Word Segmentability

Segmentable words are those allowing of segmentation into morphemes,

e.g. information, unputdownable, silently

Non-segmentable words are those not allowing of such segmentation, e.g. boy, wife, call.

Three types of segmentation of words:

ü complete

ü conditional

ü defective

Complete segmentability is characteristic of words whose morphemic structure is transparent enough as their individual morphemes clearly stand out within the word lending themselves easily to isolation. Its constituent morphemes recur with the same meaning in many other words, e.g. establish ment, agree ment.

Conditional morphemic segmentability characterizes words whose segmentation into constituent morphemes is doubtful for semantic reasons,

e.g. In the words retain, detain, or receive, deceive the sound-clusters [ri], [di], on the one hand, can be singled out quite easily due to their recurrence in a number of words, on the other hand, they have nothing in common with the phonetically identical morphemes re-. de- as found in words like rewrite, reorganize, decode, deurbanize; Neither the sound-clusters [ri], [di] nor the sound-clusters [-tein], [si:v]have any lexical or functional meaning of their own.

The morphemes making up words of complete segmentability do not reach the full status of morphemes for the semantic reason. They are called pseudomorphemes or quasimorphemes.

Defective morphemicsegmentability is the property of words whose unique morphemic components seldom or never recur in other words,

e.g. cranberry, gooseberry, strawberry.

Defective morphemic segmentability is obvious due to the fact that the morphemes cran-, goose-, straw- are unique morphemes.

Thus, on the level of morphemic analysis there are two types of elementary units: full morphemes and pseudo- (quasi-)morphemes.

A great number of words of conditional and defective segmentability reveal a complex nature of the morphological system of the English language, representing various heterogeneous layers in its vocabulary.