It could be a bat with which you play cricket or a small,flying mammal.

this isa case of

LEXICAL.AMBIGUITY.We have in this setence a word-from that represents more than one lexeme with
a meaning that is quite plausible.It is not possible to determine the right interpreta�on of the sentence
without looking at the wider context in which it appears.
We have established that the rela�onship between a word-from and the meaning that it
represents is a complex one. This is exploited not only in literature and word-play as we saw above but
also in the language of adver�sing. For instance,a recent Bri�sh Gas newspaper adver�sement for gas
hea�ng said :

[2.15]
You will warm to our credit. It's free.

This adver�sement exploits the lexical ambiguity that is due to the fast that warm ( to ) can
mean 'become Enthusias�c' or 'experience a rise in temperature'. Next �me you look at an
adver�sement,see whether it exploits any of the rela�onships between lexemes and word-forms that
we have examined.
2.2.3
Gramma�cal words
Finally, let us consider the word form a gramma�cal perspec�ve. Words play a key role in syntax.
So,some of their proper�es are assigned taking into account syntac�c factors. O�en words are required
to have certain proper�es if they serve certain syntac�c purposes. Thus, although in [2.16a] we have
the same sense of the same lexeme (play) realised by the same word-form (played). We know that this
word does at least two quite different gramma�cal jobs in the sentence of which it is a part:

[2:16]
a. She played the flute. She has played the flute.
b. She took the flute. She has taken the flute.

If you compare the sentencesin [2.16] above,you will see that in [2.16a] the verb play is
realised by the word-form played regardless of whether it simply indicates that the ac�on happened
in the past as in the first example or that an ac�on was (recently) completed as in the second
example.Contrast this with the situa�on in [2.16b] where these two gramma�cal meaning are signalled
by two different forms. Took indicates that the ac�on happened in the past while taken (a�er has/had)
indicates that the ac�on is complete. In she played the flute and she took the flute the words played
and took are described gramma�cally as the 'past tense forms of the verbs play and take'. By
contrast,in She has played the flute and She has taken the flute we describe played and taken as the
'past par�ciple' of play and take.
Linguists us the term SYNCRETISM to describe situa�ons such as that exemplified by played
where the same word-form of a lexeme is used to realise two (or more) dis�nct gramma�cal words
that are represented separetely in the gramma�cal representa�ons of words belonging to some other
comparable lexemes. The phenomenon of sycnre�sm is one good reason for dis�nguishing between
word-form and gramma�cal words. It enables us to show that words belonging to the same lexeme
and having the same form in speech and wri�ng can s�ll differ.
A further example should make the ideas of gramma�cal words and syncre�sm even clearer.
Consider the verbs in the following sentences:
16 what is a word ?

[2.17]

a. You hit me. (=you hit me some �me in the past) or (= you hit me habitually)

b.You cut it. (=you cut it some �me in the past) or (=you cut it habitually)

As the paraphrases show, the word-form hit belonging to the lexeme hit can represent either
the present tense or the past tense form of the verb. In other words,there is syncre�sm. We have two
different gramma�cal words hit [+verb,+ present] and hit[+verb,+past] but a single word-form. The
same analysis also apllies to cut. It can , represent either the present or past tense of the verb cut.
Syncre�sm is not limited to verbs. It i can apply to other word classes ( e.g.nouns) as well :
2.18]
(a) The wolf killed a sheep and one deer.
(b) The wolf killed two sheep and three deer.

In these two sentences, although the word-form sheep belong to the same lexeme and is
unchanged in form, we know that is gramma�cal value is not the same. In [2.18a] it realises the words
with the gramma�cal proper�es of noun and singular, but in [2.18b] it represent a plural form.
Likewise, the same word-form deer represents a singular noun in [2.18a] and a plural noun in [2.18b].
What can we say about the word as an en�ty that func�ons as a gramma�cal unit in the syntax
of a language? As men�oned already, the (gramma�cal) word is normally defined as the MINIMAL
FREE FORM that is used in the grammar of a language. Let us now put some flesh on this terse and
some what cryp�c statement.
By free form we mean an en�ty that can stand on its own and act as a free agent : it is an
element whose posi�on in a sentence is not totally dictated by other items.
In order to explain what 'freedom' means in this context, we need to take on board two ancillary ideas
: POSITIONAL MOBILITY and STABILITY. Although words are not the smallest gramma�cal units use to
construct sentences (see the discussion of morphemes in the next chapter), at the level of sentence
organisa�on the rules of sentence forma�on treat words as unanalysable units.O�en it is possible to
change the order in which words appear in a sentence and s�ll produce a well-formed sentence. Words
enjoy considerable posi�onal mobility. However, the elements inside a word do not enjoy such
mobility. While synta�c rules can transport words to new places in a sentence, they cannot shi� in the
same way elements that are found inside words. Moving words around in the following produces
gramma�cal sentences with basically the same meaning, but with somewhat different emphasis:

[2.19]
a. This old industrialist revisited landcaster, fortunately.
b. Fortunately, this old industrialist revisited landcaster.
c. Landcaster, this old industrialist revisited, fortunately.
d. Fortunately, landcaster was revisited by this old industrialist.
 THE HISTORY OF ATLANTIS
CHAPTER 1

Introductory

A HISTORY OF ATLANTIS must differ from all other history, for the
fundamental reason that is seek to record the chronicles of a country
the soil of which is no longer available for examina�on to the
archeologist. If, through some cataclysm of nature, the italian
peninsula had been submerged in the green waters of the
Mediterranean at a period subsequent to the fall of rome, we should
s�ll have been in possession of much documentary evidence
concerning the growth and ascent of the roman empire. At the same
�me, the soil upon which that empire flourished, the ponderable
remains of its civiliza�on and its architecture, would have been ever
lost to us save as regards their colonial manifesta�ons. We should, in
a great measure, have been force to glean our ideas of la�n pre-
eminence from those ins�tu�ons which it founded in other lands, and
from those tradi�ons of it which remained at the era of its
disappearance among the unletered Na�ons surrounding it.
But great as would be the difficul�es atending such an enterprise,
these would, indeed, be negligible when compared with the task of
groping through the mists of ages in quest of the outlines of chronicle
and event which tell of a civilisa�on plunged into the
 Chapter 1
Introduc�on

1.1
WHY STUDY WORDS?

Imagine life without words! Trappist monks opt for it. But most of us would not give up words for
anything. Every day we uter thousands and thousands of words. Communica�ng our joys, fears,
opinions, fantasies, wishes, requests, demands, feelings and the occasional threats or insult is a very
important aspect for being human. The air is always thick with our verbal emissions. They are so may
things we want to tell the world. Some of them are important, some of them are not. But we talk
anyway even when we know that we are saying is totally unimportant. We love chitchat and find silent
encounters awkward, or even oppressive. A life without words would be a horrendous priva�on.

It is a cliche to say that words and language are probably humankind's most valuable single
possession. It is language that sets us apart from our biologically rela�ves. The Great primates ( I would
imagine that many a chimp or gorilla would give an arm and leg for a few words. But we will probably
never know because they cannot tell us )yet. Surprisingly, most of us take words ( and more generally
language) for granted. We cannot discuss words with anything like the competence with which we can
discuss fashions, films, or football.

We should not take words for granted. They are too important. This book is intended to make
explicit some of the things that we know subconsciously about words. It is a linguis�c introduc�on to
the nature and structure of english words. An addresses the ques�on " what sorts of things to do
people need to know about english word in order to use them in speech?" It is intended to increase
the degree of sophis�ca�on with which you think about words. It is designed to give you a theore�cal
grasp of english word forma�on. The source of english vocabulary and the way in which we store and
retrieve word form the mind.

I hope a desirable side effect of working through english words will be the enrichment of your
vocabulary. This book will help to increase, in a very prac�cal way, Your awareness of the rela�onship
between words. You will be equipped with the tools you need to work out the meanings of unfamiliar
words and to see in a new light the underlying structural paterns in many familiar words which you
have not previously stopped to think about analy�cally.

For the student of language, words are very rewarding object of study. An understanding of the
nature of words provides us with the key to opens the door to an understanding of important aspects
of the nature of language in general. Words give us a panoramic view of the en�re field of linguis�cs
because they impinge on every aspect of language structure. This book stresses the ramifica�ons of
the fact that words are complex and mul�-faceted en��es whose structure and use interacts with the
other modules with the grammar
(1.2)

A. We put all the big .... On the table

B. We put all the big splets on the table

The study of word forma�on and word-structure is called MORPHOLOGY. Morphological theory
provide a general theory of word-structure in all languages of the world. Its task to characterise the
kind of things that speakers need to know about the structure of the words of their language in order
to be able to use them to produce and to understand speech.

We will see that in order to use language, speakers need to have two type of morphological
knowledge. First, they need to be able to analyze exis�ng words ( e.g they must be able to tell that
frogs contains frog plus -s for plural ). Usually, if we know the meanings of the elements that a word
contains, it is possible to determine the meaning of the en�re word once we have worked out how the
various elements relate to each other. For instance, If we examine a word like nutcracker we find that
it is made of two words, namely the noun nut and the noun cracker. Furthermore, we see that the
leter word, cracker is divisible into the verb crack and other meaningful element -er ( roughly meaning
'an instrument used to do X' ), which, however, is not a word in its own right. Numerous other words
are formed using this patern of combining words ( and smaller meaningful elements ) as seen in {1.3}

{1.3}

{Tea} noun____{strain-er} noun

{Lawn} noun____{mow-er} noun
{Can} noun___{open-er} noun

Given the frame {___} noun _{___er} noun, we can feel in different words with the appropriate
proper�es and get another compund word (i.e a word containing at least two words) try this frame
out yourself. Find two more similar examples of compound words formed using this patern.

Second, speakers need to be able to work out the meanings novel words constructed using the
word- building elements and standard word-construc�on rules of the language. Probably we all know
and use more words than are listed in dic�onaries. We can construct and analyse the structure and
meaning of old words as well as new ones. So, although many words must be listed in the dic�onary
and memorised, lis�ng every word in dic�onary is not necessary. If a word is formed following general
principle, it may be more efficient to recons�tute it from its cons�tuent elements as the need arises
rather than permanently commit it to memory. When people make up a new words using exi�ng words
and word forming elements, we understand them with ease-providing we know what elements they
use to form those words mean and providing the word-forming rules that they employ are familiar.
This ability is one of the things explored in morphological inves�ga�on.

In an average week, we are likely to encounter a couple of unfamiliar words. We might reach for a
dic�onary and look them up. Some of them may be listed but others might be too new or too
ephemeral to have find their way into any dic�onary. In such an event, we rely on our morphological
knowledge to tease out their meanings. If your heard someone describe their partner as ' a great list
maker and a �cker-off', you would instantly know what sort of person the partner was although you
almost certainly have never encountered the word �cker-off before. And it is certainly not listed in any
dic�onary. The -er ending here has
 20. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF A MORPHEMIC KIND

(3.2)

Childish hopeless sooner mended elephant re-boil unsafe ex-wife

You would have to give a different answer. You would need to tell your interrogator, who by now
would be ge�ng increasingly bewildered, that the words in (3.2) can be divided into smaller units of
meaning as shown in (3.3):

(3.3)

Child-ish hope-less soon-er mend-ed elephant-s re-boil un-safe ex-wife

The part of the word that is not italicised can func�on as an independent word in the grammar.
Indeed, each of the non italicised chunks is a word (i.e. vocabulary item) that is listed as such in the
dic�onary. By the contrast, the italicised bits, through meaningful ( and their meanings can be
indicated as shown in 3.4. cannot func�on own their own in the grammar.

(3.4)

-ish having the ( objectaionable ) quali�es of child-ish= ‘having the quali�es of a child’
-less. Without X hopeless= ‘witout hope’
-er More X sooner=’more soon’
-ed. Past mended= ‘mend in the past’
-s. Plural elephants= ‘more than one elephant’
-re. Again re-boil= ‘boil again’
-un. Not X un-safe= ‘not safe’
-ex. Former ex-wife= ‘former wife’

What we have done to the words in 3.4 can be done to thousands of other words in english.They
can be decomposed into smaller units of meaning ( e.g -re again ) or gramma�cal func�on (e.g -ed past
).
The term morpheme is used to refer to the smallest unit that has meaning or serves a gramma�cal
func�on in a language. Morpheme are the atoms with which words are build. It is not possible to find
sub-morphemic units that are themselves meaningful or have a gramma�cal func�on. Thus, given -
less or -un, it would make no sense to try to assign some inde�fiable meaning to any part of these
forms. Of course, it is possible to isolate the individual sounds /1-1-s/ or / -n/, but those sounds in
themselves do not mean anything.
We have now established that words are made up of morphemes. But how do we recognize a
morpheme when we see one? Our defini�on of the morpheme as the smallest unit of meaning ( or
gramma�cal func�on) Will be the guiding principle. Any Chunk of a word with a par�cular meaning
will be said to represent a morpheme. That is how we proceeded in 3.3 and 3.4 above.
Morpheme tend to have a fairly stable meaning which they bring to any word in which they appear.
If we take re- and un-, for example, they mean 'again' and not respec�vely not just in the words we
have listed above, but also in thousands of other words. Usually morpheme are used again and again
to form different words. Thus, re- meaning, re-do whatever the verb means can be atached before
most verbs to yield a new word with a predictable meaning (e.g re-run, re-take, re-build, etc) in like
manner, -un meaning 'not X' ( where X stands for whatever the objec�ve means) can be atached to
various objec�ves ( e.g un-real, un-clear, un-happy, etc ) to yield a new word with a predictable
nega�ve meaning.
 10 WHAT IS A WORD?

Acrobat. A'nnoying. Ca' hoots

Kingfisher. de' molish. Gaber'dine
Patriarchate Chou' cerian. Hullaba'loo

Main stress can fall on only one syllable in a word. The loca�on of main stress is part of the make-
up of a word and is not changed capriciously by individual speakers. You cannot decide to stress
hullabaloo on the penul�mate syllable on a monday ( hulla'baloo ). On the antepenul�mate syllable
on a tuesday ( hu'llabaloo ) on the in�al syllable on a Wednesday ('hullabaloo) and on the final syllable
for the rest of the week (hullaba'loo).
However, in some cases, if we wish to contrast two related words, we can shi� stress from its normal
posi�on to a new posi�on. This can be seen in 'vendor and ven'dee which normally are stressed on
the first and second syllable respec�vely. But if the speaker wants to contrast these two words both
words might be stressed on the final syllable as i heard an estate agent do in radio interview.

(2.6)
It is ven'dor not the ven'dee who pay that tax

This example illustrates well the point that a word is allowed just one stress. Stress can be shi�ed
from one syllable to another. But a word cannot have two main stresses. We could not have ven'dor
and ven'dee where the two syllables received equal stress. Stress has to do with rela�ve prominence.
The syllable that receives main stress is somewhat more prominent than the rest, some of which may
be unstressed or weakly stressed. By contrast, func�on words are normally unstressed. We say nelly
went to town with no stress on to unless we wish to highlight to for contras�ve purposes, (e.g Nelly
went to town and not far away from town)
It is easy to see how stress can func�on as a valuable clue in determining whether two content
words are a single compound word or two separate words. The noun street and lamp are both stressed
when they occur in isola�on. But if they appear in the compound street-lamp, only the first is stressed.
The stress on lamp is suppressed.
Stress is not the only phonological clue. In edi�on to stress, there are rules regula�ng the posi�ons
in which various sounds may occur in a word and the combina�ons of sounds that are permissible.
This rules are called PHONOTACTICS RULES. They can help us to know whether we are at the beginning.
In the middle or at the end of a word. A phonological word must sa�sfy the requirements for words of
the spoken language. For instance, while any vowel can begin a word, and most consonant can appear
alone at the beginning of a word. The consonant { } is subject to certain restric�ons. This consonant is
spelled ng as in long {see the key to symbols used on p. xix}. In english words { } is not allowed to occur
ini�ally although it can occur in othe posi�ons. Thus, { } is allowed internally and at the end of a word
as in {I} longing and { I ge } longer. But could not have an english word like ngether. *{ ee } with { } as
its first sound. However, in other languages this sound may be found word-ini�ally as in the Chinese
name Nga {a} and the Zimbabwean name Nkomo {Komo}.
There are also phonotac�cs restric�ons on the combina�on of consonants in various posi�ons in a
word in the spoken language. As everyone knows, English spelling is not always a perfect mirror of
pronuncia�on. So when considering words in the spoken language it is important to separate spelling
from pronuncia�on (cf. Chapter 7). You know that He is Knock-kneed is pronounced /hI Iz nk ni:d/ and
not */he Is knk kni:d/. A par�cular combina�on of leters can be associated with very different
pronuncia�ons in different words or