Morphological Structure of a Word
Item and Arrangement
The branch of linguistics which concerns itself with the structure of words as dependent on the meaning of the constituent morphemes is called morphology. Morphemes are of two kinds: lexical and grammatical. Morphological analysis enables us to gain a deeper insight into the mutual relationship of lexical and grammatical morphemes within the word, on the one hand, and the productivity of word‑building patterns, on the other.
The word is a unit which is both lexical and grammatical. This is the reason why we must begin with morphological analysis in the broader sense of the term, that is, to include both the grammatical and the lexical aspects of morphology. The difference between the two may be explained as follows: grammatical morphology is ‘allomorphic’ but ‘sememic’ while lexical morphology is ‘morphemic’ and ‘semic’ (Raun Alo. Grammatical Meaning.Verba docent: Juhlakirja Lauri Hakulisen
60‑vuotispaivaksi. Helsinki, 1959, p. 346–348).
The prefix ‘allo‑’ is used in linguistic terminology to describe variants of the same unit. For example (‑s) and (‑z) are allomorphs of the morpheme of the third person singular Present Tense Active Voice. For instance, ‘he sobs’ (‑z) vs ‘he sips’ (‑s) – (‑s) and (‑z) are variants of the same morpheme in the sense that they are the same grammatical element, functioning as two different variants of the same unit. Another example: ‘He was guided by John’ (‑d); ‘The cup was broken’ (‑n); ‘He was stopped’ (‑t) – (‑d), (‑t); (‑n) are the three allomorphs of the Past Participle.
The suffix ‘‑emic’ means ‘belonging to the system’, ‘‑etic’–‘occurring in actual speech’. Grammatical morphemes are allomorphic and sememic: they can be understood only as part of the whole system of grammatical oppositions. Thus, for instance, (‑s) and (‑z) are the allomorphs of the morpheme of the third person singular, when attached to a verbal stem. But when they are attached to a nominal stem they denote plurality (as in books, beds). Thus, taken in isolation (‑s) and (‑z) do not convey a distinct grammatical meaning, for it becomes clear only against the background of the entire system of grammatical oppositions.
With lexical morphemes the situation is quite different. The suffix
– less, for example (as a lexical morpheme) is morphemic because there are no variants, no allomorphs. On the other hand, its meaning is understood as such, without recourse to the emic level. Lexical morphemes, therefore, are described as ‘semic’.
|
|
|
When we turn to the study of lexical morphemes we have to admit that quite a few questions still remain open. One of the problems can be formulated as follows: how can we discover what parts the word consists of? Obviously, one of the criteria is a close one‑to‑one correspondence between expression and content. Very often it is easy to establish the way the word is divided into parts on the basis of the unity of the given form and the given meaning. Thus, for instance, in cases like child‑less, water‑y, yellow‑ishetc., no special problem arises, because their inner form is transparent.
But when we turn to the great number of words already existing in the language, then, obviously, what we have to decide is whether in each particular case we are dealing with a monomorphemic or polymorphemic word. A case in point is English cranberry. Cranberry in the system of the English language is part of a long series of words each denoting a particular variety of berries. But in contrast with blueberry and blackberry, for example, which are readily divided into two morphemes, cranberry looks like a monomorphemic word, because cran‑ has got nothing to do with cran meaning ‘measure for fresh herrings’ (=37.5 gallons).
Quite a number of great linguists concerned themselves with this problem. Of special interest is a famous work of Georgij Vinokur ‘Заметки по русскому словообразованию’. (М., 1946) concerning the segmentability of words like малинаand клубника. The solution offered by A.I.Smirnitsky, however, seems to be the most acceptable of all. A.I.Smirnitsky was sure that morphological analysis is assured if a sufficiently clear‑cut lexical morpheme is powerful enough to induce meaningfulness in the rest of the word. It follows that cran‑, мал‑, клубн‑ are morphemes because ‑berry and– ин, – ик are.
|
|
|
As far as the controversy between G.O.Vinokur and A.I.Smirnitsky is concerned we would venture to suggest that it can be accounted
for by the fact that while the former concentrated on ITEM AND ARRANGEMENT, the latter dealt with the other aspect of morphology, i.e. ITEM AND PROCESS.
It follows that in the case of lexical morphology we must distinguish between the two aspects of investigation. When we analyse words in terms of ‘item and arrangement’ we deal mainly with the ways of segmenting the already existing lexical material. When, however, we concentrate on the productivity of certain patterns, on discovering their potentialities we pass on to the level of ‘item and process’.
Let us now see how the above principles can be applied to some actual facts of English lexical morphology. In Russian the terms ‘по одному ряду’ or ‘по двум рядам’ are used to distinguish between words which are segmentable either ‘one way, or ‘both ways’. Thus, for example, the word beautiful is segmentable into beauti‑ and ‑ful, because, on the one hand, there are plenty of words with (0 bju: tI) as the stem (or root morpheme) – to beautify, beauteous, beautician, etc., and even a larger number of words like hopeful, careful, wonderful, etc., on the other.
Graphically the ‘both ways’ relationship may be represented as follows:
Beautiful
beauty, careful,
beauteous, wonderful,
to beautify, hopeful,
beautician, etc.plentiful, etc.
The ‘one way’ relationship was discussed above in connection with the ‑ин‑ and ‑berry derivatives. Blueberry, blackberry are examples of ‘both ways’. Raspberry, gooseberry leave us with a vague impression of a meaningful first part, while in the case of cranberry the relationship is obviously ‘one way’ and ‘meaningfulness’ for cran‑ is either not there at all, or is ‘induced’ by the morphological power of the second (or
– berry)element.
Even greater difficulties have to be contended with because of the ‘de‑etymologization’ and various morphonological processes which take part within a word. To give the reader an idea of what it actually looks like when we deal not with isolated, hand‑picked words, but with an actual utterance, it is essential to analyse a chunk of speech as actually produced by an ordinary user of the language. The following sentence can serve as an example:
|
|
|
One eminent American linguist when asked about the difference between the two morphologies suggested a set of fanciful, but interesting terms.
One in terms of ‘item and arrangement’ is connected with words like oneself, anyone, once, etc. In eminent the element – ent is easily singled out, because there are so many adjectives ending in ‑ent (prominent, evident, etc.). But for ‑ent to be regarded as a suffix in this case the idea of an ‘induced’ morpheme will have to be re‑introduced, for all existing derivatives (eminence, eminently, etc.) are derived from eminent as the stem: nothing shorter than eminentever appears in the derivatives.
In American the root morpheme is clearly Americ‑, for it is from the noun America that the adjective was originally derived. There are other names of nationalities in which the root morpheme is followed by ‑an,such as Mexican, Australian, Hungarian, etc. In the case of linguist at first sight the word presents no morphological problems. The morpheme ‑ist
is easily understood as a noun‑forming suffix, which recurs in words like scientist, physicist, philologist, etc. Analysis in this case is, however, complicated by the fact that the first part of the word (ling‑) never figures as a separate morpheme.
When is a syncategorematic word. The morphonology of words of this kind presents special difficulties owing to the fact that they change their pronunciation under the influence of different speech situations. Thus, for example, when speech is emphatic, (w) is abandoned and (m) is used instead: (men). The slovoform asked is morphologically peculiar because of the tendency to say (Rst) instead of (Rskt). When we try to think of derivatives with which this stem is connected we find that we can hardly go beyond askable (?), with a question‑mark. The suffix
|
|
|
– able was regarded as merely an ‘absolutely productive’ suffix used to form adjectives from verbal stems – thus: read – readable, teach – teachable, etc. Special research, however, has shown that this is a case of overlapping of the two morphologies – the lexical and the grammatical ones (Гвишиани, Н.Б. Полифункциональные слова в языке и речи. М., 1979, c. 146–165).
The, which comes next, is a syncategorematic word. The morpho‑nology of all syncategorematic words is connected mainly not with their actual morphemic structure but with the way they function in different syntactic positions. The definite article the may be used either in its strong or its weak form. According to grammar books the strong form of the definite article is (DI). If we turn to the analysis of the oral form of speech as it really is, we shall see that most of the time it is used in one of its weak forms. Next comes the adjective different,which is connected with difference, differential, differentiate. Morphonologically it is a good example of the t/s/S gradation of consonants and the q/e gradation of vowels accompanied by changes in the accentual structure. In differentiate and differential the stress is shifted to the third syllable.
As far as the word between is concerned we should point to the fact that it is obviously derived from two (or twain, see: Mark Twain). With morphology we have to face problems of a more general character. Is it a ‘derivative’, a word derived from the ‘stem’ morph–by means of a suffix according to a ‘derivational’ pattern or a compound made by juxtaposition of two root‑morphemes? It has often been pointed out that – ologymeans ‘science’.
Suggest is clearly connected with suggestive, suggestionwith morphonological gradation. For set most important is the way the noun set is connected with the corresponding verb, an interesting case of conversion. In connection with oftwo points should be mentioned. Firstly, of being a syncategorematic word its actual form always depends on its syntactic function in a sentence. Secondly, the preposition of (Pv) should not be confounded with the adverb off (Pf). Fanciful is an adjective, derived from the nominal stem (fжnsI) with the help of the adjective‑forming suffix ‑ful. Quite a number of adjectives are formed in this way: care – careful, beauty – beautiful, shame – shameful.
When performing the item‑and‑arrangement analysis above we used a ‘typographical’ text. But it is a well‑known fact that traditional orthography is very misleading. This is the reason why we fall back on phonetic transcription when we want to gain a deeper insight into the morphonological structure of our units. When working with the oral form of language we inevitably come to the conclusion that we cannot stop with segmental phonetics: different prosodic and paralinguistic phenomena, which are invariably superimposed on the word in speech should be also taken into account. As far as the morphological analysis of words is concerned, the parameter of internal juncture cannot be overestimated.
By juncture we mean a pause which is accompanied by various modifications of preceding and following sounds. There are open junctures and internal ones. As to the former we can consider them to be syntactically relevant, for they occur at the end of breath‑groups, sentences and supraphrasal unities. Otherwise stated open junctures are indispensable for syntactic segmentation of the flow of speech. Whereas internal juncture can be described as morphological.
Generally internal juncture is observed in compound words. «Thus, the phonetic sequence (pi: stLks) (with secondary accent on the syllable containing (L) may mean pea stalksor peace talks according to the situation of the word boundaries (i.e. (i: – st) or (i: s – tL)). In this case if the boundary occurs between (s) and (t), the identity of the words peace and talks may be established by the reduced (i:) (in a syllable closed by a fortis consonant) and by the slight aspiration of (t) (initial in a syllable carrying a secondary accent)); on the other hand, if the boundary occurs between (i:) and (s), this may be signaled by the relatively full length of (i:) (in the open word‑final syllable) and by the unaspirated allophone of
(t) (following (s) in the same syllable) as well as by the stronger (s).» (Gim –
son, A. An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. 1970, p. 299.)
As a rule the morphological (internal) juncture is not realized on morpheme boundaries of ordinary words like, for example, indefinitely, but under specific circumstances on the metasemiotic level it can be observed, for instance:
«Oh, you definitely suspect somebody then?»
«Indefinitely, would be a better word for it,» said slowly Mr. Parker with a smile.
In the example cited above the word indefinitely is split up into two morphemes in‑ and ‑definitely by means of the prolongation of the sound (n), a high level tone on the prefix and increased loudness.
One more example:
«They gave it me,» Humpty Dumpty continued thoughtfully, as he crossed one knee over the other and clasped his hands round it, «they gave it me – for an un‑birthday present.»
«I beg you pardon?» Alice said with a puzzled air.
«I’m not offended,» said Humpty Dumpty.
«I mean what is an un‑birthday present?»
The negative prefix un‑ is brought out in the flow of speech by means of the logical stress, which makes the internal juncture become conspicuous.
Thus, we can conclude that in the oral form of language a word lends itself to morphological articulation on the metasemiotic level, when the internal juncture is realized to the full. These observations are very important because they prove the objective existence of ‘item and arrangement’.
Item and Process
The difference between ‘item and arrangement’, on the one hand, and ‘item and process’, on the other, consists in the latter being concerned with the making of new words, while the former concerns itself with the analysis of already existing lexical units. Item and process approach is aimed at understanding the principles of what is usually described as word‑building. How do people set about making new words?
It may seem to be stating the obvious that the vocabulary of any particular language consists of monolithic, indecomposable units – words, which by definition are supposed to be ready made. We would not be able to communicate effectively unless everyone of us had at his command a considerable number of those lexical units which can be combined in various ways. But new words keep being coined all the time without hampering communication. New words may be of different types and produced for different purposes. When we analyse them we should take into consideration various social, extra‑linguistic and physical prerequisites. In other words, we should clearly distinguish between semantic and metasemiotic recurrence.
On the one hand, there are many new words which can be classified as neologisms, i.e. words which have been coined to denote new concepts or things, resulting from the development of the social life of the speech community in question. Thus, for example, there are a number of words referring to the media or to people and things relevant to the media which appeared not long ago:
Britpop – is used to refer to young singers, groups and their songs: The Spice Girls, Oasis, Blur Pulp, and All Saints, among many others. With the help of Brit‑ used as a prefix the following words have been coined: Britrock, Britrap, Britlit (trendy novels written by young people), and Britpic (British films such as Brassed Off and The Full Money).
A number of words have been coined to describe television programmes. There used to be news, education, documentaries and many programmes for entertainment. Now there are programmes which are entertaining but which also give you information, called infotainment.This is formed from ‘information’ and ‘entertainment’. There are other words like this: edutainment, docutainment, infom‑mercial, rockumentary.
It is interesting to observe how neologisms gradually make their way to the basic vocabulary under the influence of changing social life of the speaking community. For instance the word tea‑garden (a garden where tea and other refreshments are served to the public) was part of the wordlist in the first three editions of the «Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English». Then in the fourth edition it was substituted for by milk bar(bar for the sale of drinks made from milk, ice‑cream and other light refreshments). And in the sixth edition (published in 2000) a new word was introduced – cybercafй (a cafй with computers on which customers can use the Internet, send electronic mail, etc.).
There are plenty of dictionaries of English neologisms which provide us with all the necessary information as to how many new words appeared and were assimilated by the language at a certain period of time.
On the other hand, word building is represented by occasional words i.e. words which are coined because their creators seek for expressive utterance, for example, husbandilinessin
«Burlap in return adored his private phantom, adored its beautiful –
ly Christian conception of matrimony, adored his adorable husban –
diliness»
or ladderlessin
«Be a leggy girl in Berkshire stockings. Ladderless.»
Both types of word building can be best described and understood in terms of ‘lexical‑morphological category’, that is to say, a type of relationship when no constraints whatsoever are imposed on the formation of pairs of words, which differ from each other both on the plane of content and the plane of expression.
As has been repeatedly stated the term ‘category’ as applied to linguistics is not infrequently employed to denote not the fundamental concepts, but the actual ‘dimensions’ of linguistic phenomena. In what follows the term ‘category’ will be used in this sense: the most general properties and relationships of the language. The lexical‑morphological categories, then, are those linguistic categories of the most general character which are realized in the semantic opposition according to a certain distinctive feature of two or more words on condition that the same opposition is observed in other pairs or even larger groups of words and find systematic expression.
It is clear that the concept of lexical‑morphological category has a direct bearing on the so‑called ‘productivity’ of various word‑building patterns. It has been stated time and again that an affix can be considered to be productive if it is used to coin new words. Thus, the following English affixes are generally described as productive: de‑, re‑, pre‑,
non‑, un‑, anti‑, ‑ness, – less, – er, ‑ation, – able, – ish, etc.
Here immediately a question is bound to arise: are we justified in introducing a new term if the science in question has already a well‑developed metalinguistic system. At first sight it may seem that there is very little difference, if any, between the concept of ‘productivity’ and that of ‘lexical‑morphological category’. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. ‘Lexical‑morphological category’ is not just a special metalinguistic description but a scientific proposition which enables us, firstly, to gain an insight into the relationship between two aspects of morphology and, secondly, raise lexical morphology to the status of a science, because by describing and explaining the underlying fundamental concepts we can arrive at a scientifically tenable theory of word building.
Incidentally the concept of ‘productivity’ never appears in discussions of grammatical morphology. It is taken for granted that grammatical morphology deals only with productive processes and categories. Whereas in the case of lexical morphology the word ‘productivity’ is used to indicate that certainly not all the lexical processes are ‘productive’, and ‘productivity’ is a characteristic of a certain part of lexical processes which are covered by the term ‘item and arrangement’. Lexical‑morphological category, on the contrary, establishes a new alliance between the two aspects of morphology because in this case their common features come to the fore.
The concept of lexical‑morphological category was first put forward by A. I. Smirnitsky, who came to the conclusion that pairs like write – rewrite, read – reread, type – retype, etc. display a regularity which is similar to the properties of grammatical categories. Oppositions of this kind are regularly reproduced in speech, the resulting complexes being entirely lexical in character.
So much importance being attached to lexical‑morphologiacl category the subject should be discussed in detail. We shall begin by considering the category of quality. This category is constituted by the opposition of the substantival and the adjectival representations of quality, for example: black – blackness, happy – happiness, kind – kindness, quiet – quietness,etc.
We should first of all look at a list of the marked members of the opposition. This is the essential first step because our task consists in finding out whether any constraints, morphonological or semantic, are superimposed on the realization of the category. Copious facts of the substantival representation of the category in question collected and carefully investigated give conclusive evidence of the fact that there are various consonant clusters on the border between the stem and the suffix ‑ness, including those which so far have not been registered or inventorised for example:
(mpn) – limpness, plumpness, dampness;
(mbln) – humbleness;
(mpln) – simpleness, ampleness;
(skn) – briskness, picturesqueness, statuesqueness;
(sn) – closeness, coarseness, crossness, grossness, looseness;
(stn) – fastness, firstness, justness, modestness, moistness;
(bln) – doubleness;
(kn) – blankness, frankness;
(n) – longness, wrongness;
(Nktn) – indistinctness;
(Ngln) – singleness;
(Tn)– uncouthness, loathness;
(ptn) – abruptness, aptness, corruptness, inaptness;
(pln) – crippleness;
(Gn) – hugeness, largeness, savageness, strangeness;
(zn) – citizenness, crimsonness, diffuseness, profuseness,etc.
The evidence of the facts adduced above shows that the morpho‑nological composition of words in ‑nessis not confined to any limited number of clusters. It will be natural to conclude, therefore, that no morphonological constraints whatsoever are imposed on the lexical‑morphological category of quality in English. As far as its expression plane is concerned it can be freely realized in speech.
When we turn to the content plane of the lexical‑morphological category under discussion we find that different stems can indiscri‑minately serve as the basis of the process under consideration, for example:
root‑morphemes – sadness, brightness, closeness, whiteness, keenness;
derived adjectives – heartlessness, aimlessness, childlikeness;
compound adjectives – school‑girlishness, bowleggedness;
forms of degrees of comparison – betterness, nearestness and dearest‑ness;
predicative adjectives – aloneness, aloofness, awareness;
past participle – unexpectedness, forgottenness, unwashedness;
ing‑stems – astonishingness, insultingness, interferingness.
It should be pointed out that the actual existence of the lexical‑morphological category is easily demonstrated not only with the help of new formations derived from words but also from word‑combinations, for example:
He had an idea – partly out of childish let’s‑try‑and‑seeness, partly out of a book on dynamic symmetry…
The book has all the suspence and I‑can’t‑put‑it‑downnesswe have come to expect from him.
You talk as if no one else in the world had ever used a brush. D’you sup‑pose that I don’t know the feeling of worry and bother and can’t‑get‑at‑ness?
What was her attraction? I suppose all‑of‑a‑pieceness was her strength.
Do you remember his on‑top‑of‑the‑worldness?
It requires but little reflection to see that formations of this kind can be indexed solely, or even primarily, in terms of stylistics. Thus we can conclude that the lexical‑morphological category is realized to the full only on the metasemiotic level.
Now let us turn to the lexical‑morphological category of ‘action – agent’.
As is well known categories are always constituted by the opposition of no less than two categorial forms. In the case of the nouns in ‑ness we observe the zero form of the adjective and the marked ‑ness‑form of the noun. In the case of ‘action – agent’ category we can observe the zero form of the verb and the marked – er‑form of the noun, for example, to do – doer, to read – reader, to manage – manager, etc.
As was pointed out above, the lexical‑morphological category is realized to the full only on the metasemiotic level. All these considerations hold true also in the case of the lexical category in question, for example:
She was both doer and sufferer: she inflicted pain and participated in it.
I am sorry to be a bringer of bad news, but I feel it is my duty.
But in assuming that the knocker who had just knocked on the door was Sir Warkin Bassett, I had erred.
It should be added in this connection that the lexical‑morphological category of ‘action – agent’ can be realized even when there are words in ‑er which have lost the connection with the verbal stem. Thus, for instance, in spite of the fact that there are words like admirer‘man who is in love with a woman’, believer‘a person with religious faith’, waiter ‘man who waits at table in a restaurant, hotel dining‑room, etc.’ and so on it is quite possible to use homonymous formations which represent the categorial meaning as the substantival representation of the lexical‑morphological category under discussion, for example:
He was a blatant admirer of Napoleon.
And, I gathered from her remarks, she had ceased entirely to be a believer in that notebook’s existence.
All waiters for the 475 plane, pass to the next hall, please.
Side by side with the lexical‑morphological categories of quality and action‑agent there are the category of caritivity (the marked categorial form comprises adjectives in ‑less, for example, child – childless) and the category of simulation (the marked categorial form is represented by adjectives in – like, for example, lady– ladylike). Each category has some specific features (Тер‑Минасова, С.Г. Синтагматика функци –
ональных стилей и оптимизация преподавания иностранных языков. М., 1986, с. 67–86) but there is one common feature: the lexical‑morphological category is realized to the full only on the metasemiotic level when an occasional word is coined.
Derivation, compounding and other means of creating new words are used to coin neologisms and occasional words. Neologisms are those words which have been coined to denote a new concept or thing, resulting from the development of the material and social life of the speech community. For example, the suffix ‑ismwhich forms nouns showing action or condition (baptism, criticism, heroism)two decades ago was used to coin the words which denoted new tendencies in British and American society – afroism (adherence to Africun culture), sexism (discrimination against people of a particular sex, especially women), ageism (discrimiation of old people).
Occasional words appear when the writer/speaker wants to achieve various stylistic effects and produce an impact on the reader/listener. The vast majority of new formations as realizations of lexical‑morpho‑logical categories belong to this class of words. Let us consider a few examples of the category of simulation and that of caritivity:
1. Artists, of course, were notoriously Hamlet‑like, and to this extent one must discount for one’s father, even, if one loved him.
2. James made a great effort, and rose to the full height of his stork‑likefigure.
3. Get a beautiful new figure under expert individual supervision! Dietlessslimming!
4. Be a leggy girl in Berkshire stockings. Ladderless.
The above examples illustrate occasional words used in the registers of fiction and advertising, the two registers which are based on the function of impact. Occasional words help the authors to enhance the connotativeness of the text.
In this connection it is important to emphasize once again that unfortunately the printed word often does not enable the linguist to get an insight into the different phenomena of language, derivation is not an exception. One of the ways of differentiating between semantic and metasemiotic derivations will consist in using the methods of prosodic analysis. In what follows we shall try to establish certain correlations between new words and their prosodic arrangement in speech.
The method of prosodic analysis has proved to be very effective while investigating the functioning of a word both on the semantic and the metasemiotic levels. The studies of the interdependence of word‑meanings and their prosodic organization have shown that in actual speech the prosody of words possessing a certain inherent or adherent connotation is different from that of the more neutral or less emphatic words.
What has been expounded above will justify us in regarding the specific prosodic phenomena which manifest themselves whenever a word is used metasemiotically as an important approach to the analysis of new formations. The difference between semantic and metasemiotic derivation becomes absolutely clear‑cut because the latter is accompanied by a special kind of sound phenomena, whereas the former formations serve as the neutral background against which the expressive occasional words ‘shine’ particularly brightly.
Let us consider a few contexts with occasional words in – yand – ish as well as new formations of the ‘baby‑sit’ type,
1. || «4Yes,» |sighed Hannah, |«that’s the 0 main · trouble with · having 6money. || It 0 makes · people · want to · say \‘Pooh’. || And €mostly| they are 0 too \decent to 7 say it | but they 0 keep thinking it | and 0 wanting
to say it | un 0 til their · mouths and · noses · get a · sort of 4 poohy
ex 6 pression.» ||
slowly
2. || At the 0 very · bottom of his 7 soul | he was an 0 outsider and
anti 6 social | and he ac 0 cepted the · fact 6inwardly | 0 no matter how
‘ Bondstreety he was on the 6 outside. ||
3. || – 0 When you · say ‘· Ho, · ho’, 7 twice |in a 0 gloating · sort
of 7 way |and the 0 other · person · only 7 hums, |you 0 suddenly 7 find, just as you be · gin to · say it the \ third 7 time|, that,|. well|, you. find… ||
– \ What? ||
– 0 That it \ isn’t | – said 6 Pooh. ||
– 0 Isn’t \ what? ||
|| Pooh \knew · what he 6 meant | but 0 being a · Bear of · Very · Lit –
tle 7 Brain | 0 couldn’t · think of the 6 words. ||
– \Well, |it 0 just 4 isn’t | – he 0 said again. ||
– You 0 mean it · isn’t ho– 7 ho‑ish any 3 more?| – said / Piglet
7 hopefully. quickly
|| 0 Pooh · looked at him adѓmiringly| and. said that. that was · what he 6 meant. ||
4. || So, 0 after 7 all | you are 6 husband‑hunting? ||
slowly
5. We were ѓflat‑sitting and then 4 pet‑sitting for our 7 friends. ||
slowly slowly
It does not require a very close examination to see that these examples display certain prosodic characteristics of considerable importance. Speakers use a great variety of prosodic features when pronouncing the words under investigation. Pitch, loudness, tempo and pausation vary on a large scale. In order to emphasize the fact that these utterances are not simply matter‑of‑fact statements but express various metasemiotic connotations, the speakers use modifications of loudness and tempo. The pitch‑range variations include high falling tones sometimes narrower tones which are in sharp contrast with the normal contours that precede them. Alongside these parameters we should mention the use of short pauses before the words under analysis. A combination of these prosodic features create the picture of timbre II which is the expression plane of occasional words.
It should be noted that prosodic emphasis of this kind by no means depends on the position of the word in question in a sentence. To prove it we shall adduce the following examples:
1. || 0 Don’t I · look 7 pretty? || It’s for \you, 6 Dart. || You. must be 6 sick of · seeing me all 6 frowzy and \ dishpanny. ||
2. || 0 Don’t I · look ’ pretty? || It’s for \you, 6 Dart. || You. must be 6 sick of · seeing me all 6 frowzy and un 6tidy. ||
From a comparison of these examples we can conclude that in this case the prosodic arrangement of the last word does not depend on the position in the sentence. The reader/listener will make a great mistake if he understands the word dishpanny literally only in accordance with the meanings of the components. The word is used by the author not only to convey information proper (‘untidy’) but also to achieve a certain stylistic effect. In other words, both the content and the expression of the word dishpanny serve to create a new metacontent. Therefore, although used in identical position the words dishpanny and untidy are pronounced differently on the suprasegmental level.
It follows from the above that there are clearly established ways of realizing a certain linguistic pattern. We may, therefore, conclude by stating that the objective existence of lexical‑morphological categories which are realized to the full on the metasemiotic level is borne out by marked prosody.
Chapter 3.
Дата добавления: 2018-05-09; просмотров: 1085; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!