Morphemes

Summary

In this episode of Ling Space, Moti Lieberman explores the concept of morphemes, the smallest units of meaning in language. He explains that while words are important, they can be too broad for precise meaning, as they may contain multiple morphemes. Examples like 'rekillable' are used to illustrate how a single word can have multiple meanings. Lieberman distinguishes between free morphemes, which can stand alone, and bound morphemes, which must attach to other elements. He also discusses how the classification of morphemes as free or bound varies across languages, emphasizing the importance of morphemes in understanding language structure.

Takeaways

• 🧩 Words are considered the building blocks of language, but when it comes to meaning, linguists often look at smaller units called morphemes.
• 🔍 Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning in language, consisting of a pairing of sound and meaning that cannot be broken down further without losing meaning.
• 🌐 The concept of 'rekillable' illustrates how a single word can contain multiple morphemes, each with its own meaning: 're-', 'kill', and 'able'.
• 📚 The example of 'Stark' shows that not all parts of a word are necessarily morphemes; the [k] sound is essential to the meaning and cannot be separated.
• 🚫 Just because sounds can be combined doesn't mean they form a morpheme; they must also carry meaning, as 'khaleesi' did not become a morpheme until it was associated with a meaning.
• 🆓 Free morphemes are those that can stand alone and convey meaning by themselves, such as 'tickle' or 'hound'.
• 🔗 Bound morphemes, on the other hand, cannot stand alone and must be attached to other morphemes to convey meaning, like 'er' in 'tickler'.
• 🌐 The distinction between free and bound morphemes is not universal; a morpheme can be free in one language and bound in another, as demonstrated by the word 'the' in English and Hebrew.
• 🌐 Some languages, like Mandarin and Vietnamese, predominantly use free morphemes, while others, like Mi'qmaq or Mohawk, use bound morphemes extensively, packing entire sentences into single words.
• 🌟 The script emphasizes that while words can vary greatly across languages, morphemes are a consistent and meaningful unit of analysis in linguistics.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the Ling Space video?

The main focus of the Ling Space video is to discuss the concept of morphemes, which are the smallest units of meaning in language, and to differentiate them from words.

Why does Moti Lieberman suggest that words can be too big when looking at meaning?

Moti Lieberman suggests that words can be too big when looking at meaning because a single word can contain multiple morphemes, each with its own meaning, making the word a complex unit of meaning.

What is an example of a word that contains multiple morphemes according to the video?

The example given in the video is the word 'rekillable', which contains three morphemes: 're-' meaning 'do again', 'kill' meaning 'cause to die', and 'able' meaning 'can be done'.

What is a morpheme and why is it important in linguistics?

A morpheme is the smallest unit of sound that carries meaning. It is important in linguistics because it represents the fundamental building block of language, allowing linguists to analyze meaning at its most basic level.

What is the difference between a free morpheme and a bound morpheme?

A free morpheme is one that can stand on its own and carry meaning, like 'tickle'. A bound morpheme, on the other hand, cannot stand alone and must be attached to another morpheme to convey meaning, such as 'er' in 'tickler'.

Can a morpheme be both free and bound in different languages?

Yes, a morpheme can be free in one language and bound in another. The video gives the example of 'the' being a free morpheme in English but a bound morpheme in Hebrew.

How does the video explain the concept of a morpheme needing to be attached to something to be used?

The video explains that bound morphemes, such as 'er' in 'tickler', need to be attached to another morpheme to convey a complete meaning. They cannot stand alone and must be part of a larger word.

What does the video suggest about the universality of morphemes across languages?

The video suggests that morphemes are a universal feature of all languages, but the classification of morphemes as free or bound can vary greatly from one language to another.

What is the significance of the example sentence in Mohawk provided in the video?

The example sentence in Mohawk demonstrates how a single word in one language can represent an entire sentence in another, highlighting the complexity and variation in how languages construct meaning.

What does the video imply about the difficulty of talking about words in linguistics?

The video implies that talking about words in linguistics can be challenging because what constitutes a word and its meaning can vary significantly across different languages, making morphemes a more consistent and meaningful unit of analysis.

How does the video conclude the discussion on morphemes?

The video concludes by emphasizing that morphemes are the indivisible pairings of sound and meaning, and that understanding them is more appropriate than focusing solely on words due to the variations in language structure.

Outlines

00:00

🔤 Understanding Morphemes: The Building Blocks of Language

In this segment, Moti Lieberman introduces the concept of morphemes as the smallest units of meaning in language. Morphemes are the indivisible pairings of sound and meaning, and they are the fundamental building blocks of words. Lieberman explains that while words are important, they can be too broad when examining meaning, as a single word can encompass multiple morphemes. For instance, the word 'rekillable' contains three morphemes: 're-', 'kill', and 'able', each contributing to the overall meaning. The discussion also touches on the distinction between free morphemes, which can stand alone (like 'tickle' or 'hound'), and bound morphemes, which must be attached to other morphemes to convey meaning (such as 'er' in 'tickler'). The segment emphasizes the importance of understanding morphemes to delve deeper into the nuances of language and meaning.

05:01

🌐 Morphemes Across Languages: Bound and Free

This paragraph delves into the variability of morphemes across different languages. It contrasts languages like Mandarin and Vietnamese, where most morphemes are free and can stand alone, with languages like Mi’qmaq and Mohawk, where morphemes are predominantly bound and form complex words that can represent entire sentences. The example of the Mohawk sentence 'wahuwajaʔdawitsherahetkʌ:ʔdʔ', which translates to a lengthy English sentence, illustrates this point. The segment also highlights that the classification of morphemes as free or bound is not universal and can differ significantly from one language to another. The discussion concludes with the idea that while words may vary, morphemes are a constant feature in all languages, making them a more reliable focus for linguistic analysis.

Keywords

💡Linguist

A linguist is a scholar who studies language, its structure, and its development over time. In the video, Moti Lieberman identifies as a linguist, emphasizing their expertise in the field of linguistics. The role of a linguist is central to the video's theme as it explores the intricacies of language at its most fundamental levels, such as morphemes.

💡Morpheme

A morpheme is defined as the smallest unit of meaning in a language. The video delves into the concept of morphemes, explaining that they are the basic building blocks of language that cannot be broken down further without changing the meaning. This concept is central to the video's exploration of language, as it contrasts morphemes with words, which can contain multiple morphemes.

💡Free Morpheme

Free morphemes are morphemes that can stand alone as words and carry meaning by themselves. The video provides examples such as 'tickle' and 'hound', which can be used independently. This concept is important as it distinguishes between morphemes that can function as complete words and those that cannot.

💡Bound Morpheme

Bound morphemes are those that cannot stand alone and must be attached to other morphemes to convey meaning. Examples from the video include 'er' and 'un'. The discussion of bound morphemes highlights their dependency on other linguistic elements to form meaningful words.

💡Meaning

Meaning, in the context of the video, refers to the semantic content that morphemes carry. The exploration of morphemes is fundamentally about understanding how meaning is constructed within language. The video emphasizes that the smallest units of sound paired with meaning are morphemes, which are the focus of the discussion.

💡Language

Language is the primary subject of the video, with a focus on how it is composed of smaller units like morphemes. The script discusses how language can vary greatly, with different languages having different rules for what constitutes a free or bound morpheme.

💡Lego pieces

The metaphor of 'Lego pieces' is used in the video to describe words as building blocks of language. This analogy helps to illustrate how words can be combined to create more complex linguistic structures, such as sentences and conversations.

💡Rekillable

The term 'rekillable' is a made-up word used in the video to demonstrate how a single word can contain multiple morphemes with distinct meanings. The video breaks down the word into 're-', 'kill', and 'able', showing how each part contributes to the overall meaning of the word.

💡Stark

The word 'Stark' is used as an example of a morpheme in the video. It illustrates that even though 'star' is a recognizable part of 'Stark', the 'k' sound is essential and cannot be removed without changing the meaning, thus making 'Stark' a single morpheme.

💡Khaleesi

The term 'Khaleesi' is used to show how a sequence of sounds becomes a morpheme only when it is associated with a meaning. Originally from the TV show 'Game of Thrones', the word became a morpheme once it was understood by English speakers, demonstrating the importance of meaning in defining morphemes.

💡Mi’qmaq

Mi’qmaq is mentioned as an example of a language where most morphemes are bound, and sentences can be compacted into single words. This example is used to contrast with languages like English and to highlight the diversity in how languages construct their morphemes.

Highlights

Words are considered the building blocks of language, but for understanding meaning, linguists look to even smaller units.

Moti Lieberman introduces the concept of morphemes as the smallest meaningful units in language.

The word 'rekillable' is dissected to show how a single word can contain multiple morphemes with distinct meanings.

Morphemes are defined as the smallest units of sound paired with meaning, and cannot be further divided without changing the meaning.

The example of 'Stark' is used to illustrate that not all parts of a word are necessarily morphemes, and some sounds are essential to meaning.

Morphemes must have meaning attached to the sounds; mere sound combinations without meaning do not qualify.

The term 'khaleesi' evolves from a non-morpheme to a morpheme as its meaning becomes widely recognized.

Morphemes are categorized into free morphemes, which can stand alone, and bound morphemes, which require attachment to another morpheme.

The word 'Tickler' is analyzed to differentiate between the free morpheme 'tickle' and the bound morpheme 'er'.

Languages vary in how they classify morphemes as free or bound, challenging the universality of these categories.

Examples are given of how 'the' is a free morpheme in English but bound in Hebrew, and how 'er' is bound in English but free in Japanese.

Languages like Mandarin and Vietnamese tend to have mostly free morphemes, while others like Mi’qmaq or Mohawk have predominantly bound morphemes.

The complexity of morphemes is highlighted by the Mohawk sentence that translates to a single word in English.

The importance of morphemes over words in linguistic analysis is emphasized due to the variability across languages.

The Ling Space is produced by a team including Moti Lieberman, Adèle-Élise Prévost, Georges Coulombe, Shane Turner, and atelierMUSE.

The episode concludes with an invitation for viewers to engage with the content on social media and the website for additional material.

Transcripts

So let’s talk about words. Now, you probably think that words are one of the biggest things

a linguist could care about. After all, words are the little Lego pieces of language,

right? You connect them together, and you suddenly have bigger meanings, whole sentences

and conversations. That’s all true, but when it comes to the tiniest

meaningful bits, we usually want to aim a little smaller than the word. I’m Moti Lieberman,

and this is the Ling Space.

So of course, since I’m a linguist, I love words. They’re amazing and cute, and they

often sound really cool. But the thing is, when we want to look at meaning, words can

just be too big. A single word can have a whole bunch of different meanings wrapped

up inside it. So, just think about a word like “rekillable", as in “The Others are rekillable.”

It might be one word, but inside, you can see three different pieces that have their

own meanings – “re,” or do again; “kill”, so to cause to die; and “able,” or can

be done. So when we put all the different meanings together, we get something like “can be killed again”.

That’s one word, but it’s got three different pieces of meaning inside.

So if we really want to talk about meaning, we need to dig down past the word level and look at

the different parts inside the word. We need to make it down to where we can’t go any farther

without breaking up the raw ore of meaning. When we’ve removed everything extraneous,

and all that we're left with are sets of sounds that are paired up with one individual meaning

each, we’ve hit the bottom.

Then we’ve managed to find the morpheme. A morpheme is the smallest pairing between

sound and meaning. So that means if you split off any more of the sound, you

wouldn’t keep the same meaning anymore. Something like “Stark” is a morpheme

by itself, because even if you can see another morpheme like “star” inside it, you can’t

cut off that [k] without changing meaning. That [k] is an essential

part of Starkness; without it, you’ve ended up with something completely different. Starks

aren’t stars.

Now, this goes the other way, too. Just because you can put some sounds together doesn’t

mean that they make up a morpheme. There has to be a meaning attached to those sounds, too. So

in the Stark example from before, another reason you can’t cut off that [k]

is that [k] doesn’t even mean anything in English. So you can't just attach

it as its own morpheme to something else.

Or take something like “khaleesi .” Now, that’s a perfectly fine combination of sounds right

there, and any English speaker will tell you that’s an okay word, even if they don’t

necessarily know what it means. But it’s not until you pair that sound with a meaning that

it becomes a morpheme. If you said khaleesi in 1995, that wouldn’t have been a morpheme,

because it didn't mean anything.

But now, a lot of people know what that is – the sounds have been paired with a meaning,

and voila! A morpheme is born.

Not all morphemes are the same, of course. There are a few distinctions between different

kinds of morphemes that should just jump out at you. The one we’ll talk about this week

is that some morphemes can stand on their own, and other ones can’t. Let’s consider

a word like “Tickler.” Now this word has two morphemes in it, “tickle” and “er”.

The first part, “tickle”, can stand on its own, like “I’ll tickle the information

out of him.” But that second part, “er”, can’t be by itself like that. It clearly

has a meaning of its own – “someone that does… whatever thing it’s attached to”,

so a tickler tickles and a hunter hunts, etc. But it needs that piece to attach to – if

someone asks you what your job is, you can’t say “I’m an er.” It can’t be independent.

Morphemes like “tickle” or “hound” or “red” that can stand on their own like

that are known as free morphemes. They’re free-standing meaning bits, or at least, they

can be. But things like “er” or “un” or “de”, those aren’t strong enough

to stand by themselves. They need to attach to something, and so these are known as bound

morphemes.

But there’s no fundamental rule that says any morpheme, or even any type of morpheme, has

to be free or bound in any given language. We can find free morphemes in English that are bound

in other languages. Take “the” in English – now that’s a free morpheme, like in “the

cat.” But in Hebrew, that “the” is bound – it’s the [ha] in [haxatul] - החתול.

And we can find things that are bound in English that are free in other languages.

So, how about the –er we use for comparison in English? Now, that’s bound, as in “It’s

colder on the Wall.” But in Japanese, that comparative is its own word – it’s the [motto] in

“kabe-ga motto samui desu.”

Beyond these examples, there are languages where basically every morpheme is free,

like Mandarin or Vietnamese. These languages don’t really have bound morphemes at all. Other

languages, like Mi’qmaq or Mohawk, basically have all their morphemes bound. These

are languages where an entire sentence gets rolled up together into a single word.

So a sentence like “She made the thing that one puts on one’s body ugly for him” is just

a single word in Mohawk , like this: wahuwajaʔdawitsherahetkʌ:ʔdʌʔ.

Linguistic example sentences can get pretty wacky sometimes!

But this is why we can have such a hard time talking about words in linguistics. Something that's just

one word in English could turn into a few words in a different language, and something that's a whole sentence

in English could be a single word somewhere else. What’s free and what’s bound are

different from one language to the next, but no matter what language you look at, morphemes

are always there. And that's why that’s where it’s most meaningful to look.

So we’ve reached the end of the Ling Space for this week. If you were able to associate

my sounds with meanings, you learned that morphemes are the pairings of sounds and meaning

that can’t be broken up further without losing the meaning; that there are free morphemes

that can stand on their own, and bound morphemes that need to be attached to something to be

used; that languages make up their own minds about what should be bound and free; and that

because of the variation, talking about morphemes can be more appropriate than talking about

words.

The Ling Space is written and produced by me, Moti Lieberman. It’s directed by Adèle-Élise

Prévost, our production assistant is Georges Coulombe, music and sound design is by Shane

Turner, and our graphics team is atelierMUSE. We’re down in the comments below, or you

can bring the discussion back over to our website, where we have some extra material on this

topic. Check us out on Tumblr, Twitter, and Facebook, and if you want to keep expanding your own

personal Ling Space, please subscribe. And we’ll see you next Wednesday. Huitou jian!