Name : Achmad Affandi

NPM : 10.601010.014

Subject : English Morphology

Lecturer : Mr.Winarno, S.Pd, M.Pd

Laurie Bauer

Morphology is concerned with the relationship between the form of a word and its meaning.
For example, if we consider the words manage, manages, managed, managing, management,
manager, and managerial we find that there is a common core of meaning corresponding to the
meaning of manage, and if we consider the words managing, obliging, refusing, seeking, and
teaching, there is also a common element of meaning (even if it may be quite difficult to specify
that meaning precisely) that is reflected in the recurrent -ing.

Etymologically, the term morphology seems to indicate the study of forms, though it can be
seen from the preceding that form alone does not provide an object of study within morphology.
Morphologists are not interested in the fact the word notable might be considered to contain the
orthographic forms no and table because neither no nor table as a unit provides any meaning that
can be found in notable. It is where form and meaning reflect each other directly, either because
a certain formal sequence can be seen as being regularly correlated with a particular meaning (as
in the examples above) or because there is a regular patterning of semantic relationships, and a
particular form can be seen as filling a cell in the pattern. Thus, Worse is taken to be in the same
relationship to bad that bigger is to big or frailer is to frail, not because of any regularity of form
but because of the equivalence of the cells in the pattern or paradigm.

Since morphology is concerned with form, it is related to the study of phonology (see
Morphophonemic’s), and since it is concerned with meaning, it is related to the study of
semantics. It is also related to the study of syntax in that many of the meanings that find
expression in morphology are related to syntactic function: for example, the comparative, past
tense and present participles illustrated above. Morphology is also related to lexis in that
morphological pat- terns can be used in the creation of new lexical items, as illustrated by
manager and management above. This ‘cross-road’ (Kastovsky, 1977) nature of morphology
means that it has been open to influence from phonological and syntactic theories, as well as to
changing ideas about the nature of the lexicon. All this is reflected in morphological theorizing.

Morphology is often viewed in terms of the operations that apply to simpler units (like
manage) to create more complex ones (like manager and managerial). This view of morphology
is reflected in the articles in this encyclopedia on affixation, back- formation, neoclassical
compounding, conversion, incorporation, internal modification, morph tactics, and reduplication.
It can also be viewed through the notion of related sets of words like go, went, going, etc. This is
reflected in the article on paradigm.

There are also various problems inherent in morphological study, which are discussed in the
articles for inflection and derivation, lexicalization, morpheme, productivity, suppletion, and
syncretism. Theoretical approaches to morphology are discussed in amorphous morphology, auto
segmental phonology, declarative morphology, distributed morphology, lexeme-morpheme
based morphology, lexical-phonology and morphology, onomasiological theory of word
formation, optimality theory in morphology, paradigm function morphology, seamless
morphology, sign-based morphology, syntax of words, and template morphology.

Morphological typology and linguistic universals are discussed in some of the articles
mentioned above, but also in the articles on morphological typology and morphological
universals, and the articles on Arabic as an introflecting language, Chinese as an isolating
language, Finnish as an agglutinating language, Italian as a fissional language, and Central
Siberian Yupik as a polysynthetic language.

Other aspects of morphology are discussed in acquisition of morphological knowledge during

the school years, critics, dictionaries and inflectional morphology, folk etymology, history of
morphology, metathesis in morphology, morphology and language processing, morphology and
word formation in corpus linguistics, morphology in pidgins and creoles, splinters, subtraction,
and word.

Noam Chomsky

Beginning in the late 1950s, early versions of Chomsky's theory were called transformational
grammar, and this term is still used as a collective term that includes his subsequent theories.
There are a number of competing versions of generative grammar currently practiced within
linguistics. Chomsky's current theory is known as the Minimalist Program. Other prominent
theories include or have included head-driven phrase structure grammar, lexical functional
grammar, categorial grammar, relational grammar, and tree-adjoining grammar.

Chomsky has argued that many of the properties of a generative grammar arise from an
"innate" universal grammar. Proponents of generative grammar have argued that most grammar
is not the result of communicative function and is not simply learned from the environment (see
poverty of stimulus argument). In this respect, generative grammar takes a point of view
different from cognitive grammar, functional and behaviorist theories.

Most versions of generative grammar characterize sentences as either grammatically correct

(also known as well formed) or not. The rules of a generative grammar typically function as an
algorithm to predict grammaticality as a discrete (yes-or-no) result. In this respect, it differs from
stochastic grammar which considers grammaticality as a probabilistic variable. However, some
work in generative grammar (e.g. recent work by Joan Bresnan) uses stochastic versions of
optimality theory.