ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-NAV-G02-003 · ATLAS 259

Agglutination

Agglutination describes a morphological pattern in which word forms contain relatively segmentable morphemes whose functions are often comparatively easy to identify.

Part of the subject path Morphology and Word Formation

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

A · Analytical concept R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Agglutination enables comparison of morphological segmentability and functional mapping across languages. It should remain a graded pattern rather than a rigid property of entire languages.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Agglutination describes a morphological pattern with relatively identifiable sequential components and comparatively transparent mappings to functions. It is a tendency, not a requirement that morphemes remain completely unchanged. Phonological adjustments can occur despite identifiable boundaries. In the link from polysynthesis, two questions must be kept apart: how much information a word combines, and how its components map to functions. A long word does not establish agglutination. Analysis examines segmentability, exponence and allomorphy separately, including variation within a language and across paradigms.

Movement of thought

1. Collect comparable word forms. 2. Segment recurring components. 3. Check their mappings to grammatical features. 4. Account for phonological variants. 5. Describe information packaging separately from feature expression.

Scientific use case

A paradigm analysis can compare segmentation and feature mappings; its criteria are specified before a typological comparison.

Example

In the source example Hungarian ember-ek-nek, “people” in the dative, the root, plural and dative can be identified. This is not a judgement about every Hungarian form.

Counterexample

A long compound alone supplies no evidence. A single formative expressing several features requires a different account of exponence.

Distinction

Distinguish simple concatenation, degree of synthesis, polysynthesis and cumulative exponence. Agglutination is not a fixed property of every form in a language.

Effect on thought and perception

Separate analyses can reveal differences hidden by a single language-type label.

Resonance

Meaning grows in identifiable steps, while the joins retain traces of their own.

Provenance

Parallel source review reconciled 2026-10-07; human specialist review not claimed.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Agglutination“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-NAV-G02-003. ATLAS 259, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-NAV-G02-003

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-NAV-G02-003

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.