Morphological classification of languages

Morphological classification of languages ??- typological classification of globe languages ??based on the principles of morphological structure of words.

According to this classification, all languages ??are divided into: root, agglutinative, inflectional and polysynthetic.

Root languages

In root languages, words do not break down into morphemes: roots and affixes. Words of such languages ??are morphologically unformed units including indefinite words on the Ukrainian language there, here, from exactly where, exactly where. The root languages ??are Vietnamese, Burmese, Old Chinese, largely modern Chinese. Grammatical relations involving words in these languages ??are transmitted by intonation, service words, word order.

Agglutinative languages

Agglutinative languages ??include Turkic and Finno-Ugric languages. In their structure, moreover for the root, there are affixes (each word-changing and word-forming). The peculiarity of affixes in these languages ??is the fact that every affix is ??unambiguous, ie each and every of them serves to express only 1 grammatical meaning, with whatever root it’s combined. That is how they differ from inflectional languages, in which the affix acts as a carrier of various grammatical meanings at once.

Inflectional languages

Inflectional languages ??- languages ??in which the major part inside the expression of grammatical meanings is played by inflection (ending). Inflectional languages ??include Indo-European and Semitic-Hamitic. As opposed to agglutinative languages, where affixes are unambiguous, common and mechanically attached to complete words, in inflectional languages ??the ending is ambiguous, non-standard, joins the base, which can be typically not utilised without inflection, and organically merges using the base, forming a single alloy, because of this, different changes can occur in the junction of morphemes. The formal interpenetration of contacting morphemes, which leads to the blurring in the boundaries in between them, is called fusion. Hence the second name of inflectional languages ??- fusion.

Polysynthetic languages

Polysynthetic, or incorporating – languages ??in which diverse components of a sentence within the form of amorphous base words are combined into a single complicated, similar to complicated words. As a result, within the language of your Aztecs (an Indian men and women living in Mexico), the word-sentence pinakapilkva, which suggests I eat meat, was formed in the composition on the words pi – I, nakatl – meat and kvya – to eat. Such a word corresponds to our sentence. This really is explained by the truth that in polysynthetic languages ??distinct objects of action and situations in which the action takes location can be expressed not by person members of your sentence (applications, situations), but by unique affixes that happen to be part of verb types. In portion, the verb forms include the subject.

Typological classification of languages ??- a classification depending on the identification of similarities and differences inside the structure of languages, no matter their genetic relatedness. Thus, in the event the genealogical classification unites languages ??by their origin, then the typological classification divides languages ??by the attributes of their structure, irrespective of their origin and location in space. Together with the term typological classification of languages, the term morphological classification is typically used as a synonym. Such use of your term morphological classification of languages ??rather than typological classification of languages ??is unjustified and inappropriate for several factors. Initial, the word morphological is linked in linguistics with the term morphology, which signifies the grammatical doctrine of the word as well as the structure on the word, not the language as a complete. By the way, some linguists have an understanding of the morphological classification: speaking of morphological, or typological, classification, we imply the classification of languages ??on the basis of morphological structure, word kind. The truth is, the typological classification goes far beyond morphology. Secondly, in recent years, several kinds of typological classification have come to be increasingly widespread: morphological, syntactic, phonetic, and so on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>