition get correct? What does it miss out on? Large
Language Models work, in large part, by drawing from existing texts. What, if anything,
does this tell us about the general perception of words?

The concept of “word” is fundamental to human language, and understanding what a

word is and how it functions is essential for effective communication. At its most basic
level, a word is a unit of language that conveys meaning. Words are the building blocks
of language, and they are combined in various ways to form sentences, paragraphs, and
entire texts. A word can be a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a pronoun, a preposi-
tion, a conjunction, or an interjection, and each type of word has a specific function in
a sentence.
One of the key characteristics of a word is its form. A word can be spoken or written, and it is
made up of sounds or symbols that represent those sounds. In spoken language, a word is
made up of one or more sounds that are pronounced together. For example, the word “cat” is
made up of three sounds: /k/, /æ/, and /t/. In written language, a word is represented by one or
more symbols that are usually grouped together with spaces between them. For example, the
word “cat” is represented by three symbols: c, a, and t.
One of the challenges of defining a word is that it can be used in many different ways. For
example, the word “run” can be used as a verb (e.g. “I run every morning”), a noun (e.g., “I
went for a run”), or an adjective (e.g., “He’s a run-­down old building”). Each of these uses of
the word “run” has a slightly different meaning and function, but they are all still considered
to be the same word.
Despite these challenges, linguists have developed several different ways of defining a
word. One common definition is that a word is a unit of language that is separated by
spaces in written language or pauses in spoken language. Using this definition, “cat” and
“run” would be considered words, but “unbelievable” might be considered multiple words.
Another definition is that a word is a unit of language that has a distinct meaning and can
stand alone as a complete thought or idea. Using this definition, “unbelievable” would be
considered a single word because it has a distinct meaning and can stand alone as a
­complete thought.

Part 2: Rewrite the above passage putting it in line with our discussion in this chapter.
Part 3: If available, use OpenAI’s ChatGPT (or a similar conversational model) to ask
the question “what is a word?”. Provide the response that you get and explain what the
response gets correct and what it gets incorrect. How does it differ from the response
provided here?
Part 4: Rewrite the new passage putting it in line with our discussion in this chapter.
 Chapter 1: Defining Morphology 19

Challenge Problem Sets

CP. Productivity of re-­ [Challenge]

In this chapter, we claimed that re-­ could occur with most English verbs; however, we can
note that it results in ungrammaticality with the following verbs. What commonalities can
you note about these verbs? (Previous exposure to syntactic theory is helpful but not required.)

(A) *The train rearrived.

(B) *The bus redeparted.
(C) *The vase resat on the table. (Note: “The hostess resat the party” is acceptable.)

CP2. Plural in English [Challenge]

Consider the following examples from English given in Set I. Consider and describe the
contexts that make the plural morphology grammatical (consult with multiple speakers).
Compare these to the examples in the chapter in your discussion.
Set I
(A) “fish” ~ “fishes”
(B) “sand” ~ “sands”
(C) “water” ~ “waters”

Now consider the data in Set II. This data exhibits yet a different pattern when it comes
to plural morphology. Describe it and discuss what it might mean for our approach to
morphology.
Set II
(A) “*pant (noun)” ~ “pants”
(B) “*short (noun)” ~ “shorts”
(C) “*scissor (noun)” ~ “scissors”

CP3. Hausa [Challenge]

Consider the following data from Hausa (Niger, Nigeria, and Chad):

(A) bugā̀ “beat” (B) bubùgā “keep on beating”

(C) dafā̀ “cook” (D) daddàfā “keep on cooking”
(E) nḕmā “look for” (F) nànnēmā̀ “look all over for”
(G) kirā “call” (H) kikkirā “call various people”

In plain terms, describe how the “intensive” meaning (the meaning associated with
­continuing or successive action) is formed. You do not need to worry about the tones
(indicated with the diacritic marks on the vowels).
Data from Kraft and Kirk-­Greene (1990 [1973]).