BACAA

N
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).