(redirected from Derivational morpheme)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical.
Related to Derivational morpheme: Inflectional morpheme


see grammargrammar,
description of the structure of a language, consisting of the sounds (see phonology); the meaningful combinations of these sounds into words or parts of words, called morphemes; and the arrangement of the morphemes into phrases and sentences, called syntax.
..... Click the link for more information.



the minimal meaningful part of an utterance and one of the basic units of a language system. The characteristics of morphemes are meaningfulness—morphemes convey lexical or grammatical meaning; repeatability—morphemes retain the same (or similar) meaning and the same (or similar) form when they appear in different contexts; and nonreducibility— morphemes cannot be further divided into parts having the same characteristics. The morpheme is also defined as the smallest meaningful part of a word and as a class of morphs possessing specific characteristics.

The detection of a morpheme begins with the division of utterances in a language into morphs; then, morphs similar in content and form and found in complementary or noncontrastive distribution (not causing differences of meaning) are combined into a single morpheme. For example, the Russian morpheme drug, “friend,” has the morphs drug~druzh~druz’ This level of analysis, which establishes the allomorphs of a single morpheme, is called identification. Identification is followed by the classification of the morpheme. According to their position in the language system, morphemes are divided into free morphemes capable of behaving as independent words, such as English day, German Tag, and Russian tikh; bound morphemes that occur only as part of a word, such as the plural formant -s in English days, or the adjectival ending -ii in Russian tikhii, “quiet“); and relatively bound morphemes that may occur in both free and bound form, such as Russian do, used as preposition and as prefix, in doletef do reki, “to fly up to the river.”

Morphemes are divided by function into auxiliary (affixal) and nonauxiliary (radical), of which the former are usually bound and the latter free. As a rule, the number of affixal morphemes is limited to a few dozen, while the number of radical morphemes is unlimited. Affixal morphemes are divided according to types of meaning conveyed, into derivational (word-forming), relational (word-altering, or inflectional), and relational-derivational (form-creating). The last two categories are often combined under the term “word-altering.”

Morphemes may convey meaning not only by their phonological presence in a given word but also by their absence (zero ending, zero allomorph). For example, the Russian word stol, “table,” is construed as nominative singular since it lacks the morphemic plural marker -y (Russian stoly, “tables“) as well as any relational morphemes indicating oblique case (the sign for zero ending is -#, as in stol[-#]). Most linguists regard the morpheme as a unit that correlates linguistic expression with linguistic content, that is, as a two-sided semiotic unit. Less often, the morpheme is regarded as the smallest unit of linguistic expression.


References in periodicals archive ?
Zero derivation is derivation without derivational morphemes.
This new derivative, in a naturalness perspective, has a high degree of diagrammaticity (13): the new word is easily segmentable, the derivational morpheme carries only the derivational meaning, gender and number are marked only by the last inflectional morpheme; the meaning can be easily built by the sum of the three morphemes (it is quite transparent from a morpho-semantic point of view).
16) With the bleaching of synthetic genitive marking, these nominalizations have been reanalyzed and Layer II had to be considered as a derivational morpheme.
In this line, the periphery of derivational morphology is undoubtedly zero-derivation, given that this morphological process involves derivation without explicit derivational morphemes.
It is further shown that the terminal morphemes must be overtly marked in nonfinal conjuncts although they can be null elsewhere, and derivational morphemes cannot be suspended.
If explained in a simple way as above, the distinction between inflectional and derivational morphemes could be understood with only a modicum of difficulty.
We can assume that something similar happens with derivational morphemes and word formation patterns, so that the semantic map methodology can be further applied to the analysis of word formation.
This constraint predicts no mixing of bound inflectional or derivational morphemes.
This is probably due to the fact that inflectional and derivational morphemes appear in the postfield of the word, whereas inflectional morphemes, with the exception of the verbal prefix ge- attached to the past participle of weak verbs, do not take up the word prefield.
Here is a list of some of the derivational morphemes which are added sporadically to either borrowed or SH stems (Bolozky 2000, Schwarzwald 2002, [section]6.
I will exemplify the possible functions and formal realizations of Philippine-type derivational prefixes and will show that, in at least one language family, preroot derivational morphemes may have quite diverse realizations in their form, and their production: from prefixes to derivational proclitics to unbounded phonological sequences.