Ali Hussain , Riaz Ahmed Mangrio


This paper delves into the nominal complex circumfixation in Urdu. The present endeavor decomposes the circumfixation and studies its constituents with structural, hierarchical, and functional perspectives. The objectives of the study comprise tracing the underlying patterns of the nominal complex circumfixation of Urdu, demonstrating the complex circumfixation through binary branching, and highlighting functions of each morpheme of circumfixation with the proposed morphological attribute value matrix (MAVM). The present work is descriptive accomplished in the paradigm of qualitative research. It uses purposive sampling technique to trace and elaborate the nominal complex circumfixation. From the print and online resources, the nominal circumfixes are ransacked and enlisted with transcription and etymology. It is brought on the surface that the X part of the nominal circumfix is free-standing in some cases. The study explores that the constituents of circumfixation do not violate the binary branching and are presentable on the hierarchical trees. It is found that the proposed mechanism MAVM traces the features left over by the phrase structure morphology. The study concludes that the Urdu complex circumfixation is idiosyncratic in relation to the X free-standing part of the nominal circumfix, its realization on the binary branching, and the application of the feature-checking analyzer MAVM.   



Alan, Y. (2004). Reduplication in English Homeric Infixation, University of Chicago. Retrieved from
Anagbogu, P. N., Mbah, B. M., & Eme, C. A. (2010). Introduction to linguistics. Awka: Amaka Dreams.
Barnhat, R., Steimetz, S., & Barnhart, C. (2006). Third barnhart dictionary of etymology. New York: H. W. Wilson.
Bauer, L. (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Boeckx, C., & Fumikazu, N. (2004). Conditions on agreement in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(3), 453-480. Retrieved from NALA. 000 00 27669.59667.c5
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2002). An introduction to English morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doblhofer, K.S. (1990). The morphology and syntax of English: An introduction. London: Andre Deutsch.
Embick, D. & Noyer, R. (2005). Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp.289-324). doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010
Feroz-ul-Lughat Urdu Jamé New Edition. (n.d.). Lahore, Pakistan: Feroz Sons Ltd. Retrieved from
Finegan, E. (2004). Language: Its structure and use. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
Fromkin, V. (2003). An Introduction to Language. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (1007). An introduction to language. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
Grimes, B. F. (2000). Pakistan in ethnologue: languages of the world (14th ed.). Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Guevara, E. (2007). Binary branching and linguistic theory. Lingue E Linguaggio 2, 1-11. Retrieved from &rep=rep1&type=pdf
Ilmi Urdu Lughat Jamé. (1972). Lahore, Pakistan: Ilmi Kitab Khana. Retrieved from
Kari, E. E. (2015). Parasynthesis in Degema: Simultaneous affixation or suffixation and concomitant prefixation. LASU 4 (2), 8-23. Retrieved from /Parasynthesis_in_Degema_Simultaneous_Affixation_or_Suffixation_and_Concomitant_Prefixation
Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kleger, A. (2018). Language is embiggened by words that don’t exist: The case of circumfix. Linguistica Pragensia 1, 53-70. Retrieved from /bwmeta1.element.desklight-30944a7f-3af9-4a91-9571-e44f52eb2fd1
Lieber, R. (2018). Derivational morphology. Retrieved from /10.1093/.
Mbah, B. M. (2012). Circumfixation: interface of morphology and syntax in Igbo derivational morphology. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 5, (6) 1-8. Retrieved from
Murušič, L. (2018). Aff-STEM-ix: On discontinuous morphology. Retrieved from https://www2.
Ndimele, O. M. (1999). Morphology and syntax. Port Harcourt: Emhai Printing Press.
Rehman, M. S. (2017). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language testing and assessment research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102-114. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/EJ1120221.pdf
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.
Schultink, H. (1987). Discontinuity and multiple branching in morphology. In C. Dotson-Smith & H. Schultink (Eds.). Aspects of Language Studies in Honour of Mario Alinei, 11, 480-491.
Serrano-Dolader, D. (1999). La derivación verbal y la parasíntesis. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 3, 4683-4756. Retrieved from
Siddiqi, D. (2009). Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in distributed morphology. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Spenser, A. (1991). Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Yule, G. (1996). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. (2006). The study of language, (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zerrouki, T. & Balla, A. (2009). Implementation of infixes and circumfixes in the spellcheckers. Retrieved from