

Grammar


Tenses


Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous


Past

Past Simple

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous


Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous


Parts Of Speech


Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Animate and Inanimate nouns

Nouns


Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Verbs


Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adverbs


Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective


Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pronouns


Pre Position


Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition


Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

prepositions


Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

conjunctions


Interjections

Express calling interjection

Phrases

Sentences


Grammar Rules

Passive and Active

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Demonstratives

Determiners


Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Semiotics


Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced


Teaching Methods

Teaching Strategies

Assessment
The unitary output hypothesis
المؤلف:
Ingo Plag
المصدر:
Morphological Productivity
الجزء والصفحة:
P49-C3
2025-01-09
993
The unitary output hypothesis
The unitary output hypothesis (UOH) captures the idea that the derivatives formed on the basis of a certain word formation process can be characterized uniquely in terms of their phonological, semantic, and syntactic properties (cf. Aronoff 1976:22, Scalise 1984:137, 1988:232, Szymanek 1985:95). Two main objections can be raised against the UOH, one phonological and one semantic.
Given the wide-spreadedness of stem and affix allomorphy it can be seriously doubted that affixation indeed produces a phonologically unique output. It has been claimed, however, that processes which involve allomorphy are typically less productive or completely unproductive. For example, Cutler (1981) has argued that phonologically less transparent processes are also less productive. This position is corroborated by the findings in Kettemann (1988), who shows that many of the readjustment rules proposed in SPE do not extend to nonce words.
We will see, however, that even productive rules may tolerate a high degree of allomorphy. In particular, many of the derivatives featuring the verbalizing suffix -ize display a wide range of different stem alternations (e.g. truncation and stress reduction), which make the class of derivatives look phonologically disparate. It will be demonstrated, however, that these stem alternations can be accounted for in a straightforward unitary manner, thereby lending further support to the UOH.
Modifying his earlier position, Scalise (1988:244f, note 3) claims that the UOH is valid only "for the 'formal' part of a WFR [Word Formation Rule, I.P.], not for the 'semantic' part". To illustrate this point he cites the Italian verb forming suffix -are which is phonologically unitary, but, according to the source he cites (Lepschy 1981), semantically diverse.
Scalise's point is unconvincing in several respects. First of all it is uncontroversial that truly homophonous processes should be kept apart. No one would, for example, argue that English deverbal nominalizing -al (as in arrival) is in any sense semantically related to adjectival -al (as in conventional). The affixes differ in their meaning but each type of derivative is semantically uniform. Secondly, it is far from clear whether the examples of Italian -are derivatives Scalise cites cannot be accounted for in a unitary fashion by a proper semantic analysis (perhaps with certain extension rules that explain the polysemy involved). Interestingly, a similar problem arises for English -ize derivatives, whose possible meanings look considerably diverse, but which, at closer inspection, turn out to be a case of polysemy. In any case, it seems that the output of a rule is not only 'formally' but also semantically uniform.
الاكثر قراءة في Morphology
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
الآخبار الصحية

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يصدر كتاباً يوثق تاريخ السدانة في العتبة العباسية المقدسة
"المهمة".. إصدار قصصي يوثّق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة فتوى الدفاع المقدسة للقصة القصيرة
(نوافذ).. إصدار أدبي يوثق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة الإمام العسكري (عليه السلام)