Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 03 No. 29
NL-KR Digest (10/06/87 17:59:10) Volume 3 Number 29
Today's Topics:
Defining "word"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 87 08:23 EDT
From: jc <jc@minya.UUCP>
Subject: Defining "word"
> Does anyone have a better definition for word that either
> i) that unit which is the building-block for syntax
> 2) anything that's listed in the lexicon
>
> Syntactic words aren't the same as phonological words either:
> f'rinstance, how many're in this sentence, y'know? You'd've found that
> a bit hard t'decide, no? :-)
This is a standard problem in intro linguistic courses. Unfortunately,
there's no good answer, because the concept of a "word" just doesn't
work well with some human languages, and it gets into minor trouble
with even a language like English.
Of course, linguistically naive speakers of English tend to talk about
written words, for which there is a simple (if circular) answer: a
"word" is whatever is written without internal spaces. Thus "doghouse"
is one (written) word, "White House" is two; not for any logical reason,
but just because they are traditionally written that way.
If you wish to make a precise linguistic definition, well, it's a lot
harder. The construct that builds such things as "doghouse" is called
"agglutination", and it is a standard syntactic form in many languages.
Most Germanic languages routinely write agglutinations as one word,
which is the explanation of the very long "words" in German and Dutch.
In English, the custom is to only join agglutinations into a single
written word if they are a frequently-used phrase. Thus "doghouse"
qualifies, while the "monkey house" at the zoo doesn't, not on logical
grounds, but on frequency-of-usage grounds. But they are linguistically
of the same form.
Agglutination is only one of several factors that confuse the definition
of "word". Consider the "frequency-of-usage" term I used above. Is
this one word or three? On syntactic grounds, its 3 pieces are less
tightly bound than the two pieces of the succeeding word, "grounds".
One the other hand, they are more tightly bound than the preceding words
"but on". The fact is that there are more levels of grouping than we
have words for. To properly explain such constructs (which occur in
most languages), we need more levels that phoneme/morpheme/word/sentence.
Our common speec lacks the words, although we in fact have some ways
of indicating the levels (such as my use of hyphens).
Anyhow, you can find discussions of the issue in lots of linguistic
texts. Its one of those traditional definition problems, like "species",
where it's obvious that there's something there, but it's very hard
to come up with a precise definition that works in all cases.
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 87 09:58 EDT
From: Alan Lovejoy <alan@pdn.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Defining "word"
In article <206@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (jc) writes:
/> Does anyone have a better definition for word that either
/> i) that unit which is the building-block for syntax
/> 2) anything that's listed in the lexicon
/>
/This is a standard problem in intro linguistic courses. Unfortunately,
/there's no good answer, because the concept of a "word" just doesn't
/work well with some human languages, and it gets into minor trouble
/with even a language like English.
The simplest definition of 'word' is 'unbound morpheme'. Unfortunately,
this definition often produces word-sets that conflict with Native
Speakers' intuitive idea of what's a word. 'Doghouse' is two unbound
morphemes. 'The' and 'a' are bound morphemes, but are considered
separate words. (Notice that the usage of these words can only be
determined in connection with the noun they 'modify').
--alan@pdn
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 14:04 EDT
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <goldberg@su-russell.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Defining "word"
In article <1405@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>The simplest definition of 'word' is 'unbound morpheme'....
Sorry, but the terms "bound" and "unbound" are definined (or
understood) phonologically. The meaning of the morpheme does not
play a role. The phonological processes that occur across word
boundries are far more restricted then those that occur across
morpheme boundries. [But things are not that simple, and there are
many cases in which it is very difficult to decide what is and what
isn't a word.]
--
Jeff Goldberg
ARPA goldberg@russell.stanford.edu
UUCP ...!ucbvax!russell.stanford.edu!goldberg
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 10:03 EDT
From: Alan Lovejoy <alan@pdn.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Defining "word"
In article <355@su-russell.ARPA> goldberg@su-russell.UUCP (Jeffrey Goldberg) writes:
>Sorry, but the terms "bound" and "unbound" are definined (or ...
Where did you get this idea? A bound mopheme is one that cannot occur
'by itself'. 'The' and '-ing' are good examples:
I talk.
I am talking.
I am.
*I ing.
*I am ing.
The god of the Hebrews.
God of the Hebrews.
*The of the Hebrews.
--alan@pdn
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 16:16 EDT
From: Greg Lee <lee@uhccux.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Defining "word"
In <355@su-russell.ARPA> goldberg@russell.stanford.edu says
>
>In article <1405@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>
>>The simplest definition of 'word' is 'unbound morpheme'. Unfortunately,
>>this definition often produces word-sets that conflict with Native
>>Speakers' intuitive idea of what's a word. 'Doghouse' is two unbound
>>morphemes. 'The' and 'a' are bound morphemes, but are considered
>>separate words. (Notice that the usage of these words can only be
> ...
>Sorry, but the terms "bound" and "unbound" are definined (or
>understood) phonologically. The meaning of the morpheme does not
>play a role. The phonological processes that occur across word
>boundries are far more restricted then those that occur across
>morpheme boundries. [But things are not that simple, and there are
> ...
I don't think "bound"/"unbound" are understood phonologically, but
one can try to pick out words using phonological criteria. In English,
tense unstressed [i], as in "phony", comes at the end of a word or
before a vowel. Since the second vowel of "heaviness" has, for some,
a tense unstressed [i], this suggests that the "heavy" part is a word
(which doesn't make the "ness" ending a word, of course). An
exception is "Okeefenokee".
Greg Lee
U.S.mail: 562 Moore Hall, Dept. of Linguistics, Univ. of Hawaii, HONO, HI 96822
INTERNET: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
UUCP: {ihnp4,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!lee
BITNET: lee%uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu@rutgers.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 87 11:43 EDT
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <goldberg@su-russell.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Defining "word"
[ ">>" = goldberg@russell.stanford.edu (that's me) ]
[ ">" = alan@pdn ]
In article <1431@pdn.UUCP> you (alan@pdn) write:
>In article <355@su-russell.ARPA> goldberg@su-russell.UUCP (Jeffrey Goldberg) writes:
In response to a claim by alan@pdn that "the" was a "bound
morpheme" because it couldn't occur by itself, I wrote:
>>Sorry, but the terms "bound" and "unbound" are definined (or
>>understood) phonologically. The meaning of the morpheme does not
>>play a role.
>Where did you get this idea? A bound mopheme is one that cannot occur
>'by itself'. 'The' and '-ing' are good examples:
I will agree that "-ing" is a good example.
> I talk.
> I am talking.
> I am.
> *I ing.
> *I am ing.
> The god of the Hebrews.
> God of the Hebrews.
> *The of the Hebrews.
>--alan@pdn
A bound morpheme is indeed one that can't occur by itself, but
it is one that can't occur by itself within a word. By your
(alan's) rules a tensed verb in English is a bound morpheme
because it must co-occur with a subject (like "eats"). Or for
that matter any verb that requires some compliments ("put"), or
a singular common noun ("book"), or a nonpredicative adjective
("former"), etc.
While the line between syntax and morphology is a controversial one
leading to a large area for debate, I think that you have grossly
confused the two.
It maybe the case that we could use a term for a word which is
always syntactically dependent on some other word or phrase (or
there may be a term that I don't know of), but "bound morpheme"
is not that term.
Anyway, this argument is pruely termonological, and I would have
replied by mail if I were better at determining paths. I also
realize that it would be handy to quote some authority (morphology
textbook, etc) but I read news form home and not from my office.
-jeff
--
Jeff Goldberg
ARPA goldberg@russell.stanford.edu
UUCP ...!ucbvax!russell.stanford.edu!goldberg
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 87 11:24 EDT
From: Richard Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Defining "word"
Words and morphemes should not be confused. Words are built up out of
morphemes. I would like to offer the following recursive definition
of a word:
1. a free (unbound) morpheme
2. the result of attaching any word or morpheme to a word
This still leaves a lot open for debate--e.g. what exactly does
'attach' mean? Assuming that some linguistic theory defines
morphemes and morpho-lexical attachment rules properly, then my
definition applies.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 09:32 EDT
From: Alan Lovejoy <alan@pdn.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Defining "word"
In article <2230@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Richard Wojcik) writes:
/Words and morphemes should not be confused. Words are built up out of
/morphemes. I would like to offer the following recursive definition
/of a word:
/ 1. a free (unbound) morpheme
/ 2. the result of attaching any word or morpheme to a word
/This still leaves a lot open for debate--e.g. what exactly does
/'attach' mean? Assuming that some linguistic theory defines
/morphemes and morpho-lexical attachment rules properly, then my
/definition applies.
Don't confuse 'word' (a linguistic science concept) with 'word' (a
cultural concept). Should 'word' be defined by some purely linguistic
theory, or is a 'word' whatever the native speakers say it is? Should
it be defined both ways? Why do we *need* to have a purely linguistic
definition? What purpose does it serve not already provided by
'morpheme', 'bound morpheme' and 'unbound morpheme'?
Should a linguistic definition of word attempt to approximate the
intuitions of native speakers, or should it be a language-independent
concept designed to serve the needs of linguistic analysis and
description? If the latter, then what are those needs?
An example: 'word' could be defined as a sequence of connected
(what does that mean?) morphemes whose collective meaning is not
strictly derived from the semantics of its components nor from the syntax
of the sequence. For instance, "White House" means more than "a house
which is white" and so would be a word under this definition, while
"doghouse" means "a dog's house" and thus would be two words.
Of course, 'word' should only be defined as above if that is the most
useful concept to which it could be attached which is at all close to
its intuitive meaning. (No comment on that from this author should be
implied).
--alan@pdn "In the beginning was the Word..."
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
