Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed. (January 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A morpheme is the smallest meaningful constituent of a linguistic expression.[1] The field of linguistic study dedicated to morphemes is called morphology.

In English, morphemes are often but not necessarily words. Morphemes that stand alone are considered roots (such as the morpheme cat); other morphemes, called affixes, are found only in combination with other morphemes. For example, the -s in cats indicates the concept of plurality but is always bound to another concept to indicate a specific kind of plurality.[2]

This distinction is not universal and does not apply to, for example, Latin, in which many roots cannot stand alone. For instance, the Latin root reg- ('king') must always be suffixed with a case marker: rex (reg-s), reg-is, reg-i, etc. For a language like Latin, a root can be defined as the main lexical morpheme of a word.

These sample English words have the following morphological analyses:


Free and bound morphemes

Main article: Bound and free morphemes

Every morpheme can be classified as free or bound:[6]

Classification of bound morphemes

Bound morphemes can be further classified as derivational or inflectional morphemes. The main difference between them is their function in relation to words.

Derivational bound morphemes

Inflectional bound morphemes


Allomorphs are variants of a morpheme that differ in form but are semantically similar. For example, the English plural marker has three allomorphs: /-z/ (bugs), /-s/ (bats), or /-ɪz, -əz/ (buses). An allomorph is a concrete realization of a morpheme, which is an abstract unit. That is parallel to the relation of an allophone and a phoneme.



Main article: Zero morpheme

A zero-morpheme is a type of morpheme that carries semantic meaning but is not represented by auditory phoneme. A word with a zero-morpheme is analyzed as having the morpheme for grammatical purposes, but the morpheme is not realized in speech. They are often represented by // within glosses.[9]

Generally, such morphemes have no visible changes. For instance, sheep is both the singular and the plural form of that noun; rather than taking the usual plural suffix -s to form hypothetical *sheeps, the plural is analyzed as being composed of sheep + -∅, the null plural suffix. The intended meaning is thus derived from the co-occurrence determiner (in this case, "some-" or "a-").[10]

In some cases, a zero-morpheme may also be used to contrast with other inflected forms of a word that contain an audible morpheme. For example, the plural noun cats in English consists of the root cat and the plural suffix -s, and so the singular cat may be analyzed as the root inflected with the null singular suffix -.[11]

Content vs. function

Content morphemes express a concrete meaning or content, and function morphemes have more of a grammatical role. For example, the morphemes fast and sad can be considered content morphemes. On the other hand, the suffix -ed is a function morpheme since it has the grammatical function of indicating past tense.

Both categories may seem very clear and intuitive, but the idea behind them is occasionally more difficult to grasp since they overlap with each other.[12] Examples of ambiguous situations are the preposition over and the determiner your, which seem to have concrete meanings but are considered function morphemes since their role is to connect ideas grammatically.[13] Here is a general rule to determine the category of a morpheme:

Other features

Roots are composed of only one morpheme, but stems can be composed of more than one morpheme. Any additional affixes are considered morphemes. For example, in the word quirkiness, the root is quirk, but the stem is quirky, which has two morphemes.

Moreover, some pairs of affixes have identical phonological form but different meanings. For example, the suffix -er can be either derivational (e.g. sellseller) or inflectional (e.g. smallsmaller). Such morphemes are called homophonous.[13]

Some words might seem to be composed of multiple morphemes but are not. Therefore, not only form but also meaning must be considered when identifying morphemes. For example, the word Madagascar is long and might seem to have morphemes like mad, gas, and car, but it does not. Conversely, some short words have multiple morphemes (e.g. dogs = dog + s).[13]

Morphological icons

Morphological icons are images, patterns or symbols that relate to a specific morpheme.[14] For children with dyslexia, it has been shown to be an effective way of building up a word.[citation needed] The word 'inviting' as an example contains two commonly used morphemes, 'in-' and '-ing'. A morphological icon for 'in-' could be an arrow going into a cup, and '-ing' could be an arrow going forward to symbolise that something is in action (as in being, running, fishing).

The concept of combining visual aid icons with morpheme teaching methods was pioneered from the mid-1980s by Neville Brown.[15] He founded the Maple Hayes school for dyslexia in 1981, where he later improved the method alongside his son, Daryl Brown. The school's curriculum uses morphological icons as a learning aid.[16]

Morphological analysis

In natural language processing for Japanese, Chinese, and other languages, morphological analysis is the process of segmenting a sentence into a row of morphemes. Morphological analysis is closely related to part-of-speech tagging, but word segmentation is required for those languages because word boundaries are not indicated by blank spaces.[17]

The purpose of morphological analysis is to determine the minimal units of meaning in a language (morphemes) by comparison of similar forms: such as comparing "She is walking" and "They are walking" with each other, rather than either with something less similar like "You are reading". Those forms can be effectively broken down into parts, and the different morphemes can be distinguished.

Both meaning and form are equally important for the identification of morphemes. An agent morpheme is an affix like -er that in English transforms a verb into a noun (e.g. teachteacher). English also has another morpheme that is identical in pronunciation (and written form) but has an unrelated meaning and function: a comparative morpheme that changes an adjective into another degree of comparison (but remains the same adjective) (e.g. smallsmaller). The opposite can also occur: a pair of morphemes with identical meaning but different forms.[13]

Changing definitions

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In generative grammar, the definition of a morpheme depends heavily on whether syntactic trees have morphemes as leaves or features as leaves.

Given the definition of a morpheme as "the smallest meaningful unit", nanosyntax aims to account for idioms in which an entire syntactic tree often contributes "the smallest meaningful unit". An example idiom is "Don't let the cat out of the bag". There, the idiom is composed of "let the cat out of the bag". That might be considered a semantic morpheme, which is itself composed of many syntactic morphemes. Other cases of the "smallest meaningful unit" being longer than a word include some collocations such as "in view of" and "business intelligence" in which the words, when together, have a specific meaning.

The definition of morphemes also plays a significant role in the interfaces of generative grammar in the following theoretical constructs:

See also


  1. ^ Haspelmath, Martin (2010). Understanding Morphology. Andrea D. Sims (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Education. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-340-95001-2. OCLC 671004133.
  2. ^ Kemmer, Suzanne. "Structure". Words in English. Retrieved 10 April 2014.
  3. ^ "Word Grabber For Morpheme - Vocabulary List".
  4. ^ user318260; Lawler, John; herisson (Oct 1, 2018). "grammar - Why isn't {-able} considered a free morpheme?". English Language & Usage Stack Exchange. Archived from the original on Oct 24, 2023.
  5. ^ "LINGUIST List Home Page".[dead link]
  6. ^ De Kuthy, Kordula (October 22, 2001). "Morphology" (PDF). Linguistics 201: Introduction to Language in the Humanities. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-03-20. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
  7. ^ "Module 1 Concepts: Inflectional Morpheme". ENG 411B. Archived from the original on 2013-02-18.
  8. ^ Matthew, Baerman (2015). The Morpheme. Oxford University Press: Oxford University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9780199591428. Retrieved 30 September 2019.
  9. ^ Gerner, Matthias; Ling, Zhang (2020-05-06). "Zero morphemes in paradigms". Studies in Language. International Journal Sponsored by the Foundation "Foundations of Language". 44 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1075/sl.16085.ger. ISSN 0378-4177. S2CID 218935697.
  10. ^ Dahl, Eystein Dahl; Fábregas, Antonio (2018). "Zero Morphemes". Linguistics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.592. ISBN 978-0-19-938465-5. Retrieved 3 November 2019.
  11. ^ "Null morpheme – Glottopedia". Retrieved 2022-06-15.
  12. ^ "Morphology II". Retrieved 10 April 2014.
  13. ^ a b c d e f Department of Linguistics (2011). Language files: Materials for an introduction to language and linguistics (11th ed.). Ohio State University Press.
  14. ^ Richard Garner (July 27, 2014). "College for dyslexic pupils uses flashcard system to teach literacy". The Independent.
  15. ^ Justine Halifax (January 4, 2015). "Dyslexia dictionary: Lichfield doctor father and son lead way in helping young sufferers". Birmingham Mail.
  16. ^ Ross Hawkes (May 14, 2019). "Author's tribute to experts behind Lichfield dyslexia school". Lichfield Live.
  17. ^ Nakagawa, Tetsuji (2004). "Chinese and Japanese word segmentation using word-level and character-level information". Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - COLING '04. Geneva, Switzerland: Association for Computational Linguistics: 466–es. doi:10.3115/1220355.1220422. S2CID 2988891.
  • Baerman, Matthew (2015), Matthew Baerman (ed.), The Morpheme, Stephen R. Anderson, Oxford University: Oxford University Press, p. 3[dead link]
  • Plag, Ingo (2015), The structure of words: morphology, Sabine Arndt-Lappe, Maria Braun, and Mareile Schramm, Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter, Inc., pp. 71–112