Root (linguistics)

"Root word" and "etymon" redirect here. For root words in Indo-European languages, see Proto-Indo-European root word. For the study of word origins, see Etymology.

Core of a word

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Root" linguistics – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|

A root (also known as a root word or radical) is the core of a word that is irreducible into more meaningful elements.[1] In morphology, a root is a morphologically simple unit which can be left bare or to which a prefix or a suffix can attach.[2][3] The root word is the primary lexical unit of a word, and of a word family (this root is then called the base word), which carries aspects of semantic content and cannot be reduced into smaller constituents. Content words in nearly all languages contain, and may consist only of, root morphemes. However, sometimes the term "root" is also used to describe the word without its inflectional endings, but with its lexical endings in place. For example, chatters has the inflectional root or lemma chatter, but the lexical root chat. Inflectional roots are often called stems. A root, or a root morpheme, in the stricter sense, is a mono-morphemic stem. An etymon is the root word in a proto-language from which the descendant forms arose.

The traditional definition allows roots to be either free morphemes or bound morphemes. Root morphemes are the building blocks for affixation and compounds. However, in polysynthetic languages with very high levels of inflectional morphology, the term "root" is generally synonymous with "free morpheme". Many languages have a very restricted number of morphemes that can stand alone as a word: Yup'ik, for instance, has no more than two thousand.

Roots are sometimes notated using the radical symbol ⟨√⟩ to avoid potential conflation with other objects of analysis with similar spellings or pronunciation:[4] for instance, √bhū- specifically denotes the Sanskrit root bhū-.

## Examples

[edit]

This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)

This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.
Find sources: "Root" linguistics – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2024)

|

This section needs expansion with: examples and additional citations. You can help by adding to it. (June 2024)

|

(Learn how and when to remove this message)

English verb form running contains the root run. The Spanish superlative adjective amplísimo contains the root ampli-. In the former case, the root can occur on its own freely. In the latter, modification via affixation is required to be used as a free form. English has minimal use of morphological strategies such as affixation and features a tendency to have words that are identical to their roots. However, such forms as in Spanish exist in English such as interrupt, which may arguably contain the root -rupt, which only appears in other related prefixed forms (such as disrupt, corrupt, rupture, etc.). The form -rupt cannot occur on its own.

Examples of (consonantal roots) which are related but distinct to the concept developed here are formed prototypically by three (as few as two and as many as five) consonants. Speakers may derive and develop new words (morphosyntactically distinct, i.e. with different parts of speech) by using non-concatenative morphological strategies: inserting different vowels. Unlike 'root' here, these cannot occur on their own without modification; as such these are never actually observed in speech and may be termed 'abstract'. For example, in Hebrew, the forms derived from the abstract consonantal roots, a major Hebrew phonetics concept ג-ד-ל (g-d-l) related to ideas of largeness: gadol and gdola (masculine and feminine forms of the adjective "big"), gadal "he grew", higdil "he magnified" and magdelet "magnifier", along with many other words such as godel "size" and migdal "tower".

Roots and reconstructed roots can become the tools of etymology.[5]

## Secondary roots

[edit]

Secondary roots are roots with changes in them, producing a new word with a slightly different meaning. In English, a rough equivalent would be to see a conductor as a secondary root formed from the root to conduct. In abjad languages, the most familiar are Arabic and Hebrew, in which families of secondary roots are fundamental to the language, secondary roots are created by changes in the roots' vowels, by adding or removing the long vowels a, i, u, e and o. (Notice that Arabic does not have the vowels e and o.) In addition, secondary roots can be created by prefixing (m−, t−), infixing (−t−), or suffixing (−i, and several others). There is no rule in these languages on how many secondary roots can be derived from a single root; some roots have few, but others have many, not all of which are necessarily in current use.

Consider the Arabic language:

* مركز [mrkz] or [markaza] meaning 'centralized (masculine, singular)', from [markaz] 'centre', from [rakaza] 'plant into the earth, stick up (a lance)' ( ر-ك-ز | r-k-z). This in turn has derived words مركزي [markaziy], meaning 'central', مركزية [markaziy:ah], meaning 'centralism' or 'centralization', and لامركزية, [la:markaziy:ah] 'decentralization'.[6]
* أرجح [rjh] or [ta'arjaħa] meaning 'oscillated (masculine, singular)', from ['urju:ħa] 'swing (n)', from [rajaħa] 'weighed down, preponderated (masculine, singular)' ( ر-ج-ح | r-j-ħ).
* محور [mhwr] or [tamaħwara] meaning 'centred, focused (masculine, singular)', from [mihwar] meaning 'axis', from [ħa:ra] 'turned (masculine, singular)' (ح-و-ر | h-w-r).
* مسخر [msxr], تمسخر [tamasxara] meaning 'mocked, made fun (masculine, singular)', from مسخرة [masxara] meaning 'mockery', from سخر [saxira] 'mocked (masculine, singular)' (derived from س-خ-ر[s-x-r])."[7] Similar cases may be found in other Semitic languages such as Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic, Maltese language and to a lesser extent Amharic.

Similar cases occur in Hebrew, for example Israeli Hebrew מ-ק-מ √m-q-m 'locate', which derives from Biblical Hebrew מקום måqom 'place', whose root is ק-ו-מ √q-w-m 'stand'. A recent example introduced by the Academy of the Hebrew Language is מדרוג midrúg 'rating', from מדרג midrág, whose root is ד-ר-ג √d-r-g 'grade'."[7]

According to Ghil'ad Zuckermann, "this process is morphologically similar to the production of frequentative (iterative) verbs in Latin, for example:

* iactito 'to toss about' derives from iacto 'to boast of, keep bringing up, harass, disturb, throw, cast, fling away', which in turn derives from iacio 'to throw, cast' (from its past participle iactum).[7]

Consider also Rabbinic Hebrew ת-ר-מ √t-r-m 'donate, contribute' (Mishnah: T'rumoth 1:2: 'separate priestly dues'), which derives from Biblical Hebrew תרומה t'rūmå 'contribution', whose root is ר-ו-מ √r-w-m 'raise'; cf. Rabbinic Hebrew ת-ר-ע √t-r-' 'sound the trumpet, blow the horn', from Biblical Hebrew תרועה t'rū'å 'shout, cry, loud sound, trumpet-call', in turn from ר-ו-ע √r-w-'."[7] and it describes the suffix.

## Category-neutral roots

[edit]

Decompositional generative frameworks suggest that roots hold little grammatical information and can be considered "category-neutral".[8] Category-neutral roots are roots without any inherent lexical category but with some conceptual content that becomes evident depending on the syntactic environment.[8] The ways in which these roots gain lexical category are discussed in Distributed Morphology and the Exoskeletal Model.

Theories adopting a category-neutral approach have not, as of 2020, reached a consensus about whether these roots contain a semantic type but no argument structure,[9] neither semantic type nor argument structure,[10] or both semantic type and argument structure.[11]

In support of the category-neutral approach, data from English indicates that the same underlying root appears as a noun and a verb - with or without overt morphology.[8]

* English examples - overt[8] Root | Noun | Verb

|
|

advertise | an advertisement | to advertise
character | a character | to characterize
employ | an employment | to employ
alphabet | an alphabet | to alphabetize
* English Examples - Covert[8] Root | Noun | Verb

|
|

dance | a dance | to dance
walk | a walk | to walk
chair | a chair | to chair
wardrobe | a wardrobe | to wardrobe

In Hebrew, the majority of roots consist of segmental consonants √CCC. Arad (2003) describes that the consonantal root is turned into a word due to pattern morphology. Thereby, the root is turned into a verb when put into a verbal environment where the head bears the "v" feature (the pattern).[12]

Consider the root √š-m-n (ש-מ-נ).

Root √š-m-n (ש-מ-נ) in Hebrew[12] Pattern | Pronounced word | Gloss

|
|

CeCeC (n) | šemen | oil, grease
CaCCeCet (n) | šamenet | cream
CuCaC (n), CaCeC (adj) | šuman, šamen | fat
hiCCiC (v) | hišmin | grow fat/fatten
CiCCeC (n) | šimen | grease

Although all words vary semantically, the general meaning of a greasy, fatty material can be attributed to the root.

Furthermore, Arad states that there are two types of languages in terms of root interpretation. In languages like English, the root is assigned one interpretation whereas in languages like Hebrew, the root can form multiple interpretations depending on its environment. This occurrence suggests a difference in language acquisition between these two languages. English speakers would need to learn two roots in order to understand two different words whereas Hebrew speakers would learn one root for two or more words.[12]

Root comparison between English and Hebrew (adapted from "Syntactic Categorization of Roots"[8])  English Root | English Word | Hebrew Root | Hebrew Word | Gloss

|
|
|
|

√CREAM | cream | √š-m-n ש-מ-נ | šamenet | 'cream'
√FAT | fat | šuman (n), šamen (adj) | 'fat'

Alexiadou and Lohndal (2017) advance the claim that languages have a typological scale when it comes to roots and their meanings and state that Greek lies in between Hebrew and English.[13]

## See also

[edit]

* Etymology
* Lemma (morphology)
* Lexeme
* Morphological typology
* Morphology (linguistics)
* Phono-semantic matching
* Principal parts
* Proto-Indo-European root
* Radical (Chinese character)
* Semitic root
* Word family
* Word stem

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Katamba, Francis (2006). Morphology (2nd ed.). Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 42\. ISBN 9781403916440.
2. ^ "Root". Glossary of Linguistic Terms. 3 December 2015.
3. ^ Kemmer, Suzanne. "Words in English: Structure". Words in English. Retrieved 26 December 2018.
4. ^ Bisang, Walter (2023). "Levels of Analysis and Word Classes (Root, Stem, Word)". In van Lier, Eva (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Word Classes. Oxford University Press. p. 67, n. 35. ISBN 978-0-19-259436-5.

Cites Pesetsky, David Michael (1995). Zero Syntax. MIT Press. p. 70\. ISBN 978-0-262-16145-9.
5. ^ Compare: Durkin, Philip (2009). "8: Semantic change". The Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press (published 2011). p. xciv. ISBN 9780191618789. Retrieved 2017-11-10. "In etymological reconstruction at the level of proto-languages, it is customary to reconstruct roots, which are assigned glosses, reflecting what is taken to be the common meaning shown by the words derived from this root."
6. ^ Wehr, Hans (1976). Cowan, J Milton (ed.). Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (PDF) (3rd ed.). Ithaca, N.Y.: Spoken Language Services. p. 358. ISBN 0-87950-001-8. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
7. ^ a b c d Zuckermann, Ghil'ad 2003, Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew Archived 2014-02-01 at the Wayback Machine, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-1723-X. pp 65–66.
8. ^ a b c d e f Lohndal, Terje (28 February 2020). "Syntactic Categorization of Roots". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.257. hdl:11250/2644577. ISBN 978-0-19-938465-5.
9. ^ Levinson, Lisa (27 November 2014). "The ontology of roots and verbs". The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax: 208–229\. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0010. ISBN 978-0199665273.
10. ^ Acquaviva, Paolo (May 2009). "Roots and Lexicality in Distributed Morphology". York Papers in Linguistics. 2 (10). University of York. Department of Language and Linguistic Science. hdl:10197/4148.
11. ^ Coon, Jessica (1 February 2019). "Building verbs in Chuj: Consequences for the nature of roots". Journal of Linguistics. 55 (1): 35–81\. doi:10.1017/S0022226718000087. S2CID 149423392.
12. ^ a b c Arad, Maya (2003). "Locality Constraints on the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew Denominal Verbs". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 21 (4): 737–778\. doi:10.1023/A:1025533719905. S2CID 35715020.
13. ^ Alexiadou, Artemis; Lohndal, Terje (18 May 2017). "On the division of labor between roots and functional structure". The Verbal Domain. 1. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767886.003.0004. hdl:10037/19837.

## External links

[edit]

* Virtual Salt Root words and prefixes
* Espindle – Greek and Latin Root Words Archived 2008-09-13 at the Wayback Machine

Authority control databases: National |

* Japan

|