Morphology in micro linguistics and macro linguistics

Londre Vocroix

doi:10.21744/mami.v2n1.11

Authors

Londre Vocroix
londrevocroix@chumontreal.qc.ca
Centre Hospitalier de L'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada

Keywords:

contrastive, diachronic, grammatical subsystem, lexical subsystem, morphological aspects, phonological subsystem, synchronic

Abstract

This study aims to examine the morphological aspects and their application in micro linguistics and micro linguistics. Linguistics in terms of study can be divided into two types, namely micro linguistics and macro linguistics. Micro linguistics is understood as linguistics which has a narrower nature of the study. That is, it is internal, only sees language as language. Macro linguistics is broad, the nature of the study is external. Linguistics studies language activities in other fields, such as economics and history. Language is used as a tool to see language from the point of view from outside the language. Language can be seen descriptively, historically comparative, contrastive, synchronic, and diachronic. Descriptive linguistics looks at living languages as they are. Comparative linguistics compares two or more languages at different periods. Contrastive linguistics compares the languages of a particular period or contemporaries. This study looks for similarities and differences in the fields of structure: phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Synchronic linguistics questions the language of a particular mass. In this study, we do not compare with other languages and other periods. Thus, this linguistic study is horizontal.

References

Bates, E., Friederici, A., & Wulfeck, B. (1987). Comprehension in aphasia: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and language, 32(1), 19-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(87)90116-7

Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Cross-linguistic research in aphasia: An overview. Brain and language, 41(2), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(91)90149-U

Beard, R. (1987). Morpheme order in a lexeme/morpheme-based morphology. Lingua, 72(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(87)90088-X

Benedet, M. J., Christiansen, J. A., & Goodglass, H. (1998). A cross-linguistic study of grammatical morphology in Spanish-and English-speaking agrammatic patients. Cortex, 34(3), 309-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70758-5

Booij, G., & Lieber, R. (1993). On the simultaneity of morphological and prosodic structure. In Studies in lexical phonology (pp. 23-44). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-325071-1.50007-8

Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2001). Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon. Cognition, 81(1), 65-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00119-6

Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Abstract morphemes and lexical representation: The CV-Skeleton in Arabic. Cognition, 92(3), 271-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.08.003

Brown, K. (2005). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 1). Elsevier.

Clahsen, H., & Almazan, M. (1998). Syntax and morphology in Williams syndrome. Cognition, 68(3), 167-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00049-3

del Prado Martın, F. M., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015

Echols, C. H. (1993). A perceptually-based model of children's earliest productions. Cognition, 46(3), 245-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90012-K

Ferman, S., Olshtain, E., Schechtman, E., & Karni, A. (2009). The acquisition of a linguistic skill by adults: Procedural and declarative memory interact in the learning of an artificial morphological rule. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(4), 384-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.12.002

Gordon, P. (1985). Level-ordering in lexical development. Cognition, 21(2), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90046-0

Granlund, S., Kolak, J., Vihman, V., Engelmann, F., Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., ... & Ambridge, B. (2019). Language-general and language-specific phenomena in the acquisition of inflectional noun morphology: A cross-linguistic elicited-production study of Polish, Finnish and Estonian. Journal of Memory and Language, 107, 169-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.04.004

Gross, M., Say, T., Kleingers, M., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. F. (1998). Human brain potentials to violations in morphologically complex Italian words. Neuroscience Letters, 241(2-3), 83-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(97)00971-3

Hay, J. B., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9(7), 342-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002

Holmberg, A., & Roberts, I. (2013). The syntax–morphology relation. Lingua, 130, 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.006

Hume, E. (1998). Metathesis in phonological theory: The case of Leti. Lingua, 104(3-4), 147-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00031-4

Kehayia, E., Jarema, G., Tsapkini, K., Perlak, D., Ralli, A., & Kadzielawa, D. (1999). The role of morphological structure in the processing of compounds: The interface between linguistics and psycholinguistics. Brain and language, 68(1-2), 370-377. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2090

Krovetz, R. (2000). Viewing morphology as an inference process. Artificial intelligence, 118(1-2), 277-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00101-0

Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2016). Why are there different languages? The role of adaptation in linguistic diversity. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(9), 649-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.005

Münte, T. F., Say, T., Clahsen, H., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1999). Decomposition of morphologically complex words in English: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 7(3), 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(98)00028-7

Oz, H. (2014). Morphological awareness and some implications for English language teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 98-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.296

Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(11), 456-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3

Saratsli, D., Bartell, S., & Papafragou, A. (2020). Cross-linguistic frequency and the learnability of semantics: Artificial language learning studies of evidentiality. Cognition, 197, 104194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104194

Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(9), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01515-1

Singh, J., Singh, G., Singh, R., & Singh, P. (2021). Morphological evaluation and sentiment analysis of Punjabi text using deep learning classification. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 33(5), 508-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.04.003

Sonnenstuhl, I., Eisenbeiss, S., & Clahsen, H. (1999). Morphological priming in the German mental lexicon. Cognition, 72(3), 203-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00033-5

Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(4), 156-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01462-5

Yoon, H. J. (2017). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007