Morphological Changes

Morphology studies the inner structure of words. Morphology is derived from syntax and phonology. Morphology as a language includes various components such as Lexicon: the inventory of stems each has its association with the shapes, meaning of phonological as well as the properties of syntactic. Derivational: the aspects of sound, meaning of stems and their connection with the properties of new lexemes; and Inflectional: are the principles which specify the characteristic of the word. Morphological changes are nothing else but the impact of historical changes on the lexemes of the language. The various changes that have happened in the past are of addition, subtracting and content of lexemes.

The main aim of the article by Anderson was presenting an approach, which can be helpful and beneficial in knowing the various phases of the morphological changes. The language which existed in ancient times has changed a lot and there are number of factors which existed behind these changes. An I-language change is due to the exceptionality of changes in inflection morphology. The content of lexemes is exceptional with the promptness of the language, and they are correlated with the subject in a less general substitute principle (Anderson, 2014). For example- In English the plurals are formed from the nouns with the help of suffix [z], but there are certain exceptions. The words which end with [f, s] or [θ] use [v, z, ð] when they are converted into the plural (such as the plural of wife is wives, house changes to houses, etc).  This kind of exceptional behavior has been acquired historically. In the modern dialects the regular verbs consisting of dive, sneak form their past tense unevenly (dove, snuck), moreover sometimes even the prototype of verbs change such as (the past tense of drive is drove, and lead is converted into led).

The E-languages is the study of surface patterns which provides essential evidence like language, although they are not the esplanade of the theory of grammars. Rather, the arrangement of I-language objects a (grammar) that is facilitated and accounted. The surface forms are the basis of constructing the grammar by subsequent generation; the output is a diverse grammar. The dissimilarity is not evident immediately because a good number of the surface forms might be fundamentally the same, the disparity is revealed in the grammar when the whole range of uses of novels is put. These events are described as abductive change according to Andersen and they take in the core category of morphological change (Anderson, 2014).

The difference seems to be part of one another, but they can be distinguished in certain aspects. I-language does not involve the idiosyncratic mechanism of modification exhibiting the properties of its own: to a certain extent; they entail the expansion of aggravated morphological regularities to innovative cases. According to Anderson it occurs when (a) there is regularity in the syntax of the previous age group becomes inaccessible as a result of other transformations, and the structure is brought in various other models (b) the exceptional management of an asymmetrical precedent or plural pattern is not attained by a succeeding generation. Due to this the structure of question is treated as a subject in the general processes.

Similarly, E-language or ‘Grammaticalization’ on another hand is not self-sufficient force in the change of language rather; it is incoherent in the linguistic change. There is no separate “theory of grammatizalisation.” As per Anderson there is requirement of (a) specific types of theories for the alteration (semantic, formal, phonological) so as to comprise the components and (b) an explanation why the individual changes proceed in single way than any new pattern (Anderson, 2014). The consistency of character changes is hidden under long-term diachronic connection which is lying under the wrap of grammatizalisation.

The phonology of various languages such as Klallam and Saanich is opaque, and none of this language has preserved their rules related to Lummi stress transfer or glottal discontinue removal. The pairs of Saanich cannot be derived by a segmental infix in the phonology, but they involve metathesis which has triggered directly by the morphological category. The example of metathesis of Montler’s Saanich /əә́/, and there are chances that we expect the Lummi condition in which the phonological regulations are particular to the forms enclosing that vowel signify the source of the incident - even though they are not created by the phonology any longer, which has turned into opaque as well as morphologised. The Klallam circumstances affects many additional stems by means of non-schwa vowels, moreover they reflect a generalization of the metathesis method of making the ‘actual’ to a more wider group of verbs.

The ambiguity of analysis reveals the sources of morphology in syntax. One of the sources of morphology is that it is derived from phonology. Anderson views that Phonological Alternations have become part of the morphology. The alternations are preserved, and the factor behind conditioning are re-read to the point that the original terms of a phonological alternation are aligned with a variation in morphological composition. Thus there is need of reanalysis because of the conditioning of the morphological factors instead of original phonological distinction (Anderson, 2014). Ambiguity is quite essential as it helps in keeping the phonology natural as well as phonological, which keeps the syntax simple as well as transparent. The term reanalysis is used again and again wherever the reasons behind the change are not clear such as sporadic cases (blending, contamination), Re-cutting, etc. There is ambiguity which leads to changes. An example of reanalysis is the Latin phrases for e.g. clara mente which means ‘clear mind’ yields the extremely productive group of adverbs finishing with -ment(e) in the present Romance speech (Spanish claramente and French clairement, etc.). Languages such as Spanish and French preserve their sketch of origin. The feminine form of the adverbs appear in the adjectives from which they are derived such as The French word franchement which means ‘frankly’ is derived from franc/franche meaning ‘frank’. To dig out the real reasons behind all these morphological changes reanalysis should be conducted which can either resolve the existing complications or enhance them by manifold.

The analogy is not driven by any mechanism rather the changes occur regarding basic notions. Anderson is of the viewpoint that Analogical change is irregular and restores regularity. The original phonological regularity is replaced by a morphological one. The alternation can be the merely marker of the group, rather than any assisted property linked with an explicit affix (Anderson, 2014). For e.g. In German language Grund/Gründe show Umlaut in plural in connection with an evident suffix ([–əә]), the Umlaut fluctuation itself is the indicator of plurality in various other forms, for e.g. Vater/Väter ‘father(s)’. Further, the borrowing of some items instantiates a regularity which results in the amalgamation of that regularity is hooked in the grammar.

Lastly, the detection of the phonological changes is probable if the promptness concerned is adequately unnatural then the conditioning of the choice of alternant can be seen. For example: In telescoping the plausible system connecting A to B, as well as B to C, are substituted by a sole relation among A and C or we can say ‘rule inversion’ in which a plausible alternate of A by B in some circumstances is changed by a promptness in which B is replaced by A in the balance of those situations, to the amount those morphological issues which are accessible as an substitute way of seeing the conditioning of work. Simplification is used both in the vowel sequence as well as in grammar (Anderson, 2014). In the vowel sequence, it leads to a structure like [koyo-li]. The plural in this case is noticeable after the removal of the postscript of the preceding syllable of the stem. Simplification in grammar is because of the lack of proof; a difficulty isn’t included in the new grammar. Anderson’s views about regularity and simplification are not compatible with the I-language because the individuals are more concerned about how the changes are used these days rather than why the changes took place.

The terms synchrony and diachronic are explained separately, but the relationship between the two seems missing. The morphological substance has found its origin in different parts separate of the syntactic structure whereas the diachronic gives an explanation why the individual changes proceed in one way rather than the other.

The morphological changes have been explained keeping in mind the inflectional as well as the derivational aspects but the theory has no place for the concept of an ideal structural type. The actual inflectional structure is equivalent to it, but the explanation is found outside the word structure theory, in various areas for e.g. the diachronic change patterns leads to practical synchronic systems.