Authors

  • Dilorom Saidoripova
    Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies Uzbekistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71337/inlibrary.uz.jmsi.102069

Abstract

This article explores the development and study of the concept of allomorph in Eastern linguistics. It analyzes how Eastern linguists have defined, classified, and interpreted allomorphs, focusing on phonetic, morphological, and semantic factors influencing their appearance in Arabic, Persian, Turkic, and other Eastern languages. The research also compares the Eastern perspectives on allomorphy with those of Western linguistics, identifying both commonalities and differences. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of morphological structures in Eastern languages and clarifies the theoretical foundations of allomorphy from a diachronic and typological viewpoint.


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 4, 2025

245

THEORETICAL VIEWS OF EASTERN LINGUISTS ABOUT ALLOMORPHS

Saidoripova Dilorom Saidaxmad kizi

Teacher of Iranian-afganian philology

Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies

Uzbekistan

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9884-2764

Tel: +998990962929

Annotation:

This article explores the development and study of the concept of allomorph in

Eastern linguistics. It analyzes how Eastern linguists have defined, classified, and interpreted

allomorphs, focusing on phonetic, morphological, and semantic factors influencing their

appearance in Arabic, Persian, Turkic, and other Eastern languages. The research also compares

the Eastern perspectives on allomorphy with those of Western linguistics, identifying both

commonalities and differences. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of

morphological structures in Eastern languages and clarifies the theoretical foundations of

allomorphy from a diachronic and typological viewpoint.

Keywords:

allomorph, variants of a morpheme, apophony, alternation, root morpheme, auxiliary

morpheme.

In Eastern linguistics, comprehensive theories and perspectives concerning the notion of

allomorphs have been advanced. According to A. Nurmonov, “a morpheme is a socio-

psychological entity that, in immediate observation or speech, manifests itself through several

variants. The fact that a morpheme appears in multiple forms within the structure of speech

accounts for what we call allomorphs, or variants of that morpheme”

1

.

Uzbek scholar A. Khojiyev

2

regards allomorphs as variants of a morpheme, arguing that

auxiliary morphemes—which may be substituted for one another in any given construction—

constitute the variants of that morpheme. He substantiates this claim with examples from Uzbek,

showing the free alternation of the morphemes -day and -dek in expressions such as gulday ~

guldek (“like a flower”).

R. Rasulov concurs that allomorphs are morpheme-variants but rejects the idea that they are

freely interchangeable. He defines an allomorph as “a variant of a morpheme that occurs only

within the form of a specific lexeme. Each observable morph has a limited scope of applicability,

surfacing only in contexts that favor it

3

He illustrates this with pairs such as tonggi ~ tongki

(“morning”), kechki ~ kechgi (“evening”), and attributes their distribution to phonetic

environment, phonological form, and semantic constraints.

Building on these views, M. Irisqulov

4

emphasizes that morphemes and morphs are not always in

one-to-one correspondence: a single morpheme may be realized by one or several morphs in

speech. He demonstrates this in Uzbek with the directional meaning expressed by the suffixes -

ga, -ka, and -qa. Irisqulov notes that when one morpheme is manifested through multiple morphs,

those morphs are termed its allomorphs. He further defines an allomorph as any morph that,

while differing in form, conveys the same meaning and constitutes a single morpheme. As an

illustration, he cites the Russian plural suffixes [и], [ы], [а], [я].

1

Nurmonov A. va b. O‘zbek tilining mazmuniy sintaksisi.T.Fan,1992

2

Hojiyev A. Tilshunoslik terminlarining izohli lug‘ati. T.: 2002. – B. 21.

3

Rasulov R. (2010) General Linguistics.

Umumiy tilshunoslik

. (Tahshkent)

4

Iriskulov M. (2009) Introduction to Linguistics.

Tilshunoslikka kirish.

(Tashkent)


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 4, 2025

246

A. Abduzuhurov

5

explains the origin of allomorphs in Uzbek by situating them within affixal

morphology. Affixes, which never occur independently but only attach to a root morpheme to

express various lexical-grammatical meanings, undergo phonological adjustment depending on

the final sound of the stem. Thus, a single morpheme may surface in diverse

morphophonological shapes—its allomorphs. For example, the participial morpheme -gan

acquires the forms -kan, -qan, -gan after stems ending in different phonemes, as in yozgan

(“written”), ekkan (“planted”), suqqan (“hit”). Each allomorph differs from the others by exactly

one phoneme.

In Korean linguistics

6

, a similar conception holds that the various phonologically conditioned

variants of one morpheme are its allomorphs. From this vantage, certain morphemes expressing a

single meaning may have two or three variants, and these variants are distributed exclusively—

that is, they are complementary but together exhaust the set of possible realizations. For instance,
the nominative case marker

and the accusative

attach to stems ending in a consonant,

whereas their allomorphs

and

attach only to vowel-final stems. Korean morphemes thus

divide into

자립형태소

(independent morphemes) and

의존형태소

(dependent morphemes), or

leading and auxiliary morphemes, exemplified in:

철수가 밥을 아까 먹었다

Ch’ŏlsu-ga pap-ŭl akwa-mŏgŏt’ta. (“Cholsu just ate a meal.”)

Allomorphy also figures prominently in Japanese morphology. Phonological or morphological

context may yield different forms of the same morpheme. For instance, the causative suffix has

two allomorphs: -ase after consonant-final stems (C-stems), as in nom-ase (“make drink” from

nom- “drink”), and -sase after vowel-final stems (V-stems), as in tabe-sase (“make eat” from

tabe- “eat”). This choice is explained within Optimality Theory by the constraints ONSET

(“every syllable must begin with a consonant”) and NO-CODA (“syllables must not end in a

consonant”).

Moreover, when compound formation alters the phonological environment, a morpheme may

surface in yet another allomorphic shape. For example:

(ame “rain”)

o

雨傘

(amekasa “rain umbrella”)

o

(amagasa

“rain

umbrella,”

alternate

pronunciation)

Here, the morpheme ame “rain” changes to ama before a consonant-initial element. Such

alternations in Japanese are studied as apophony or alternation phenomena

7

.

In Hindi, numerous affixal allomorphs appear when suffixes adapt to the phonological,

morphological, or syntactic context. For example, the adjectival/statative suffixes -ī and -īnā both

occur on words like sundarī vs. sundarīnā (“beautiful woman”). The choice depends on the final

sound of the base and on phonological factors such as stress; thus, -ī tends to follow vowel-final

stems, while -īnā often attaches to consonant-final ones

8

.

Among the Iranian languages, affixation plays a vital role in word formation alongside other

derivational processes, continuously expanding the lexicon. In his works on Persian grammar,

Iran Kalbasi

9

terms the minimal meaningful unit a vāž (“morph”), its written realization vāžak

(“morpheme”), and its variants gunehā-ye vāžak (“allomorphs”). He divides morphemes into

5

Abduzuhur Abduazizov. O‘zbek tili fonologiyasi va morfofonologiyasi. “Universitet” T. 2010. B-122.

6

Ким О., Львова И. и Елькин Д. Инновационные приемы, используемые на семинарских занятиях по

дисциплине «теоретическая морфология и синтаксис корейского языка». “O‘zbekistonda xorijiy tillar” ilmiy-

metodik elektron jurnal. № 2 (10) / 2016.

7

Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word Structure. MIT Press. 2004.

8

Paroma Sanyal, Vyom Sharma, Ankita Prasad. Hindi root allomorphy: Insights from phonological and

morphosyntactic theory. De Gruyter Mouton, 2021

9

Dr. Iran Kalbasi. (1992) Derivative construction of the word.

Sāxt-e ešteγāγi-ye vāže.

(Tegeran)


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 4, 2025

247

vāžak-e āzād (“free morphemes”), which can stand alone—e.g., kār “work,” mehr “love”—and

vāžak-e moqayyed (“bound morphemes”), which require a host—e.g., mand in kārmand

“employee,” bān in mehrbān “kind.”

L. Peysikov

10

provides a detailed typology of Persian allomorphs and defines them as alternants

of a lexical morpheme that share a core functional-semantic feature. He sets out the following

criteria for allomorphy:

1.

Sharing the same meaning and function;

2.

Occurring in comparable structures and able to substitute for one another;

3.

Each occurring only in its respective environment;

4.

Exhibiting a general similarity in form and relative phonetic resemblance.

On this basis, affixal allomorphs may be classified into two types:

1.

Mutually substitutable

: affixal variants that can replace one another in derivation

depending on stylistic or phonological considerations. For example, the Persian prefixes bar- and

var- in barandāz ~ varandāz (“observer”).

2.

Non-substitutable

: affixal variants that never interchange, often arising through

epenthetic processes when two vowels meet, yielding an inserted consonant and thus a distinct

allomorph.

Conclusion.

The study of allomorphy in Eastern linguistics rests on a broad theoretical

foundation forged through analyses of diverse languages and scholarly approaches. In Uzbek,

Nurmonov, Khojiyev, Rasulov, and Irisqulov offer differing yet complementary insights into

morpheme variation. Across Korean, Japanese, Hindi, and Persian, allomorphs are recognized as

contextually determined variants that manifest the interplay of phonology, morphology,

semantics, and syntax. Phonetic alternations, syllable structure, stress patterns, and stylistic

factors all contribute crucially to allomorphic choice, underscoring its significance as a window

into the integrated nature of language structure.

REFERENCES

1.

1.Abduzuhur Abduazizov. Uzbek language phonology and morphophonology.

“University” T. 2010. B-122.

2.

2.Dr. Iran Kalbasi. (1992) Derivative construction of the word. Sāxt-e ešteγāγi-ye vāže.

(Tehran)

3.

3.Hojiyev A. Tilshunoslik terminlaring izhohli lu‘ati. T.: 2002. – B. 21.

4.

4.Iriskulov M. (2009) Introduction to Linguistics. Tilshunoslikka khirish. (Tashkent)

5.

5.Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word

Structure. MIT Press. 2004.

6.

6.Nurmonov A. and b. Uzbek language semantic syntax. T.Fan,1992

7.

7.Paroma Sanyal, Vyom Sharma, Ankita Prasad. Hindi root allomorphy: Insights from

phonological and morphosyntactic theory. De Gruyter Mouton, 2021

8.

8. Peysikov L.S. (1973) Essays on word formation of the Persian language. Ocherki po

slovobrazvaniyu persidskogo yazika. (Moscow)

9.

9. Rasulov R. (2010) General Linguistics. General linguistics. (Tashkent)

10.

10. Kim O., Lvova I. i Elkin D. Innovatsionnye priemy, ispolzuemye na seminarskikh

zanyatiyax po discipline "theoreticheskaya morphology i syntaxis koreyskogo zyzyka". "Foreign

languages ​ ​ in Uzbekistan" scientific-methodical electronic journal. No. 2 (10) / 2016.

10

Peysikov L.S. (1973) Essays on word formation of the Persian language.

Ocherki po slovoobrazovaniyu

persidskogo yazika.

(Moscow)

References

1.Abduzuhur Abduazizov. Uzbek language phonology and morphophonology. “University” T. 2010. B-122.

2.Dr. Iran Kalbasi. (1992) Derivative construction of the word. Sāxt-e ešteγāγi-ye vāže. (Tehran)

3.Hojiyev A. Tilshunoslik terminlaring izhohli lu‘ati. T.: 2002. – B. 21.

4.Iriskulov M. (2009) Introduction to Linguistics. Tilshunoslikka khirish. (Tashkent)

5.Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word Structure. MIT Press. 2004.

6.Nurmonov A. and b. Uzbek language semantic syntax. T.Fan,1992

7.Paroma Sanyal, Vyom Sharma, Ankita Prasad. Hindi root allomorphy: Insights from phonological and morphosyntactic theory. De Gruyter Mouton, 2021

8. Peysikov L.S. (1973) Essays on word formation of the Persian language. Ocherki po slovobrazvaniyu persidskogo yazika. (Moscow)

9. Rasulov R. (2010) General Linguistics. General linguistics. (Tashkent)

10. Kim O., Lvova I. i Elkin D. Innovatsionnye priemy, ispolzuemye na seminarskikh zanyatiyax po discipline "theoreticheskaya morphology i syntaxis koreyskogo zyzyka". "Foreign languages ​​in Uzbekistan" scientific-methodical electronic journal. No. 2 (10) / 2016.