5 Morphology and Word Formation key concepts

morphemes
, 
allomorphs
, 
and
 
morphs
The English plural morpheme {-s} can be expressed by three different but 

---

125
Morphology and Word Formation
clearly related phonemic forms /@z/ or /z/, /z/, and /s/. These three have 
in common not only their meaning, but also the fact that each contains an 
alveolar fricative phoneme, either /s/ or /z/. The three forms are in comple-
mentary distribution, because each occurs where the others cannot, and it is 
possible to predict just where each occurs: /Iz/ after sibilants (/s, z, S, Z, tS, 
dZ/), /z/ after voiced segments, and /s/ everywhere else. Given the semantic 
and phonological similarities between the three forms and the fact that they 
are in complementary distribution, it is reasonable to view them as contex-
tual pronunciation variants of a single entity. In parallel with phonology, 
we will refer to the entity of which the three are variant representations as a 
morpheme
, and the variant forms of a given morpheme as its allomorphs. 
When we wish to refer to a minimal grammatical form merely as a form, 
we will use the term morph. Compare these terms and the concepts behind 
them with phoneme, allophone, and phone. (Hint: note the use of / /, [ ], 
and { }.)
Exercise
Consult the glossary in the chapter on Phonetics and Phonology and 
try to determine the meanings of the morphemes {phone}, {allo-}, and 
{-eme}.
(1) 
/phoneme/
[allophone] [allophone]
[allophone] etc.
(2) 
{morpheme}
/allomorph/ /allomorph/ /allomorph/ etc.
words
Words are notoriously difficult entities to define, both in universal and in 
language specific terms. Like most linguistic entities, they look in two direc-
tions—upward toward larger units of which they are parts (toward phrases), 
and downward toward their constituent morphemes. This, however, only 
helps us understand words if we already understand how they are combined 
into larger units or divided into smaller ones, so we will briefly discuss sev-

---

Delahunty and Garvey 
 
126
eral other criteria that have been proposed for identifying them.
One possible criterion is spelling: in written English text, we tend to 
regard as a word any expression that has no spaces within it and is separated 
by spaces from other expressions. While this is a very useful criterion, it 
does sometimes lead to inconsistent and unsatisfactory results. For instance, 
cannot is spelled as one word but might not as two; compounds (words com-
posed of two or more words; see below) are inconsistently divided (cf. influx, 
in-laws, goose flesh, low income vs. low-income).
Words tend to resist interruption; we cannot freely insert pieces into 
words as we do into sentences. For example, we cannot separate the root of 
a word from its inflectional ending by inserting another word, as in *sock-
blue
-s for blue socks. Sentences, in contrast, can be interrupted. We can in-
sert adverbials between subjects and predicates: John quickly erased his fin-
gerprints. By definition, we can also insert the traditional interjections: We 
will, I believe, have rain later today. 
In English, though by no means in all languages, the order of elements 
in words is quite fixed. English inflections, for example, are suffixes and 
are added after any derivational morphemes in a word. At higher levels in 
the language, different orders of elements can differ in meaning: compare 
John kissed Mary with Mary kissed John. But we do not contrast words with 
prefixed inflections with words with suffixed inflections. English does not 
contrast, for example, piece + s with s + piece. 
In English, too, it is specific individual words that select for certain in-
flections. Thus the word child is pluralized by adding {-ren}, ox by adding 
{-en}. So if a form takes the {-en} plural, it must be a word.
So