| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:16 pm
Post subject: impressionisms and morphemes |
 |
|
In the word "Impressionisms"
Are there 5 morphemes or 4? Do I count /press/ as 1 free morpheme then /imp/, /ion/, /ism/ and /s/ as 4 bound morphemes? Or I count /impress/ as 1 free morpheme then /ion/, /ism/ and /s/ as 3 bound morphemes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SumerologistGood Linguist 
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 31
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:05 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess in this case the whole stem 'impression' can be considered as one unit, because it's a lexicalized form and only historically can we speak about three morphemes. Plus as far as I can judge, Prefixing im- is not a productive morphological construction any more (if it ever was). I'm thinking on -ion, but my English is too poor to judge its productivity. (I just looked at it, and from Ingo Plag's Word-Formation in English (CUP 2003) it seems to be productive). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CoryboboryChomsky 
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 698
Location: London, UK (formerly Vancouver, Canada) |
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:41 am
Post subject: |
|
|
"Im-" is just "in-", where n changes to an m before a bilabial, like in the word "impossible".
Why can we only historically speak about three morphemes? What about "anti-dis-establish-ment-ari-an-ism"? Or un-system-atic-al-ly? Lots of words are made up of more than three morphemes, though as far as I know only one can be inflectional and the the others must be derivational. Here is a good page I just googled... helpful tables and examples!
http://www.ling.udel.edu/arena/morphology.html
I would break down Impressionisms as im-press-ion-ism-s. I would separate im and press, because to impress something can also mean to physically press something to make a mark, where the common meaning of 'impress' comes from. I would say /im(n)/, /ion/,/ism/, /s/ all as bound morphemes like you said, and /press/ as the free morpheme.
Hope this helps!
_________________
BA Linguistics, Simon Fraser University
MSc Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology, University College London
"No conceit could be worse than a belief in one's own intrinsic objectivity, no prescription more suited to the exposure of fools." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SumerologistGood Linguist
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 31
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:43 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Corybobory, I don't argue that those morphemes are not identifiable, and agree with your analysis. I only wanted to point out that in this word these (in/m-press-ion) are probably processed/stored as one unit in today's speakers minds. Still, you are the native speaker, so if you say that it isn't so, I believe you  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
|
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:57 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you so much guys, your posts were an asset and they helped me stop being clueless. I really appreciate your quick replies.
Dalia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
|
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:59 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Corybobory wrote:
"Im-" is just "in-", where n changes to an m before a bilabial, like in the word "impossible".
Why can we only historically speak about three morphemes? What about "anti-dis-establish-ment-ari-an-ism"? Or un-system-atic-al-ly? Lots of words are made up of more than three morphemes, though as far as I know only one can be inflectional and the the others must be derivational. Here is a good page I just googled... helpful tables and examples!
http://www.ling.udel.edu/arena/morphology.html
I would break down Impressionisms as im-press-ion-ism-s. I would separate im and press, because to impress something can also mean to physically press something to make a mark, where the common meaning of 'impress' comes from. I would say /im(n)/, /ion/,/ism/, /s/ all as bound morphemes like you said, and /press/ as the free morpheme.
Hope this helps!
A very special thanks to you Corybobory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
