morfology

PRODUCTIVITY
I. Prelimineries (Pendahuluan)
A. The existence of productivity
Concerns to which word- formation can be said to be productive in general. In English , -er can be added to any new verbal base to give a new lexeme which means ‘the person who carries out the action of the verb’ Also in English the suffix –ful can be added to the name of any container to provide a noun: canful, pocketful, skipful,ect.





B. Productivity and creativity
Following lyons (1977 ; 549) a distinetion will be drawn the here between productivity and creativity. Productivity is to be accounted for by the rules of a generative grammar. Creativity, on the other hand, is the native speaker’s bility to extend the languange system in a motivated, but unpredictable (non-rule-governed) way.
C. Synchronic and diachronic productivity
Confusing productivity from a diachcronic point of view wich productivity seen purely synchronically (see Gunter,1972: I). Productivity in word formation is frequently considered to mean no more than the invention of new lexemes which then become a part of the language system. Laze is actually derived from an earlier form lazy, possibly by analogy with such pairs as crazelecrazy. It has frequently been stated that back-formation of this kind is purely a diachronic phenomenon (pennanen, 1966: IO; Quirk et al., 1972:977 fn.b; tietze, 1974: 4.I.I). back-formation must be allwed for in a synchronic grammar if it is still a curent method of forming lexemes
II. Syntactic and Morphological Productivity
At least three statements about productivity are commonly found in transformational literature as applied to sentences:
1. speakers of a language have the ability o produce and understand new saentences of that language (Chomsky, 1966a: 3-3I):
2. there is no such thing as the longest sentence of a natural language (chomsky, 1957:23; Lyons,1968: 221):
3. the statistical probability that any given utterance has been heard/ produced previously by the speaker-listener approaches zero(Chomsky,1957: 16-17: 1966: I2 fn. 20)
A. Production of new forms
When word-formation is said to be productive, it frequently means no more than that native speakers can produce and understand new words (see, for example, pennanen, 1972: 292).
B. Existence of a longest form
In discussing whether there is such a thing as the longest word in a language, it will be useful to consider compounding and derivation separately.
a. Compaunding
The case with sentence formation, limitations on short-term memory may affect the length of compounds in actual use, but this does not affect the theoretical grammaticality of these formations.
b. Derivation
One of the main picces of evidence here is recursiveness. English is concerned, there are some cases where it is clearly recursive.it is quite easy to illustrate that the rules for the addition of suffixes must be formulated in such a way as to allow for recursiveness.
#. - ation (1) occurs before -al (2) inspir,ation.al,reval,ation,al
- al (2) “ “ -ize (3) industri, al, ize, palat, al, ize
- ize (3) “ “ -ation (I) idol, iz, ation, organ, iz, ation
#. - ic (I) “ “ -al (2) con,ic, al,poet, ic, al
-al (2) “ “ -ist (3) education, al, ist,herb, al,ist
-ist (3) “ “ -ic (I) atom, ist, ic, monarch,ist, ic
It is in fact extremely difficult to find examples of the recursive use of the same suffix listed in dictionaries.thus in finnish the number of possible sentences and the maximum length of sentences. There are pragmatic restrictions on the length of words, and while some derivational procedures are more severely limited than others (either pragmatically or in a theoretically motivated way).
C. Probability of accurrence
Sentence formation should be more productive than word-formation. Some idea of the vast difference in productivity can be gained by trying to put figures to the number of possible arrangements of phonemes and lexemes in a languag1e. As beard does,that the difference be attributed entirely to this difference in the number of possible arrangements of the elements.
On result of the difference in productivity between lexemes and sentences is that it allows what meys (1975) calls “ item-familiarity” with lexemes, but rerely with sentences. The speaker listener feels that he knows individual complex word is a way that he does not feels that he knows individual sentences.
D. Syntactic vs Morphological Productivity
In fact, if one accepts the conclusion that the difference between the productivity of sentence formation and word-formation is a quantitative but now a qualitative one, then the two are so similar that it becomes virtually obligatory for the analyst to attempt to deal with sentence formation and word-formation in yhe same component of the grammar. One that in often mentioned is the problem posed by semi productivity in derrivation.
III. Remarks on “remarks...
A. problem for studies of productivity
chomsky has three main arguments against a transformationalist approach to nominalization, firstly, nominalization is not “productivitive”. Secondly, derived nominals have the internal structure of noun phrases,not, of derived sentences ; and finally, devired nominals are idiosyncratically related in terms of both morphology and semantics to their corresponding verbs.
B. Productivity “in Chomsky (1970)
By “productivity “, chomsky does not mean that there is no derived nominal corresponding to some verbs, but that the derived nominal cannot always replace the verb (or adjective) to which it corresponds in a given sentence.
C. Internal Structure
Chomsky’s obyection that derived nominals (unlike gerunds, which have the structure of verbs in full sentences) have the structure of NPs cannot be taken as an argument againts a transformationalist position. Instead, different transformational sources may account for the two kinds of nominal; gerunds can be derived from sentences,as Chomsky suggests, while nominalizations can be derived from configurations like.
D. Idiosyncrasy
a. Morphologycal idiosyncrasy
To consider the morphologycal point first, it is clear that part of the difficulty is that Chomsky is dealing with the full range of English derivational sufffixes, and not just with the productive ones. Examples, laughter, which seems to be only word in English with a-ter nominalizing suffix (with the possible exception of slaughter), and belief, which fits into the lexicalized sheathl sheathe, adviceladvise series.
b. Semantic idiosyncrasy
Many – if not most – derived nominals listed in dictionaries are ambiguous, and possibly several ways ambiguous. The first is that only some of the meanings are productive and that a derived nominal is lexcalized in other meanings but productive in this limited number of meanings. The second possibility is that the semantic relationship of the derived nominal to its corresponding verb is not in fact fully specified. Instead only the grammatical relationship of verb- nominalizationis specified, and the semantic relationship is pragmatically determined.
E. Complements
Chomsky he says (1970: 190) :
That fact that refuse takes a noun phrase complement or a reduced sentential complement and destroy only noun phrase complement , either as a noun or as a verb, is expressed by the feature structure of the ‘neutral’ lexical entry.....
(Where “’Neutral’ lexical” means a lexical entry unspecified for whether a noun or a verb will be the surface realization of the morpheme: this is how Chomsky relates a nominalization to its verb in his grammar).

VI. Semi- productivity
Marchand notes that both –ness and –ity can be added to bases in -able to provide nominlizations. On the basis of the entries in the OED marchand gives the following instances of acceptable and unacceptable formations:
Serviceableness *servieablility
*certainness certainty
Suitableness suitablility
Thus it seems that the two suffixesare not freely to any base in –able, are therefore not completely productive, but only semi –productive. It should be noted that the discussion above has been in terms of garmmaticality rather than in terms of acceptability. This is a corollary of talking in terms of competence rather than performance.
IV. Some restrictions on productivity
A syntactic restriction can be provisionally defined as one affecting the rules, configuration and/or features which lead to the generation of a string made up of a base and an affix or (in the case of conversion) process marker, or which, in the case of compounding, lead to a string made up of two (or more) stems, and marked as forming a compound.
a. Pragmatics
Pragmatics can here be defined in a wide sense as the influence of knowledge and beliefs abaut the structure of the real world, in contrast to knowledge abaut the language –system. Some of the ways in which word –formation is influenced and limited by pragmatic factors are discussed below.
1. Requirement of existence
The lack of existece of a given form (or interpretation of a form) is often used as an argument against the productivity of word formation.
2. Nameability requirement
Nameability in complex words must also be subject to more general rules governing the permissibility of lexical items. Chomsky postulates that such restrictions are universal, and they must apply as filters on complex as well as simplex lexemes.
b. Blocking
Blocking is the name given by aronoff (1976:43) to the phonemenon of the non-occurrence of a complex form because of the existence of another form. Aronoff(1976) develops the nation of blocking further than this. He lists a number of nominals related to adjectival bases in –ous such as :
Various - variety
Curious - curiousity
Glorious glory *gloriousity
Furious fury *furiousity
Where the presence of a nominal like glory or fury can be said to block the generation of an –ity form, but then he points out that a –ness nominalization is possible in every case.there is an inverse relationship between productivity and institutionalization/lexicalization such that the most productive patterns are not lexicalized, and fully lexicalized processes are not productive.
c. limitations on the bases that may undergo prosesses
1. phonological
As well as segmental restrictions on the bases that can undergo particular processes, there may also be suprasegmental restrictions. These can be illustrated from English with reference to the infixation of –bloody-,-bloomin(g)-, -fuckin(g)- and other such forms into the middle of words, to give forms like absobloominlutely. In the vast majorty of cases,these infixes occur inmmediately before the syllable of the base that bears the lexical stress: thus while licketyfuckingsplit is acceptable, *lickfuckingetysplit is not. Not only are infixes like –fucking-limited by stress to where they can occur in the word, they are limited by syllable pattern.
2. Morphological
Having made the point that a feature such as [ _+ latinate] is needed, aronoff (1976:52) goes on to argue that since readability is attested, the latinate feature must also be attached to –able, and that it must be the feature marking of the last morpheme which is important, rather than the feature marking of the root. This is not a restriction on be conjoined, as in provis, ion,ment, but *environ, ment,ment is not possible. Aronoff (1976:53-4) also shows that the make-up of the base can play a role. He gives the example of adjectival forms in –al devired from nouns in –ment.
*orna ornament ornamental
Employ employment *employmental
Thus rules of word –formation have to be sensitive to the difference between a base which is a root, and a base which is more than a simple root.
3. Lexical
Certain word –formation processes are triggered or limited by the individual roots. Aronoff (1976: 40) gives the examples of the formation of –ity nominalizations from adjectival –ous bases. In some of these, the –ous becomes –os-, for example, currious, curiosity; in others it is deleted, as in vorasious, voracity. This is presumably to say that the less productive pattern (at least) is only found in lexicalized words.
4. Semantic
What is perhaps surprising, is that it would seem to be a semantic property of the head noun, rather than of the base of the adjective : that is, it seems intuitively speaking to be something to do with men that they inalienably possess eyes ,legs, etc. A slightly more abstract example is provided by zimmer (1964: 15), who points out that “negative prefixes are not used (in English) with adjectival stems that have ‘negative’ value on evaluative scales such as ‘good-bad’...”. thus someone can be said to be unwell, but not *unill; unhappy but not *unsad; uncheerful but not *unsorrowful; unoptimistic but not unpessimistic.
d. Retrictions on stem collocations in compounds
the claim is made in bauer (1978d: 3.4.4) that the determaining element in an endocentric nominal compound always denotes the primary defining characteristic of the subgroup denoted by the compound as a ehole. ‘thus in policedog the primary defining characteristic of the member of the group of dogs under discussion is its connection with the police. Given this, it is to be expected that there should not be any genus-species compounds like *human-man,*animalhorse,*placemoor where the determining element is implicit in the head element. Note however, that species –genus compounds, which migth appear to be equally redundant, are far more common; cod fish, beech tree, puppy dog, palm tree, buy child.
e. Semantic coherence
aronoff (1976:388f), following Zimmer (1964), claims that more productive a process is, the more easily can its semantic effect be specified. The meanings of the –ness nominalizations can be stated in terms of a choice between three operations on the verb; -ity nominalizations. As aronoff (1976:39) remarks,”commonsensically, the correlation is perfectly reasonable: the surerane is of what a word will mean, the more likely one is to use it.”
f. Analogy
By an analogical formation will be meant a new formation clearly modelled on one already existing lexeme, and not giving rise to a productive series. This is presumably what happened in the case of formation in –scape, based on landscape, then an analogical formation seascape giving eventually a productive series including not only cloudscape, skyscape and waterscape but also dreamscape, winterscape, and wirescape (Aldrich,1966)
g. Other restrictions
one further linguistic restriction on productivity would seem to be the existence of a form with a lexicalized meaning other than that which would be assigned to it productively. For example, there is no commonly used nominalization from ignore i English, although it would be useful to have one: ignorance, which would be suitable, is lexicalized with a different meaning, and is thus unavailable; ignoration, which is listed in the OED, strikes many people as being unsuitable.
h. Productivity as a cline
productivity is not so much an either/or phonemenon as a cline. This is linked crucially with lexicalixation, for several reasons. Semantic coherence correlates with productivity and lack of semantic coherence has to be listed in the lexicon. In fact, the inter-relation of productivity and lexicalization i very complex, and there is not necessarily influence in one direction only.
i. Restrictions acting in unison
Morphological process can be said to be more or less productive according to the number of vew words which it is used to form.