Nama: Aisyah at thahirah rukh umaera

Nim:105351103622

Class:BG3B

MORPHOLOGY

CHAPTER LEXEME FORMATION FURTHER AFIELD

5 SUMMARY

"Further afield" is a term related to lexeme formation in the field of

morphology. It is discussed in Chapter 5 of the book "Introducing
Morphology" by Rochelle Lieber. The chapter covers various aspects of
lexeme formation, including different types of affixes such as infixes,
circumfixes, and processes like internal stem change. The term "further
afield" seems to be used in the context of discussing new types of affixes and
processes in the formation of lexemes. Unfortunately, the specific details of
its meaning and usage are not available in the provided search results. For a
more in-depth understanding, it would be beneficial to refer to the book
"Introducing Morphology" by Rochelle Lieber or similar academic resources
on morphology and lexeme formation.

The term "further afield" does not directly relate to affixes beyond prefixes
and suffixes. In the field of morphology, affixes are grammatical elements
that are combined with a word, stem, or phrase to produce derived or
inflected forms. The main types of affixes are prefixes, suffixes, and, less
commonly, infixes and circumfixes. Prefixes occur at the beginning of a word,
suffixes at the end, and infixes in the middle. They can alter the meaning or
grammatical properties of the base word or phrase. While "further afield" is
not a term commonly used to discuss affixes, it is important to understand
the standard types of affixes in the study of morphology.

Infixation in English?

English doesn’t have any productive processes of infixation, but

there’s one marginal process that comes close, which is affectionately

referred to by morphologists as “fuckin’ infixation.” In colloquial spoken

English, we will often take our favorite taboo word or expletive – in

American English fucking, goddam, or frigging, in British English bloody –

and insert it into a base word:

abso-fuckin-lutely

fan-bloody-tastic

Ala-friggin’-bama

This kind of infixation is used to emphasize a word, to make it stronger.

What’s particularly interesting is that we can’t insert fuckin just anywhere in a

word. In other words, there are phonological restrictions.

on the insertion of expletives. Try inserting your favorite expletive

into the following words:

Winnepesaukee

elementary

onomatopoeia.

In this chapter we have completed our survey of the different types

of rules that can be used in forming new lexemes in the languages of

the world. We have gone beyond prefixation, suffixation, compounding, and

conversion to add new types of affixes (infixes, circumfixes),

and new processes like internal stem change (ablaut, umlaut, and

consonant mutation), reduplication (full and partial), and templatic

morphology.

CHAPTER 6 INFLECTION SUMMARY

Inflection in morphology refers to the processes of word formation in which a

word is modified to express different grammatical categories, such as tense,
case, voice, aspect, person, number, gender, mood, animacy, and definiteness

. Inflectional morphology includes various types of inflection, such as:

Affixation: Adding morphemes onto the word without changing the root, like
adding "-ness" to "cat" to form "cats".

Reduplication: Repeating all or part of a word to change its meaning, like

saying "back-to-back" instead of "back-to-back" .Alternation: Exchanging one
morpheme for another, like saying "I enjoy" instead of "I love". Inflectional
morphology is essential for understanding how words change their form to fit
into different grammatical contexts while retaining their core meaning.
Languages that add inflectional morphemes to words are sometimes called
inflectional languages, which is a synonym for inflected languages.

n this chapter we’ve first surveyed quite a few sorts of inflection that

can be found in the languages of the world, looking at person, number, gender
and noun class, tense and aspect, voice, mood, and modality. We’ve looked in
some detail at the sorts of inflections that are

found in English, and considered the historical reasons why English

has relatively little in the way of inflection. We’ve then looked at paradigms
and important relationships between forms in paradigms, such

as suppletion and syncretism, and at the distinction between inherent

and contextual inflection. We have revisited the distinction between

inflection and derivation to see that the line between them can be

blurred. And finally, we’ve looked at a set of data to see how to figure

out how the inflection in an unfamiliar language works.