Root (linguistics)

{{other uses||Root (disambiguation)#Linguistics}} {{Short description|Lexical core of a word without affixes}} {{more citations needed|date=August 2012}}

A '''root''' (also known as a '''root word''' or '''radical''') is the core of a word that is irreducible into more meaningful elements.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Katamba |first1=Francis |title=Morphology |date=2006 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |publication-place=Basingstoke, UK |isbn=9781403916440 |pages=42 |edition=2nd}}</ref> In morphology, a root is a morphologically simple unit which can be left bare or to which a prefix or a suffix can attach.<ref>{{cite web |title=Root |url=https://glossary.sil.org/term/root |website=Glossary of Linguistic Terms |language=en |date=3 December 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Kemmer |first1=Suzanne |title=Words in English: Structure |url=https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/structure/index.html |website=Words in English |access-date=26 December 2018}}</ref> 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.

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 {{gpm|√}} to avoid potential conflation with other objects of analysis with similar spellings or pronunciation:<ref>{{cite book | editor-last=van Lier | editor-first=Eva | title=The Oxford Handbook of Word Classes | publisher=Oxford University Press |chapter=Levels of Analysis and Word Classes (Root, Stem, Word) |last=Bisang |first=Walter | year=2023 | isbn=978-0-19-259436-5|page=67, n. 35}}{{pb}}Cites {{cite book | last=Pesetsky | first=David Michael | title=Zero Syntax | publisher=MIT Press | year=1995 | isbn=978-0-262-16145-9 |page=70}}</ref> for instance, {{tlit|sa|√bhū-}} specifically denotes the Sanskrit root {{tlit|sa|bhū-}}.

==Examples== {{Multiple issues|section=yes| {{one source|section|date=December 2024}} {{Expand section|1=examples and additional citations|demospace=main|date=June 2024}} }}

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: '''''g'''a'''d'''o'''l''''' and '''''gd'''o'''l'''a'' (masculine and feminine forms of the adjective "big"), '''''g'''a'''d'''a'''l''''' "he grew", ''hi'''gd'''i'''l''''' "he magnified" and ''ma'''gd'''e'''l'''et'' "magnifier", along with many other words such as '''''g'''o'''d'''e'''l''''' "size" and ''mi'''gd'''a'''l''''' "tower".

Roots and reconstructed roots can become the tools of etymology.<ref> Compare: {{cite book |last1=Durkin |first1=Philip |author-link=Philip Durkin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UZkjLniuwRQC |title=The Oxford Guide to Etymology |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2009 |isbn=9780191618789 |location=Oxford |publication-date=2011 |page=xciv |chapter=8: Semantic change |quote=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. |access-date=2017-11-10}} </ref>

==Secondary roots==

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 {{lang|ar|مركزي}} [markaziy], meaning 'central', {{lang|ar|مركزية}} [markaziy:ah], meaning 'centralism' or 'centralization', and {{lang|ar|لامركزية}}, [la:markaziy:ah] 'decentralization'.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wehr |first1=Hans |author-link1=Hans Wehr |editor1-last=Cowan |editor1-first=J Milton |editor1-link=J Milton Cowan |title=Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic |date=1976 |publisher=Spoken Language Services |location=Ithaca, N.Y. |isbn=0-87950-001-8 |page=[https://archive.org/details/Dict_Wehr.pdf/page/n375 358] |edition=3rd |url=https://archive.org/details/Dict_Wehr.pdf |access-date=12 March 2020}}</ref> * 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])."<ref name="Zuckermann">Zuckermann, Ghil'ad 2003, [http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=140391723X ''Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201235515/http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=140391723X |date=2014-02-01 }}, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. {{ISBN|1-4039-1723-X}}. pp 65–66.</ref> 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 {{Script/Hebrew|מ-ק-מ}} √m-q-m 'locate', which derives from Biblical Hebrew {{Script/Hebrew|מקום}} ''måqom'' 'place', whose root is {{Script/Hebrew|ק-ו-מ}} √q-w-m 'stand'. A recent example introduced by the Academy of the Hebrew Language is {{Script/Hebrew|מדרוג}} ''midrúg'' 'rating', from {{Script/Hebrew|מדרג}} ''midrág'', whose root is {{Script/Hebrew|ד-ר-ג}} √d-r-g 'grade'."<ref name="Zuckermann" />

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'').<ref name="Zuckermann" />

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

== Category-neutral roots == Decompositional generative frameworks suggest that roots hold little grammatical information and can be considered "category-neutral".<ref name="LohndalFeb2020">{{cite journal |last1=Lohndal |first1=Terje |title=Syntactic Categorization of Roots |journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics |date=28 February 2020 |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.257|isbn=978-0-19-938465-5 |hdl=11250/2644577 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Category-neutral roots are roots without any inherent lexical category but with some conceptual content that becomes evident depending on the syntactic environment.<ref name="LohndalFeb2020" /> 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,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Levinson |first1=Lisa |title=The ontology of roots and verbs |journal=The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax |date=27 November 2014 |pages=208–229 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0010|isbn=978-0199665273 }}</ref> neither semantic type nor argument structure,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Acquaviva |first1=Paolo |title=Roots and Lexicality in Distributed Morphology |journal=York Papers in Linguistics |date=May 2009 |volume=2 |issue=10 |url=https://hdl.handle.net/10197/4148 |publisher=University of York. Department of Language and Linguistic Science |hdl=10197/4148 |language=en}}</ref> or both semantic type and argument structure.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Coon |first1=Jessica |author1-link=Jessica Coon |title=Building verbs in Chuj: Consequences for the nature of roots |journal=Journal of Linguistics |date=1 February 2019 |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=35–81 |doi=10.1017/S0022226718000087|s2cid=149423392 }}</ref>

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.<ref name="LohndalFeb2020" /> <div><ul> <li style="display: inline-table;"> {| class="wikitable" |+ English examples - overt<ref name="LohndalFeb2020" /> |- ! Root !! Noun !! Verb |- | advertise || an advertise'''ment''' || to advertise |- | character || a character || to character'''ize''' |- | employ || an employ'''ment''' || to employ |- | alphabet || an alphabet ||to alphabet'''ize''' |}</li> <li style="display: inline-table;"> {| class="wikitable" |+ English Examples - Covert<ref name="LohndalFeb2020" /> |- ! Root !! Noun !! Verb |- | dance || a dance || to dance |- | walk || a walk || to walk |- | chair || a chair || to chair |- | wardrobe || a wardrobe || to wardrobe |}</li> </ul></div>

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).<ref name="Arad2003">{{cite journal |last1=Arad |first1=Maya |title=Locality Constraints on the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew Denominal Verbs |journal=Natural Language and Linguistic Theory |date=2003 |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=737–778 |doi=10.1023/A:1025533719905|s2cid=35715020 }}</ref>

Consider the root √š-m-n (ש-מ-נ). {| class="wikitable" |+ Root √š-m-n (ש-מ-נ) in Hebrew<ref name="Arad2003" /> |- ! 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.<ref name="Arad2003" />

{| class="wikitable" |+ Root comparison between English and Hebrew (adapted from "Syntactic Categorization of Roots"<ref name="LohndalFeb2020" />) |- ! English Root !! English Word !! Hebrew Root !! Hebrew Word !! Gloss |- | √CREAM || cream || rowspan="2" | √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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Alexiadou |first1=Artemis |last2=Lohndal |first2=Terje |title=On the division of labor between roots and functional structure |journal=The Verbal Domain |date=18 May 2017 |volume=1 |doi=10.1093/oso/9780198767886.003.0004|hdl=10037/19837 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

==References== {{Reflist}}

== External links == * [http://www.virtualsalt.com/roots.htm Virtual Salt Root words and prefixes] * [http://www.espindle.org/roots.html Espindle – Greek and Latin Root Words] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080913131120/http://www.espindle.org/roots.html |date=2008-09-13 }}

Category:Lexical units Category:Root (linguistics) Category:Linguistics terminology