6

I really don't quite know how to express the idea in English. In Chinese, there is a very special term of "英语单词的词根拆解", which I cannot find any good translation by googling. It basically mean,

To break an English word into the smallest parts which has special meaning. E.g., corroborate ==> cor-, robust, -ate

  • What's the verb for it? disassemble, dismantle?
  • What's the end results (the smallest parts)? root?
13
  • Maybe divide into syllables? For meaning, it's morphemes. incoming: in+ com[e] + ing.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 4 at 15:57
  • 4
    I don't think corroborate is a good example.
    – nschneid
    Commented Aug 4 at 17:02
  • 4
    That 'breakdown' of 'corroborate' is crazy. Commented Aug 4 at 20:35
  • 9
    As an English speaker I don't know how "corroborate" relates to "robust". Are you talking about the history of the word? That's called the "etymology".
    – nschneid
    Commented Aug 5 at 0:06
  • 5
    I don't know enough to help you with your language translation issue. But I did look at that dictionary link, and I suspect you may have misunderstood it. The dictionary is not saying that corroborate is derived from robust. It's saying that corroborate and robust have a parallel history going back to the same Latin word. Robust is provided as a link to further information if you need it. Commented Aug 5 at 1:55

4 Answers 4

2

Root is indeed the term for the smallest pieces into which you are breaking down the word. There is no familiar word for doing this - an expression like "morphological analysis" would make sense to a linguist but would baffle most others. I think your best bet would be the descriptive phrase "breaking a word down into its roots".

Edited: As one commenter said, we absolutely do learn about prefixes and suffixes. But the skill of recognizing them isn't given a name, and students aren't generally taught to guess etymological connections as obscure as the connection between corroborate and robust. My previous "this skill is not taught" claim was too strong.

1
  • 1
    Sure, roots, prefixes and suffixes are taught.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 5 at 18:34
10

Linguists call this morphological segmentation or morphological analysis. ("Morphology" refers to the internal structure of words.)

2
  • 1
    I'd pick this one. The closest alternative concept I can think of is syllabification, but that involves breaking everything into syllables and not changing the characters themselves: cor•rob•o•rate. To start changing portions of the word to stand independently—as one might in order to explain exclamation as exclaim + action)—would get into a more specialized type of analysis that would be uncommon outside an academic context. Commented Aug 5 at 14:53
  • 1
    I've also heard of morphological decomposition. I'm not sure whether that's a widely used term or if and how it differs from morphological segmentation, but to decompose a word into its constituent parts sound more natural to me than to segment it.
    – aantia
    Commented Aug 5 at 15:11
3

When we look at the etymology of a word, we are essentially asking where each part comes from. Specifically, the origin of a word and how its use has changed through history. In English, word origins can be from a lot of countries.

For example, the etymology for destroy is originally from the Classical Latin word dēstruō, from dē- (“un-, de-”) + struō (“I build”). It evolved into a slightly different spelling in Vulgar Latin (vulgar meaning common in this case), then another one in Old French, then to something else in Middle English. From there, it was picked up in modern English.

Etymologies don't necessarily have to involve that much change. The etymology of the verb Shanghai is from the Chinese port Shanghai. Apparently, in the 1800s, shipping owners on the US West Coast would force people into the crews of ships bound for the Far East, typically for Shanghai. Turning nouns into verbs, by the way, is longstanding tradition in English. I think that Shanghai isn't common in modern English (the specific practice is extremely illegal and also a terrible idea even apart from the ethics and legality). As an aside, a lot of English words of Chinese origin may follow the Wade-Giles romanization (an older one, whereas modern speakers prefer Pinyin), or they may not be from Mandarin (e.g. we say wok in English, which is of Cantonese origin minus the tones).

There's no single relevant verb, I think. You would just ask, "what's the etymology of (whatever word)?"

The other answer is very interesting, and I think it is more technically correct. However, be aware that this is a technical term. Linguists would understand it. However, biologists would understand it a slightly different way. And lay people might guess what you mean from the context, but we also might not.

3
  • I put in etymology tag because I really don't know what else to put, as it is the closet that I can think of, but NO, I'm not asking for where each part comes from, 词源, but the latest form of them as is, 词根. E.g., for corroborate ==> cor-, robust, -ate, I don't care where "robust" came from, what it looks like before, etc.
    – xpt
    Commented Aug 5 at 0:18
  • 4
    @xpt but 'robust' has no relation to 'corroborate' other than where it came from, their most recent ancestor is the Latin word 'robur' (Latin: oak), and the example you gave indicates that, so it is very hard to determine what you want if not etymology. 'corroborate' is 'cor' (Latin) + 'robur' (Latin) + the 'at' ending to indicate tense (also Latin); there is no 'robust' in there, 'robust' cannot be considered to be a component of 'corroborate' any more than 'roboreous' (English: like an oak) could be. Commented Aug 5 at 11:41
  • @xpt What do you mean by the latest form of each component? As in the most recent meaning in a temporal sense? You get that with the etymology of the entire word destroy, in that it most recently came from Middle English - each of the original components originally came from Latin. Or with Shanghai the English verb, the reported first use is 1871.
    – Weiwen Ng
    Commented Aug 5 at 14:58
1

The smallest part of a word with meaning is a morpheme.

Morphemic analysis is the process of identifying the individual units of meaning, called morphemes, within a word. Morphemes can be prefixes, suffixes, or root words, and they each have their own meaning. Language acquisition often begins with a study of root words, or morphemes, that form a base of a word. These root words usually carry the majority of the word’s meaning. Then, prefixes are morphemes that attach to the beginning of words, and suffixes are morphemes that attach to the end of words. Teaching students these individual units of words and how to combine them is the basis of linguistics that will continue to get more complex as students continually grow and develop.

Morphology is important because it allows learners to understand the structure of words and how they are formed. A strong foundation in morphemic analysis can help students with the study of language acquisition and language change. Morphemic analysis can even be useful for educators specifically in fields such as linguistics, vocabulary development, and language processing. As students and teachers understand more about morphemic analysis, they can then improve upon other vital skills for learning.

morphemic analysis

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .