Chapter 4: Morphology

disappointment
dis- 
 
appoint
-ment 
lexical bound lexical free 
lexical bound 
prefix
base
V
suffix
N
unemployment 
un- 
 
employ
-ment 
lexical bound lexical free 
lexical bound 
prefix
base
V
suffix
N
armchair 
arm 
 
chair 
N 
N 
paperback 
paper
back 
N 
N 
trade union leader 
trade 
 
union
lead 
 
-er 
lexical free 
lexical free 
lexical free 
lexical bound 
N 
N 
base
V
suffix
N
Morphological structure: The descriptions in Table 4.4 fall short of accomplishing the 
mission of teasing apart things that look similar but are in fact different. Consider the two 
examples disappointment and unemployment. Table 4.4 renders identical analyses in terms of 
morphological forms for these two nouns. However, these analyses conceal the fact that the 

---

13 
two nouns differ with regard to their internal constituent structure, i.e. with regard to the 
question as to which elements belong together more closely than others. Looking at 
unemployment first, you will realize that here the suffix belongs more closely to the base than 
the prefix does, because the verb *to unemploy which would have to serve as a base for the 
suffixation does not exist. The formation history, so to speak, must therefore be employ  
employment  unemployment. This means, as is shown in Figure 4.3, that employ and -ment 
are so-called immediate constituents. For disappointment, the situation is different. Here it is 
much more likely that the prefix was added to the base first, yielding the verb to disappoint, 
with the suffix being added in a second step, since the noun appointment does not seem to be 
semantically related to disappointment. The morphological structures of the two nouns thus 
differ, as is shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Comparing the morphological structures of unemployment and disappointment 
un 
employ ment 
 
dis 
appoint ment 
pfx 
V 
sfx 
pfx 
V 
sfx 
Adequate descriptions of the morphological structures of complex lexemes require even more 
information, however. The two compounds armchair and paperback, which are identical in 
terms of morphological form and immediate constituents, lend themselves to an illustration of 
this aspect. In the case of armchair, the first constituent arm modifies the second constituent 
chair. Both grammatically and semantically, chair can be considered the head of the 
compound, while arm functions as a modifier. A suitable paraphrase of the meaning of this 
compound could begin with the head and add the extra information provided in the modifier: 
„a chair that has arms‟. An analogous paraphrase is clearly impossible for paperback, since 
the meaning of this word is certainly not „a back that is made from paper‟ but rather „a book 
that has a back made from paper‟. This indicates that the head of the compound paperback is 
not back but could be book despite the fact that this is not part of the morphological form of 
paperback. The exemplary comparison of the two modifier-head structure reveals that 
armchair and paperback are not two of a kind and should therefore not be lumped together.
The distinction between modifier and head is an important general descriptive principle in 
word-formation, which, just like the idea of immediate constituents, has been taken over from 

---

14 
syntax. As in syntactic structures, in English it is generally the case that in complex lexemes 
modifiers also precede heads. Heads are therefore the right-most constituents of complex 
lexemes and determine their word-classes. In the fairly complex formation trade union leader 
it is the last constituent -er which marks the whole unit as a noun. Furthermore, again as in the 
syntactic analysis of sentences, in the morphological analysis of complex lexemes we 
generally strive for a binary, i.e. two-way branching of constructions into immediate 
constituents. Lexemes consisting of more than three morphemes can usually be accounted for 
by several hierarchical layers of binary modifier-head combinations. This is shown in the 
exemplary analysis given in Figure 4.4, which demonstrates the whole scope of the analysis in 
terms of morphological form and structure: 
Figure 4.4: Illustration of description in terms of morphological form and structure: trade 
union leader 
Mod 
H 
Mod 
H 
Mod 
H 
 
trade 
 
union 

lead 
 
er 
N 
N 
V
sfx 
While the analytical steps described so far already go a long way towards an adequate account 
of complex lexemes, they do not yet tell the whole story. What is needed to obtain the full 
picture is a description of the internal semantic structure of complex lexemes, including the 
semantic relations between the constituents. Consider as a first illustration the compounds 
given in (1), all of which have the noun chair as head. Using the system set up so far, you 
would be able to come up with a number of interesting observations: that all of these 
compounds consist of two free lexical morphemes; that they all represent a modifier-head 
structure; and that high chair and swivel chair differ from the rest of the group in that they 
have an adjective and a verb respectively as modifiers, rather than a noun. This account would 
miss out on important further differences, however, which concern the semantic relations 
linking the constituents of these compounds. As we have seen, the meaning of armchair can 
be paraphrased as „a chair that has arms‟, indicating that the relation between arm and chair 
can be described as a possessive or part-whole one. As is pointed out in (1), however, the 
other compounds in the list encode distinctly different semantic relations, including 
comparison, identity and others: 

---

15 
(1) 
armchair: 
„a chair that has arms‟
 
POSSESSION
/