DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
Course Title:
Advanced Morphology and Syntax
Assignment Topic:
Nida’s Principles for ‘The Identification of Morphemes’
PREPARED BY:
Maryam Iftikhar
Bsf1800762
SUBMITTED TO: MS. SADIA SHARIF
JUNE,2022
Introduction
The morpheme as the lowest on the grammatical rank scale is a constituent of each of the
grammatical levels above it out of which its immediate super-ordinate structure is the word, the
word operates at the level of the phrase, the phrase at the level of the clause and the clause
functions at the level of the sentence, which is the height of hierarchical arrangement in the rank
scale; however, in modern grammar, there exist another higher level regarded as the discourse or
text.
Nida (1946) defines a morpheme as “the minimal unit of a language”. Nida belongs to the first
generation of Structuralist descriptive linguists which has other key scholars like Zellig Harris,
Leonard Bloomfield, Bernard Bloch, Charles Hockett, and others like Mark Aronoff and Stephen
Anderson who emerged in the mid- 1970’s.
Leonard Bloomfield’s definition of the linguistic unit as “A linguistic form which bears no
partial phonetic-semantic resemblance to any other form”. This definition has been the guiding
principle of morphologists over the years in the enterprise of analyzing and deciphering the
internal structure of words.
In the identification of morphemes, Nida posits that in an attempt to identify morphemes, we
must have certain partially similar forms in which we can recognize recurring partials (part of
words or morphemes). By ‘recurring partials’, Nida refers to a paradigm in which we have a list
exhibiting certain partially similar forms. For instance, in the word ‘salt’ the possible paradigm
are: ‘salts’, with the /s/ sound representing the morpheme, ‘salting’ with the /iŋ/ sound, and
‘salted’ with the /ɪd/ sound. The morphemes with their respective phonological realization are the
recurring partials Nida is referring to
In the identification of morpheme, Nida reviewed and revised in his article many principles of
analysis and classification devised by earlier linguists like Bloch and Hockett, his theoretical
specifications and the content of general procedure were the same as those developed by
previous authorities except that he proposed a distinct method of morphological classification. In
the essay,
Nida states that to identify morphemes, we must have certain partially similar forms in which we
can recognize partials. As a result, he attempts a simplification of the morphemic principles by
proposing six principles for identifying the component parts of such words and for formulating
the nature of those parts that constitutes its internal structure. His six principles are as follows:
Principle 1:
“Forms which possess a common semantic distinctiveness and an identical phonemic form in all
their occurrences constitute a single morpheme.”
Interpretation of Principle 1:
By ‘semantic distinctiveness’, it refers to a similarity in the meaning postulate of a group of
words to which a particular bound morpheme is attached. Also, as regards ‘identical phonemic
form’, Nida refers to a similarity in the phonological realization of the bound morpheme affixed
to the root of the words that qualifies such group of words to be referred to as a ‘single
morpheme’. By illustration, the /ə/ element is the same in words like ‘dancer’, ‘smoker’,
‘drinker’, ‘painter’, ‘trader’, ‘farmer’, ‘sweeper’; this satisfies the similarity in the phonemic
form criteria. On the other hand, the /ə/ element symbolizes sameness in the semantic meaning of
the words as the agentive nominalization (i.e. ‘doer of something’) of the verbs: smoke, drink,
sweep, paint, trade, smoke and dance.
Furthermore, in words like: villager, Rhode islander, Londoner, foreigner, these words satisfies
the perquisite stipulated in Principle 1; since there is similarity in the phonemic form as /ə/ and a
common semantic distinctiveness as ‘someone that comes from’ or ‘a citizen of’. Also, in words
like ‘broader’, ‘stranger’, ‘taller’, ‘further’, and ‘better’, the identical phonemic form is the same
with the foregoing, and the common semantic distinctiveness is that of ‘more than’. In the
English language, there are many other words with the morphological form, ‘er’; together with
its phonemic form, /ə/ affixed to them. It occurs in words like sister, banner, eraser, hamster,
weather and so on; but the forms are not considered morphemes in as much as they do not have a
distinct semantic meaning of their own within them.
Moreover, there are many other morphemes that display similarity in semantic distinctiveness
and identical phonemic forms. For instance, the phonemes /s/ and /z/ of the third person singular
verbs; ‘jumps’ and ‘rubs’, the /ŋ/ of the ‘-ing’ suffix of present continuous form of words like:
‘jumping’, ‘singing’, ‘running’, ‘teaching’, sweeping’ etc., and the /id/ of the ‘-ed’ suffix of the
past tense form of words like: ‘wanted’, ‘rented’, ‘painted’, ‘lighted’ and ‘tweeted’. For Nida,
juxtaposed words that do not satisfy the stipulated criteria cannot in any way be referred to as
single morphemes.
Principle 2:
“Forms which possess a common semantic distinctiveness but which differ in phonemic form
(i.e. constituency or shape) constitute a single morpheme provided that the distribution of formal
differences can be phonologically defined.”
Interpretation of Principle 2:
This principle states that forms which have a common semantic distinctiveness but differ in
phonemic form (that is in the phoneme or order of the phonemes) may constitute a morpheme
provided the distribution of formal differences is phonologically definable. In this respect, the
law of phonological conditioning comes into play in the classification of words as a single
morpheme. The morphemes share the same semantic distinctiveness but they exist in different
phonemic forms which results from the permissible combinations in the phonotactics of a
language.
For instance, the prefixal morphemes, ‘in-’, ‘il-’, ‘ir-’ and ‘im-’ in the words; ‘inaudible’,
‘impossible’, ‘illogical’ and ‘irrelevant’ have a common semantic distinctiveness of ‘not’ in
them, but different phonological realizations as a result of the conditioning of the prefixal
morpheme to enable it cohere with the initial sound of the root or base to which the morpheme is
attached. It appears that ‘in-’ is used before vowels as in the word ‘inaudible’, and before
alveolar consonants as in ‘intangible’, ‘insincere’, and ‘indirect’; exceptions to such
constructions includes: ‘unalloyed’, ‘unsure’ and ‘undefined’ and many others.
Furthermore, ‘im-’ is used before bi-labial sounds like /p/ and /b/; hence, we have words like;
‘impossible’, ‘imbalance’, ‘improper’. It is also the same in ‘immaterial’; since the first sound of
the base ‘material’ is a bi-labial. Moreover, affixal morpheme, ‘il-’ is used before words having
the lateral sound, /l/ in the initial position of words like ‘illegal’, ‘illogical’, ‘illegible’,
‘illegitimate’, ‘illiberal’, ‘illiterate’, ‘illocution’, ‘illuminate’ etc. Finally, the ‘ir-’ morpheme is
used before a word that starts with the /r/ sound in words like ‘irrelevant’, ‘irresponsible’,
‘irrecoverable’, ‘irreclaimable’, ‘irreplaceable’ etc. Thus, from the foregoing, the law of
phonological conditioning accounts for most of the occurrences of this morpheme in different
phonemic forms in the English language.
Principle 3:
Forms which possess a common semantic distinctiveness, but which differ in their phonemic
form in such a way that the distribution of the forms cannot be phonologically defined, constitute
a single morpheme if the forms are in complementary distribution, subject to the following
restrictions:
a. Occurrences in the same structural series has precedence over occurrence in different structural
series in the determination of morphemic status.
b. Complimentary distribution in different structural series constitutes a basis for combining
possible allomorphs into one morpheme only if there also occurs in the same distribution class as
the allomorphic series in question and which itself has only one allomorph or phonologically
defined allomorphs.
c. Immediate tactical environments have precedence over non-immediate tactical environments in
determining morphemic status.
Interpretation of Principle 3:
Contrast in identical distributional environments may be treated as sub-morphemic if the
difference in meaning of the allomorphs reflects the distribution of these forms. For instance, in
the following words: oxen, children, larvae, hats, and hoes the morphemic elements in the words
are phonologically realized as; /in/, /rən/, /ə/, /i:/, /s/ and /z/ have a common semantic
distinctiveness as the ‘pluralized form’ of the root words, they are all different in phonemic form
and the differences cannot be phonologically defined as we have it in Principle 2.
However, these words are said to be in complimentary distribution, in the sense that where one
form occurs, other forms cannot, the words are formally the same but morphemically different as
we see in the following examples:
a. The oxen are in the field.
b. The children are here.
c. The memoranda are ready.
d. The hats are new.
In English sentences, it is known that all the forms highlighted above take the plural forms of the
verb after them. It is quite clear from these utterances, therefore, that the various words are plural
forms of English nouns. The common semantic distinctiveness that they exhibit is that of ‘more
than one’.
Principle 4:
An overt formal difference among related forms (forms containing recurrent partials or occurring
in complementary distribution) constitutes a morpheme, if in any of these forms this difference,
together with a zero tactical difference, is the only significant feature for establishing a minimal
unit of phonetic-semantic distinctiveness.
Interpretation of Principle 4:
By overt formal difference, it refers to a plainly apparent or clear linguistic difference that is
perceived between two or more speech units in the structural series that constitutes a morpheme
if, in any member of such a series; the overt formal difference and a zero structural difference are
the only significant features for distinguishing a minimal unit of phonetic-semantic
distinctiveness. For instance, there is a perceivable difference between the linguistic forms: ‘foot’
and ‘feet’. It is overtly clear that these forms are not the same. This reflects an overt formal
difference that is a difference in forms.
On the other hand, ‘structural series’ refers to a series such as foot and feet. The series is
described as structural because each of the elements in the series is described as structural
because each of the elements in the series has a linguistic structure of its own. The zerostructural difference that is significant for distinguishing the phonetic-semantic divide is a
technical way of saying there is no perceptible difference in a structural series. For instance, in
the form ‘sheep’ which has the same form as its pluralized form, there is no structural difference
between ‘sheep’ singular, ‘sheep’ plural. The zero-structural difference is used to mean that the
plural form has no added structural as we have in the word ‘boy’ and its pluralized form ‘boys’,
which has an overt structural difference marked by the plural inflectional morpheme ‘s’; in
contrast, ‘sheep’ does not carry the regular signal of the plural number in English neither does it
have any of the other variant, possible phonological realization of plural numbers like the /s/ in
cats, /z/ in hammers, or /iz/ in churches.
Furthermore, the ‘phonetic-semantic distinctiveness’ refers to the distinctive identity with which
the sound and meaning of a speech unit endow it. For instance, the sound ‘boy’- /boi/ is quite
different from the sound ‘boys’- /boɪz/. The sound /z/ constitutes a minimal unit of phoneticsemantic distinctiveness in the above stated words. In the application of the principle, the overt
formal difference between the structural series ‘man’, ‘men’ constitutes a morpheme because in a
member of the series, ‘men’. The overt formal difference and an absence of structural difference
as regards inflections are the only significant features for distinguishing between the singular
‘man’ and the plural ‘men’. This overt formal difference therefore constitutes a morpheme, that
is, the phonological change of the medial vowel sound form /æ/ to /e/ constitutes a morpheme,
the same goes for the difference in phonemic sound between goose /u:/, and geese /i:/ which
constitutes a single morpheme.
Principle 5:
The meaning of any form is definable in terms of the feature or features common to the
situations in which the form occurs. Homophonous forms (linguistic forms which sound alike)
are identifiable as the same or different morphemes on the basis of the following conditions:
a. Homophonous forms which distinctly different meanings constitute different morphemes.
b. Homophonous forms with related meanings constitute a single morpheme if the meaning classes
are paralleled by distributional differences, but they constitute multiple morphemes if the
meaning classes are not paralleled by distributional differences.
Interpretation of Principle 5:
In accordance with the first criteria of principle 5, homophonous forms (i.e. words which sound
alike) that has different meanings and constitutes different morphemes. For instance, ‘bank’ (a
financial institution) sounds the same way as ‘bank’ (the side of a river). Apparently, these
homophonous forms have different meanings; therefore constituting different meanings.
According to the second criterion, ‘distributional differences’ between homophonous forms
refers to grammatical differences in privileges of occurrence. There is a distributional difference
between ‘run’, a verb and ‘run’, a noun. Syntactically, the word ‘run’ can be contextually used to
represent different meanings. Hence, we can say ‘He will soon start to run’- with ‘run’ used as a
verb, and ‘The run will begin in a moment’- with run used as a noun. This illustration clearly
represent distributional or grammatical differences in privileges of occurrence in sentence- this
condition states that if meanings are paralleled by distributional differences, they constitute a
single morpheme; this means that ‘run’ as verb and ‘run’ as noun constitute a single morpheme
in this regard.
Principle 6:
A morpheme is isolatable if it occurs under the following conditions:
a. In isolation
b. In multiple combinations in at least one of which the unit with which it is combined occurs in
isolation or in other combinations
c. In a single combination provided the element with which it is combined occurs in isolation or in
other combinations with non-unique constituents.
Interpretation of Principle 6:
Regarding principle 6, a morpheme is deemed isolatable if it can exist alone in the language as a
single word. For example, words like ‘boy’, ‘girl’, ‘stone’, ‘water’, ‘pen’ etc. are all isolatable
morphemes, and they are free morphemes because each of them occurs in isolation in the English
language. The second perquisite of principle 6 states that a morpheme is isolatable if it occurs in
multiple combinations.
This criterion is only applicable to certain bound morphemes that can pass as free morphemes if
they are examined in isolation from the root word to which they are affixed. For instance, in the
words: ‘respectable’, ‘breakable’, ‘agreeable’ and ‘perishable’, derivational suffix, ‘-able’ is
isolatable because it occurs with the words; ‘respect’, ‘break’, ‘agree’ and ‘perish’ that can also
exist in isolation. The second part of this principle which refers to other combinations is one of
the disputed points in modern linguistics. This refers to analyzing words of Latinate origins, with
two roots like ‘receive’, ‘deceive’, ‘conceive’ and ‘perceive’ as constituting two morphemes.
The peculiar element ‘-ceive’ in each of these words cannot exist in isolation, but some linguist
have classified them as morphemes because it occurs in combination with other sounds like ‘re-’
in receive, ‘de-‘ in deceive, ‘con-’ in conceive and ‘per-’ in perceive. But this type of analysis is
not accepted by some others who consider the words as single morphemes irrespective of their
etymology. The same irregularity is perceivable in similar words like: ‘contain’, ‘detain’,
‘retain’, ‘obtain’ etc.
Conclusion
The Identification of morphemes is a subtle, scathing criticism of Hockett and Bloch’s methods
of morphological analysis, as he cites ‘structural complexities’ in these theories as a setback for
‘tactical simplicity’ which Hockett and Bloch claims their theory characterizes. His perceived
objections are echoed in his words: “…in both Bloch’s and Hockett’s recent papers on
morphemic problems, there is a conspicuous tendency to make covert distinctions more
important than overt ones.” The perceived over-emphasis of Hockett on the hidden/covert
processes that influence morphological changes in words as the yardstick for the identification of
morphemes is the motivation behind Nida’s work.
In the paper, he states further that: “Bloch and Hockett have been thoroughly inconsistent in
following to the end the implications of their basic premises.” However, he succintingly defends
the purpose of his review by stating that “…any disagreement with their (Hockett and Bloch)
treatment of morphemic classification is not a criticism of their handling of data as such, but is
directed rather at the fundamental principle upon which all of us a s descriptive linguists have
been working” (Nida 1948: 414).
To this end, in his seminal work, he takes a different approach by placing his own theory of
morphemic identification and classification on the distinct parameters of; common semantic
resemblance, common or different phonetic resemblance in accordance with certain criterion,
homophonous relatedness, lexical contextuality, different inflectional environments and
phonological conditioning and change. Hence, Nida demonstrates that morphemic analysis can
be carried out with an appeal to the analytical tools of sister disciplines of morphology such as
semantics, phonology and semantics.
From the foregoing, it is quite possible to infer the purpose of this seminar work which is to
simplify the principles for easy comprehension. However, the prevalent challenges of descriptive
linguistics, which is the inadequacies encountered in an attempt at exemplification, based on
linguistics data rears up its ugly head in the identification of morphemes. Resultantly, Nida’s
attempt at simplifying the principles of his predecessors which boasts its own successes
nonetheless still leaves behind some residue of complexities which plagues his work; and in turn
informs this critique.
References
Booij, G., (2007). The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Morphology (2nd Edition).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Katamba, F., (1993). Morphology. New York: Martins Press.
Nida, E. A. (1949). Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words (2nd Edition). Ann Arbor.
The University of Michigan Press.
Tomori, S.H.O. (2004). The morphology and syntax of present-day English: An introduction.
Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.