MORPHOLOGY
Developed by Jadid Muanas
Morphology is at the conceptual centre of linguistics. This is not because it is the dominant
subdiscipline, but because morphology is the study of word structure, and words are at the interface
between phonology, syntax and semantics. Words have phonological properties, they articulate
together to form phrases and sentences, their form often reflects their syntactic function, and their
parts are often composed of meaningful smaller pieces. In addition, words contract relationships with
each other by virtue of their form; that is, they form paradigms and lexical groupings. For this reason,
morphology is something all linguists have to know about. The centrality of the word brings with it
two important challenges. First, there is the question of what governs morphological form: how is
allomorphy to be described? The second is the question of what governs the syntactic and semantic
function of morphological units, and how these interact with syntax and semantics proper.
There is a less enviable aspect to this centrality. Morphology has been called ‘the Poland of linguistics’
– at the mercy of imperialistically minded neighbours. In the heyday of American structuralism,
morphology and phonology were the principal objects of study. Monographs entitled ‘The Grammar of
L’, for some language L, would frequently turn out to consist of the phoneme system of L and its
morphology. However, the study of morphology in generative linguistics was largely eclipsed by
phonology and syntax in the early days (though it is up to historians of linguistics to say exactly why).
Ultimately, it came to be that when morphology was considered at all, it was regarded as essentially
either a part of phonology or a part of syntax. True, there were a number of important works on
morphology, mainly inflectional morphology, such as Kiefer’s (1973) work on Swedish, Bierwisch’s
(1967) study of German and Warburton's (1973) paper on Greek inflection; but it was not until Halle's
(1973) short programmatic statement that linguistics at large began to appreciate that there was a
vacuum in linguistic theory where morphology should be. This was followed in 1974 by two
particularly influential MIT dissertations, later published as Aronoff (1976) and Siegel (1979),
proposing radically different approaches to the subject.
Siegel's theory of Level Ordering brought with it a new way of looking at the phonology—morphology
interface, which ultimately grew into Kiparsky's (1982a) Lexical Phonology. Siegel argued that those
affixes in English which never affect stress (and which do not trigger other lexical phonological
alternations) such as -ness are attached after stress rules have applied. These are the # boundary
affixes of SPE (Chomsky and Halle 1968), renamed Class II. The + boundary (Class I) affixes are those
which do affect stress, such as -ity, and they are attached before the stress rules. This led to an
interesting prediction about the linear order of affixes: Class I affixes appear nearer the root than
Class II affixes. This generalization is largely true, though it has been regularly pointed out since
Aronoff (1976) that it is not entirely true. Fabb (1988) has argued that even if it is true, the Level
Ordering Hypothesis is not sufficient to explain affix ordering in its entirety, and that alternative
conceptions which do give reasonably broad coverage can also handle the Level Ordering phenomena.
Lexical Phonology is generally associated with Level Ordering (though a number of lexical
phonologists have distanced themselves from it; cf. Booij and Rubach 1987). However, the leadi ideas of the model do not actually require Level Ordering. The main thrust of Kiparsky's theory is to
emphasize the traditional distinction between morphophonemic alternations and automatic
alternations. The morphophonemic alternations are generally mappings from sets of phonemes into
sets of phonemes (Structure Preservation), apply in contexts which are not defined in purely
phonological terms, often have lexical exceptions, can be ‘cancelled’ by native speakers (e.g. in loan
phonology), and generally apply only within words. The automatic alternations are generally
allophonic (non-Structure Preserving), speakers are generally not aware of them, they apply to
monomorphemic forms, and they often apply across words. Kiparsky argued that morphophonemic
alternations are actually triggered by morphological operations of affixation. As an affix is added (or a
cycle of affixation with a level is completed), the battery of lexical phonological rules applies. This
gives rise to various types of cyclic effect, and accounts for a good many of the properties of the two
types of rule.
subdiscipline, but because morphology is the study of word structure, and words are at the interface
between phonology, syntax and semantics. Words have phonological properties, they articulate
together to form phrases and sentences, their form often reflects their syntactic function, and their
parts are often composed of meaningful smaller pieces. In addition, words contract relationships with
each other by virtue of their form; that is, they form paradigms and lexical groupings. For this reason,
morphology is something all linguists have to know about. The centrality of the word brings with it
two important challenges. First, there is the question of what governs morphological form: how is
allomorphy to be described? The second is the question of what governs the syntactic and semantic
function of morphological units, and how these interact with syntax and semantics proper.
There is a less enviable aspect to this centrality. Morphology has been called ‘the Poland of linguistics’
– at the mercy of imperialistically minded neighbours. In the heyday of American structuralism,
morphology and phonology were the principal objects of study. Monographs entitled ‘The Grammar of
L’, for some language L, would frequently turn out to consist of the phoneme system of L and its
morphology. However, the study of morphology in generative linguistics was largely eclipsed by
phonology and syntax in the early days (though it is up to historians of linguistics to say exactly why).
Ultimately, it came to be that when morphology was considered at all, it was regarded as essentially
either a part of phonology or a part of syntax. True, there were a number of important works on
morphology, mainly inflectional morphology, such as Kiefer’s (1973) work on Swedish, Bierwisch’s
(1967) study of German and Warburton's (1973) paper on Greek inflection; but it was not until Halle's
(1973) short programmatic statement that linguistics at large began to appreciate that there was a
vacuum in linguistic theory where morphology should be. This was followed in 1974 by two
particularly influential MIT dissertations, later published as Aronoff (1976) and Siegel (1979),
proposing radically different approaches to the subject.
Siegel's theory of Level Ordering brought with it a new way of looking at the phonology—morphology
interface, which ultimately grew into Kiparsky's (1982a) Lexical Phonology. Siegel argued that those
affixes in English which never affect stress (and which do not trigger other lexical phonological
alternations) such as -ness are attached after stress rules have applied. These are the # boundary
affixes of SPE (Chomsky and Halle 1968), renamed Class II. The + boundary (Class I) affixes are those
which do affect stress, such as -ity, and they are attached before the stress rules. This led to an
interesting prediction about the linear order of affixes: Class I affixes appear nearer the root than
Class II affixes. This generalization is largely true, though it has been regularly pointed out since
Aronoff (1976) that it is not entirely true. Fabb (1988) has argued that even if it is true, the Level
Ordering Hypothesis is not sufficient to explain affix ordering in its entirety, and that alternative
conceptions which do give reasonably broad coverage can also handle the Level Ordering phenomena.
Lexical Phonology is generally associated with Level Ordering (though a number of lexical
phonologists have distanced themselves from it; cf. Booij and Rubach 1987). However, the leadi ideas of the model do not actually require Level Ordering. The main thrust of Kiparsky's theory is to
emphasize the traditional distinction between morphophonemic alternations and automatic
alternations. The morphophonemic alternations are generally mappings from sets of phonemes into
sets of phonemes (Structure Preservation), apply in contexts which are not defined in purely
phonological terms, often have lexical exceptions, can be ‘cancelled’ by native speakers (e.g. in loan
phonology), and generally apply only within words. The automatic alternations are generally
allophonic (non-Structure Preserving), speakers are generally not aware of them, they apply to
monomorphemic forms, and they often apply across words. Kiparsky argued that morphophonemic
alternations are actually triggered by morphological operations of affixation. As an affix is added (or a
cycle of affixation with a level is completed), the battery of lexical phonological rules applies. This
gives rise to various types of cyclic effect, and accounts for a good many of the properties of the two
types of rule.
here for download the materials
1. Handbook (An Introduction to English Morphology) DOWNLOAD
2. Lecturing Material (Introduction) DOWNLOAD
3. SAP for English Morphology TBI grade 4 DOWNLOAD
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar
kreatifitas anda saya tunggu. silahkan berkomentar apabila ada setuju atau tidaknya postingan yang saya suguhkan. tolong jaga nilai kesopanan. terimakasih.