36(Rus)semi-composite sen-se

both composite and semi-composite sentences are polypredicative syntactic constructions: they have two or more predicative lines. The difference between the two is in the degree of independence of predicative lines: in a composite sentence the predicative lines are expressed separately, they are fully predicative, each with a subject and a predicate (expressed by a finite form of the verb) of its own; in a semi-composite sentence the predicative lines are fused, blended, with at least one predicative line being semi-predicative (potentially predicative, partially predicative). In other words, in a semi-composite sentence, one predicative line can be identified as the leading, or dominant one, and the others are semi-predicative expansions.

Paradigmatically, the semi-composite sentence, being a polypredicative construction, is derived from two base sentences. For example: I saw her entering the room. ß I saw her. + She was entering the room. The second kernel sentence has been phrasalized, transformed into a participial phrase (her entering the room), and combined with the first sentence. The two predicative lines fuse, overlapping around the common element, her, which performs the function of the object of the leading, fully predicative part.

Thus, the semi-composite sentence can be defined as a syntactic construction of an intermediary type between the composite sentence and the simple sentence: in its “surface”, syntactic structure, it is similar to a simple sentence, because it contains only one fully predicative line; in its “deep”, semantic structure and in its derivational history, the semi-composite sentence is similar to a composite sentence, because it is derived from two base sentences and reflects two dynamic situations.

Semantically, the semi-composite sentence reflects the speaker’s presentation of two situationally connected events as being more closely united than the events described in the clauses of a composite sentence: one of the events (usually, the one in the semi-predicative semi-clause) is presented as a by-event, as a background situation in relation to the other, dominant event (usually, the one in the fully predicative semi-clause).

Semi-composite sentences, like composite sentences of complete composition (pleni-composite), are further subdivided into semi-compound sentences, built on the principle of coordination (parataxis), and semi-complex sentences, built on the principle of subordination (hypotaxis).

In the semi-complex sentence, one kernel sentence functions as a matrix into which the insert kernel sentence is embedded: the insert sentence is transformed into a partially predicative phrase and occupies the position of a nominative part in the matrix sentence. The matrix sentence becomes the dominant part of the semi-complex sentence and the insert sentence becomes its subordinate semi-clause.

Predicative fusion in semi-complex sentences may be effected in two ways: by the process of position-sharing (word-sharing) or by the process of direct linear expansion.

Sentences based on position-sharing fall into two types: sentences of subject-sharing and sentences of object-sharing. Semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of two base sentences overlapping round a common subject, e.g.: They married young. ß They married. + They were young. The predicate in such sentences is defined as a double predicate, because it is a blend of a verbal predicate with a nominal predicate. Semi-complex sentences with double predicates express the simultaneity of two events, with the informative prominence on the semi-predicative complicator part; this can be shown by the transformation of the sentence into a correspondent complex (pleni-complex) sentence, cf.: When they married, they were young. Another type of the semi-complex sentence of subject-sharing is sentences which include the so-called complex subject constructions; in these sentences, the verb in the dominant part is used in the passive, and the complicator part includes either a participle, or an infinitive, e.g.: She was seen to enter the room / entering the room. Sentences with complex subject constructions, as was mentioned in Unit 11, are passive transforms of sentences with complex object constructions, which make up another type of sentences based on position-sharing.

In semi-complex sentences of object-sharing, the common element, round which the fully-predicative and the semi-predicative parts overlap, performs the function of an object in the leading part (the matrix) and the function of the subject in the complicator semi-clause (the insert); for example, in sentences with complex object constructions, which include either a participle, or an infinitive, e.g.: I saw her entering/ enter the room. ß I saw her. + She was entering the room. Such sentences express the simultaneity of two events in the same place (with verbs of perception in the dominant part) or various mental attitudes (with the verbs to tell, to report, to think, to believe, to find, to expect, etc. in the dominant part). There are other types of object-sharing semi-complex sentences, expressing the relations of cause and result, e.g.: The fallen rock knocked him unconscious. ß The fallen rock knocked him. + He became unconscious. Some causative verbs and verbs of liking/disliking are not normally used outside of semi-complex sentences of object-sharing; such complex sentences can be described as sentences of “bound” object-sharing, e.g.: They made me leave; We made him a star; I had my hair done; I want the room done; I like my steaks raw. Most semi-complex sentences of the object-sharing type, though not all of them, are transformable into sentences of the subject-sharing type, cf.: I saw her entering/ enter the room. à She was seen entering / to enter the room; The fallen rock knocked him unconscious.à He was knocked unconscious by the fallen rock. As the examples show, the complicator part in semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing and of object-sharing may include non-finite forms of the verb (the infinitive, participle I or participle II), nouns or adjectives.

Semi-complex sentences of direct linear expansion include sentences with attributive, adverbial and nominal complication. Semi-complex sentences of attributive complication are built up by means of two base sentences, one of which is transformed into a semi-predicative post-positional attribute to the antecedent element in the matrix sentence, e.g.: The girl crying in the hall looked familiar to me. ß The girl looked familiar to me. + The girl was crying. The shared semantic element performs the function of a subject in the insert sentence, which is dropped out in the process of semi-clausaliation (de-predication); in the matrix sentence it may perform any substantive function (it is a subject in the example above). Being linear expansions, attributive semi-clauses are easily restored to the related attributive pleni-clauses with verbal or nominal predicates, e.g.: The girl crying in the hall looked familiar to me. ß The girl, who was crying in the hall, looked familiar to me; You behave like a schoolboy afraid of his teacher. ß You behave like a schoolboy who is afraid of his teacher.Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences, one of which, the insert sentence, is predicatively reduced (phrasalized) and embedded into an adverbial position of the other one, the matrix sentence, e.g.: When asked about her family, she blushed.ß She was asked about her family. + She blushed. Adverbial complication can be either conjoint or absolute: if the subject of the insert sentence is identical with the subject of the matrix sentence, it is deleted and a conjoint adverbial semi-clause is built, as in the example above; otherwise, the subject remains and an absolute adverbial construction is built, e.g.: The weather being fine, we decided to have a walk. ß The weather was fine. + We decided to have a walk; I won’t speak with him staring at me like that. ß I won’t speak. + He is staring at me. The partial predicate in an adverbial semi-clause is expressed by a participle (in so-called participial adverbial constructions), or is dropped, if it is the pure link verb to be (except for impersonal sentences, in which the verb to be is not deleted), e.g.: A child of seven, he was already an able musician. ß He was a child of seven. + He was already an able musician; I can’t sleep with the radio on. ß The radio is on. + I can’t sleep.

Semi-complex sentences of nominal complication are derived from two base sentences, one of which, the insert sentence, is partially nominalized (changed into a verbid phrase with an infinitive or a gerund) and embedded in one of the nominal positions of the other sentence, the matrix. Like other types of linear complication, infinitive and gerundial nominal semi-clauses are easily transformed into related fully-predicative subordinate clauses (nominal or adverbial), e.g.: I sent the papers in order for you to study them carefully before the meeting. à I sent the papers so that you could study them carefully before the meeting; We expected him to write a letter to you. à We expected that he would write a letter to you. The specific features of nominal semi-clauses are connected with the specific features of the infinitive and the gerund (see Unit 11); for example, the infinitive after a subordinative conjunction implies modal meanings of obligation, possibility, etc., e.g.: The question is what to do next. à The question is what we should do next; I sent the papers in order for you to study them carefully before the meeting. à I sent the papers so that you could study them carefully before the meeting; or, gerundial nominal constructions may be introduced by prepositions and may include a noun in the genitive or a possessive pronoun, e.g.: I can’t approve of his hiding himself away.

The semi-compound sentence, as was mentioned above, is a semi-composite sentence built on the principle of coordination (parataxis). Paradigmatically, the semi-compound sentence is built by two or more base sentences, which have an identical subject or an identical predicate (or both); in the process of semi-compounding, the two predicative lines overlap around the common element, the other principal parts being coordinated. For example, sentences with coordinated (homogeneous) predicates are derived from two or more base sentences having identical subjects; they build a poly-predicate subject-sharing type of semi-compound sentence, e.g.: She entered the room and closed the door behind her. ß She entered the room. + She closed the door behind her. One of the base sentences, as the example shows, becomes the leading clause of the semi-compound sentence, and the other one is transformed into the sequential coordinate semi-clause (expansion), referring to the same subject.

As for coordinated homogeneous subjects referring to the same predicate (building a poly-subject predicate-sharing type of semi-compound sentence), not all of them build separate predicative lines, but only those which are discontinuously positioned, or those which are connected adversatively, or contrastingly, or are detached in some other way, e.g.: Tom is participating in this project, and Jack too; Tom, not Jack, is participating in this project.ß Tom is participating in this project. + Jack is (not) participating in this project. Coordinated subjects connected in a plain syntagmatic string (syndetically or asyndetically) do not form separate predicative lines with the predicate, but are connected with it as a group subject; this is shown by the person and number form of the predicate, cf.: Tom and Jack are participating in this project.

The coordinative connections between the parts of semi-compound sentences are the same as the connections in compound sentences proper: unmarked coordination is expressed by the purely copulative conjunction and or by the zero coordinator; marked coordination includes the relations of disjunction (alteration), consequence, elucidation, adversative relations, etc

Semi-compound sentences are transformable into related pleni-compound sentences with identical subjects or identical predicates, but such transformations show the functional differences between the two types of constructions. In particular, their actual division is different: the actual division of the compound sentence presents two informative perspectives joined in a complex, while the semi-compound sentence presents one perspective with a complex rheme. Besides, the repetition of an identical subject or predicate in a compound sentence makes it a communicatively intense, emotionally accented syntactic structure, cf.: I can’t work, I can’t think, I can’t be, because of me (Murdoch).

37(rus)-38-39 On the basis of the communicative direction of their component sentences, sentence sequences in speech are divided into monologue sequences and dialogue sequences. In a monologue, sentences are directed from one interlocutor (participant of communication) to another: from a speaker to a listener, or from an author to a reader, e.g.: Once upon a time there lived a beautiful princess. She had many suitors from far countries. In a dialogue, the sentences are directed from one interlocutor to another in turn, to meet one another, e.g.: “Who is absent today?” – “John.” “What’s the matter with him?” – “He is ill.” Traditionally, a monologue sequence of sentences united by a common topic is identified as the basic textual unit; it is called a “supra-phrasal unity” (the term of L. A. Bulakhovsky) or a “complex syntactic unity” (the term of N. S. Pospelov); a two-directed sequence of sentences is sometimes called a “dialogue unity”.

The elements of a dialogue can be used in a monologue text: for example, the author of the text can ask a question and answer it in his or her “inner dialogue” (also known in stylistics as “dramatic monologue”), e.g.: What can I do in this situation? Nothing whatsoever. And vice versa, one-direction sequences can be used in a dialogue, e.g.: “He is not a very nice person.” – “And he never was.” Dialogues can contain stretches of speech by a single speaker, which are actually monologues: descriptions, narrations, jokes, etc.

Thus, more consistent is the definition of the two types of sentence sequences on the basis of syntactic connections used: the supra-sentential construction of the one-direction communicative type is based on cumulation of sentences, so it can be defined as a cumulative sequence, or a “cumuleme”: the connections between the components of a dialogue sequence can be defined as “occursive” (from the Latin word “to meet”) and the supra-sentential construction based on occursive connections can be called an “occurseme”.

The occurseme as an element of the system occupies a place above the cumuleme: the occurseme can be built by separate sentences or by cumulative sequences. Both occursemes and cumulemes are topical textual entities.

Prospective or cataphoric cumulation presupposes the use of connective elements which relate the sentence in which they are used, to the sentence which follows. In other words, prospective connective elements make the preceding or leading sentence semantically incomplete; they signal that this sentence is to be semantically developed in the following, sequential sentence or sentences. E.g.: Let me tell you this. Jack will never let you down. In this cumulative sequence, the demonstrative pronoun this functions as a prospective connector. Among the other prospectives are: the following, as follows, the following thing (way), one thing, two things, etc.

Retrospective or anaphoric cumulation presupposes the use of connective elements relating the sentence in which they are used to the one that precedes it. In other words, retrospective (anaphoric) connectors make the sequential sentence dependent on the leading sentence of the sequence. E.g.: She was taken aback. However, she tried to pull herself together. Retrospective cumulation is the basic, the most neutral, and the most widely used type of text connection; prospective cumulation is much rarer, characteristic mostly of scientific and technical texts.

Conjunctive cumulation is achieved by functional or semi-functional conjunction-like words and word combinations: pure conjunctions (coordinative or subordinative), adverbial connectors, such as however, thus, yet, then, etc., or parenthetical connectors, such as firstly, secondly, on the one hand, on the other hand, in other words, as mentioned above, etc. Conjunctive cumulation is always retrospective (anaphoric).

Correlative cumulation is achieved by a pair of elements, one of which, the “succeedent”, refers to the other, the “antecedent”. Correlative cumulation may be either prospective or retrospective. Correlative cumulation can be divided into substitutional connection and representative connection. Substitutional correlation is based on the use of various substitutes, for example, pronouns, e.g.: I saw a girl. She looked very much upset; the girl is the antecedent of the pronoun she. The whole preceding sentence, or its clause, can be the antecedent of a correlative substitute, e.g.: We’re getting new machines next month. This (= this fact) will help us to increase productivity. Representative cumulation is achieved by elements which are semantically connected without the factor of replacement, e.g.: I saw a girl. Her face seemed familiar to me. Representative correlation includes repetition (so-called “repeated nomination”): simple lexical repetition or repetition complicated by different variations (by the use of synonyms, by certain semantic development, periphrasis, association, etc.), e.g.: I answered very sharply. My answer didn’t upset her.

Conjunctive and correlative types of cumulation are often used together in supra-sentential constructions.

Semantic unity and syntactic cohesion are supported by communicative unity of sentences, or theme-rheme arrangement (organization) of the cumuleme. As was mentionned, the role of actual division of the sentence in the forming of the text was first demonstrated by the linguists of the Prague linguistic school (F. Daneč, in particular). There are two basic types of theme-rheme arrangement of sentences in textual sequences: linear (progressive) connection and parallel connection of sentences. With linear connection of sentences, the rheme of the leading sentence becomes the theme of the sequential sentence, forming what is known as a theme-rheme chain, e.g.: There was a girl on the platform She was wearing a hat. The hat was decorated with flowers and ribbons. With parallel connection of sentences, the component sentences share the same theme within the supra-sentential construction, e.g.: George was an honest man. He had graduated from Harvard. He was a member of the American Academy of Arts. As was mentioned earlier, in Unit 1, a cumuleme (a cumulative supra-sentential construction) correlates with a separate sentence which is placed in the text in a topically significant position. Thus, the general elementary unit-segment of text built up by either a cumuleme or by a single sentence can be defined as a “dicteme” (from Latin ‘dicto’ ‘I speak’). The basic communicative function of the dicteme is topical. But the dicteme is polyfunctional; in the text, besides the topical function, it performs the functions of nomination, predication, and stylization: besides combining various lingual units into a topical unity, it names propositional events, refers them to reality, and regulates the choice of lingual units, appropriate for communication in specific conditions.

In oral text, dictemes are delimited intonationally: pauses between dictemes are longer than pauses between sentences within the same cumuleme. In written text, the dicteme is normally represented by a paragraph, but it must be noted that the two units are not identical. The paragraph is a unit of written speech delimited by a new (indented) line at the beginning and an incomplete line at the close[2]; it is a purely literary-compositional device. A paragraph can include more than one dicteme, or it may divide one dicteme into parts, for example, for the introduction of utterances in a dialogue or for the introduction of separate points in enumerations. Still, though the paragraph is not a strictly syntactic device, the borderlines between paragraphs are basically the same as the borderlines between dictemes. Both multidicteme paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs are stylistically marked features of the text.There are some syntactic constructions intermediary between the sentence and the sequence of sentences. The first one is known as parcellation: in a parcellated construction, the two parts are separated by a finalizing sentence tone in oral speech and by a full stop in written speech, but they relate to each other as parts of one and the same sentence, e.g.: I am always shy. With you. Parcellation can be treated as transposition of a sentence into a cumuleme; it adds some topical significance to the part parcellated. The second intermediary phenomenon is the result of transposing a cumuleme into a sentence when two or more semantically independent sentences are forced into one. This is characteristic of a casual manner of speech or, on the other hand, for prolonged literary passages; in written speech such constructions usually include semi-final punctuation marks, such as, for example, a semi-colon or brackets (see Unit 25; inner cumulation).

Dictemes and paragraphs are connected within the framework of larger elements of texts in various groupings, each of them being characterized by semantic (topical) unity and syntactic cohesion. A large text, or macro-text (pleni-text), united by a macro-topic, is semantically subdivided into smaller texts, or micro-texts (parti-texts), united by micro-topics; for example, a novel can be subdivided into parts, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. The smallest topical unit of this hierarchy is the dicteme.

4(rus) morphemic structure of word Stating the differences between the word and the morpheme, we have to admit that the correlation between the word and the morpheme is problematic. The borderlines between the morpheme and the word are by no means rigid and there is a set of intermediary units (half-words - half-morphemes), which form an area of transitions (a continuum) between the word and the morpheme as the polar phenomena. This includes the so-called “morpheme-like” functional, or auxiliary words, for example, auxiliary verbs and adverbs, articles, particles, prepositions and conjunctions: they are realized as isolated, separate units (their separateness being fixed in written practice) but perform various grammatical functions; in other words, they function like morphemes and are dependent semantically to a greater or lesser extent. Cf..: Jack’s, a boy, have done.This approach to treating various lingual units is known in linguistics as “a field approach”: polar phenomena possessing the unambiguous characteristic features of the opposed units constitute “the core”, or “the center” of the field, while the intermediary phenomena combining some of the characteristics of the poles make up “the periphery” of the field; e.g.: functional words make up the periphery of the class of words since their functioning is close to the functioning of morphemes. According to these criteria morphemes are divided into root-morphemes (roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). Roots express the concrete, “material” part of the meaning of the word and constitute its central part. Affixes express the specificational part of the meaning of the word: they specify, or transform the meaning of the root. Affixal specification may be of two kinds: of lexical or grammatical character. So, according to the semantic criterion affixes are further subdivided into lexical, or word-building (derivational) affixes, which together with the root constitute the stem of the word, and grammatical, or word-changing affixes, expressing different morphological categories, such as number, case, tense and others. With the help of lexical affixes new words are derived, or built; with the help of grammatical affixes the form of the word is changed.

According to the positional criterion affixes are divided into prefixes, situated before the root in the word, e.g.: under-estimate, and suffixes, situated after the root, e.g.: underestim-ate. Prefixes in English are only lexical: the word underestimate is derived from the word estimate with the help of the prefix under-. Suffixes in English may be either lexical or grammatical; e.g. in the word underestimates -ate is a lexical suffix, because it is used to derive the verb estimate (v) from the noun esteem (n), and –s is a grammatical suffix making the 3rd person, singular form of the verb to underestimate. Grammatical suffixes are also called inflexions (inflections, inflectional endings).

Grammatical suffixes in English have certain peculiarities, which make them different from inflections in other languages: since they are the remnants of the old inflectional system, there are few (only six) remaining word-changing suffixes in English: -(e)s, -ed, - ing, - er, - est, - en; most of them are homonymous, e.g. -(e)s is used to form the plural of the noun (dogs), the genitive of the noun (my friend’s), and the 3rd person singular of the verb (works); some of them have lost their inflectional properties and can be attached to units larger than the word, e.g.: his daughter Mary’s arrival. That is why the term “inflection” is seldom used to denote the grammatical components of words in English.

Lexical affixes are primarily studied by lexicology with regard to the meaning which they contribute to the general meaning of the whole word. In grammar word-building suffixes are studied as the formal marks of the words belonging to different parts of speech; they form lexical (word-building, derivational) paradigms of words united by a common root, cf.: to decide - decision - decisive – decisively to incise - incision - incisive - incisively

Being the formal marks of words of different parts of speech, word-building suffixes are also grammatically relevant. But grammar study is primarily concerned with grammatical, word-changing, or functional affixes, because they change the word according to its grammatical categories and serve to insert the word into an utterance.

The morphemic structure of the word can be analyzed in a linear way; for example, in the following way: underestimates - W= {[Pr +(R+L)]+Gr}, where W denotes the word, R the root, L the lexical suffix, Pr the prefix, and Gr the grammatical suffix.

In addition, the derivational history of the word can be hierarchically demonstrated as the so-called “tree of immediate constituents”; such analysis is called “IC-analysis”, IC standing for the “immediate constituents.

IC-analysis, like many other ideas employed in the study of the morphemes, was developed by an American linguist, Leonard Bloomfield, and his followers within the framework of an approach known as Descriptive Linguistics (or, Structural Linguistics). Immediate constituents analysis in structural linguistics starts with lingual units of upper levels: for example, the immediate constituents of a composite sentence might be clauses, each clause in turn might have noun phrase and verb phrase as constituents, etc.; the analysis continues until the ultimate constituents – the morphemes – are reached.

Besides prefixes and suffixes, some other positional types of affix are distinguished in linguistics: for example, regular vowel interchange which takes place inside the root and transforms its meaning “from within” can be treated as an infix, e.g.: a lexical infix – blood – to bleed; a grammatical infix – tooth – teeth. Grammatical infixes are also defined as inner inflections as opposed to grammatical suffixes which are called outer inflections. Since infixation is not a productive (regular) means of word-building or word-changing in modern English, it is more often seen as partial suppletivity. Full suppletivity takes place when completely different roots are paradigmatically united, e.g.: go – went. When studying morphemes, we should distinguish morphemes as generalized lingual units from their concrete manifestations, or variants in specific textual environments; variants of morphemes are called “allo-morphs”. Initially, the so-called allo-emic theory was developed in phonetics: in phonetics, phonemes, as the generalized, invariant phonological units, are distinguished from their concrete realizations, the allophones. For example, one phoneme is pronounced in a different way in different environments, cf.: you [ju:] - you know [ju]; in Russian, vowels are also pronounced in a different way in stressed and unstressed syllables, cf.: дом - домой. The same applies to the morpheme, which is a generalized unit, an invariant, and may be represented by different variants, allo-morphs, in different textual environments. For example, the morpheme of the plural, -(e)s, sounds differently after voiceless consonants (bats), voiced consonants and vowels (rooms), and after fricative and sibilant consonants (clashes). So, [s], [z], [iz], which are united by the same meaning (the grammatical meaning of the plural), are allo-morphs of the same morpheme, which is represented as -(e)s in written speech.

The “allo-emic theory” in the study of morphemes was also developed within the framework of Descriptive Linguistics by means of the so-called distributional analysis: in the first stage of distributional analysis a syntagmatic chain of lingual units is divided into meaningful segments, morphs, e.g.: he/ start/ed/ laugh/ing/; then the recurrent segments are analyzed in various textual environments, and the following three types of distribution are established: contrastive distribution, non-contrastive distribution and complementary distribution. The morphs are said to be in contrastive distribution if they express different meanings in identical environments the compared morphs, e.g.: He started laughing – He starts laughing; such morphs constitute different morphemes. The morphs are said to be in non-contrastive distribution if they express identical meaning in identical environments; such morphs constitute ‘free variants’ of the same morpheme, e.g.: learned - learnt, ate [et] – ate [eit] (in Russian: трактора – тракторы). The morphs are said to be in complementary distribution if they express identical meanings in different environments, e.g.: He started laughing – He stopped laughing; such morphs constitute variants, or allo-morphs of the same morpheme.

The allo-morphs of the plural morpheme -(e)s [s], [z], [iz] stand in phonemic complementary distribution; the allo-morph –en, as in oxen, stands in morphemic complementary distribution with the other allo-morphs of the plural morpheme.

Besides these traditional types of morphemes, in Descriptive Linguistics distributional morpheme types are distinguished; they immediately correlate with each other in the following pairs. Free morphemes, which can build up words by themselves, are opposed to bound morphemes, used only as parts of words; e.g.: in the word ‘hands’ hand- is a free morpheme and -s is a bound morpheme. Overt and covert morphemes are opposed to each other: the latter shows the meaningful absence of a morpheme distinguished in the opposition of grammatical forms in paradigms; it is also known as the “zero morpheme”, e.g.: in the number paradigm of the noun, hand – hands, the plural is built with the help of an overt morpheme, hand-s, while the singular - with the help of a zero or covert morpheme, handØ. Full or meaningful morphemes are opposed to empty morphemes, which have no meaning and are left after singling out the meaningful morphemes; some of them used to have a certain meaning, but lost it in the course of historical development, e.g.: in the word ‘children’ child- is the root of the word, bearing the core of the meaning, -en is the suffix of the plural, while -r- is an empty morpheme, having no meaning at all, the remnant of an old morphological form. Segmental morphemes, consisting of phonemes, are opposed to supra-segmental morphemes, which leave the phonemic content of the word unchanged, but the meaning of the word is specified with the help of various supra-segmental lingual units, e.g.: `convert (a noun) - con`vert (a verb). Additive morphemes, which are freely combined in a word, e.g.: look+ed, small+er, are opposed to replacive morphemes, or root morphemes, which replace each other in paradigms, e.g.: sing -sang – sung. Continuous morphemes, combined with each other in the same word, e.g.: worked, are opposed to discontinuous morphemes, which consist of two components used jointly to build the analytical forms of the words, e.g.: have worked, is working.

Many of the distributional morpheme types contradict the traditional definition of the morpheme: traditionally the morpheme is the smallest meaningful lingual unit (this is contradicted by the “empty” morphemes type), built up by phonemes (this is contradicted by the “supra-segmental” morphemes type), used to build up words (this is contradicted by the “discontinuous” morphemes type). This is due to the fact that in Descriptive Linguistics only three lingual units are distinguished: the phoneme, the morpheme, and syntactic constructions; the notion of the word is rejected because of the difficulties of defining it. Still, the classification of distributional morpheme types can be used to summarize and differentiate various types of word-building and word-changing, though not all of them are morphemic in the current mainstream understanding of the term “morpheme”.