Morphological classification of languages


Morphological classification of languages ??- typological classification of world 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 don’t break down into morphemes: roots and affixes. Words of such languages ??are morphologically unformed units which include indefinite words of the Ukrainian language there, right 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 ??incorporate Turkic and Finno-Ugric languages. In their structure, also towards the root, there are affixes (both word-changing and word-forming). The peculiarity of affixes in these languages ??is the fact that each and every affix is ??unambiguous, ie every of them serves to express only 1 grammatical meaning, with whatever root it’s combined. This really is how they differ from inflectional languages, in which the affix acts as a carrier of quite a few grammatical meanings at after.

Inflectional languages

Inflectional languages ??- languages ??in which the top role in the expression of grammatical meanings is played by inflection (ending). Inflectional languages ??involve Indo-European and Semitic-Hamitic. In contrast to agglutinative languages, exactly where affixes are unambiguous, standard and mechanically attached to full words, in inflectional languages ??the ending is ambiguous, non-standard, joins the base, that is normally not used without the need of inflection, and organically merges with the base, forming a single alloy, consequently, various adjustments can occur at the junction of morphemes. The formal interpenetration of contacting morphemes, which leads to the blurring of the boundaries involving them, is known as fusion. Therefore the second name of inflectional languages ??- fusion.

Polysynthetic languages

Polysynthetic, or incorporating – languages ??in which unique components of a sentence inside the form of amorphous base words are combined into a single complex, comparable to complicated words. As a result, in the language in the Aztecs (an Indian men and women living in Mexico), the word-sentence pinakapilkva, which indicates I consume meat, was formed in the composition with the words pi – I, nakatl – meat and kvya – to eat. Such a word corresponds to our sentence. This really is explained by the fact that in polysynthetic languages ??unique objects of action and circumstances in which the action requires location may be expressed not by individual members in the sentence (applications, circumstances), but by various affixes that are element of verb forms. In element, the verb forms contain the topic.

Typological classification of languages ??- a classification depending on the identification of similarities and variations within the structure of languages, regardless of their genetic relatedness.

Thus, when the genealogical classification unites languages ??by their origin, then the typological classification divides languages essay writer online ??by the attributes of their structure, no matter their origin and place in space. Along with the term typological classification of languages, the term morphological classification is normally applied as a synonym. Such use in the term morphological classification of languages ??instead of typological classification of languages ??is unjustified and inappropriate for several reasons. Initially, the word morphological is connected in linguistics using the term morphology, which means the grammatical doctrine of the word and also the structure of the word, not the language as a whole. By the way, some linguists fully grasp the morphological classification: speaking of morphological, or typological, classification, we mean the classification of languages ??around the basis of morphological structure, word kind. The truth is, the typological classification goes far beyond morphology. Secondly, in current years, many sorts of typological classification have turn into increasingly popular: morphological, syntactic, phonetic, and so on.

So, what do you think ?