What is the meaning of the Telugu word for?

The word formation patterns of German and English in comparison

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2. Language typology
2.1 What is a language typology?
2.2 Morphological language typology with a focus on German and English

3. Morphology or word formation?

4. An overview of word formation patterns
4.1 Derivation (derivation)
4.2 Composition (compounding)
4.3 conversion
4.4 back formation
4.5 Word abbreviations (clippings)
4.6 Blends
4.7 Acronyms and abbreviations

5. Further options for expanding vocabulary
5.1 Word manufacture and coinage
5.2 Borrowing
5.3 semantic transfer

6. Conclusion and summary

7. Bibliography
7.1 Research literature
7.1.1 Book Sources
7.1.2 Internet sources
7.2 Cited supporting literature
7.2.1 Book Sources
7.2.2 Internet sources

1 Introduction

"Word formation (,) [] a fascinating morphological puzzle."[1]

A puzzle.

- If you hear the word puzzle, you think of a game, more precisely a "mechanical puzzle"[2], where you have to put individual parts together in such a way that a picture emerges from them. Puzzles are among the oldest games and are still popular everyday leisure activities.

Based on this puzzle concept, the comparison from the above quote seems to be correct not only in terms of creating new words by combining words or parts of words, but also in the point that you can use both the puzzle, as well as word formation in everyday life. It starts in the morning at breakfast with the opening of the newspaper, which is full of composition, derivation or abbreviations, and ends in the evening with a sentence like “Honey, please do that Bedside lamp off, I want to sleep ”.

It doesn't matter what you're talking about, whether it's cake recipes, computer viruses, day-care centers or world peace. And if there is still no word for one of these terms in a language, it can be invented at any time if necessary, because human language is "almost unlimitedly productive and creative" due to the various word formation processes.[3]. Word formation can thus be defined as "a process for the verbalization of terms"[4], in which words from "meaningful language material"[5] are formed.

The fact that words are formed distinguishes it from a competing process, the phrase, in which not words, but phrases, i.e. groups of words, are formed in order to verbalize terms. Since a phrase verbalizes a term in the same way as a word, these two procedures compete internally on the one hand (Sword of Damocles vs. sword of Damocles), but also inter-lingual (cf. Mother of pearl, engl. mother of pearl, ital. madreperla).[6]

The fact that the words are formed from "meaningful linguistic material" during word formation distinguishes them from the original creation (see Chapter 5.1), in which words are formed or originally created from sounds that were not previously put together in a meaningful way.[7]

After this brief definition of word formation, the following work should now aim at a comparative compilation of the German and English word formation patterns. At the beginning there is a short excursus about the language typology, which should then lead to the description of the morphological language typology to the actual topic, the overview of the individual word formation patterns of the two languages ​​considered.

2. Language typology

2.1 What is a language typology?

At the beginning it should be clarified what exactly is meant by typology in the context of linguistics.

According to Whaley, language typology is understood in the most general sense as "[...] the classification of languages ​​or components of languages ​​based on shared formal characteristics"[8], i.e. the comparison and classification of languages ​​or language components based on certain characteristics that languages ​​either have in common or that distinguish them from one another.

It is important to note that typology is not a grammar theory in its own right. In contrast to functional, cognitive, or relational grammar, or one of the many other systems developed to illustrate how language works, typology aims to provide cross-lingual (cross-linguistic) Identify patterns and relationships between these patterns. For this reason, the method and results of typological research are in principle compatible with any grammatical theory.[9] Now that we have just described what typology is not, what we mean by it will now be explained in more detail. In the above definition there are three key statements[10]: (a) Typology makes use of cross-language comparisons, (b) Typology classifies languages ​​or individual aspects of languages ​​and (c) Typology examines formal properties of languages.

These partial statements will now be discussed in greater detail one after the other.

(a) Typology includes cross-language comparisons

Ultimately, all typological research is based on comparing languages. For example, if you compare the following sentences

a. I met the man who taught you French.
b. The dog which licked Cora has become her friend.
c. I sent the story to the newspaper that your mother owns.[11],

thus one can generally deduce from this that English relative clauses follow the nouns which they modify. This is important to someone doing research on the English language. However, this result would be incomplete for the typology, as the cross-lingual perspective is missing.

Rather, a typological approach can be expected to produce a result such that English is typical of placing relative clauses after the nouns that describe them in more detail, after collecting data on relative clauses from a representative selection of global languages. Only after evaluating such a data collection is it even correct to use the word “typical” in an assertion such as “x is typical for language y (compared to languages ​​p and q)”.

Compiling an adequate selection of languages ​​as a research basis is one of the main methodological problems of typology research.

(b) Typology includes either the classification of languages ​​or their components.

In the former - the classification of languages ​​- the goal is to divide different languages ​​as a whole into certain categories. This happens due to common characteristics.

When classifying language components, the focus is on a particular construction of the selected languages, such as reflexive verbs, plosives or discourse particles. Then, in a further step, all types of this specific phenomenon are determined by using cross-language data. The aim here is to better understand how a certain aspect of language works by working out the extent of similarities or deviations. There is also great interest in finding out whether there are interrelationships between the various patterns that can be found in a language.

The classification of language components includes, for example, word order typology or morphological typology.

(c) Typology deals with classification based on formal properties of a language.

There are several types of relationships between languages ​​that are worth mentioning. Languages ​​can be divided into different classes based on their genetic relationships, for example. If this were the concern of the language typology, one would summarize all languages ​​that have the same origin and thus come to different "language families", such as Indo-European, Afro-Asian etc.

Another consideration would be the grouping of languages ​​according to their geographical localization. One could then speak of Australian or Indian languages, etc. It would also be possible to classify languages ​​according to demographic criteria, e.g. languages ​​with more than 100 million speakers, etc.

Of course, all of these classification methods are useful in their own way to achieve a particular result, but they are not of the kind that typology uses. Typologists classify languages ​​based on the forms they consist of, such as morphemes, syntax, or structures of conversation. The above differentiations do not mean, however, that all the other types of classification are not related to the typological classification. For example, Whaley notes that it is evident that there is a strong connection between typological and genetic classifications[12]. To make this clear, she writes:

“It is no surprise that Spanish […] and French […] both have articles that reveal gender or that they both have subject agreement marked on verbs because we know that both languages ​​have inherited these traits from Latin […]. The typological similarity of the two languages ​​is a function of their genetic association. "[13]

Consequently, even if the typological classification is different from the genetic, geographical and demographic, the typological characterization of languages ​​can be strongly influenced by these other factors.

2.2 Morphological language typology with a focus on German and English

Of the various approaches that exist within the language typology, the morphological typology should now be examined in more detail in order to create a basis for the comparison of German and English word formation.

Due to their morphological properties, languages ​​can be divided into different language types. This approach goes back to the classical morphological typology of the 19th century.[14]

A distinction is made between synthetic-inflecting, synthetic-agglutinating and analytic or isolating languages, whereby most languages ​​can be assigned to the synthetic types.[15] In a synthetic-inflected language, the particles that contain the grammatical information and explain the relations in the sentence, i.e. the inflectional morphemes, are attached directly to the word. A morpheme contains several pieces of information at the same time. This results in a variable word order, since the relationships of the constituents in the sentence are unambiguous. This applies to languages ​​with a largely intact case system, such as Latin or German.

In the group of synthetic languages ​​there are also those languages ​​that proceed in an agglutinating manner. In the synthetic-agglutinating languages, too, the morphemes are appended to the word stem. However, a morpheme always contains exactly one piece of information, e.g. B. the number singular. If the word is in the genitive singular, the corresponding case must also be marked by a further morpheme, which must also be appended to the word. This procedure enables the word to be clearly segmented, as there is a 1: 1 relationship between form and meaning.[16] So the word in its existing form definitely has only one meaning. Turkish, Finnish or Dravidian languages ​​such as Telugu[17] are typical examples of agglutinating languages.

To illustrate, the word pustakamu (German book) from the Telugu serve:

1) pustakamu (Nominative singular) 3) pustakamulu (Nominative plural)
2) pustakamukai (Dative singular) 4) pustakamulakai (Dative plural)

In example 2) you can see that the dative by adding the suffix -kai to the nominative singular. Example 3) shows that by the suffix -lu the plural is formed. Finally, in example 4) it can be seen that the dative plural is formed by adding both suffixes one after the other.

Such an unambiguous segmentation as in the above example is not the case with the inflected languages, since several pieces of information are contained in an inflected morpheme.[18] In an analytical or isolating language, on the other hand, almost every word consists of only one morpheme, the root or base morpheme.[19] A word like e.g. Horses would be expressed here by two words, one with the meaning horse, the other with the meaning Plural. A word like played would through the infinitive play and a word for grammatical information past be expressed.

A very suitable example of radically analytical languages ​​are Chinese or Vietnamese, which work excessively isolating and neither use declination nor conjugation (complete loss of inflection), but rely on functional words, a certain sentence order or intonation. As a result, word forms do not exist and words often consist of only one morpheme. Analytical languages ​​are therefore very low-flexion language. They are based on the use of free grammatical morphemes, such as prepositions, and on certain word order rules, such as English with its word order subject - predicate - object. This word order has solidified as English moves more and more towards an analytical / isolating language and the case system is eroded. The inflectional morphemes are largely absent and the semantic relationships would not become clear without a fixed word order. It is she alone who provides information about subject and object.[20] This example also illustrates this:

1) The woman ate the salad. - The woman ate the salad.
2) * The salad ate the woman. - The woman ate the salad.

Since you cannot formally recognize in English that the the salad in example 2) is an accusative object, such a sentence can only be uttered in English with the word order subject - predicate - object. Since the nominative and accusative forms in German are formally different, the same sentence can be expressed here both by the word order subject - predicate - object, as well as by object - predicate - subject.

If one also assumes that a noun represents a word form in the genitive and a second word form in the dative, then German is rich in word forms, while English is impoverished. This becomes clear in the following example:

1) the book - the book
2) the book - the book

An important aspect that should not be ignored, however, is that languages ​​cannot always be assigned to exactly one group. The transitions between the language types are fluid and not all properties are always available.[21] For example, English uses elements of both the synthetic and the analytical / isolating type. Past Tense, for example, is made by adding the suffix -ed formed, which corresponds to a synthetic formation. Elements of the insulating type, on the other hand, are found in the formation of the will-future. In the sentence "I want to go." shows "want"That it is the future tense of the verb"go“Acts.

In general, one can say that the historical development in European languages ​​"from synthetic to analytical (re) n languages"[22] went, whereby the French compared to Latin or the modern Germanic languages ​​compared to the Germanic languages ​​from 1000 years ago should be mentioned.

German has also lost its wealth of inflection and has become more analytical than before, but it is undoubtedly still a synthetic, inflected language.

English, on the other hand, has reduced its existing inflection to a much greater extent and thus a "radical typological change"[23] so that it is now a strongly analytical language compared to Old English, yes, according to Kortmann even "a largely isolating language in which the individual lexemes hardly have different word forms [...]"[24].

Nouns in English can only appear in two forms, either without case marking or in the possessive form, pronouns in these two forms and additionally with the object case (e.g. he - his - him, who - whose - whom). In the case of the relative and interrogative pronouns, the form with the object case (1) is becoming increasingly rare, at least in informal English, and instead the use of the unmarked form (2) or the zero form (3) is used[25], as in the following example sentences:

1) The woman whom I met yesterday is a famous author.
2) The woman who I met yesterday is a famous author.
3) The woman I met yesterday is a famous author.

Articles and adjectives are not case-marked at all. There is no congruence in the English noun phrase, i.e. "no formal correspondence between the nominal head and the constituents that modify it"[26]. Nor is there any rule in English, i.e. the case where, for example, a preposition or a verb requires a certain case marking with regard to the following nominal argument.[27]

Both are typical features of the German language, where, in addition to flexivic gender markings, there is also a distinction between nominative, genitive, dative and accusative in nouns, pronouns, articles and adjectives.

[...]



[1] Eichinger, Ludwig M .: German word formation. An introduction. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen 2000, page 5.

[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzzle (from 08/14/08).

[3] Donalies, Elke: Basic knowledge of German word formation. A. Francke Publishing House. Tübingen 2007, page 3.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] see ibid., p.3f.

[7] see ibid., p.4f.

[8] Whaley, Lindsay J .: Introduction to typology. The unity and diversity of language. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks et al. 1997, p. 7.

[9] see ibid.

[10] see ibid., p.7ff.

[11] Example sentences taken from ibid., P.8.

[12] see ibid, p.12.

[13] ibid.

[14] See Comrie, Bernard: Language universals and linguistic typology. Syntax and morphology. Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited, Oxford 1981, p.39.

[15] see Kortmann, Bernd: Linguistics: Essentials. English and American studies. System usage. Cornelsen Verlag, Berlin 1999, page 85.

[16] see Comrie, p. 40.

[17] Telugu is an Indian language, which is one of the south-central Dravidian languages ​​and is spoken in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.

[18] see Comrie, p.41.

[19] see ibid., p. 40.

[20] see Kortmann, p.85.

[21] see ibid., p.86.

[22] see ibid.

[23] ibid.

[24] ibid.

[25] see ibid., p.127.

[26] ibid.

[27] see ibid.

End of the reading sample from 32 pages