Three Models of English Morphology

Barli Bram(1*),

(1) Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This paper explores models of English morphology, namely Item and Arrangement (IA), Item and Process (IP), and Word and Paradigm (WP), which can be used to analyze morphological data, particularly word formation involving prefixes and suffixes. Sample data, consisting of complex words or words having more than one morpheme, were analyzed using the three models to discover their strengths and shortcomings. In order to find out the differences between the three models of morphology, it is important that the current writer should examine strategies for distinguishing between derivational affixes and inflectional ones. There exist three advantages if morphologists know very well the three models of English morphology. First is that IA fails to display a clear sequence of the item and arrangement when dealing with some irregular plural nouns and irregular past tense. Second is that IP offers a better solution to irregular plural nouns, such as mice and men. Third is that WP appears to be the most efficient model when dealing with inflectional morphology.

Keywords


Item and Arrangement (IA), Item and Process (IP), Word and Paradigm (WP), derivation, inflection

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aranoff, M. & Fudeman, K. (2005). What is morphology? Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bauer, L. (2003 [1988]). Introducing linguistic morphology. (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Bauer, L. (2004). A glossary of morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Booij, G. (2006). Inflection and derivation. In Keith Brown (ed) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. V, 654-61.

Haspelmath, M. (2001). Understanding morphology. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.

Haspelmath, M. (2002). Understanding morphology. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.

Hockett, F. C. (2004 [1954]). Two models of grammatical description. In Francis Katamba (ed) Morphology. London and New York: Routledge. I, 110-36.

Matthews, P.H. (1998). Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robins, R.H. (2004 [1959]). In defence of WP. In Francis Katamba (ed) Morphology. London: Routledge. I, 137-56.

Scalise, S. (1986). Generative morphology. (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v15i1.316

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Barli Bram



Indexed and abstracted in:

     

 

 

LLT Journal Sinta 2 Certificate (S2 = Level 2)

We would like to inform you that LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching has been nationally accredited Sinta 2 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia based on the decree  No. Surat Keputusan 158/E/KPT/2021. Validity for 5 years: Vol 23 No 1, 2020 till Vol 27 No 2, 2024

  

 

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

Free counters!


 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt, e-ISSN 2579-9533 and p-ISSN 1410-7201, is published twice a year, namely in April and October by the English Language Education Study Programme of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.