Glossar-English:Morphology and Syntax

Unterpunkt zu: Zeichentheorien: Übersicht

---

Grammar versus Morphology Since the idea of ​​grammar in the form of generative syntax has been very fruitful in the field of language, various proposals have been made to study image syntax using an analog picture grammar. However, these approaches were not very successful, because the compositional syntax is primarily interested in syntactically correct compositions of words – as the elementary language signs – to form sentences – than the complex language signs. A convincing pictorial analog of words in such a way that images could be understood as “sentences” formed from them has not yet been proposed. With morphology, however, there is another area of ​​syntactic studies of language that examines words themselves as complex structures: How should the inner structure of words and the relationship between different grammatical forms of a word or the relationships between related words be described in a meaningful way? Here, too, a generative approach is usually assumed, which, however, differs significantly from the grammatical sentence structures. One of the reasons for this is that the morphological analysis does not depend on the distinction between sentence and word. In other words: While grammatical compositionality only makes sense forwort/sign systems organized in a word/sentence language, morphological considerations can be carried out more generally for any sign system with complex signs. From a philosophical point of view, the question arises as to whether the morphological perspective is better suited than the grammatical one to grasp syntactical connections in the image. A closer look at the morphological structures of linguistic sign systems in the narrower sense (2) and at related considerations of general language types (3) makes sense to answer this question. Language: morphemes and morphological operators In morphological analysis, a word is understood to be composed of segments that contribute to the meaning or grammatical function of the word, called ‘morphemes’. For example, the suffix ‘-ed’ in English, the prefix ‘pré-’ in French or the stem ‘-wend-’ in German are typical examples of morphemes. Morphological elements are primarily identified and classified by the substitution rule: For instance, some French words beginning with ‘pré-’ can be transformed into other French words by replacing the prefix with ‘re-’, ‘con-’, ‘de-’ etc. is replaced. Morphemes do not necessarily consist of a specific sequence of sounds or letters. In English, for example, the morpheme indicating the plural of a noun can appear in two variants, the so-called allomorphs: ‘-s’ or ‘-es’. Although many morphemes are meaning-modifying, they do not necessarily have a meaning of their own: Most morphemes are not themselves words. Morphemes that are also words and therefore have their own meaning are called free morphemes or lexemes; the others are called bound.The semantic or grammatical function of a morpheme can also be ambiguous and differ in different compositions (e.g. the morpheme ‘-(e)s’ as an inflectional suffix or as a plural suffix in English). It is primarily the stem morphemes that convey a core meaning that can be modified by morphological operations. Morphological operations play a central role in the formation of new words. In general, they can be differentiated into internal modifications, which essentially involve vowel changes (eg ‘come’ to ‘came’), and external ones Modifications by adding so-called affixes – in addition to prefixes and suffixes, circumfixes (simultaneous use of prefixes and suffixes) and infixes (insertion of a syllable in between) are combined – or by compound formation, which is responsible for many spontaneous word formations in German, for example (e.g. ‘Bankenschutzschirm’). While internal modifications effectively change the “color” of a word, external modifications change its shape and size. Morphemes are best understood as carriers of unsaturated sub-actions of an overall sign action without an independent pragmatic function, which in a more or less specific way influences the meaning or grammatical function (and thus the way it is used) of the whole word, but cannot themselves be considered sign actions. Isolating, polysynthetic, fusing, and agglutinating language systems Formal sentence formation grammar and word-forming morphological contexts are two polar organizational principles between which the various (natural) languages ​​can be classified on a scale. If one compares the average number of morphemes used in a language (or more generally in a verbal sign system) with the main type of grammatical sentence structure, then natural languages ​​essentially arrange themselves along a diagonal:   Mean number of morphemes per word analytic synthetic polysynthetic "Gram- mara- lity" isolating Chinese agglutinative English German fusional Athabaskan Languages ​​in which grammatical sentence structures dominate the structure are called isolating languages. If a language dispenses almost entirely with grammatical rules of sentence formation and relies primarily on morphological rules of word formation, then one speaks of fusional languages. The extremes range, for example, from case formation only via prepositions on the one hand to a case system marked on the word itself with significantly more than four cases on the other. Most languages ​​fall between these two extremes (referred to here as ‘agglutinative’). On the other hand, languages ​​whose words consist of many morphemes on average are called polysynthetic, while languages ​​in which words are formed from very few morphemes, often just a single lexeme, are called isolating. Synthetic languages ​​occupy an intermediate position. As indicated in the table, human languages ​​are arranged essentially along the diagonal between analytically isolating systems and polysynthetic-fusing ones. If you compare German with English, for example, both are more in the middle, but English is based on shorter words (more isolating) that are used in a more fixed sentence order, while German tends more towards compound formations, relies to a much greater extent on word inflections (more fusing), but at the same time allows a much freer word order. In extremely analytically isolating languages ​​such as Chinese, words composed of very few morphemes are never morphologically altered. All grammatical relations are expressed by special words or determined by the position of the word in the sentence (e.g. SPO). Sentences are direct groupings of words, usually in a fairly strict order. In contrast, an extremely polysynthetic agglutinative language would consist of only one-word sentences, although the words usually derive from a large number of morphemes that are fused together to modify the full meaning accordingly. Many Native American languages, such as Náhuatl, come very close to this extreme. For example, the morphological structure of the one-word sentence ‘matgībulhahumš’ in Egyptian Arabic literally translates roughly to ‘not-ye-should-bring-her-thing’ (i.e., ‘You shouldn't bring them to her’). The word consists of the two circumflex flexes ‘ma...š’ (‹not … thing›, negation) and ‘t(i)...u’ (a marker for imperfect tense of the second person plural in jussive mode: about ‹You should do›), the two morphemes ‘l(ī)ha’ (dative of the third person singular feminine: ‹(to) her›), ‘hum’ (accusative of the third person plural ‹them›), as well as, as a stem, an internally modified lexeme ‘gīb’, which takes the imperfective form of ‘gāb’ and corresponds to the stem of 'to bring' in English: m a t g ī b u l h a h u m š (gāb) gīb t(i) … u l(ī)ha hum ma . . . š All diese morphologischen Elemente sind in ein einzi­ges Wort amal­gamiert, das als Satz verwen­det wird. Das Schema einer solch komple­xen Kombi­nation durch Verschmel­zung von Morphe­men mit parti­ellen Phonem-Auslas­sungen zusam­men mit der Verwen­dung umschlie­ßender und einfü­gender Affi­xe kann in der Tat die Vorstel­lung bildsyn­takti­scher Struktu­ren viel eher evo­zieren, als das Schema forma­ler Gramma­tiken. Übertragung auf Bilder Offensichtlich sind die geo­metri­schen Ele­mente eines Bild­trägers und ihre rela­tive Anord­nung entschei­dend für Bedeu­tung und pragma­tische Funktion eines Bildes, ohne dass ihnen doch jeweils eine klar umris­sene eige­ne Bedeu­tung unab­hängig vom Bildgan­zen zuge­ordnet werden könnte. Ein kleiner oran­gerot ausge­füllter Kreis kann – unter ande­rem – als Nase eines Schnee­manns dienen oder als unter­gehen­de Sonne. Flächig zusam­menge­schmolzen bilden diese Ele­mente eine in sich abge­schlosse­ne morpho­logi­sche Einheit, die eine deutli­che Ana­logie zu den Ein-Wort-Sätzen einer poly­synthe­tischen Sprache aufweist. Da eine derar­tige Verschmel­zung von funktions­modi­fizie­renden Kompo­nenten in ein einzi­ges Zeichen nicht von der Wort/Satz-Unter­scheidung abhän­gig ist, wie sie für Sprache (im enge­ren Sinn) konsti­tutiv ist, legt sich eine morpho­logi­sche Betrach­tung der Bildsyntax nicht in gleicher Weise auf Grund­ele­mente und Kompo­sitions­regeln fest, die für bild­gramma­tische Ana­lysen bislang den Erfolg verhin­derten. Diese Idee wird im Artikel ⊳ Bild­morpho­logie näher betrach­tet. Siehe auch: Bilderschrift und Piktogramm Bildgrammatik Bildmorphologie Komposition Nomination Prädikation Pragmatik, Semantik, Syntax Raum und Geometrie Zeichen, Zeichenträger, Zeichensystem

Anmerkungen Literatur [Bloomfield 1933a]Bloomfield, Leonard (1933): Language. Henry Holt and Co, New York.[Haase 2007a]Haase, Martin (2007): Sprachtypologie: Eine Einführung in die Erforschung der Vielfalt der Sprachen. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.[Lehmann online]Lehmann, Christian (2012): Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung.[Schleicher 1859a]Schleicher, August (1859): Zur Morphologie der Sprache. Mémoires de l'académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg, 1?, 7. Ausgabe 1: 2013 Verantwortlich: Schirra, Jörg R.J. Lektorat: Sachs-Hombach, Klaus Seitenbearbeitungen durch: Joerg R.J. Schirra und Marcel Lemmes — (Hinweis) Zitierhinweis: [Schirra 2013g-t]Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Morphologie und Syntax. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Morphologie_und_Syntax]. Webadresse: bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Morphologie_und_Syntax Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Morphology and Syntax. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Glossar-English:Morphology_and_Syntax].