hello everyone today we are going to see the hello everyone today we are
going to see briefly we are going to review the main concepts of a you need
two words and word boundaries let me see okay so what we are going to see
in this unit some basic notions about the different levels of linguistic
analysis especially focusing on morphology and its interaction with
semantics we are going to see how there is an interconnection between the
different levels of analysis and also especially the connection between
morphology semantics and other um disciplines and how this is the basis for
um the applications of semantics and morphologies such as creating corpora
thesaurus lexical and conceptual databases etc but first of all we will see
some basic notions about word formation phenomena which are very important
in morphology so they are the basis to understand words okay how is um um
morphology interconnected to all other disciplines of linguistics uh well
the first one who started dealing with this uh was hans marchand already in
the 70s uh well already quite recently because many disciplines uh date
from centuries ago and however linguistics is quite a modern science as you
know uh from sosuh to hans marshall we had to uh see 50 or 60 years passed
through until somebody started talking about morphological and morphology
theories as i said in the beginning we had to look at this uh of
morphology. So it stopped having a marginal role and it started to get more
important position in linguistics. Kostovsky, also from the 70s, his
students is a big name in morphology, is the one who analyzed zero
derivation which we will see later on. There are two basic methods in the
science of language to apply to this science of language to morphology, the
synchronic and the diachronic. And Martian's method was both synchronic and
diachronic. For him, the main purpose is synchronic, which is the
description of present day English word formative types. So he analyzed the
words in the present and he tried to find principles that could explain
where they could from. It obviously, word formation formation studies are
connected to diachronic methods of language, which are historical methods
to see the evolution of these words through time, because sometimes we need
real proof of this. Obviously, word formation phenomena is a phenomenon
that happens a long time. So what we are going to see here, because
diachronic methods, we cannot see you, we see this in other areas of the
degree, we will see what are the tools, what the tools are to analyze
linguistic phenomena at present, with what we have, with what we see. So
synchronic analysis of word formation phenomena, which is, as I said,
something from Martian and then his follower Kastowski, can be transparent
or non-transparent, or what is also called opaque word formation phenomena.
This is what Martian Kastowski called zero derivation, and also Martian.
Transparency word formation phenomena are very obvious. We have, for
instance, drive and driver and driving. Obviously, we see here that there
are suffixes. The suffixes ER or ING show that these words come from drive.
OK. Zero derivation or opaque transparent word formation, non-transparent
word formation phenomena or opaque word formation phenomena are phenomena
where we have two words that are homophones, for instance, bus. Bus as an
object or bus as a verb, but they don't have any difference in shape. So we
need to know what comes first. Martian, in order to analyze these concepts,
these phenomena, he created some criteria, form related criteria or content
related criteria or content dependent criteria. Content dependent criteria.
These criteria are criteria that are based on the content, as the word
says, that the inner part of the word, whether within these content
dependent criteria, we have the principle of semantic dependency, which is
that the word that for its analysis is dependent on the content on the
other member is necessarily the derivative. This sounds complex, but it is
very simple. For instance, we have so as the noun. Or so as the verb. So an
object. So to so as an as an action is to cut something. So we need the
word so to understand the meaning of the verb. The verb is derived from the
noun. Drink, what would we say? Drink is the noun and drink is the verb. Or
drive, according to this principle, if we say to have a drink. Drink is to
have a drink, drink would be in this case the noun, the base and with
drive. It could be also the base, but in this case it's not like that
because drinking the verb comes first and in drive. And it's also first the
verb. So this content, this principle of semantic dependency is not always.
Um, let's say, well, in the according to this principle, mostly we will
have nouns that derive into words verse, but it's in sometimes it's not
exactly like that. We can't have a verb that derives into a noun or. Uh,
for instance, to drink a drink. We drink something we drive um. It's more
difficult to explain when the derivative is the verb. Okay. Well, then now
what would do we do then when we have some doubts? Because sometimes we see
it very clearly like in so so okay. Uh, sometimes we don't see it as
clearly, but we can have the intuition or the idea that, for instance.
Rodeo drive a drive is an area where we drive. Quickly, it's not like a
road. A drive is. A place like a road where cars drive quicker and there
are more cars and pedestrians, et cetera. So there we could say, okay, then
drive is the verb, the base and drive as I now has been formed out of the
verb. But when there is no such a clear difference. We will go to the other
principle, so we need all the principles to comply in order to make sure or
at least. 1 has to be very, very certain and this is the principle of
semantic range. What does the principle of semantic range say that when
there are 2 homophonous words, which is the 2 words that have the same
shape. And sound the same, um, we will. The derivative will be the most
specific word, the, the, the most hyponymic word. Um, the more, the more
specific word is the very good. And the most general word, the word that is
more an umbrella term for the than the other word is the, the derivation,
the base word for instance. We drink and we drive what is more general. The
verb of drink or. The idea of a drink. Or we drive what is more general?
The idea of. Of driving or a specific concept, which is a specific type of.
Road or street that has certain features that makes it that makes us call
it drive. So, in this idea, in the, according to this, according to this
principle. Drink as the verb and drive as the verb will be the base words
and the derivates will be. The nouns, and then we have form related
criteria. This from related criteria. I have, it's still obtained from
stick out. Stick our explains them in the, in his work from 2000. But these
criteria are derived from Martian and then from Kostovsky. Okay. We have
the principle of phonetic shape. The principle of morphological type and
this stress criterion. The principle of phonetic shape says that there are
certain phonetic shape may put a word into a definite word class. This is a
very simple. Simple principle, for instance, meant meant is a typical noun
suffix. So. All the very few verbs that end in men's. It will be derived
from work from nouns because meant is a typical noun suffix. So, for
instance, ferment torment. Is supposed to derive from a noun. Okay. Because
normally meant is typically associated to now, so all the words derived.
From a suffix that is associated to. That's what it says, the principle of
phonetic shape. Then we have the principle of morphological type this
principle says that morphological type is indicative of the primary or
derived character of the composite words. It means their word class, for
instance, in compounds mostly. There is a tendency of the for the head of
the compounds to be on the right. Mostly the compound is on the right,
mostly the compound is on the left, mostly the compound is on the right.
And this now is prototypically the base. So in general, in compounds. The
right will be the, the base where and it will be a noun. We have. For
instance, lunch break blacklist babysit what happens here? That this is an
exception in babysit. We also we also have exceptions. So then we have.
When when this principle doesn't comply, we need to see if the other
principles comply babysit is an exception because according to this
principle seat. Should be a verb sorry now. Most typically, because most
typically the head is on the right and the is typically and now, but there
are exceptions for instance, babysit babysit. Is a verb and the base seat.
Is the, the, the, um. The base is a verb is not a noun. So in this case.
Baby will be. The main at the head of the compound, but it will be on the
left. Okay, but no, sorry in babysit. Always the head of the compound is on
the right. This is what gives the category of the compound in this case.
But in this case, it is a verb. So there is an exception as opposed to the
other, um. Compounds such as lunch break it will have to see whether break
is a noun or a verb. We will consider it most typically now because lunch
break the word he said he said now so they hit. The base has to be
announced also and then we have this stress criteria. which is the most
complicated one but it can also work to combine all these reasonings and in
case of compounds the stress is some it says that the stress is sometimes
indicative of directional relationship between a substantive and a verb we
have different kinds we have compound verbs with locatives and when this
this applies for this type of verse verbs that are compounds with locative
expressions locational expressions for instance underestimate interact in
this case we have a middle the stress and on and and the heavy stress as
you can see in underestimate and there is the middle street and the biggest
stress is the one in the base under estimate interact so here we have to
pay attention to the heavy stress stress is in the second part so we can
see then that the verb is the base of the compound it is the head and then
in the word that takes the middle stress will be the uh complements in this
case in the case of compound nouns the heavy stress for instance in is in
the first element so we have outhouse underwear under current when so
compound nouns that have a that are nouns that are components are not
compound verbs we can distinguish between from compound verse with look at
these components with locatives versus compound verbs with locatives
because in general in general we are saying a we have the heavy stress on
the verb whereas uh with compound nouns the heavy stress will be on the on
the locative particle so um in the case of verbs carrying this pattern when
we have verbs that carry this pattern we can understand because of this
tendency that they are derived from nouns so when verbs have the pattern of
the heavy stress being on the on the prefix let's say on the locative
particle we can guess or we can derive from that we can conclude that they
come from nouns so we can determine that they are the derivatives of nouns
let's see some practical example a bit easier to see the derivative chain
of words here we have a transparent example for instance go going outgoing
okay let's see um how we can distinguish what is first in going going or
outgoing and according to the phonetic shape obviously going ing is a
typical example of adjective so according to this principle uh we can say
that outgoing is an adjective and if outgoing As an adjective, we could say
that the prefix out, because of the verb of the adjective, has been added
to the adjective afterwards. According to the stress criterion, we will say
that, we say outgoing. Outgoing. So, as we have said before in the previous
slide, compound verbs with locative particles have the stress pattern
middle stress, heavy stress. So, in this case, we will say have the middle
stress here, outgoing. He's outgoing. Outgoing. In this case, we can say
that outgoing can be... It's... Well, it's a noun where the... If, sorry,
if it is a noun, it could be outgoing. But if we turn it into a verb, we
will say outgoing. So, in this case, the verb would be derived from the
noun, as we have said before. So, when we have these patterns in verbs...
We can say that they are derived from nouns. But in these compound verbs,
basically, the base here, we can see that it is the verb, go, okay? Because
it has the heavy stress, and the heavy stress goes on the verb, okay? And
then finally, according to the stress criterion, we can say outgoing. And
finally, we have the morphological type. In these morphological types, the
morphological criterion says, according to the morphological type, most
compound forms come from nouns. This, in this case, does not apply because
the base is go. It is a verb. It's not a noun. In this case, the derivative
chain would be go, outgoing, outgoing. Why do we know that it does not
apply? Because if we put into practice other criteria, for instance, the
frequency criteria, we will see what the most... Let's say that the more a
word is used, the more derivations it can have. The more... Generally, it
will be. And the more... The less uses it has, this is a trick in order to
finally check whether all these principles apply. For instance, a clear
example would be, with this would be, let's check what is... We check on
Google. It's a very simple example. We check on Google, outgoing. Go, go,
go. And we look in Google for outgoing. Outgoing will be much more frequent
than outcome, which means that outgoing is the most derived word and likely
the compound... Sorry. The derived word... This is a more used word because
it is an existent word and more frequent word. Now we check for this chain.
We check going and then we check outgoing again. We can see that going has
a lot of results, more than outgoing versus outgo. So it is quite likely
that going is the derivative base of outgoing. So when we have a doubt
whether in this case it could be between outgo and outgoing, and going...
Sorry. What is the base of outgoing, going or outgo? The most frequently
used term will be the base. Okay. We have, for instance, breathtaking,
heartbreaking, heartbreaker. In this case, we have breath, we have take and
we have taking. This is complicated because they are compounds. Okay. With
compounds, it's not as easy as with derivatives to see what comes first.
Because, for instance, if we apply the frequency criterion, breath will be
very frequent, take will be very frequent, taking also. But if we check
breathtaking and we compare it to taking, what will be most frequent? Then
we can check and we see that breathtaking is not... An actual word. So,
obviously, first we will have take, then taking, and then finally we have
added this modifier, which is breath. Take, taking, breathtaking. With
heartbreaking, the same. Okay. We will see more about derivation in unit 3.
In this case, the most important idea, even if it looks quite complex, is
to see. That there are different types of derivation, that the synchronic
method started to be applied in the 70s with the father, thanks to the
father of modern morphology, which is Hans Martian in the 70s. His follower
was Kostovsky and then Stekauer in the recent years has also worked more on
what is called lexical morphology. And that they work on. Synchronic
analysis of derivational phenomena. Synchronic analysis means that they
look at the derivational phenomena at the present without checking. Of
course, sometimes it's impossible not to check about their evolution
through history, which is diachronic linguistics, which you have in other
courses. And then they try to devise some principles. Some of them are
content dependent. Others are form dependent to see how they can
distinguish. A derived word from a non derived word. Especially this is
difficult with opaque for word formation phenomena when there is opaque
word from formation phenomena we only have one thing, which is content
related criteria, which is based ourselves on the meaning of one or the
other in order to see which one comes first. When we have. Transparent word
formation phenomena we can also apply apart from that. We will also
include. The form related criteria, which will help us distinguish which
one can be derived from the other. According to Stekauer most derivation,
especially in compounds, this applies almost 100%, which is compounds tend
to have to do with nouns. But when we have compounds related to verbs or
with adjectives or adverbs, it is not that they do not always apply 100%.
So it is good. To combine all the principles, both form related criteria
and content related criteria. And then if one word complies with two
principles and not with one principle, then we can try to guess what what
works or what do not. Nowadays it is always very easy to use all the
criteria together, especially because we have the Internet. And before they
didn't count on this. Now I just proposed also another criteria, which is
the frequency. Criteria, the more hits a word will have on Google, the more
basic it will be. The more frequent it will be means that it will be the
base for higher derivations. If we check a word in the chain in the day, we
create the derivational chain and we think, oh, hmm, heartbreak,
heartbreak. Let's see or break or in this case, heartbreaker. Breaker.
Heartbreak. Heartbreaker. What comes first, breaker or heartbreak? We can
check also through frequency. What we can think it can be the derivation
from one or the other, but it will not always be certain. And sometimes we
need to recur a resource to diachronical linguistics and to see what the
exact origin of the word was. OK. So this is the summary of the previous
section. And now we are going to go very briefly into the basic concepts of
the main approaches approaches to linguistic semantics. We have lexical
semantics and truth conditional semantics. Lexical semantics studies one
unit word unit, which is the lexicon. Words are considered to have meaning
on their own. And sentences from this approach are approached as
combinations of words. There are some problems. For instance, what happens
with empty words in it is raining or even there is nothing in the fridge?
This there is in lexical semantics, which deals with word meaning and
interplays with my fellow for interplays with morphology and deals with
word grammar. So both of them are. They're interconnected here in grammar
of the word and the lexicon. A word grammar is connected to a word meaning
word grammar where meaning and words are considered to have grammar on
their own. And however, these small words such as are considered empty
words are not part of the study of this discipline because. This is part of
the study of the other discipline, which is truth conditional semantics or
what is considered conditional formal semantics. Because here the unit of a
study is not the word on its own. It's the sentences. This doesn't mean
that lexical semantics doesn't approach sentences are that truth
conditional semantics doesn't approach words. It means that the main unit
of a study for each of them is different for the truth conditional
semantics. The main unit of the studies is sentences. And then the content
of words will be defined in terms of their contribution to the sentence. So
these empty words will have a function in the sentence and then they have a
right to live, let's say, to exist. And they are analyzed also in a through
formal semantics. And this is the discipline of semantics that is more
derived, mostly derived from formal logic and philosophy. And it's based on
the notion of truth. As philosophy or formal logic. So it is very different
from lexical semantics. Sometimes we can combine with both approaches or
both studies. But here I want you to see clearly the difference between the
both disciplines, because in the end and their their unit of analysis is so
different that everything that they study will be very, very different. If
we focus on lexical semantics, which is what we are going to study here. In
this course, in this course, we focus on lexical semantics basically and
especially in this unit because we are dealing with morphology. Morphology
is word grammar, which is what lexical semantics also studies sometimes
from another point of view. They will focus on words and word boundaries.
So there are some concepts that are important for you to know, which are
these ones. Lexin, stem and lemma. So let's see the definitions of each of
these concepts. Word is a lexical item. When we read somewhere this lexical
item, lexical item or lexical unit is synonym of word. And it is a concrete
and specific unit of morphological analysis. We have some examples, car,
driver, sun, sunny. Here are lexical items. And we analyze the word as an
entity. And as an independent entity. Then we have lexin, which is a basic
lexical unit of language. And it can be one or several words. It is not
concrete. It is abstract unit of lexical analysis. For instance, drive is
the lexin of several words of driver, driving, drives. So it is abstract.
It is abstract because it contains within this drive all the possible
formations of a lexical unit which has the base drive. And in order to
distinguish lexin from a word, we use notice that we use capital letters.
So for lexin, we will use capital letters in order to distinguish from the
word. And then we have lemma also. Lemma is the canonical form, a
dictionary form or citation form of a set of words that is of a lexin. So a
lemma is how we cite that lexin. How we cite that word. How we put it in
the dictionary. And it has a special significance in highly inflected
languages in order to observe word formation and inflectional processes. So
it is also very important for the process of dictionary writing or the
compilation of lexicographical, lexicological, terminological work. Because
the process of determining the lemma for a given lexin is called
lemmatization. Lemmatization. So when we have a group of words and then we
say, OK, this is the lexin. This is the lexin for drive is the lexin for
driver, driving, drive, drove, driven. These are all the possible forms of
the lexin drive. The idea of drive, the abstract unit lexin. How we are
going to put it in this terminological database. We are going to write
drive. It has to be the same. It's the same as in capital letters. In this
case, because we have decided that in order to cite that lexin, we are
going to use drive and we don't need to write it then in capital letters.
OK, we will lemmatize it and we will say the lemma of drive is drive and
we'll write it down. So it can be an inflected form. It is an inflected
form and is the head. OK, so it represents all the inflected word forms of
a given root. And it when used independently in a dictionary. And then we
have to distinguish between them. We have to distinguish between root and
stem because sometimes they are confused. Root is the central free morpheme
which has the content to which other bound morphemes are added so as to
form a word. And stem is the portion of strings that are common in all the
inflections of a word. So it is a form to which affixes can be attached. So
let's see an example. For instance, for the word drivers. Drivers. In the
word drivers, the lexin will be drive. In the case of a lexin for all
everything, it will be drive. But the lemma in this case is not drive. It
is driver because this is the word that we will include in the dictionary.
In the dictionary, besides the lexin, within the lexin drive. We have also
driver, driving, drive. So we have the derivates, etc. So how are we going
to... We will obtain different lemmas, many lemmas. One of the lemma in
this case from drivers, the one that comes exactly before is driver. Driver
has a position in the dictionary. It is a lemma for the dictionary. So the
lemma in this case is driver. The stem means it... The stem has to be a
free morphing. A free morphing, which is what this... Which is
especially... No, I mean... Yeah. The stem has to be also a free morphing.
But it is the most common word from which we will have all the derivations.
In this case, it will be driver. From driver, we have drivers. In this
case, or drivers or driver. Because... Especially in English, we don't have
the distinction of gender. We will have a plural distinction. It is not so
inflected as other language. So the stem will be driver. But the root...
The root is drive. From the root... So the root goes even before the stem.
Okay? Because from this root, this is the root from which all the lexemes,
the lemmas will stem. And from there, we will be able to establish the
base. So one thing is... The root is more connected to the idea of base.
The base of driver is drive. Okay? And from drive, without the e, we will
have driving, driver, drive, etc. Okay. Here you have some interesting
links which I would recommend you to check. Because it's a very, very
interesting database. Nowadays on the Internet, we have amazing amount of
those who are doing the final... The bachelor's thesis with me now, because
I always give you a document with database which contains hundreds of
applications to study meaning, corpus linguistics, related to corpus
linguistics. Lexical, linguistic terminology, terminography, etc. Apart
from this, we have, for instance, lexicologos is an example of a
comprehensive set of resources for the study of languages of the world. So
it's a very interesting resource if you are interested to check
morphological items from different languages of the world. Okay? As you can
see here, well, it is in French. But you probably... It is quite
understandable and also you can always translate it with DeepL or Google
Translate, etc. So I include that because it's a very interesting resource.
And then we have some theoretical context. Recent ones from Brandy, for
instance. Brandy says that the lexicon, which are theoretical concepts that
are interesting for you to also handle. Brandy talks about two kinds of
concepts within the lexicon of natural language. The two types of concepts
according to him are endocentric concepts or exocentric concepts. What is
the difference between them? First, endocentric concepts. Endocentric
concepts says that they are concepts whose identity depends on specific
lexical structures, which means that they are more language-specific. And
they provide the useful bridge between natural language and specialized
language between lexical and terminological research. So let's say that
endocentric concepts are more proper... Are studied among terminologists
and more... All those who study languages for specific purposes, specific
areas of language. Endocentric... Endo, as you know, means inside,
internal. For instance, interesting lexical structures would be how
Aboriginal languages of Australia express... The directions. Because I have
read somewhere that they have very specific prepositional... Prepositions
to mean, for instance, going up the mountains, surrounding the mountain.
Things like this that are specific of their languages because they have to
do with their reality. Okay? So this would be endocentric concepts. And
then we have exocentric concepts, which have... Who are deeply rooted in
the independent categorization of shared things of experience. It comes to
say that we have concepts that are universal, which are more universal. For
instance, the concept of mother are more cross-linguistic. The concept of
father, the concept of mother, the concept of death, the concept of being
born. These type of concepts are... Exocentric concepts. Cross-linguistic,
cross-cultural, and they are more related to universal categories. Okay?
And then we have this... Schema, which is a very simple schema. It's
adapted from Dick, who was the founder of... You have probably seen this in
other courses. The founder of the theory of functional grammar. Afterwards,
followed by the Amsterdam school with Hengeveld, McKenzie, etc. And he...
In his book, his big blue book about the theory of functional grammar, in
the introduction, he has this schema, which is very visual and interesting.
He says that each level of linguistic analysis is contained by the next
one. Okay? So, phonology, which has to do with the sounds, phonology and
phonetics with sounds, will be also part of the study of morphology or is
included within the level of morphology. And then we will have syntax. From
syntax, we will go to semantics, and from semantics, we will go to
pragmatics. The more outside we go of the circle, the more we are connected
to the people, to the idiosyncrasies. Which means that all, for instance,
in phonology is more universal than morphology and is more universal
morphology than syntax, and syntax is more universal than semantics.
Semantics will include more endocentric concepts and pragmatics will be
much more endocentric. Phonology will be much more exocentric, which means,
for instance, clear example, all the languages in the world are based on
phonemes. And there are some phonemes that are universal and then there are
some languages that have phonemes that other languages don't have. But some
rules, such as the recursivity of language, that we have a limited amount
of sounds which form specific, an unlimited number of sentences, the shape
of our mouths and our vocal cords, etc. is universal. So phonology will be
much more universal even if it is expressed and manifested in different
languages in different ways than morphology. Still, morphology is quite
universal because there will be languages that are more inflective or less
inflective. There are different types of languages according to this, but
even though there are different types of derivation and levels of
inflection, we have certain phenomena that are quite universal such as
derivation, the evolution of language, language change, etc. So this has to
do with morphology. Syntax, you all know about Chomsky. Chomsky talked
about the universal grammar. Universal grammar, which is a grammar that we
all have inside because we are born with this capacity and languages
manifest this grammar in different ways. That's the surface structure, not
the deepest structure. But then we go to semantics. Semantics has to do
more with... is what gives us the idea that language is a conceptual
phenomenon, which I always say, because semantics has to do with capturing
the reality and putting names to that reality and making sense of that
reality. So in semantics, we will start analyzing the meaning of these
sentences and many times semantics will also have to do not only with
lexical semantics, which is the one that is more connected to word syntax,
but with formal semantics, which is more connected to truths. We'll
analyze... There are truths that are universal, there are truths, logical
semantics, etc. But we will also have, for instance, cognitive linguistics,
which has to do with proverbs, metaphors, the cognitive mechanisms that
help us structure the world in different ways and express it in different
ways, in a figurative way. So this has to do a lot with cultures. It is
more idiosyncratic. So the more we go outside the circle, the more it is
connected to different manifestations, cultural manifestations of
languages. And finally pragmatism, which has to do with how users use
language for their own... to mark their own benefit, intention and meaning.
It's totally idiosyncratic and cultural based. So the more outside the
circle we go, the more idiosyncratic manifestations of language we have,
the more inside the circle, the more universal and idiosyncratic concepts
we will have. Okay? It is adapted here because I included these arrows,
meaning that in this case, it's not only that syntax is over morphology, it
is that morphology... Because depending on the environment, there is an
inflectional derivation, inflection in languages, which is morphology,
influences a lot on the word order. We will see this in unit three. A
language that is highly inflected, which has a lot of... It means that the
language includes most grammatical information themselves. For instance, in
Spanish compared to English, we have a very lax word order compared to
English because our words already give grammatical information to the
sentence. However, the syntax of English sometimes is more fixed because
the words have lost their inflectional capacity and they are more neutral.
They say they don't show gender. Many times they don't even show gender.
They show plural. So when a language is not inflected at all, when there
are languages that have no inflection, then we need to give the grammar of
the word, the meaning, the structure is taken over by syntax. That's why I
say that it is interconnected because depending on the morphology, the
syntax of a language will be much more strict or less. And here we have the
units of analysis, being more specific. For instance, in graphemes, in
graphics, the subsystem, phonemes and phonemes for phonology, morphology
studies morphemes and base morphemes suffixes. Then we have syntax, which
studies the arrangements of words into phrases, clauses and sentences, the
word order, and then semantics, which expresses meanings. And here we have
already an analysis of morphemes, lexeme phrases when we talk about lexical
semantics. Okay? So semantics, let's say that also takes a lot from
morphology, especially because words contain meaning. Okay? How do we find
morphology in dictionaries? Well, in the fields of computational
linguistics and applied linguistics, a morphological dictionary is a
linguistic resource that contains correspondences between surface form and
lexical forms of words. So we have, we can't have morphological
dictionaries. Okay? So surface forms of words are those found in natural
language text and the corresponding lexical forms of a surface form is the
lemma followed by grammatical information. Okay. So for instance, in
English, give, gives, giving, gave, and given are surface forms of the verb
give. This is a definition of Wikipedia. The lexical form would be give,
verb. There are two kinds of morphological dictionaries. Morphine-aligned
dictionaries and full-form dictionaries. I recommend you check this
webpage. I always say that we have to stop demonizing Wikipedia as a source
of knowledge because Wikipedia contains a lot of useful information. The
only thing we need to do is to be critical on what we find. And if we see
that there are that the page is not well written, it has mistakes, the
sources are not really serious, then we can have some doubts about this
page. But nowadays, knowledge is everywhere. And it's not about going to a
specific source that is going to ensure that this has high quality.
Sometimes we can find good quality in a magazine, in a journal, in a mass
media journal, but we need to develop some criteria that helps us
distinguish what has quality and what has not quality. Okay? So, for
instance, in this case, the definition of a morphological dictionary is
interesting in Wikipedia. Here is just an example of all the amount of
lexicological resources that we can have. But there are many, many, many.
We have British National Corpus, which is for corpora, Linguistic Data
Consortium, the SELEX corpus. Unfortunately, it is not free anymore. The
English corpora, we have for English corpora, we have the CORCA corpus,
Corpus of Contemporary American English. We have a database for Old
English, which is called NERFUS, created in the University of La Rioja.
WordNet, Lexilogos. There are many, many, many, many, many. I recommend you
go and check in order to put this into practice just to see the usefulness
of them, to navigate on all the... And I also invite you to look for other
sources, obviously, as many as you can and see whether you can understand
them, whether you cannot understand them. As I said, nowadays we have
hundreds of resources and as happens with knowledge, the important thing is
to be able to be critical on what we find and be able to identify good
quality from low quality. But all these resources are always developed by
universities. So in the case of lexicological resources, the most important
is to invest some time in checking them and seeing how they work and
applying our theoretical knowledge, what we have seen here, to using them,
okay? To being able to use them and to see how we can make a use of them,
which is very... It comes with time. I have made use in the past of the
British National Corpus for my master's thesis. I used it. There are very
simple searches that you can do in the COCA corpus also. It's a very
interesting corpus. Normally these databases and these resources give
instructions for use. So they tell you how to make a search, how to combine
them, And the interesting thing is first to think about your research
project, what you are interested in seeing. For instance, oh, I want to see
how many iterations this word has or I want to see if this word is used
more frequently in combination with I don't know which other word or in
combination with this other word. I want to see how frequent this specific
insult is used by TV comedians. Or I want to see how much use this word is
given in formal context or in an informal context, etc. The interesting
thing of CORPA is that we have all kinds of texts and then you can see the
source of the text. So the research questions that you can make to your are
amazing. So amazingly big. There is so much choice and I recommend you go,
you check and if you have some doubts and you have more interest in knowing
how to make use of a specific lexicological or lexicographical resource,
just write in the forum and then I will be happy to help. Okay, that was
all by now. Thank you for watching till now. Bye.