Relation Between Phoneme And Morphology

919 Words4 Pages
3. Phoneme and morpheme relationship.
The relation between phonemes and grammatical units such as morphemes and words is therefore an aspect of the interface between Phonology and morphology. Both Phonology and Morphology study various aspects in languages all over the world. Considering the similarities of these fields, both are engaged in the scientific analysis of languages. Both are branches of Linguistics and without studying Phonology, one cannot move on to Morphology. Hence, there is an inter-relationship between these branches. For differences, Phonology essentially concentrates on the sound systems of a language while Morphology pays attention to the word and the morphemes of a language. (Booij, 2007)
3.2. The interface between Phonology
…show more content…
Therefore, phonemes are considered to be the basic units of speech sound by which morphemes are represented. According to Kiparsky (1985), there are two common word-internal phonological domains, level 1 or the stem level, and the word level, with the stem level being cyclic and the word level being noncyclic. Kiparsky predicts that stem-level phonological rules may precede stem and word level morphological rules, since the latter domain is noncyclic. (Gussmann,1985).
2- Lexical morphemes differ in their phonotactics from non-lexical morphemes. Non-lexical morphemes such as affixes follow specific phonotactic constraints which are not applicable for lexical morpheme. For example, the native prefixes of Dutch consist of at most one syllable, and the native suffixes at most two, only one of them containing full vowel, where as lexical morpheme don’t follow these restrictions. (Gussmann,1985).
3- Morphological rules may condition phonological alternations. In other words, Morphology provides a number of alternatives, equivalent from the morphological point of view, and the phonology then computes which of them is optimal from the phonological point of view. For example, the two suffixes (er, aar) in Dutch look like allomorphs in the sense that they are phonologically similar. However, -aar is used after a stem ending in an unstressed syllable, whereas -er is used elsewhere. (Cohen-Goldberg, Cholin, Miozzo, & Rapp, 2013)
…show more content…
Allophone vs. allomorph.
Allophones are two or more realizations of a single underlying phoneme. The /t/ in top is aspirated, but the /t/ in stop is not. These are two variations in pronunciation of the same underlying phoneme /t/. There is no pair of English words top [aspirated] and top [unaspirated]; it's always either one or the other (and it is predictable which one is required).
Allomorphs are two or more realizations of a single underlying morpheme. For example, the past morpheme "-ed" in English. There are really three different ways this is realized phonetically: /t/ in helped, /d/ in opened, or /id/ in wanted. Again, it is predictable which one is required, but all three of these are manifestations of the same morpheme "-ed".
Therefore, the main difference between the two is that allophones include several ways to pronounce a single phoneme. Allomorphs include several ways to pronounce a single morpheme.
4. The concept of
Open Document