You are on page 1of 31

BACAAN

1. Pengertian Morfologi

Morphology is the study of the internal structure of words (Introduction of Language). Morphology
can be defined as in Definition 1: Morphology is the study of systematic covariation in the form
and meaning of words. Morphological analysis typically consists of the identification of parts of
words, or, more technically, constituents of words. The smallest meaningful constituents of words
that can be identified are called morphemes. Morphology could alternatively be defined as in
Definition 2: Morphology is the study of the combination of morphemes to yield words.

Morphology is most simply defined as the study of the combination of morphemes to yield words,
but a somewhat more abstract definition (as the study of systematic co-variation in the form and
meaning of words) will turn out to be more satisfactory. Different languages vary strikingly in the
extent to which they make use of morphology. The goals of morphological research are elegant and
cognitively realistic description of morphological structures, plus (on the theoretical level) system-
external explanation and the discovery of a restrictive architecture for description.

Goals Morphology

I. Elegant Description, all linguists agree that morphological patterns should be


described in an elegant and intuitively satisfactory way. Thus, morphological
descriptions should contain a rule saying that English nouns form their plural by adding -
s, rather than simply listing the plural forms for each noun in the dictionary but linguists
would find this inelegant. The main criterion for elegance is generality. But
generalizations can be formulated in various ways, and linguists often disagree in their
judgment of what is the most elegant description. It is therefore useful to have a further
objective criterion that makes reference to the speakers knowledge of their language.
II. Cognitively Realistic Description, Most linguists would say that their descriptions
should also be cognitively realistic. In other words, they should express the same
generalizations about grammatical systems that the speakers cognitive apparatus has
unconsciously arrived at. Cognitively realistic description is a much more ambitious
goal than merely elegant description, and we would really have to be able to look
inside peoples heads for a full understanding of the cognitive machinery. Linguists
sometimes reject proposed descriptions because they seem cognitively implausible, and
sometimes they collaborate with psychologists and neurologists and take their research
results into account.
III. System-External Explanation, once a satisfactory description of morphological
patterns has been obtained, many linguists ask an even more ambitious question: why
are the patterns the way they are? In other words, they ask for explanations. Most
facts about linguistic patterns are historical accidents and as such cannot be
explained. The fact that the English plural is formed by adding -s is a good example of
such a historical accident. A frequent way to pursue explanation in linguistics is to
analyze universals of human language, since these are more likely to represent facts
that are in need of explanation at a deep level. And as a first step, we must find out
which morphological patterns are universal. Since it is true of all languages, it is in all
likelihood not a historical accident, but reflects something deeper, a general property
of human language that can perhaps be explained with reference to system-external
considerations. This explanation is an example of a system-external explanation in the
sense that it refers to facts outside the language system: the usefulness of number
distinctions in speech.
IV. A Restrictive Architecture for Description, many linguists see an important goal
of grammatical research in formulating some general design principles of grammatical
systems that all languages seem to adhere to. In other words, linguists try to construct
an architecture for description (also called grammatical theory) that all language-
particular descriptions must conform to. Many linguists assume that the architecture
of grammar is innate it is the same for all languages because it is genetically fixed for
the human species. The innate part of speakers grammatical knowledge is also called
Universal Grammar. For these linguists, one goal of morphological research is to
discover those principles of the innate Universal Grammar that are relevant for word
structure.

The goals (iii) and (iv) are similar in that both ask deeper, theoretical questions, and both
exclusively concern universal aspects of morphology. And both are more ambitious than (i) and
(ii) in that they involve explanation in some sense. There are thus two primary orientations in
contemporary theoretical morphological research: the functionalist orientation, which
aims at system-external explanation, and the generative (or formalist) orientation, which
seeks to discover the principles of the innate grammatical architecture.

Morphology in Different Language


Morphology is not equally prominent in all (spoken) languages. What one language expresses
morphologically may be expressed by a separate word or left implicit in another language. For
example, English expresses the plural of nouns by means of morphology (nut/nuts,
night/nights,), but Yoruba uses a separate word for expressing the same meaning. Thus,

means (the) man, and the word can be used to express the plural:

the men.

Quite generally, we can say that English makes more use of morphology than Yoruba. But there
are many languages that make more use of morphology than English. Linguists sometimes use
the terms analytic and synthetic to describe the degree to which morphology is made use of in a
language. Languages like Yoruba, Vietnamese or English, where morphology plays a relatively
modest role, are called analytic.

When a language has almost no morphology and thus exhibits an extreme degree of analyticity,
it is also called isolating. Yoruba and Vietnamese, are usually qualified as isolating. Languages
like Sumerian, Swahili or Lezgian, where morphology plays a more important role, would be
called synthetic.

When a language has an extraordinary amount of morphology and perhaps many compound
words, it is called polysynthetic.

The distinction between analytic and (poly)synthetic languages is not a bipartition or a


tripartition, but a continuum, ranging from the most radically isolating to the most highly
polysynthetic languages. We can determine the position of a language on this continuum by
computing its degree of synthesis, i.e. the ratio of morphemes per word in a random text
sample of the language.
Although English has much more morphology than isolating languages like Yoruba and
Vietnamese, it still has a lot less than many other languages.

2. Pengertian morfem, leksem, dan kata

These words are easily segmented, i.e. broken up into individually meaningful parts: read + s, read +
er, kind + ness, un + happy, and so on. These parts are called morphemes. Morphemes can be defined
as the smallest meaningful constituents of a linguistic expression. Words that cannot be segmented
into several morphemes; it is monomorphemic.

Lexeme

What is Lexeme? Lexeme is a word in an abstract sense. For example, the word
sing, sang, and sung are pronounced differently and are different in words. But in dictionary,
there would contain only one single entry SING. Thus make the user knows that even thought
sing, sang, and sung are different, it were concrete instantiation of the same word SING. Most
of languages in dictionaries are organized according to lexemes, so it can be also defined
that lexemes is a dictionary word.

Lexemes is an abstract word that have no phonological form of their own. For
example SING was considered as a label to talk about sequence of lexemes thus make the
sequence of sound /'s/ is not the lexeme itself. Lexeme are written in small capital letters.
Since the lexeme is abstract, it is conventional to choose one of the inflected forms to
represent it, such as infinitive of the verb or the singular of the noun. The same word form may
in fact represent different lexemes:

a. A homonym is a single orthographic and phonological word standing for two lexemes, as
bear is either the verb or the noun.
b. A homograph is a single orthographic word (but separate phonological words) standing
for two lexemes, as lead is either the noun /ld/ or the verb /li:d/.
c. A homophone is a single phonological word (but separate orthographical words)
standing for two lexemes, as /mi:t/ is either the noun meat or the verb meet.
d. The same lexeme might also have quite distinct word forms, as in the case of the definite
article the represented by /i:/ or / /, or the indefinite article a/an, represented by /eI/,
//, /n/, or /n/.
e. Word may also refer to a morphosyntactic word (or grammatical word). A
morphosyntactic word consists of a lexeme and associated grammatical meaning. For
example, in:
I take the garbage out every week. (TAKE + present)
I took the garbage out yesterday. (TAKE + past)
I have taken the garbage out already. (TAKE + past participle)

What is Word-Form?
A word-form is a word in a concrete sense. It is a sequence of sounds that expresses the
combination of a lexeme and a set of grammatical meanings (or grammatical functions)
appropriate to that lexeme. Sang is a word-form that belongs to lexeme SING. Word-forms
belonging to the same lexeme express different grammatical functions, but the same core
concept. When a word-form is used in a particular text or in speech, this instance of use is a
word token (The term "token" refers to the total number of words in a text, corpus etc,
regardless of how often they are repeated).

In the most interesting case, lexemes consist of a fair number of word-forms. The set of word-
forms that belongs to a lexeme is often called a paradigm. For the example,
Different lexemes may also be related to each other, and a set of related lexemes is sometimes
called a word family (though it should more properly be called a lexeme family). For example is

There are two points that differentiates the nature between lexemes and word-forms:

a. Complex lexemes (such as reader or logician) generally denote new concepts that are
different from the concepts of the corresponding simple lexemes, whereas word-forms
often exist primarily to satisfy a formal requirement of the syntactic machinery of the
language.
b. Complex lexemes must be listed separately in dictionaries because they are less
predictable than word-forms. The properties of word-forms are mostly predictable and
hence do not need to be listed separately for each lexeme.

Word
Speech is a continuous stream of sound without a clear division into units, but it can be analyzed into
meaningful elements which recur and combine according to rules. In writing, such an analysis is
expressed through the division into words and sentences. The essence of grammatical units is that they
are meaningful and combine with each other in systematic ways. We may distinguish a hierarchy of
units: A sentence consists of clauses, a clause consists of one or more phrases, a phrase consists of one
or more words, a word of one or more morphemes, a morpheme consists of one or more phonemes.

Definition of Word
The term word is used to designate an intermediate structure smaller than a whole phrase and yet
larger than a single sound segment. It can be defined depending on whether we focus on its
representation, the thought which it expresses, or purely formal criteria. However, although it may be
difficult to define word, even non-literate speakers can divide the speech chain into words.

First definition, This definition relies mainly on writing traditions that separate by spaces sequences of
letters or characters. These separations do not always correspond to functional realities. In speech these
pauses do not exist. Speech is a phonetic continuum and breaks are done only between some larger
syntactic units, such as phrases or clauses.

E.g. School, household, in, fall out, waste paper basket, forget-me-not, runner-up. Consequently, a
definition based on writing traditions alone cannot be entirely satisfactory.

Second definition, The second type of definition considers the indivisible unit of thought as the most
essential criterion. The main problem faced by this view is the delimitation which offers us three
possible alternatives:
a. The word as represented in writing represents a thought unit or a psychological unit, e.g. table,
house, courage, faith, intelligence, tall, short, sleep, eat
b. The word forms one block but includes two units of thought: e.g. farmer, rethink, spoonful.
c. The psychological unit exceeds the limit of the graphological unit and spreads over several
words, which is then a more complex unit: e.g. all of a sudden, as usual, coconut.

Third definition, By L. Bloomfield, who suggested a formal definition of word. He contrasted it with other
significant units, the morpheme or minimal meaningful unit, and the syntagma or structure, consisting
potentially of more than one word. For Bloomfield, a minimal form is morpheme. A form which may
occur alone is free, and the one which cannot occur alone is bound: F book, man ; B -ing, -er. Word is a
minimal free form, which can occur in isolation and have meaning but which cannot be analysed into
elements which can all occur alone and also have meaning.

The word is an uninterruptible unit of structure consisting of one or more morphemes and which
typically occurs in the structure of phrases.

Characteristics of words
First, the word is an uninterruptible unit. When elements are added to a word to modify its meaning,
they are never included within that word. They respect the internal stability of the word and are added
either at the beginning as prefixes of the word or at the end as suffixes. For example, the prefix un- and
the suffix able may be added to the words aware and drink and give unaware and drinkable
respectively.

Note, however, that an affix may also occur not at the beginning or at the end, but simultaneously with
the word; we then speak of a suprafix Compare for example the words 'export (noun) and ex'port (verb);
they differ only in the position of the primary stress represented by the symbol ('). The stress pattern
may be referred to as a suprafix. The word to which affixes are added and which carries the basic
meaning of the resulting complex word is known as 'the stem',which may consist of one or more
morphemes. The label 'root' is used to refer to a stem consisting of a single morpheme.

Secondly, the word may consist of one or more morphemes. When it consists of one morpheme only,
then it cannot be broken down into smaller meaningful units, e.g. dog, hand, man, out, work. These are
called 'simple' words, which are typically 'minimum free forms', in the sense that they may stand by
themselves and yet act as minimally complete utterances, e.g. in answer to a question. When words
consist of more than one morpheme, they may be either complex or compound.

Complex words may be broken down into one free form and one or more bound forms: e.g. dog-s,
happi-ly, quick-er, work-ing, whereas compound words consist of more than one free form: e.g.
birth+day, black+bird, candle+stick, coat+hanger. We also need to mention cases which incorporate the
characteristics of both complex and compound words: e.g. gentle-man-ly consists of the compound
word gentle+man and the suffix -ly; wind+shield+wipe-er consists of the compound word wind+shield
and the complex word wip-er.

Finally, it is also an important characteristic of each word that it should belong to a specific word class or
part of speech. Where the same form appears in more than one class, as frequently happens in English,
we regard the various occurrences as separate words (for example, smoke (verb) as distinct from smoke
(noun). It may even be suggested that a word is defined by two factors: its semantic 'nucleus' and the
class to which it belongs.

3. Jenis-jenis morfem, seperti afiks, root, steam, dan base

In both inflection and derivation, morphemes have various kinds of meanings. Some meanings are
very concrete and can be described easily, but other meanings are abstract and more difficult to
describe.

English -s in read-s is required when the subject is a third person singular noun phrase, but again it is
unclear whether it can be said to have meaning. In such cases, linguists are more comfortable saying
that these morphemes have certain grammatical functions. But, since the ultimate purpose of
grammatical constructions is to express meaning, we will continue to say that morphemes bear
meaning, even when that meaning is very abstract and can be identified only in the larger
grammatical context. Word-forms in an inflectional paradigm generally share (at least) one longer
morpheme with a concrete meaning and are distinguished from each other in that they additionally
contain different shorter morphemes, called affixes. An affix attaches to a word or a main part of a
word. It usually has an abstract meaning, and an affix cannot occur by itself.
For instance, Russian nouns have different affixes in the paradigm, which have case meaning (-a for
nominative, -u for accusative, etc.), and Classical Nahuatl nouns have different affixes in the
paradigm that indicate a possessor (no- for my, mo- for your, etc.).

Morphologists often use special terms for different kinds of affixes, depending on their position
within the word. Affixes that follow the main part of the word are called suffixes and affixes that
precede it are called prefixes. The part of the word that an affix is attached to is called the base,
e.g. ruk- in Russian, or -cal in Classical Nahuatl.

Affixes and bases can, of course, be identified both in inflected word-forms and in derived
lexemes. For instance, in read-er, read-able and re-read, read is the base, -er and -able are suffixes,
and re- is a prefix. A base is also sometimes called a stem, especially if an inflectional (as opposed
to derivational) affix attaches to it. There are still other kinds of affixes, besides prefixes and
suffixes, which are briefly described and illustrated:

Bases or stems can be complex themselves. A base that cannot be analyzed any further into
constituent morphemes is called a root. In readability, read is the root (and the base for readable),
and readable is the base for readability, but it is not a root. Thus, the base is a relative notion that is
defined with respect to the notion affix. Affixes are similar to roots in that they cannot be further
analyzed into component morphemes; they are primitive elements.

A base may or may not be able to function as a word-form. For instance, in English, cat is both the
base of the inflected form cats and itself a wordform. However, in Italian word-form gatti (cats) can
be broken up into the suffix -i (plural) and the base gatt- (cat), but gatt- is not a word-form. Italian
nouns must inflect for number, and even in the singular, an affix is required to express this
information (e.g. gatt-o cat, gatt-i cats). In this respect Italian differs from English. Bases that
cannot also function as word-forms are called bound stems.

Allomorphs
One of the most common complications is that morphemes may have different phonological shapes
under different circumstances. For instance, the plural morpheme in English is sometimes pronounced
[s] (as in cats [kts]), sometimes [z] (as in dogs [dgz]), and sometimes [-z] (as in faces [feisz]). When
a single affix has more than one shape, linguists use the term allomorph. Affixes very often have
different allomorphs two further cases from other languages are given in
Not only affixes, but also roots and stems may have different allomorphs. For instance, English verbs
such as sleep, keep, deal, feel, mean, whose root has the long vowel [i:] in the present-tense forms,
show a root allomorph with short *+ in the past-tense forms (slept, kept, dealt, felt, meant). Cases of
stem allomorphy from other languages are given in

The crucial properties which define the German stems [ta:k] and [ta:g] or the Korean suffixes [-ul] and [-
lul] as being allomorphs are that they have the same meaning and occur in different environments in
complementary distribution. Being phonologically similar is a common property of allomorphs,
but is not a necessary one. Allomorphs that have this property are phonological allomorphs. The
formal relation between two (or more) phonological allomorphs is called an alternation. Linguists
often describe alternations with a special set of morphophonological rules, which were historically
phonetically motivated, but affect morphology.

it is often convenient to think about phonological allomorphy in terms of a single underlying


representation that is manipulated by rules under certain conditions. The end result, i.e. what is
actually pronounced, is the surface representation. For instance, the alternations can be described by
the underlying representations in the (a) examples below, and by the respective rules in the (b)
examples. The surface representations (resulting word-forms) are given in (c).
Notice that for (2.13) and (2.14), the underlying representation (morpheme) meaning day is the
same, and the rule applies only when its conditions are met. The same is true for (2.15) and (2.16).
That the alternation is produced by the morphophonological rule is made particularly clear in this
way: the underlying representation shows no allomorphy at all.

In many cases of phonological allomorphy, it is evident that the historical reason for the existence
of the morphophonological rule and thus for the allomorphy is to facilitate pronunciation.
Phonological allomorphs represent a single morpheme whose form varies slightly depending upon
the phonological context created by combining morphemes. For this reason, it is common to think
of the morpheme as the more abstract underlying representation, rather than the more concrete
surface word-form. However, it is important to remember that the underlying representation is a
tool used by linguists. . There are examples where it seems unlikely that there is a single
underlying representation in the minds of speakers; we see this in another type of allomorphy:
suppletion.

Besides phonological allomorphs, morphemes may also have allomorphs that are not at all similar
in pronunciation. These are called suppletive allomorphs. For instance, the English verb go has
the suppletive stem wen in the past tense (wen-t), and the English adjective good has the suppletive
stem bett in the comparative degree (better). The term suppletion is most often used to refer to
stem shape and some linguists reserve the term for this use, but others also talk about affixes as
being potentially suppletive.

It is not always easy to decide whether an alternation is phonological or suppletive, because the
categories are end points on a continuum of traits, rather than a clear-cut binary distinction. For
instance, what about English buy/bought, catch/caught, teach/taught? The root allomorphs of these
verbs ([bai]/[b:+, *kt+/*k:], [ti:t+/*t:]) are not as radically different as go/wen-t, but they are
not similar enough to be described by phonological rules either. In such cases, linguists often speak
of weak suppletion, as opposed to strong suppletion in cases like go/went, good/better.
For both weak and strong suppletion, it is theoretically possible to posit an underlying
representation from which suppletive allomorphs are derived by rule.

When describing the allomorphy patterns of a language, another important dimension is the
conditioning of the allomorphy, i.e. the conditions under which different allomorphs are selected.
Phonological allomorphs typically have phonological conditioning. This means that the phonological
context determines the choice of allomorph.

By contrast, stem suppletion usually has morphological conditioning, meaning that the
morphological context (usually, grammatical function) determines the choice of allomorph.
And,finally, we find lexical conditioning, where the choice of a suppletive affix allomorph is
dependent on other properties of the base, for instance semantic properties as in

Lexical conditioning is also involved where the choice of allomorph cannot be derived from any
general rule and must be learned individually for each word. This is the case for the English past
participle suffix -en: speakers must simply learn which verbs take this suffix and not the more
common suffix -ed.
4. Ciri kata-kata yang dianggap produktif, semi produktif atau tidak
produktif
5. Proses pembentukan kata dengan kata sebagai dasarnya dan proses
pembentukan kata dengan morfem sebagai dasarnya

Compounding

Such words are called compounds. Generally, one of the words is the head of the compound and
the other(s) its modifier(s). In bucksaw, saw is the head, which is modified by buck. The order is
significant: compare pack rat with rat pack. Generally, the modifier comes before the head.

In ordinary English spelling, compounds are sometimes spelled as single words, as in sawmill,
sawdust; sometimes the parts are connected by a hyphen, as in jig-saw; and sometimes they are
spelled as two words, as in chain saw, oil well.
First, the stress pattern of the compound word is usually different from the stress pattern in the
phrase composed of the same words in the same order. Compare:

In the compounds the main stress is on the first word; in the phrases the main stress is on the last
word. While this pattern does not apply to all compounds, it is so generally true that it provides a
very useful test.

Second, the meaning of the compound may differ to a greater or lesser degree from that of the
corresponding phrase. A blackbird is a species of bird, regardless of its color; a black bird is a bird
which is black, regardless of its species. So, because the meanings of compounds are not always
predictable from the meanings of their constituents, dictionaries often provide individual entries
for them. They do not do this for phrases, unless the meaning of the phrase is idiomatic and
therefore not derivable from the meanings of its parts and how they are put together, e.g., raining
cats and dogs. Generally the meaning of a phrase is predictable from the meanings of its
constituents, and so phrases need not be listed individually.

Third, in many compounds, the order of the constituent words is different from that in the
corresponding phrase:

Fourth, compound nouns allow no modification to the first element. This contrasts with noun
phrases, which do allow modification to the modifier: compare *a really-blackbird and a really black
bird.

There are a number of ways of approaching the study and classification of compound words, the
most accessible of which is to classify them according to the part of speech of the compound and
then sub-classify them according to the parts of speech of its constituents.
An alternative approach is to classify compounds in terms of the semantic relationship between the
compound and its head. The head of a compound is the constituent modified by the compounds
other constituents. In English, heads of compounds are typically the rightmost constituent. For
example, in traffic-cop the head is cop, which is modified by traffic; in line-backer the head is backer,
which is modified by line. Linguists distinguish at least three different semantic relations between the
head and modifier(s) of compounds.

First, the compound represents a subtype of whatever the head represents. For instance, a traffic-
cop is a kind of cop; a teapot is a kind of pot; a fog-lamp is a kind of lamp; a blue-jay is a kind of jay.
That is, the head names the type, and the compound names the subtype. These are called
endocentric compounds.

Second, the compound names a subtype, but the type is not represented by either the head or the
modifier in the compound. For example, Deadhead, redhead, and pickpocket represent types of
people by denoting some distinguishing characteristic. There is typically another word, not included in
the compound, that represents the type of which the compound represents the subtype. In the case
of Deadhead, redhead, and pickpocket this other word is person, so a Deadhead is a person who is an
enthusiastic fan of the band The Grateful Dead. These are called exocentric compounds.
Third, there are compounds in which both elements are heads; each contributes equally to the
meaning of the whole and neither is subordinate to the other, for instance, bitter-sweet. Compounds
like these can be paraphrased as both X and Y, e.g., bitter and sweet. Other examples include
teacher-researcher and producer-director. These can be called coordinative compounds.

Other sources of words


Besides derivation and compounding, languages make use of coining, abbreviating, blending, and
borrowing to create new words.

Coining is the creation of new words without reference to the existing morphological resources of
the language, that is, solely out of the sounds of the language. Coining is very rare, but googol [note
the spelling] is an attested example, meaning 10100. This word was invented in 1940 by the nine-year-
old nephew of a mathematician.

Abbreviation involves the shortening of existing words to create other words, usually informal
versions of the originals. There are several ways to abbreviate. We may simply lop off one or more
syllables, as in prof for professor, doc for doctor. Usually the syllable left over provides enough
information to allow us to identify the word its an abbreviation of, though occasionally this is not
the case: United Airliness low cost carrier is called Ted. (Go figure!) Alternatively, we may use the
first letter of each word in a phrase to create a new expression, an acronym, as in UN, US, or SUV. In
these instances the acronym is pronounced as a sequence of letter names. In other instances, such as
UNICEF from United Nations International Childrens Emergency Fund, the acronym can be
pronounced as an ordinary English word. Advertisers make prolific use of acronyms and often try to
make them pronounceable as ordinary words.

Blending involves taking two or more words, removing parts of each, and joining the residues
together to create a new word whose form and meaning are taken from the source words. Smog
derives from smoke and fog and means a combination of these two substances (and probably lots of
others); motel derives from motor and hotel and refers to hotels that are convenient in various ways
to motorists; Prevacid derives from prevent acid; eracism derives from erase and racism and means
erase racism or, if read against the grain, electronic racism (cf. email, ecommerce, E-trade); webinar
derives from (worldwide) web and seminar.

Borrowing involves copying a word that originally belonged in one language into another
language. For instance, many terms from Mexican cuisine, like taco and burrito, have become current
in American English and are spreading to other English dialects. Borrowing requires that the borrowing
language and the source language come in contact with each other. Speakers of the borrowing
language must learn at least some minimum of the source language for the borrowing to take place.
Over its 1500 year history English has borrowed from hundreds of languages, though the main ones
are Latin (homicide), Greek (chorus), French (mutton), Italian (aria), Spanish (ranch), German
(semester), and the Scandinavian languages (law). From Native American languages, American English
has borrowed place names (Chicago), river names (Mississippi), animal names (opossum), and plant
names (hickory).

You might also like