Analysis of blocking process in affixation of English words by using Katamba's Theory

(1)

ANALYSIS

AFFIXATION

KA

Subm in Par

ENGLI

FACULTY

SYARIF HIDAYA

IS OF BLOCKING PROCESS I

N OF ENGLISH WORDS BY U

KATAMBA’S THEORY

A Thesis

ubmitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty artial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Strata One Degree (S1)

Hilman Saiful Rahman

104026000955

GLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LTY OF ADAB AND HUMANITIES

YATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVER

JAKARTA

2009

S IN

USING

(2)

ABSTRACT

Hilman Saiful Rahman,An Analysis of Blocking Process in Affixation of English Words by Using Katamba’s Theory. Thesis, Jakarta: College, State Islamic University, Faculty of Adab and Humanities, April 2009.

The goal of the research is to find out the reason why blocking can occur in affixation of English words based on katamba’s theory.

This research discusses blocking process that occurs in some affixations of English words. Here, the writer studied some English words taken from Longman Dictionary that their affixations are blocked by some linguistic aspects as the unit analysis. Furthermore, in this research the writer used Katamba’s theory related to blocking as the theoretical framework of this research. The method of the research is descriptive qualitative, which finds out knowledge related to the object of this research, tries to describe the existence of blocking in English words, and finds the data that show the existence of blocking in English. In addition, in this research, the writer uses some English words blocked in their productivity process (affixation) as the data to be analyzed in order to explain why blocking process occurs in English.

(3)

APPROVEMENT

AN ANALYSIS OF BLOCKING PROCESS IN AFFIXATION OF ENGLISH WORDS BY USING KATAMBA’S THEORY

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Adab and Humanities In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Strata (S1)

Hilman Saiful Rahman

NIM 104026000955

Approved by:

Dr. Frans Sayogie, M. Pd

NIP 150299481 Supervisor

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ADAB AND HUMANITIES

SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

JAKARTA

(4)

LEGALIZATION

The thesis entitled “An Analysis of Blocking Process in Affixation of English Words by Using Katamba’s Theory” has been defended before the Letters and Humanities Faculty’s Examination Committee on 05-28-2009. The thesis has already been accepted as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the strata one degree (S1).

Jakarta, 05-28-2009

Examination Committee Chair Person,

Dr. M. Farkhan, M.pd NIP. 150 299 480

Secretary,

Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd NIP. 150 261 902

Members:

Drs. Zainal Arifin Toy, M.L.S NIP. 150 031 215

(5)

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Jakarta, April 17, 2009

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the Name of Alláh, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Firstly, the writer would like to thank to Allah SWT, and Prophet Muhammad SAW. Secondly, the writer would like to thank his beloved parents, his brothers and sisters, and his friends. Then, the writer would like to thank Mr. Frans Sayogi, his advisor for guiding him during the process of the paper. The writer fully realizes without his help, this paper will not be better. The writer will also not forget to thank Mr. Zahril, Gary Anderson, and Adam Baker for giving a big contribution for the writer in conducting this research.

The writer would like to thank some people for contributing much while this paper is in process until it becomes a complete work, they are as follows:

1. Dr. H. Abd. Chair, MA as the Dean of Faculty of Adab and Humanities, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University.

2. Dr. M. Farkhan, M.Pd as the head of English Letters Department. 3. Drs. A. Saefuddin, M.Pd as the Secretary of English Letters

Department.

4. All lecturers of English Letters Department for teaching the writer during the time he studies at this faculty.

Finally, the writer hopes this thesis will be useful especially for the writer and those who are interested in it. Amen

Jakarta, April 17, 2009 Hilman Saiful Rahman

(7)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Consonant Phonemes of English………...45

Table 2. Blocking process occurring on verbs derived from adjective by adding suffix {-en}………46

Table 3.Blocking process occurring on adverbs derived from adjective by adding suffix {-ly}……….48

Table. 4. Blocking process occurring on attachment of verb-forming English suffix {-ify}………50

Table 5. Blocking Process Occurring on noun derived from verb by adding suffix {-er}………52

Table 6. Blocking Process Occurring on addition of suffix {-hood} on noun...…53

Table 7. Blocking Process Occurring on verbs Ending in the Suffix {-ify}…...55

Table 8. Blocking Process Occurring on verb Ending in the Suffix {-ize}……...56

Table 9. Blocking Process Occurring on Application Velar Softening Effect…..57

Table 10. Blocking Process Occurring on Addition prefix {-un} to adjectives….59

Table 11. Blocking Process Occurring on Appearance Possible Words………...60

Table 12. Blocking Process Occurring on Application Derivatives in {-ee}…....61

(10)

Table 14. Blocking Process Involving Morphological Factors………..64

(11)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Morphemes’ Classification………..………..12

(12)

LIST OF APPENDICES

(13)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of Study

In English, as in other language, a speaker can coin new words on the basis of other words or word-forming elements. For example, English speakers turn adjectives such as happy into nouns by adding the suffix -ness, yielding happiness, or form compounds by joining existing words, as in flash disk, and some of these words may eventually make it into the common vocabulary of the speakers. It means English speakers can enrich the vocabulary by adding affixes into root or stem to construct a new word. It is because there are affixes that are derivational morphemes that can change class of word that they are added to.

Moreover this process (affixation) can be an effective way to learn English vocabularies especially for people who use English as second language such as Indonesian because they don’t need to remember all of English vocabularies,

which is impossible to do. What they need only remembering some affixes and adding them into root or stem, and then they can coin some words from a word. For example, from a noun {beauty} they can form simply an adjective (beautiful) ({beauty} + {ful}), a verb (beautify) ({beauty} + {fy}), and an adverb (beautifully) (({beauty} + {ful}) + {ly}).

(14)

kinds of affixes that are prefixes and suffixes. In addition, according to Abdul Chaer, this process involves three elements that are base, affixes, and grammatical meaning resulted by the affixation process, and affixes in English can be derivative and inflective1.

Furthermore, in daily speech there are some affixation processes, which are related to a large extent rulegoverned, quite often used to coin new words, whereas others are less often used or not used at all for this purpose. For example, as explained inEnsyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 2ndEdition, it seems that no new noun can be formed in Modern English with the help of the suffix -th (as in depth or length), whereas the nominal suffix -ness, which is similar in function, is found very often in new formations(cf. eco-friendliness, first attested in 1989,Oxford English dictionary (OED)). In this sense, some morphological rules are called productive and other rules unproductive or less productive2.

Besides there is the existence of productivity or less productivity in affixation process above, there is also a certain rule for this affixation process, for example English speakers can form a noun from a verb by adding suffix –ance, but especially for words such as signify (signification), beautify (beautification), personify (personification), classify (classification), etc, that process is not applicable in turning a noun from a verb. In addition, they have to add suffix -enif they want to make a verb from such adjective as black (blacken), red (redden), wide (widen), short (shorten) etc.

1

Abdul Chair,Linguistik Umum,(Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2003), p. 177

2

(15)

However, in reality, there are some words that violate the rule above. It means that there are some words that, although, follow the morphological rule in their affixation process, the result of their affixation is not applicable in daily speech. It occurs because there are some restrictions for their affixation process. Moreover, it is important to know this restriction because if this restriction is ignored, it is possible to form a strange word instead of coining a new word by affixation process. For example, English speakers want to construct a subject form for {steal}, and then they add a suffix {er}, which is an agent noun, to {steal} because if they want to make a subject form for {read}, they can just add suffix {er} to {read}. However, the result of the affixation process for {steal} above is strange because there is nostealerin English vocabularies. Therefore, knowledge of this restriction in affixation (blocking) is an important knowledge for us, especially to avoid making mistake in combining morphemes in affixation process.

The reason why there are some restrictions for some affixations process in English words is because of the existence of blocking that is the factors which frustrate the application of a word-formation process3. Furthermore, this existence of blocking in English words and its urgency that is explained above are the main reason why the writer is interested in conducting this research that tries to explain why this blocking process occurs in affixation of English words.

3

(16)

B. Focus of Research

Based on background of study above, this research will focus on blocking process in English morphology and explain why it can occur on affixation of English words. Moreover, in order to explain why it can occur on affixation of English words, this research will focus on some English words that are blocked by some linguistic aspects in its productivity process (affixation) or its word-formation process.

C. Research Question

Based on the focus of research of this research, the research questions for this research is

1. How does blocking process occur on affixation of English words?

D. The Objective of Research

The objective of this research is to know how blocking process occurs in affixation of English word.

E. The Significance of Research

(17)

this research the writer hopes to more understand blocking process and its application in using good English in daily activity.

F. Research Methodology

1. Method

This research uses descriptive qualitative method, as Taliziduhu Ndraha explained in his book “Research Teori metodologi administrasi”, that is finding knowledge related to the object of this research, trying to describe the object of the research, finding and analyzing the data needed to answer the research question4. Furthermore, the writer applies this method in this research by finding knowledge related to the object of this research, trying to describe the existence of blocking in English words, and finding the data that show the existence of blocking in English. In addition, in this research, the writer uses some English words blocked in their productivity process (affixation) as the data to be analyzed in order to explain why blocking process occurs in English.

2. Technique of Data Collection

There are some steps conducted in technique of data analysis of this research. Firstly, the writer collected randomly words blocked in their affixation as the data, and the writer got about 346 words in this step. Furthermore, in this research, the writer collected the words from Longman Dictionary of

4

(18)

Contemporary English new edition5. The writer chose this dictionary because this dictionary is well known as complete dictionary and one of the best English dictionaries in the world. Secondly, from those words, the writer selected only

several words that are related to Katamba’s blocking theory in order to get

representative data for this research. It is because Katamba’s theory that is related

to blocking process in English is the main theory used by the writer to analyze those words. Thus, the writer selected only several words that their affixation is blocked and the process of the blocking can be found in Katamba’s blocking

theory, and in this step, the writer got only 175 words. In addition, in this step, the writer collected some information of those words that helps the writer in

describing blocking process based on Katamba’s theory, such as meaning, phonetic transcription, class of words, and origin of words. The writer took all of the information from Longman dictionary, but for information the origin of words, the writer took the information from Encarta Dictionary. That is because the information of the origin of words is not available in Longman Dictionaries. After the writer had got the representative data for this research, the writer analyzed the data by usingKatamba’s blocking theory.

3. Technique of Data Analysis

In the analysis process, based on Katamba’s blocking theory, the writer

sorted the data (the words) into three categories of blocking process. They were blocked words in their affixation because of phonological factor, blocked words in

5

(19)

their affixation because of morphological factor, and blocked words in their affixation because semantic factor. Lastly, the writer analyzed them based on their

categories by using Katamba’ blocking theory.

4. Research Instrument

Instrument of this research is the writer as the subject of this research by collecting the data, and Longman Dictionary as other additional instrument that helps the writer in collecting the data. Furthermore, as explained in technique of data analysis above, the data are 175 blocked words in their affixation, and their

blocking process can be found in Katamba’s blocking theory.

5. Unit Analysis

Unit analyses of this research are some English words that are blocked by some linguistic aspects in their affixation process and collected qualitatively from

Longman Dictionary based on Katamba’s blocking theory. Those words are

words that their affixation is blocked and the process of the blocking can be found

(20)

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Morphology

As explained in the introduction chapter above, blocking is part of Morphology knowledge that is a study of structure of words. Furthermore, as cited by M. Farkhan his book “an Introducing to Linguistics” from David Crystal’s book “Introducing Linguistics”,Morphology which was originally used in biology means literally the study of form. Since the mid nine century, this term has been adopted in Linguistic study to describe the analysis of basic meaningful elements of a language. It is then, defined as the branch of grammar which studies the structure of words6.

In addition, Carleton T. Hodge explained that Morphology which is the description of the meaningful forms follows the basic principle of analysis, that of substitution. In order to identify elements and separate them for analysis, the analyst seeks to find utterances which differ in only one respect. If the writer compare I saw the book, I saw the books, and I saw the booklet, the writer conclude that –s of books and the –let of booklet are separate meaningful elements, but the writer also note thatbookmay occur without either of them. In the same way the writer may abstract other kinds of structural elements, such as stress and intonation. In I saw a blackbird, the person speaking refers to a

6

(21)

particular kind of bird. In I saw a black bird, the person speaking indicates only that the bird was black. It may have been a black bird might just easily have been crow or raven. In such a case the writer can abstract the stress pattern as a meaningful element. This same contrast of pattern occurs in, for example, the White House(where the President of the United States lives) andthe white house

(which indicates a particular house of that color). On the basis of such substitution English speaker establish forms, or morphs --- the smallest meaningful pieces into which they may divide the utterance. These morphs may be roots, such asbook, black, bird, house; affixes, such as –s and –let; stress patterns, such as that in

blackbirdwhich contrasts with that of black bird7.

Based on the explanation from two experts above, the writer can conclude that morphology is a part of Linguistics aspects that focuses its study on structure of words. Therefore, in morphology, a morpheme which is the smallest units of meaning and cannot be analyzed into smaller part is one of main focuses in morphology because of its role in giving meaning in structure of words. Besides, the writer may also conclude that morpheme in English can be roots (usually as free morpheme), affixes (usually as bound morpheme). And stress patterns (as supra-segmental morphemes).

As an addition for the conclusion above, based on the phoneme arranging morphemes in a word, morphemes are divided into two kinds that are segmental

7

(22)

morphemes and supra-segmental morphemes8. For example, words, such as unhappy, books, and irregular is segmental morphemes because they are able to be segmented ((unhappy = {un} + {happy}), (books = {book} + {-s}), (irregular = {in-/ir-) + {regular})). While, words such as blackbird/black bird and blackboard/black board are supra-segmental morphemes because morphemes inserted in those words are stress patterns, which is not able to be segmented. Thus, segmental morphemes are all morphemes that have forms as sounds that are segmented elements such as {book} /bu:k/ or {-s}; while, supra-segmental morphemes are all morphemes that are formed by supra-supra-segmental elements, such as stress pattern that contrasts blackbird from black bird9.

On the other hand, based on their possibility in forming a words, morphemes can be divided as free morphemes and bound morphemes. As free morphemes, morphemes can be divided into lexical and functional morphemes, and as bound morphemes; morphemes can be divided into two kinds that are derivational and inflectional morphemes10. Free morphemes are all morphemes that can stand alone such as book, laptop, or pen; while, bound morphemes are all morphemes that appear only together with other morphemes to form a lexeme such as {un-}, {in-}, or {-s}11.

The paragraph above tells that as free morphemes, morphemes can be divided into lexical morphemes and functional morphemes. Lexical morphemes

8

Djoko Kentjono,Dasa-Dasar Lirguistik Umum, (Depok: Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia, 2004), p. 41

9

Abdul Chaer,Linguistik Umum, (Jakarta: Rineka Cipta,2003), p. 155

10

Muhammad Farkhan,an Introduction to Linguistics, (Jakarta: UIN Jakarta Press), p. 56

11

(23)

are all morphemes which carry the content of messages the users convey, and they are usually named as content of words consisting of nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. While, functional morphemes are all morphemes that serve to make the sentences grammatical, and they are usually named as functional words consisting of conjunctions, prepositions, articles, and pronoun12.

In addition, as explained above, bound morphemes can be divided into derivational morphemes and inflectional morphemes. Derivational morphemes, which can be affixes, are all morphemes that can be added to a word to create (derive) another word: the addition of "-ness" to "happy," for example, to give "happiness", so derivational morphemes are morphemes that carry semantic meaning. On the other hand, Inflectional morphemes, which can be suffixes, are all morphemes that modify a word's tense, number, aspect, and so on (as in the "dog" morpheme if written with the plural marker morpheme "-s" becomes "dogs"). Thus, inflectional morphemes are morphemes that carry grammatical information13.

Here is a diagram that explains kinds of morphemes and kinds of affixes that some of them have correlation to blocking process:

12

,Muhammad Farkhan,Opcit,p.55

13

(24)

14

15

16

17

14 15

16

17

Morphemes

Free

Lexical

Function

Bound

Derivational

Prefixes

Infixes

Suffixes

Circumfixes

Inflectional

(25)

Moreover, the knowledge of morphemes above is important in explaining blocking process in English as the main discussion of this chapter because of its correlation to blocking process in English. As explained above, Morphology concentrates its study to the structure of words, including to morphemes as smallest unit of language that can contrast a meaning. Besides, there are many kinds of morphemes in English. However, not all morphemes have correlation to blocking process; there are only several morphemes that have correlation to blocking process in English. It is because blocking in English is related to word-formation process in forming new words by combining two morphemes or more such as affixation process (in this case), and only free morphemes as its root and derivational morphemes that can change the meaning and the structure of word are involved in the process of forming new words from a word by affixation process18. Therefore, it is a clear thing that knowledge of morphemes is needed in this case.

Then, derivational morphemes that involve in the affixation process that has correlation to blocking process in English can be prefixes and suffixes. It is because prefixes and suffixes included into derivational morphemes are affixes that are very productive in word formation process that coin new words from a word.

Furthermore, besides focusing its study on morphemes, morphology, actually, has a large field of study. Some of circumstances related to morphology’s field of study are word formation, affixation, blend, clitics,

18

(26)

compound, conversion, inflectional and derivational, internal modification, metathesis, morphophonemic, morphotactics, neoclassical compounding, non-morphological word formation, productivity, lexicalization, suppletion, syncretism, etc. However, in this chapter, the writer will only discuss some of them that have direct correlation to blocking in English because the main purpose of this chapter is to explain knowledge related to the blocking process in English and explain what blocking is. Therefore, for the next discussion in this chapter, the writer will explain word formation, productivity, affixation and blocking process.

B. Word Formation

Actually, the term ‘word formation’ is ambiguous in modernlinguistics. In one usage of the term, it is equivalent to‘morphology’ and refers to matters such

as affixation and reduplication as used in the creation of word forms. In the more widely accepted sense of the term, word formation refers to the creation of new lexemes in a given language19. However, related to the meaning word formation,

Fromkin and Rodman in their book “an Introducing to Language” added that

speaker of a language may know tens of thousands of words. Dictionaries, as the writer noted, include hundreds of thousands of words, all of which are known by some speakers of the language. But no dictionary can list all possible words since it is possible to add to the vocabulary of a language in many ways20. For one of

19

Keith Brrown and Anne Anderson,Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition, (Boston: Elsevier, 2006), p. 632

20

(27)

the examples of those ways, English speaker can form a verb uglify from an adjective ugly by using affixation (by adding suffix {–ify} (ugly + ify)). Morphemes can be combined in this way because there are morphological rules in every language that determine how morphemes can be combined to form new words21. Thus, the writer may conclude that word formation is related to the creation of new lexemes in a given language, and, in its formation, it follows morphological rules that are rules for the combination of morphemes to form stems and words.

Regarding to the rules of word formation, actually there are several ways except affixation or derivation. They are compounding, invention, borrowing, back formation, clipping, echoism, acronym, blending, folk etymology, antonomasia, and reduplication22. However, in this chapter, the writer will only explain each of them generally as additional information related to word formation, but especially for affixation that has direct correlation to blocking process, the writer will also explain more explicit on the next subtitle. Generally, Affixationis a process of adding affixes into roots or stems in order to change the roots or stems semantically or grammatically, and in this case, affixes involved in word formation are only derivational morphemes that can change the structure and the meaning of the words they are added to. Thus, some linguist named also for affixation in word formation as derivation. Invention is a process of acquiring new words by creating it, such as Kodak, moron, nylon, and etc.

21

Ibid,p. 76

22

(28)

echoism is the formation of words whose sound suggests their meaning, like hiss and peewee. Clipping means cutting off the beginning or the end of a word, leaving a part to stand for the whole. Acronymis the process whereby a word is formed from the initials or beginning segments of a succession of words. Blendingis the fusion of two words into one, usually the first of one word with the last part of another.Back formationis the formation of a word from one that looks like its derivative.Folk etymology is a process—changing a word, in part or in whole, to make it more understandable and more like familiar words. Antonomasia means the formation of a common noun, a verb, or an adjective from the name of a person or a place. Reduplicationis the process of forming a new word by doubling a morpheme, usually with a change of vowel or initial consonant23.

Furthermore, as explained above, word formation is related to the creation of new lexemes in a given language, and, in its formation it follows morphological rules that are rules for the combination of morphemes to form stems and words. It means English speakers can construct or form new words from actual word, but they have also to follow the morphological rules in this word formation process. Moreover, the existence of word formation can cause appearing of possible words and potential words24. However, in the reality, there are some phenomena that break the rules above. In some cases, there are some circumstances that can frustrate the word formation process. For example, English

23

Ibid, pp. 127-133

24

(29)

speakerscannot form or use possible word ‘stealer’ as the result of affixation (one

of word formation rules) by adding {-er} into {steal} because there are actual

word ‘thief’ that frustrates or blocks the process. In these cases,English speakers cannot form new words, although they follow word formation rules. This phenomenon can occur on word formation rules, especially on affixation or derivation. Thus, this is why only affixation that has correlation to blocking process, although there are many ways in word formation rules. Therefore, on the next subtitle, the writer will only discuss affixation in English that has correlation to blocking in English.

1. Affixation

Affixation is addition process of affixes into base or stem. This process involves several linguistic elements. They are basic form of word, affixes, and grammatical meaning resulted by this process. This process can be inflective or derivative. However, not all language has this process.

Basically, the base form for affixation is a root that is a smallest form of word that cannot be segmented into smaller form, for example spoon, happy, sing, read in English. Moreover, Abdul Chaer still in his book “Linguistik Umum

(30)

word looked is a sign for past tense in English. In addition, based on their position in a word that they are added to, affixes can be divided into several kinds; they are prefixes, infixes, suffixes, confixes, interfixes, transfixes, ambifixes, and circumfixes25. In addition, according to Kridalaksana, there are six kinds of affixes; they are prefixes, infixes, suffixes, simulfixes, confixes, and superfixes26. On the other hand, Bauer differentiated affixes into seven kinds that consist of six segmental affixes (prefixes, suffixes, circumfixes, infixes, interfixes, and transfixes), and one supra-segmental affix (that is superfix or simulfix)27.

However, the writer can only find some of those kinds of affixes in English. The writer can not find all kinds of affixes above in English because English and other languages have different affixes in their system. For further discussion of affixes and affixation in English, in the subtitle bellow the writer will discuss specifically affixation in English.

a). Affixation in English

An affix in English, as in other languages, is a bound morpheme that (1) is not a root and(2) is a constituent of a word rather than of a phrase or sentence. Some examples that follow illustrate the implications of (1) and (2). The next section surveys the kinds of affixation that occur, and the last sections discuss theoretical issues. In most complex words, identifying a root (or roots, if the word

25

Abdul Chaer,Linguistik Umum, (Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2003), p. 178.

26

Kridalaksana, Harimurti ddll. 1985.Tata Bahasa Deskriptif Bahasa Indonesia: Sintaksis. (Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa), p. 19-21

27

(31)

is a compound) presents little difficulty. For example, in the words misfortunes

andpremeditated, the roots are clearly fortune and medit- because these morphs make the most concrete and distinctive contributions to the meanings of these words; furthermore, fortune is free, as most English roots are. (The root of premeditated is medit-, not meditate, because -ate is a verb-forming affix that occurs also in generate, vibrate, and many other words.) Only rarely do English speakers encounter a morph whose status seems unclear or dependent on context. One such example is /fu:l/, which might be considered the same morph in fullness (where it is a root) and spoonful (where it is an affix). These certainly have the same historical origin. However, most analysts of contemporary English prefer to distinguish three morphs: a root in full and fullness, a nounforming affix in spoonful, and an adjective-forming affix in peaceful and cheerful. In misfortunes and spoonful, the nonroot morphs mis-, -s, and -ful are clearly parts of words rather than parts of phrases. But that is not so clearly true of the bound morphs -’ll

and -’s in she’ll come tomorrow and the man next door’s car. These are generally classified as clitics rather than affixes because what they are attached to grammatically is not a word (or part of a word) but a phrase: come tomorrow and the man next door. (Phonologically, -’ll is attached more closely to she than to come tomorrow, but that does not affect its grammatical status.) Clitics constitute a third kind of bound morph, alongside bound roots and affixes. Occupying a kind of no-man’slandbetween morphology and syntax, their analysis is controversial28.

28

(32)

Moreover, in English there are only three affixes; they are prefixes, suffixes, and infixes29. These affixes can be derivative morphemes or inflective morpheme. However, Infixes in English are a very limited set. English infixing was a subject of the Linguists List, a discussion group on the Internet, in November of 1993, and again in July of 1996. The interest in these infixes in English may be due to the fact that one can only infix obscenities as full words that are inserted in other words, usually into adjectives or adverb. The most common infix is word fuckin and all the euphemism for it, such as friggin, freakin, flippin, or fuggin as in abso-fuggin-lutely or Kalama + flippin + zoo. In Britain, a common infix is bloody, an obscene term in British English, and its euphemisms, such as bloomin. In the movie and stage musical My Fair Lady, abso + bloomin + lutely occurs in one of the songs sung by Eliza Doolittle30.

In addition, there are some interesting issues related to infix in English. Some Linguists said that in English there are infixes in a certain situation. Yule

said that in English there is infix ‘bloody’ to express emotion, for example

Hallebloodyluyah!(from wordHalleluyah)31. Katamba said that infixes in modern English are impossible to be used in a polite condition, example: in-fuckin-stantiate32. Thus, according to the writer opinion, a word, which is possible to have more than a morpheme, should not to be included in affixes category. It is

29

Francis Katamba,Modern Linguistics: Morphology, (London: The Macmillan Press Lt, 1994), pp. 44-45

30

Victoria Fromkin,An Introduction to Language, (Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publisher, 1998), pp. 72-23

31

George Yule,The Study of Language. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p 37

32

(33)

because affixes are bound morphemes. Therefore, according to the writer’s

opinion, English doesn’t have infixes.

b). Affixation and Blocking process in English

Although there are three kinds of affixes in English, there are only two kinds of affixes that are related to the blocking process as the main discussion of this chapter; they are prefixes and suffixes. It can occur because of the productivity of both affixes in forming new word. Then, blocking process is a process that frustrate forming new words, and affixation or derivation (that involves prefixes and suffixes in its process) is the common way in forming new words in English, so automatically prefixes and suffixes are important knowledge in this circumstance, and have correlation to blocking in English.

Then, as explained above, affixes, which can be prefixes or suffixes, can be derivative or inflective. Thus, if they are derivative, they carry semantic meaning and can change the class of words that they are added to; on the other

hand, if they are inflectional, they carry grammatical information, but they don’t

change the class of words that they are added to. This circumstance gives influence to the blocking process. It influences the characteristic of blocking process.

(34)

in forming subject form for verb steal. For further discussion about this circumstance, it will be discussed more explicit in Chapter 3.

C. Productivity

Actually, in Morphology, blocking is a part of discussion of productivity because it relates to constrains on productivity. So, for now the writer will explain about productivity and its relation to blocking.

Generally, productivity can be understood as possibility of the number of words that can be produced in a language. Thus, the writer can say it is related to word formation. Word-formation processes are to a large extent rule governed, but one observes that some of these processes (or affixes) are quite often used to coin new words, whereas others are less often used or not used at all for this purpose. For example, it seems that no new noun can be formed in Modern English with the help of the suffix -th (as in depth or length), whereas the nominal suffix -ness, which is similar in function, is found very often in new formations (cf. eco-friendliness, first attested in 1989, Oxford English dictionary (OED)). In this sense, some morphological rules are called productive and other rules unproductive or less productive33. Moreover, Katamba explained that there are two keys points requiring elucidation in explaining of the meaning productivity in Morphology. First, Productivity is a matter of degree. It is not a dichotomy, with some word-formation processes being productive and others being unproductive. Probably no process is so general that it affects, without exception, all the bases to which it could potentially apply. The reality is that some processes are relatively

33

(35)

more general than others. Second, productivity is subject to the dimension of times. A process which is very general during one historical period may become less so at a subsequent period. Conversely, a new process entering a language may initially affect a tiny fraction of eligible inputs before eventually applying widely34.

In addition, Abdul Chaer also gave good explanation about the meaning of productivity in morphology. He said that productivity in Morphology related to the possibility of word formation process, especially affixation, reduplication, and compounding, used recurrently; it means there is a possibility to get new words from those processes35. In this case inflection is not a productive process because

its process doesn’t make new words. This process only makes new words that

their lexical identity is different with their base. For example, wordstreetonly has two alternant; that are street and streets. On the other hand, derivation is a productive process because speaker of a language can make new words by this process. For example, English speakers can make a subject (noun) for verbkillby adding suffix {-er} that is a derivational morpheme, or they can make and adjective for verb differ by adding suffix {-ent}.

However, there are some words that the rules above cannot be applied. This problem can occur because of the existence of constraints on productivity, and this constrain is called as blocking.

34

Francis Katamba,Modern Linguistics: Morphology, (London: The Macmillan Press Lt, 2004), p. 67

35

(36)

D. Blocking

Although there is no limit to the number of words that can be produced in a language, not every conceivable word that in theory could be formed is allowed. This can happen because there is blocking process that frustrates word formation. Furthermore, in its application, blocking can frustrates affixation that involves inflective affixes (close-endedness) and also affixation that involves derivative affixes (open-endedness).

Related to blocking that frustrates affixation involving inflective affixes, Adam Baker, a Linguistics lecturer from University of Arizona, explained that morphological blocking in English (or any language) refers to a case where an irregular morphological form is used instead of one that would look more regular. The irregular form "blocks" the (incorrect) regular form. English has a lot of irregular forms of the past tense in English. Of course the typical pattern is "add the–ed suffix," but that doesn't work for a verb like "sing". For instance;

(i) Today I sing.

(ii) *Yesterday I singed. (iii) *Yesterday I sang.

There are also a couple of irregular plurals, such as child/children (*childs), and ox/oxen (*oxes)36.

In addition, he also added that Blocking is a sort of leftover of the earlier stages of English. If people go and look at earlier stages of English, they'll find

36

(37)

that forms that are now irregular were once the regular forms. they can also see this because there are sets of irregular

forms that are clearly following the same kind of pattern: sing/sang

ring/rang bring/brought think/thought seek/sought

Now English has a new regular pattern. But for some reason (see below), these irregular forms are able to "block" the regular counterparts37.

Moreover, in explaining how blocking works in English, he explained that a generally accepted explanation would be that words that occur more frequently are the ones that will maintain irregular forms. An intuitive way to understand that is that, since people hear frequent words more often, they are more likely to remember the irregular forms. A case of an extremely frequent word is the copula. English has am, are,is, was, and were as forms of the verb“to be". The writer can say that since English speakers use the copula so frequently, it's easy to remember the irregular forms. Besides, it's well known that people will respond faster to irregular forms than to regular ones. For instance, if you flash words up on a screen and ask people to click a button if it's an English word (this is called a "lexical decision task"), they will click more quickly in identifying irregular verbs than regular inflected ones. (i.e., they will identify "children" more quickly than

37

(38)

"miles") So that suggests that it's quicker to remember a form English speakers had to memorize, than to produce it using regular rules38.

On the other hand, related to the blocking that frustrates affixation involving derivative affixes, here are two theories that explain about it. For a word to be coined, it must somehow be useful to the speaker who creates it. No matter which function a particular derivative serves in a particular situation (labeling, syntactic recategorization, or expression of an attitude)39, intended usefulness crucially constrains the formation of new complex words. However, not all potentially useful words are actually created and used, which suggests that other restrictions must be at work as well. Thus, there is a distinction to be made between the general possibility of a new word to be formed and the opportunity to use the new word in actual speech. The former is constrained by structural factors, the latter by pragmatic factors40.

As explained above, productivity can be blocked by some factors; they are pragmatic factor and structural factor. For the first is pragmatic factor. The rise and fall of affixes such as mini- or -nik are prime examples of the fact that extralinguistic developments in society, often referred to as ‘fashion’, make certain elements desirable to use and therefore productive. A pragmatic requirement that originates in what was called ‘usefulness’ above is the

nameability requirement: concepts encoded by derivational categories are rather simple and general and typicallymay not be highly specific or complex. A classic

38

Ibid.

39

Plag I,Word-formation in English, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 59-60

40

(39)

example of such an improbable morphological category was given by Rose:

‘‘grasp NOUN in the left hand and shake vigorously while standing on the right foot in a 2.5 gallon galvanized pail of corn-meal-mush’’ is unlikely to occur in any language as the particular meaning of a denominal verbalizing affix41.

Second are structural factors. Structural factors influencing productivity concern the traditional levels of linguistic analysis, i.e., phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. The pertinent restrictions can be classified either as general principles affecting all processes or as process-specific restrictions. Rule-specific restrictions demand the presence of certain properties in the base or in the derived word. Phonological constraints, to begin with, can make reference to segmental or prosodic structure, sometimes in rather intricate ways. For example, the verb-forming English suffix -ify attaches only to monosyllables, to words stressed on the last syllable, and to words stressed on the penultimate syllable and ending in /I/. An example of a morphological constraint can be seen with rival nominalizing suffixes in English. Every verb ending in the suffix -ize can be turned into a noun only by adding ation. Other deverbal nominal suffixes, such as ment, al, and -age, are ruled out by this morphological restriction imposed on -ize derivatives (cf., for example, colonization versus *colonizement, *colonizal or *colonizage). This is a case of a base-driven restriction, since it is the base (the–ize verb) that demands a certain affix (-ation) be attached and rules out the attachment of other

41

J H Rose,‘Principled limitations on productivityin denominal verbs’, (Foundations of Language, 1973), p. 516

(40)

suffixes with the same function. Both base-driven and affix-driven restrictions seem to be necessary to account for the combinability of affixes and stems.

Semantic restrictions may also operate on bases and on derivatives. For example, derivatives in–ee (employee) must denote sentient entities, to the effect that amputee cannot refer to an amputated limb. One of the most commonly mentioned types of restriction is that referring to syntactic properties. The adjectival suffix -able normally attaches to verbs (as in readable), but not, for example, to adjectives. Another example is the nominal suffix -ness, which

standardly attaches to adjectives (as in fondness), but not to verbs.

Recently, the pervasiveness of such syntactic restrictions has been questioned, however. Turning from rule-specific to more general restrictions, the notion of blocking features prominently. Token blocking refers to the impossibility of forming a potential regular form due to an already existing synonymous word. For example, *arrivement is blocked by arrival, or *stealer by thief. In contrast, type blocking refers to the impossibility of applying one rule if there is another pertinent rule (for example, -ness and -ity suffixation).

One important aspect of token blocking is that, contrary to earlier assumptions, not only idiosyncratic or simplex words (such as thief ) can block productive formations (such as *stealer), but that stored words in general can do so. In order to be able to block a synonymous formation, the blocking word must be sufficiently frequent. The higher the frequency of a given word, the more likely it is that the word will block a potential rival formation. Idiosyncratic words as

(41)

well as regular complex words may block other forms if and only if the blocking word is stored Type blocking has been said to occur when a certain affix blocks the application of another affix. The crucial idea underlying the notion of type blocking is that synonymous rival affixes (such as -ness, -ity, and -cy) apply in a more or less restricted domain.

The most unrestricted affix is the socalled general case (in our example -ness), whereas affixes with a more restricted domain are the socalled special cases (-ity or -cy). Type blocking would occur when the more special affix precludes the application of the more general affix, which is thus aninstance of Panini’s law

or the elsewhere principle. However, type blocking cannot accurately account for the patterning of the data. For example, Aronoff claimed that derivatives with nominal ness are ill formed in all those cases where the base adjective ends in -ate, -ent, or -ant, hence, the contrast between supposedly well-formed decency and supposedly ill-formed *decentness42.

This account is, however, problematic. Riddle has shown that–ness and its putative rivals -ity or -cy are not really synonymous, so that blocking could–if at all – occur only in those cases where the meaning differences would be neutralized. In general, -ness formations tend to denote an embodied attribute, property, or trait, whereas -ity formations refer to an abstract or concrete entity. Hence, -ity and -ness lack the prerequisite for type blocking, synonymy43. Another

42

M. Aronoff,Word formation in generative grammar, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1976), p. 53

43

E. Riddle,‘A historical perspective on the productivityof the suffixes-ness and -ity.’ In Fisiak J (ed.) Historical semantics, historical word-formation, (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1985), p. 435.

(42)

problem is the status of forms such as decentness. This form is listed, for example,

in Webster’s third new international dictionary of the English language and

Roget’s II:the new thesaurus, and an Internet search provided 322 occurrences, which indicates that decentness is not at all ill formed. Furthermore, the general case -ness is not systematically curtailed by -ity or -cy, as shown by the many attested doublets (e.g., destructiveness–destructivity, discoursiveness–

discoursivity, exclusiveness–exclusivity, all from the OED).

The final problem with putative cases of type blocking is that it is often impossible to distinguish them from token blocking. Thus, putative avoidance of decentness could be a case of token blocking, since the word decency is part of the lexicon of many speakers, and hence capable of token blocking. In summary, type blocking as a general factor constraining productivity is to be rejected. Token blocking, however, is a relevant principled mechanism that restricts the productivity of affixes by preventing the formation of complex rival synonymous forms44.

Then, for further explanation about blocking that are some of the factors which frustrate the application of a word-formation process, here the writer will

cite explanation about blocking from Francis Katamba’s book “Modern

Linguistics Morphology” from page 73 until page 79. In addition, this explanation will be taken by the writer as the main reference or basic theory for

the research in this thesis. One of the reasons why the writer uses katamba’s

theory is because his explanation complete, explicit, and specific.

44

(43)

Here is the explanation about blocking taken from Katamba’s book “Modern

Linguistics Morphology”from page 73 until 7945.

Blocking may be due to the prior existence of another word with the meaning that the putative word would have. Usually perfect synonyms are avoided. Thus, it may be because thief already exists that suffixing the otherwise very productive agentive suffix –er to the verb steal in other to form *stealer is blocked.

Interestingly, where there exist two semantically similar morphemes, one of which is more productive than the other; the more productive morpheme is less susceptible to blocking than its less productive counterpart. This can be seen in the behavior of the suffixation of-ness is more productive than suffixation of -ity. Arronof in his book“Word Formation in Generative Grammar”goes on to point out that where there is an existing noun derived form an adjective base ending in–

ous, it is not possible to create a new noun by adding–ity. However, the existence of an established noun does not stop the derivation of a fresh noun using the more productive suffix–ness.

[4.8] X + ous Pre-existing Noun (-ty) Noun (-ness)

Adjective Noun

acrimonius acrimony *acinoniosity acrimoniousness

45

Francis Katamba,Modern Linguistics: Morphology, (London: The Macmillan Press Lt, 1994), pp. 73-79

(44)

glorious glory *gloriosity gloriousness

The concept of blocking can be further refined by highlighting a number of factors that play a role in it. These factors may be phonological, morphological or semantic.

(1) Phonological factors

Blocking can be motivated by phonological considerations. Siegel (in her book“Some Lexical Transderivational Constraints in English”)and Halle (in his book “Prolegomena to a Theory of Word-formation”) have observed that verbs with aninchoative meaning,roughly interpretable as ‘to begin to X’, can usually

be formed from adjectives by suffixing–en to an adjectival base provided it meets the following phonetic conditions:

(i) the base must be monosyllabic;

(ii) the base must end in anobstruent(i.e. stop, fricative or affricate). Which may be optionally proceded by asonorant(e.g. a nasal consonant or approximant like /I/ or /r/). These phonological constraints mean that the derived verbs in [4.9a] are allowed but those in [14.9b] are not.

[4.9] a. black–en /blæk -ə n whit–en /wait-ə n/

damp–en /dæmp-ə n/ hard–en /hɑ :d-ə n

b. *dry-en /draɪ-ə n/ *dimm-en /dɪm-ə n/

(45)

Obviously, as Halle (in his book “Prolegomena to a Theory of Word

-formation”: page 13) remarks, given the existence of numerous well-formed

words like /laιәn/ (lion) and ˄ njәn/ onion, the phonetic restriction on /-әn/

following sonorants is not general. It is peculiar to inchoative verbs formed form adjectives.

Next, the writer shall focus on–ly. The writer has already seen that this derivational suffix is attached in a highly predictable manner to adjectives to form adverb such as:

[4.10] Adjective Adverb Adjective Adverb

fierce fiercely serious seriously

Note, the adverb [4.11] are disallowed, or at best awkward, even though they might be listed in dictionaries. Suggest a phonological motivation for this restriction.

[4.11] Adjective Adverb Adjective Adverb

Miserly *miserlily sisterly *sisterlily

What [4.11] shows is that the segmental phonology of the base can determine whether a form can undergo –ly suffixation. The –ly suffix tends to be avoided where an adjective ends in–ly (l-lι/). Suffixing –ly would result in a dispreferred

(46)

/-l ιlι/ sequence in the in –ly (Aronoff, “Word Formation in Generative Grammar”).

Our final example of phonological constraints on word-formation is taken from French where the diminutive suffix–et(masculine)l-ette (feminine) is used freely to form diminutive nouns like these:

[4.12] fille [fij] ‘girl’ fillette [fijet] ‘little girl’

suggest a phonological explanation for the blocking of the suffixation of–etl-ette

in the following :

[4.13] contrefort (masculine)*contrefortet ‘little buttress’

carotte (feminine) *carpttette ‘little carrot’

The suffixation of –etl-ette is fritrated if the last consonant in the base is an alveolar plosive, /t/ or /d/. This is reminiscent of the restriction in English on deriving adverb form adjectives by suffixing –ly (cf. friendlily in [4.11]).

Languages seem to have rules of ‘euphony’ whish tend to bar certain jarring

sound sequences in word-formation.

(2) Morphological factors

The morphological properties of base may prevent the application of morphological rules. Often native morphemes behave differently form foreign morphemes. Some affixes are typically added either to native bases or to bases of

(47)

foreign origin. For example, as the writer saw above in [4.5] –ant (as in

defendant) is suffixed to bases of French origin.

Similarly, the rule of velar softening which changes /k/ (usually spelled with the letter c) to [s] is essentially restricted to words of Latin and French origin:

[4/14] Velar Softening

/k/_[s] before a suffix commencing with a non-low vowel (e.g. i)

The effects of velar softening can be seen in [4.15]:

[4.15] cynic, cynical_cynicism

critic, critical _criticism, criticize

velar softening only affects words with Romance roots. So, if a thinker called

Blake developed a new philosophy, English speakers might call it Blakism

[bleιkιzm]. But they could not call it *Blacism [bleιsιzm], since Blake is not a Romance root.

a. What is the meaning of–hoodin [4.16]?

(48)

Hint : Concult a good etymological dictionalry. This exercise requires some knowledge Of the historical sources of English words

[4.16] a. boy-hood brother-hood man-hood maiden-hood

b. *judge-hood *governor-hood *colonel-hood *minister-hood

I hope you have correctly observed that normally–hood, (which means ‘rank,

satate, quality) co-occurs with native roots like those in [4.161] and is disallowed after Latinate roots like those in [4.16b].

Clearly the distinction between native and borrowed morphemes is very important. However, we should be careful not to press this too far. The roots in [4.17] below are borrowed from French, yet they can take the suffix–hood. With the passage of time, foreign morphomen can be fully assimilated and nativised so that they behave in the same way as indigenous morphemes.

[4.17] parenthood statehood nationhood

Finally, the selection of affixed that co-occur with aparticular base may depend on that base being a member of a particular paradigm, i.e. a purely morphological sub-class. Morphemes are belonging to different affixes. This is very often the case in inflectionalmorphology. Consider the French examples below. The regular verbs belong to one of these morphological classes: (i) –er

verbs ([4.18a]); (ii)–irverbs ([4.18.b]); and (iii)–erverbs ([4.18c]):

[4.18]a. –erverbs

(49)

Donn-er ‘to give’ (inf.) demand-er ‘to ask’(inf.)

Je donn-e ‘I give’ je demand-e ‘I ask for’

b.–ir verbs

fin-ir ‘to finish (inf.) gѐm-ir ‘to moan’ (inf)

c.–re verbs

vend-re ‘to sell’(inf.) romp-re ‘to break’ (inf.)

as have seen, depending on which paradigm a verb belong to, it co-occurs with different allomorph of inflectional suffix morphemes. The existence of paradigms is very important for understanding the nature of allomorphy.

(3) Semantic factors

Semantic considerations too may impinge on the application of word formation processes. This is seen in the way the otherwise general process of forming compounds from Adjective plus past participle (Ved) which is show in [4.19] is blocked in [4.20]:

[4.19] short-sleeved (shirt) one-armed (bandit)

[4.20] *two-carred (family) (for ‘a family with two cars’)

Compound adjectives derived from the past participle (Ved) form of the verb are most likely to be permitted where the root to which –ed is added is

*

(50)

inalienably possessed (i.e. obligatorily possessed) by the head noun that it

modifies. The compound words in [4.19] are permissible because someone’s eyes

are an integral part of their body. Similarly, the legs of a stool, the sleeves of shirt and the roof of a building are an obligatory possessed part of some piece of furniture, garment or building. But it certainly is not the case that an Alsatian dog or a car must necessarily be possessed by someone.

The use of the italicized words in the dialogue below is odd. What would be the natural and preferred word choices that one would probably use instead of unill, unsad, unpessimistic and undirty?why?

[4.21] SUEGEON: How are you today, Leslie?

PATIENT: I am feeling much better. It’s just wonderful to be so unill

again

SURGEON: Oh, I’m sounsad to see you making such good progress. I

am very unpessimistic about your chances of making a full recovery. The main thing now is to make sure we keep the wound undirty to avoid infection.

(51)

[4.22] a. unwell b. *unill

unloved *unhated

unhappy *unsad

As seen, if there are words representing the two poles of the same semantic dimension, English speakers tend to prefer treating to the positive end as unmarked (i.e.as normal). English speakers are happier to derive the marked

(i.e. ‘unusual’), less favour-able meaning by prefixing the negative prefix to a positive base than doing the reverse. That is why a happy person is not said to be

unsad (Zimmer, “Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages: an Investigation of Restricted Productivity”). To make the dialogue in [4.21] normal,

the marked words, which are italicized, must be by their unmarked counterparts in [4.22].

(4) Aesthetic factors and the adoption of words

In some cases words-formation in inhabited by vague aesthetic factors. There are many examples words that are in principle well-formed whose adoption has nevertheless been resisted.

In the 1970s, the words stagflation was coined to refer to the combination of economic stagnation and a high level of inflation that afflicted the world economy at that time. So far, this word seems to have failed to get a firm foothold in the language. Aesthetic considerations may have had something to do with it.

Some commentators consider it ‘ugly.

*

(52)

(53)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH FINDINGS

A. Data Description

The data used in this research are blocked words in their affixation that are

collected qualitatively based on Katamba’s blocking theory. The list of words, as the representative data for this research that will be analyzed in order to find out the answer of the research question of this research, can bee seen in appendix of this research. Moreover, the data are 175 words that their affixation is blocked and

the process of their blocking can be found in Katamba’s blocking theory, and all

of them are collected from Longman Dictionary. Actually, at first the writer got 346 words that their affixation may be blocked or frustrated by some linguistic aspects, but the writer selected only 175 words from those 346 words. In the selection process, the writer chose only blocked words that their blocking process can be found in Katamba’s blocking theory. Thus, the writer only got 175 words as the data.

The writer did the selection above because Katamba’s blocking theory is

(54)

process based on Katamba’s theory, such as meaning of words, phonetic

transcription, class of words, and origin of words. The writer took all of the information from Longman Dictionary, but for the information of the origin of words, the writer took the information from Encarta Dictionary because the information of the origin of words is not available in Longman Dictionaries.

The writer needs the information above because the information can show that the selected data are the representative data for this research. It is important because the data used in this research is only blocked words in their affixation that

the cause of their blocking can be found in Katamba’s blocking theory, and there

are three causes of blocking according to Katamba; they are phonological factor, morphological factor, and semantic factor. In addition, the information above also helps the writer in analyzing them. For example, the information of phonetic transcription can help the writer to sort the words into category blocked words because of phonological factor, the information of class of words and origin of words can help the writer to sort them into category blocked words because of morphological factor, and the information of meaning of words and class of words can help the writer to sort them into category blocked words because of semantic factor.

(55)

provides the information of phonetics transcription of each word. Forth column contains the information of class of words. Fifth column contains the information of meaning of each word. Sixth column provides the information of the origin of each word, and seventh column provides the information of pages in Longman Dictionary where they were collected. In addition, each number in the table below contains a word as the data, but especially for number 147-167, each number contains a pair of word that consist of a word and its antonym (147-153), and actual words and potential word from the actual words (154-167).

B. Data Analysis

As the writer has mentioned in technique of data analysis and data

description above, the writer will use Katamba’s blocking theory in analyzing the

data; therefore, all of the data analysis below bases on Katamba’ blocking theory.

Moreover, as the writer has explained explicitly on chapter 2.4, according to Katamba, there are three causes why blocking can occur on affixation of English words. They are phonological factor, morphological factor and semantic factor.

1. Blocking because of Phonological Factor

(56)

must monosyllabic and the base must end in obstruent, which may be optionally preceded by a sonorant.

The base must monosyllabic means the non-affix lexical content morpheme, that is an adjective that will be transformed to a verb by adding suffix {-en}, consists of a syllable such as black, damp, tough, soft, white, hard, red, wide, sick, etc. All of those words can be transformed to verb by adding suffix {-en}, and the results of their affixation are listed in any English Dictionaries, such as blacken, dampen, toughen, soften, whiten, harden, redden, widen, sicken. While, the words listed in the table above from number 17-30 are not bases with monosyllable, but they consist of two or more syllables. Therefore, the words (adjective) listed in the table from number 17-30 such as maroon/mə ’ru:n/,

violet/’vaIə lə It/, yellow/’jelə ʊ /, narrow /’nærə ʊ /, golden/’gə ʊ ldə n/, purple/’pɜ :rpə l/, brown/’braʊ n/, hesitant/’hezə Itə nt/, aware/ə ’wer/,

silver/’sIlvə r/, ashen/’æʃ ə n/, berserk/bɜ :r’sɜ :rk/, horny/’hɔ :rni/, banal/bə ’nɑ :l/,

cannot be transformed to verb by adding suffix {-en}, although it is possible based on semantic factor because their meaning is not completely different from words that can be added suffix {-en}, such as word ‘black’ and word ‘yellow’, that are

symbols of a color. It means the writer or anyone cannot find in any English dictionaries words such as *maroonen, *violeten, *yellowen, *narrowen, *silveren, *ashenen, *berserken, *hornyen, *banalen, etc.

Meanwhile, in order to explain the meaning of the base must end in obstruent, which may be optionally preceded by a sonorant, firstly the writer will

(57)

explain the meaning of obstruent and sonorant. In phonetics, articulation may be divided into two large classes, obstruent and sonorant. An obstruent is a consonant sound formed by obstructing airflow, causing increased air pressure in the vocal tract.