Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Phonetic relatedness

Clear Intermediate Unclear

Semantic relatedness

Erase Sheep Cat


Clear
Eraser Shepherd Kitten

Wonder Fable Beard


Intermediate
wonderful Fabulous Barber

Ear Gypsy Lean


Unclear
Eerie (spooky) Egyptian Ladder
 The proposal that the writer put in this section is one of which He has
advanced in a number of publication and it is controversial. The proposal is
that no underlier may be more abstract than is required to handle productive
process. Only productive processes should be handled by rules. Non-
productive processes should not be acknowlwdged in the grammar but their
products listed separately in the lexicon.

A PROPOSAL FOR LIMITING


ABSTRACTNESS
 the process such as names with –on /ən/ in
their last syllable are pronounced /əʊn/ when
 forms like foot and ped would, the suffix –ian is added to produce an
correspondingly, not be derived from a adjective from those names is condered still
single underlier: they would not be a productive one. So, if Mr. Robinson left a
considered to be allomorphs of the same bequest to fund an art gallery, it might well
morpheme. As a result, FOOT and PEDAL be called Robinsonian Gallery, pronounced
can be considered separate lexemes, related /rɒbɪnsənɪən/. The underlier for a name like
in meaning but not related in the Robinson, thus, has to be abstract enough to
morphology allow this allomorphy by rule, and Robinson
and Robinsonian are related by the
morphology in a grammar
phonosthemes. Bump, compounds, idioms,
clump, dump, jump, familiar proverbs or
thump quotations

 Phonological  Syntactic
 Semantic  Etymological

alsatian, corgi, dachshund,


a relationship between predict, prefer,
labrador, and poodle resonate
presume, and pretend
because they are all names for
dogs

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?