The Description Of English Affix Found In Jakarta Post

(1)

THE DESCRIPTION OF ENGLISH AFFIX

FOUND IN JAKARTA POST

A PAPER

WRITTEN

BY

SRI WAHYUNI HARAHAP

NIM: 102202009

ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM DIPLOMA III

FACULTY OF CULTURE STUDY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH SUMATERA

MEDAN

2014

(2)

Approved by Supervisor,

Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A. NIM: 19521126 198112 1 001

Submitted to the Faculty of Culture Study University of North Sumatera

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for English Study Diploma III Program

Approved by

The chairperson of English Study Diploma III,

Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A. NIP : 19521126 198112 1 001

Approved by the English Study Diploma III Program, Faculty of Culture Study,

University of North Sumatera

As a paper for the examination board January 2014

(3)

Accepted by the examination board in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the DIII

examination of the Diploma III English Study Program, Faculty of Culture Study of University of North Sumatera.

The examination is held on: January 2014

Faculty of Culture Study University of North Sumatera Dean,

Dr. Syahron Lubis, M.A. NIP : 19511031 197603 1 001

Board of examiners:

1. Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A. (head of ESP) ……….

2. Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A. (supervisor) ………..

(4)

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I am, SRI WAHYUNI HARAHAP, declare that I am the sole of author of this paper. Except where reference is made in the text of this paper, this paper contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a paper by which I have qualified for or awarded another degree.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of this paper. This paper has not been submitted for the award of another degree in any tertiary education.

Signed : ………

(5)

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

Name : SRI WAHYUNI HARAHAP

Title of paper : THE DESCRIPTION OF AFFIX FOUND IN THE JAKARTA POST NEWSPAPER

Qualification : D-III/ Ahli Madya Study Program : English

1. I am willing that my paper should be available for reproduction at the discretion of the Liberarian of the Diploma III English Study Program Faculty of Culture Study USU on the understanding that users are made aware of their obligation under law of the Republic of Indonesia.

2. I am not willing that my papers be made available for reproduction.

Signed : ……… Date : Wednesday, January 5th, 2014

(6)

ABSTRACT

This paper is dealing with the description of affixes used or found in the Jakarta Post Newspaper volume 31 numbers 234 which was published on the 26th of December in 2013. The news was written by one of the Jakarta Post Joufrnalists named Reuter from Vatican. According to the pope at the Vatican deals with the atheists that he uses twenty sentences out of six hundred and twenty words. Applying these words he uses nine different suffixes. He does not use prefixes. The nine suffixes are –able, -ed, -ful, -ing, -ly, -ment, -r, -s, and -y. The suffix –ed is used dominantly and followed by the suffix –s. It seems that the journalist of the Jakarta Post Newspaper, Reuter does not use prefix in telling the news about the atheist.

(7)

ABSTRAK

Penulis kertas karya ini dalam paper ini membicarakan tentang deskripsi afiks yang digunakan oleh salah seorang jurnalis surat kabar, Reuter, Jakarta Post volume 31 nomor 234 yang diterbitkan pada tanggal 26 Desember tahun 2013 yang berjudul Atheist yang dikhotbahkan oleh seorang Paus di Vatican. Untuk memberitakan berita tersebut, Reuter menggunakan duapuluh kalimat yang terdiri dari enam ratus dua puluh empat kata. Afik yang digunakan hanyalah berbentuk sufik sahaja. Adapun sufik yang dia gunakan adalah sebanayak sembilan sufik. Sufik tersebut adalah able, -ed, -ful, -ing, -ly, -ment, -r, -s, and -y. Sufik –ed adalah yang paling sering digunakan, dan diikuti oleh sufik –s. Untuk memberitakan berita tentang atheist tersebut Reuter, jurnalis surat kabar Jakarta Post tersebut tidak menggunakan awalan.

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Bismillaahirrahmaanirrahiim.

First of all, I would like to say thanks theAlmightly Allah SWT for blessing,and giving

me opportunity, health and ability to accomplish this paper. Therefore, invocations and greetings I

deliver to the last Prophet Muhammad SAW who has brought us into the time of humanities.

Secondly, I also wants to send thanks to the people or friends who have given Me spiritual encouragements to finish this paper. I also believes that this paper has not reached its perfectness so I would be very happy when its readers want to give Me some valuable suggestions for its perfectness.

I does not forget to give special thanks to:

1). Dr. Syahron Lubis, M.A., the Dean of the Faculty of culture Study for the facilities during her study at the Faculty.

2). Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A., the chairperson of the English department of the D-III Program.

3). Drs. Siamir Marulafau, M.Hum, the adviser and reviewer of this paper for his valuable correction.

4). My beloved parents, Husin Harahap and Salasa Siregar who have given me love, cares, advices, supports, and always pray for me in order to get my best. You are the inspiration of my life.

5). For my beloved sister and brother Hamna Dina Kholijah Harahap, Ahmad Khian Harahap, Ali Agung Harahap, Adi Amran Harahap, Arpaini Harahap thanks for your supports. I am proud to have you all.

(9)

7).Special thanks to my beloved friends, Dewi Sartika Siregar, Dwi Khairani, Rumy Hadina, Tisa

Miranda Sinuhaji, Astrid Dinda thank you very much for all of you, for your attention and

support to me.

Finally, I hope that this paper will be a worthwhile contribution to the readers, and I also receive any constructive criticism to develop this paper.

Wednesday, January 5th The writer,

, 2014

Reg. No. 102202009 Sri Wahyuni Harahap

(10)

Chapters Subjects Pages

Author’s Declaration i

Abstract iii

Abstrak iv

Acknowledgement v

Table of Contents vi

1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 INTRODUCTION

The Background of the Study The Problem

The Purposes of Writing

The Reasons for Choosing the Topic The Method of Writing

1 1 2 2 2 3

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 4

3. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFIXES 13

4. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 36

(11)

ABSTRACT

(12)

ABSTRAK

(13)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1The Background of the Study

Dutch continued to be powerful in Indonesia even when, from the start of this century, demands began for political and national rights. A nationalistic youth congress held in Jakarta in 1928 called for Malay-the existing lingua franca-to be the official national language. In the 1945 constitution, Malay was given this status and, although hopes that it would completely replace Dutch have not been realized, it has unified the archipelago of 125 million people (90 per cent of whom are Islamic) and 250 languages. Further moves on behalf of Bahasa Indonesia (as the language was termed) were put in train with independence in 1947, but it still requires modernization and standardization.

English is one of the foreign languages used by some people of Indonesia in Indonesia and also taught to the students at schools. It starts from secondary high schools up to the university students.

The writer of this writing is one of the students who studies English at the University of North Sumatera, at the Faculty of Culture Study, at the English Department of English of the Diploma program. She has been studying English at the department for three years, and now she wants to finish her study from the department. In order to finish her study from the English Department she has an obligation to write a writing deals with English and summits it to the department. Therefore she writes this paper which can be used as the report to her study.

(14)

Technique she used to write this paper is library research because all the required data were taken from written text.

1.2The Problem of the study

What kind of affixes are used by the writer of the Jakarta Post Newspaper in order to tell the news to the readers?

1.3The Purposes of the Study

To find out the affixes used by the writer of the Jakarta Post Newspaper in telling the news to the readers.

1.4 Reasons for Choosing the Title

There are plenty of titles to be written as the writing skills in order to be summated the department of English of English of the Diploma program, but the writer of this paper is interested in choosing the description of affixes used by the journalist of the Jakarta Post Newspaper in order to write the news. Actually there have been some students of the English Department of the Diploma Program ever wrote about the aspects of language used in the Newspaper of Jakarta Post, but they have never written about the process of affixes. For instances, they write the description of passive voiced used in, the description of conjunctions used in, etc. therefore it can be stated that this topic is relatively new. In addition to it we can see that the data taken are from different publication of the Newspaper though it has the same newspaper. The journalist and the news and so the time are different.

The writer is interested in writing the description of affixes because it is dealing with the forming of new words. It is possible that without knowing the functions of the affixes used in the

(15)

sentences we cannot understand the meaning of the whole sentences. Therefore of course the communication will be broken which can lead the readers loosing the messages.

1.5 Method of Writing

In order to write a kind of writing skill that can be made as a repot we can apply a variety of techniques, such field research, library research, and experiment. These three different methods will be differentiated by the ways of having the data for analysis. The data of this kind of writing are taken from the Newspaper, so it means that the data are written text, so it means that this kind of research is library research. The method which called field research is to the technique where the data are taking from some informants. So, on this circumstances we can see that the informants are used as the resources of the data.

(16)

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The term ‘grammar’ is used in a number of different senses—the grammar of a language may be understood to be a full description of the form and meaning of the sentences of the language or else it may cover only certain, variously delimited, parts of such a description. Here we shall use it in one of these narrower senses, embracing syntax and morphology. Syntax is concert and with the way words combine to form sentences, while morphology is concerned with the form of words. We will launch without delay into a discussion of basic concepts in syntax and morphology, returning in §8 to the distinction between grammar in this sense and various other components of a full description and to the basis for dividing grammar into syntactic and morphological subcomponents. The only terms that we shall need to anticipate are ‘phonology’ and ‘semantics’: phonology deals with the sound system, with the pronunciation of words and sentences, semantics deals with meaning. Morphology studies and attempts to describe the primary meaningful units of speech, these are called morpheme is also called the term in linguistics for what is most briefly described as the smallest grammatically meaningful unit in a language. It may be a word— free form (boy, tall, Medan) or a part of a word that can combine with other elements— bound morphemes (—s, —ing, anti—, —ness).

A prefix is an element that can be placed before a word or root to make another word with a different meaning or function: anti— (antiprohibition),

(17)

Morpheme is a term in linguistics for what is most briefly described as the smallest grammatically meaningful unit in language. It may be a word. or part of a word that can combine with other elements– “bound form” –(-s, -ing, anti-, ---ness).

Suffix is an element that can be placed after a word or root to make a new word of different meaning or function (—ize + critic — criticize, —ish + fool

Foolish, —ful + play playful).

Any language in the world has the same functions. Now our examples are drawn mainly from English–is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon. The more thoroughly languages are analyzed, the more astonishing their complexity becomes. This complexity suggests a structure, and even the earliest ancient Greek investigators of language recognized the existence of a structure.

Linguistics has been defined as the scientific study of language. A more modest definition would be the systematic study of human languages. Scientific study is today commonly associated with such natural sciences as physics,, chemistry, and biology, whose conclusions lend themselves to objective verification more readily than those arrived at by in instigators of human behavior. Since speech is a uniquely human phenomenon, the systematic study of it remains, despite the assistance received from other disciplines, a humanistic study, a study whose ultimate objectives are based on human values. Linguistics is scientific, nevertheless, both in the rigor received from the natural and social sciences.

Since language is sequences of sound, and sound is invisible, we cannot see its structure as we can, for example, see the bony structure of a body – its skeleton.

(18)

As we recognize the basic elements of the linguistic structure we invent names for them and attempt to describe the total structure part by part. It is one of the great beauties of plane geometry that its structures can be seen in their entirety. Though the native speaker seems to have a full grasp of the total grammatical structure of his language, we have no way of describing that structure so that it can all be seen at once. Instead we must break it up into what seem to be its most significant or at least its most conveniently describable parts and present them one after another. This is a most exasperating approach. All the parts are interrelated and necessary to the functioning of the whole, and a native speaker controls them all, utilizes them simultaneously, and never gives a conscious thought as to how he is using the structure to communicate his ideas. We know our English but we seldom know how it works. So we find it irritatingly hard to learn a lot of names for what we do so easily and unconsciously. It is the function of linguistics to discover the structure, to find names for its parts, and to use those names to explain how the system operates. Some of the basic areas of linguistic investigation are briefly defined below:

1). Phonology studies and attempts to describe the primary sound units of speech. Two related approaches are made in phonetics and phonemics.

2). Morphology studies and attempts to describe the primary meaningful units of speech; these are called morphemes.

3). Syntax studies and attempts to described the arrangement of morphemes in meaningful utterances, usually called sentences.

(19)

4). Grammar is a term with a number of senses. Linguistics is concerned with the first two which are defined in the article grammar.

5). Semantics studies and attempts to describe meaning. in this definition “meaning” is not used in the same sense. Morphological meaning is restricted to the linguistic unit itself; the s on cats means “plural” and is recognized as such even though we don’t know what a cat is. For example, if the sentence “I saw a dat” is changed to “I saw some dats,” we know that dats is plural though we have no notion of what a dat is. Semantics studies the relationship between the word and what it sands for; the relationship between cat and the concept of a feline which it represents for us is its meaning.

Semantics gets its into what is called met studies that go beyond linguistics-matters that involve more than the language itself. Most of the concern of this topic is metalinguistics because it deals with such matters as spelling, dictionaries, rhetoric, dialect, jargon, as well as the lexical meanings of words. The structures of meaning, in so far as they exist, are certainly far less apparent than the structures examined in phonology, morphology, and syntax. The modern linguist has therefore given most of his attention to these more obvious aspect of language. There is an irony in this because the layman is far more interested in what an utterance means than in how it is structured. And his attitude is right to this extent: Language does have as this primary purpose the communication of meaning. but the educated layman tries to have some understanding of all the more significant aspects of his environment. Language is the most important of these and he should therefore have some understanding of it. This linguistics tries to provide.

(20)

The purpose of a composition or communication course is to further the communicative skills of the students. Its organization and general direction should aim toward this end, based on the principles of composition-rhetoric. The current language is the medium, and consequently the rhetoric must be presented on the basis of this language. (In the last few generations “grammar” has often triumphed over “rhetoric”, partly because of the uncertain control of Standard English by many student and partly because the elementary facts of language have seemed more definite and consequently easier to present and test).

Because of the tremendous importance of language in life, there have been numerous pressures for practical applications of the methods and findings of the new science. To date, the notable successes have been in recording and analyzing languages not previously written, recording many that were on the point of extinction, and in teaching the spoken form of a second language through more

Considerable progress has been made in describing English in newer and more precise terms. Features like word order and intonation patterns have been more systematically explored. Real advances have been made in abandoning or at least minimizing some categories inherited from Latin grammar but not significant for English, such as form for case in nouns and mood in verbs; in defining various categories more objectively, such as the parts of speech (or form classes)– defining them by references to form and function rather than to meaning; in giving more definite recognition to the phrase patterns basic to syntax; and in providing a syntax grounded in observation of speech.

(21)

The description of English should be as accurate as possible, and gradually linguistics is furnishing a more complete and consistent description. Even now there are gains in using some of the terms and categories of linguistics: a few topics such as sentence boundaries and restrictive punctuation can be more accurately presented than formerly, even though the precise definitions of the terminals involved are uncertain.

But a composition course is not an introduction to linguistics and can hardly spare time for a very secure grounding in such a technical field-though some teachers with specialized training in the field report considerable success in using linguistics as the basic material of the course.

The language part of a composition course, beyond a few pretty elementary topics, is certainly in the area of met linguistics, involving social habits and attitudes. Most of the question are of the order of “Shall I say or write this in this situation?” Linguistic generalizations, whether in traditional or more scientific form, can help in presenting general patterns, in summarizing general practices, but they do not go far in guiding choices between similar expressions when both are in the range of Standard English. To make these decisions student need not only the paradigms but a wide knowledge of the varieties of current usage, what educated people say and write. Since this knowledge by itself will not answer the questions, principles are also needed, especially principles of appropriateness.

The two most basic units of syntax are the sentence and the word. The sentence is the largest unit of syntax: as we move upwards beyond the sentence we pass from syntax into

(22)

discourse analysis; the word is the lowest unit of syntax: as we move downwards beyond the word we pass from syntax into morphology. And just as a sentence cannot normally contain any smaller sentence within it, so a word cannot normally contain any smaller word within it. Thus although we can analyze the word blackbird, for example, into black + bird, each of which occurs as a word in the sentence The bird was black, we shall not regard black and bird as words when the’ occur within the word blackbird: here they are merely stems.

The most elementary words, such as boy, cat, good, in, have the form of simple stems, ‘simple’ in the sense that they are not analyzable into smaller morphological units. Other words are then formed from the stock of simple stems by various morphological processes. The two such processes traditionally recognized as the most important are compounding and affixation.

Compounding involves adding two stems together, as when we join black and bird to form blackbird, or gold and smith to form goldsmith, and soon. Blackbird arid goldsmith are then said to be compound stems.

In affixation, an affix is added to a stem to yield a complex stem. More specifically, we can distinguish between prefixes like pre-, sub-, un-, which arc added to the left of the stem, and suffixes like -able, -s, -ing, -mess, which arc added to the right. Thus the complex stems substandard and unkind are formed by prefixation, payable, and goodness by suffixation.

(23)

It should be emphasized at this point that what was said earlier about the descriptive status of syntactic transformation applies equally to morphology processes. That is, it must not be thought that when we speak of compounding, affixation and so on, we are talking of mental operations performed a speaker in using the words: we are simply concerned with the linguistic analysis of the morphological structure of words, relating the words to the more elementary units contained within them.

When two morphological units are put together—a stem and an affix, or two stems— either or both may undergo some modification of phonological form (and/or spelling Thus if we suffix -ion to decide the result is decision; abominate and a considerable number of other verb stems drop the -ate when -able is suffixed, as in abominable, rather than abominatable, the vowel of man o r(’du( (If In a n ills (ornpounded with gentle, police or whatever: and soon; the morphological rules of the grammar most clearly specify in detail such modifications.

Words mas’ he ormed by the application of more than one morphological process. In unselfconsciousness, for example, the first step is one of compounding, joining the simple stems sell and conscious to form the compound stem self-conscious. To this is then added the prefix un-, yielding the complex stern unselfconscious; and finally -ness is suffixed, to give the final complex stem unselfconsciousness. We take the prefixation to apply before the suffixation in this example because it enables US to give a more general account of the distribution of the prefix un-, i.e. of whereabouts it can occur: un- can be added to a large set

(24)

of adjective stems as in kind, happy, wise — and selfconscious, but not (or at least not with the same sense as it has in unkind, unhappy”, etc.) to noun stems. The fact that we have a word unselfconsciousness but not a word ungoodness is thus attributable to the fact that un- can be prefixed to the adjective selfconscious but not good; we would not say that it can be prefisced to self consciousness but not goodness.

A third type of morphological process, particularly important in the grammar of English, is conversion. This is exemplified in the formation of the verb bottle (as in I must bottle some plums) from the noun bottle. We take the noun and verb to be distinct words (and hence distinct stems), with the noun bottle being primary: the verb is then formed by conversion of the stem from one class to another.

(25)

3. THE DESCRIPTION

A morphological process is fully productive if it can apply to all members of a large and independently definable set of stems—for example the lexical stems of all ‘transitive’ verbs (verbs which take an object). Lexical processes vary considerably in their range of applicability, but it is doubtful .l whether any are fully productive. At one end of the scale we find, for example. the verb-forming prefix en- mentioned earlier: this combines with only a handful of adjective stems. The suffix -age is likewise of very limited distribution, and the stems to which it can be attached do not share any semantic, syntactic or phonological property distinguishing them from those which exclude it; they include peer but not lord, marry but not divorce, parent but not father, yard but not meter, front but not back, break but not mend, band but not strip, and so on. We are here clearly dealing with special facts about particular stems, not with general rules.

Towards the more productive end of the scale we find such a suffix as -able. To be more precise, we need to distinguish various types of stem to which it can be added. It occurs with a few noun stems, but is here as unproductive as -age: compare knowledgeable, marriageable, objectionable, peaceable, pleasurable, treasonable. Similarly it is found with a handful of stems which cannot stand alone as words, as in amicable, durable, probable, unconscionable, vulnerable. Where it does have a fairly high degree of productivity is with transitive verb stems as in admirable, countable, payable, and so on.

(26)

Yet though the class is large there are numerous idiosyncratic restrictions: -able can be suffixed to detest but hardly to hate or loathe (compare hate/id and lath some), to enjoy but not please, to laud but hardly praise, desire hut not want, and so on. Moreover there is a good deal of uncertainty as to whether the resultant form is acceptable or not—what is the Status of freeable, shortenable and so on?

As a final example, consider the prefix un-. Where the sense is “reverse the act or process denoted by the stem”, as in unfasten, unpack, untangle, unwind, unwrap, the range is very restricted, as it is where the sense is, roughly, “take from, as in unearth, unhorse, unleash. By contrast, the unmeaning “not” or “opposite of” that is added to ‘gradable’ adjectives (those denoting a property that can be possessed in varying degrees), as in unfair, unkind, unreasonable, unsound, unwise, has a very high productivity. Nevertheless it is still subject to various restrictions: in particular it is not used where there is some morphologically unrelated opposite available (bad, not good or ungood; young, not young or unold) or where some other less productive prefix is used (disloyal rather than unloyal, improper rather than unproper).

What emerges from such examples is that to a large extent, but probably not completely, the firms derived by the lexical processes have to be individuallv learnt by the language user and individually recorded by the linguist in the dictionary or lexicon’. This of course is what makes the term lexical morphology’ appropriate.

The classical treatment of inflection is a little different.

(27)

forms can be put in correspondence. This is illustrated for a sample of English verbs where the columns are headed by lexemes, the rows by inflectional properties:

take write Sing see Want

Past tense took wrote Sang saw Wanted

3rd pers sg present tense takes writes sings sees Wants Present participle taking writing singing seeing Wanting (Verb lexemes have, of course, more inflectional forms than shown here, but the three cited arc

sufficient for present illustrative purposes.) All the present participles arc formed by the same morphological process — by adding -tag to the lexical stem. (The only restriction on the productivity of los rule is that a handful of verbs lack a present participle form: bew’ire, use - as in He wed to like her — and the ‘modal auxiliaries’ can, may, must, etc. But the five past tense froms in (31) are all formed in different ways — by lour types of vowel change and one type of suffixation. However, the systematic correspondences between the forms —took is to takes as wrote is to writes and so on—make it easy to recognize took, wrote, sang, etc. as having the same inflectional property in spite of the morphological differences between them. We can thus group a set of morphological processes together under the heading of rules for the formation of past tense forms—and similarly for other inflections; the present participle inflection simply illustrates the extreme case where there is just a single rule.

Of the processes involved in past tense formation all but one are of highly restricted productivity, so that the forms derived thereby will again have to he individually recorded;

(28)

such forms—took, wrote, sang, saw and the like—are then said to be irregular. Regular for us, such as wanted, pushed, robbed, by contrast, do not have to be listed individually: as long as we have identified the verbs to which each of the irregular rules applies, we can simply say that for any other verb the past tense is formed in the following way:

The regular rules arc thus fully productive (or virtually so: we again find the odd verb, like bet ,are, that lacks a past tense form); in particular, the rules are free to apply to any new lexical stem that is introduced into the language.

In lexical morphology we can in principle make a similar grouping of processes. For example, we can bring together the various processes used to form abstract nouns from adjectives, illustrated in pairs likewise—wisdom, content--contentment, loyal—loyalty, able—ability, wet—wetness—where the last, suffixation of -ness, would count as the regular rule, applying to all adjective sterns not subject to the minor, highly restricted rules. However, there is no syntactic class consisting of abstract nouns derived from adjectives (which is of course why these processes are lexical, not inflectional), so that such pairings do not have the same syntactic importance as inflection. I ones, and this grouping of lexical processes has not become anything like as standard as is the corresponding grouping in inflectional morphology.

Let us now consider briefly the meanings associated with morphological processes. In the most straightforward cases, a given process will introduce a constant clement of meaning. Thus in the pairs given earlier, wind-unwind, fasten —unfasten, wrap unwrap, there is a constant semantic difference between the forms with and without Un-: in such cases the

(29)

meaning of the derived Stem S predictable from its component parts. But often in lexical morphology the meanings are not fully predictable in this way. Do and undo, for example, do not exhibit the same difference as the above pairs: we can say She must undo her blouse but not She must do her blouse (rather She must do up her blouse). I’ll do the lawn could mean that I’ll cut it, whereas I’ll undo the lawn suggests I am working on a tapestry or something of the kind. The tin- of undo is clearly like that of unwind, but the do does not remain constant and one really has to learn the meaning of undo on its own. Or consider the meanings associated with the suffix -able. In the most straightforward cases, adding -able to a transitive verb stem V yields an adjective stem meaning “able to be V-ed—determinable means “able to be determined” ,answerable can mean “able to be answered’, and so on. But very often we find an additional component of meaning overlaid on this. To say that Smith is ‘approachable’ is to imply that it is easy to approach him. If a bill is ‘payable’, it isn’t simply able to be paid: it has to be. If I say that your style is ‘comparable’ to Voltaire’s, I’m saying more than that it can be compared—I’m suggesting that it is worthy of the comparison, which is high praise indeed. Any novel can be read, but a ‘readable’ novel is one that reads well, that can be read with pleasure. Where -able is added to an ‘intransitive’ verb stem V (one without an object), the basic meaning is “able to V”: a ‘workable’ solution is one that will or is able to work. But again there will often be some extra or different meaning. If you are ‘answerable’ to the minister, it isn’t that you are able to answer, but rather that you are obliged to. As a final example, note the semantic difference between such compound lexical

(30)

stems as blackbird or redskin and the syntactic construction of adjective plus noun, as in black bird or red skin. The meanings of the latter are derived systematically from the meanings of the constituents, but the meanings of the compounds are not: ‘blackbirds’ arc not necessarily black and birds that arc black arc not necessarily ‘blackbirds’, and a ‘redskin’ is a type of person, not a type of skin.

Such problems arise with inflections to only a very limited extent. In some cases it is not really possible to attribute any independent meaning directly to an inflection. In exaisples like He enjoys playing squash, He was talking. 1 avoided committing myself the form of the second verb is determined by the nature of the syntactic construction and we can hardly identify a meaning contributed by the inflection itself. Where the inflection is not syntactically determined it will convey meaning — as with the past tense inflection in verbs or plural in nouns, and soon. And here the meaning will normally be constant, whatever lexeme the inflection is associated with: the past tense inflection has the same meaning in look, wrote, sang, saw, wanted, and so on.

Yet even with inflections we find occasional instances of semantic irregularity. The meaning of plural in scissors is not the same as in, say, blades. And while the meaning of later in He arrived later than expected is straightforwardly inferable from its analysis as the ‘comparative’ form of late, the meaning it has in examples like He later realized his error, namely ‘‘subsequently”, is hot. Nevertheless, such irregularity falls well within the bounds of toleran, c for what we arc calling systems, and we can accordingly expand on our original characterization of inflection by noting that an inflectional property not only defines a

(31)

syntactic class: the classes so defined will be terms in systems. Thus we have, as observed earlier, a system of the VP contrasting past tense and present tense, where the first verb in a past tense VP carries the past tense inflection, while that in a present tense VP carries one of the prmsenr tense inflections. And we have a system of number in the noun, with singular and plural nouns having singular and plural inflection I properties (save for the odd exception like cattle and police mentioned above).

Of the various morphological processes mentioned in the last section, suppletion, standardly figures only in inflectional morphology—as there is no phonological resemblance between, say, go and wen(t) it is only by virtue of their place in the system of tense that we relate them. Conversely, processes such as acronym formation and blending arc purely lexical, and, certainly as far as English is concerned, compounding is also restricted or virtually restricted to lexical morphology (the qualification relates to the reflexive forms myself, yourself, etc., which -night be regarded as inflectional, though they are not normally. The example we gave of conversion—from noun battle to verb bottle .—was lexical, and the term tends to the restricted to that branch of morphology. Nevertheless, we find a very close analogue in inflectional morphology, as with sheep, whose plural form is identical with the singular form instead of being derived by suffixation or vowel change, or with such verbs as hit, put, shut, whose past tense forms arc simply hit, put and shut. Affixation, of course, figures prominently in both branches of morphology, and it. is worth noting that what from the point of view of pronunciation or spelling is a single affix can be involved in both inflectional and lexical processes. For example, the -ing of.

(32)

Language is man’s greatest invention and most precious possession. Without it, trade, government, family life, friendship, religion, and the arts would be either impossible or radically different. How we use language, and how well, has much to do with what kind of people we are. Much of what we call education in one way or another helps us extend our understanding and mastery of language.

As you extend your own understanding and mastery of language, you should remember these basic principles:

Language is the way it is for the same reason a mountain or a giant redwood is the way it is: the forces working on it from time immemorial have so shaped it over the centuries. Some of the most recent history of our language we can still trace: We can tell when our ancestors first became acquainted with a paved “street,” taking from the Romans both the thing, and its name. We can show that our word silly a thousand year ago meant “blessed.” But much else in our language—the words, and how they are put together in sentences—has roots going back into distant prehistory:

Language, man’s greatest intellectual accomplishment, is immeasurably ancient. We may be fairly sure that man was already making use of the complicated and highly systematized set of vocal sounds which go to make up language when the woolly-haired rhinoceros and the mammoth roamed the earth. Archaeologists have shown that man was using tools in those far-off prehistoric days, a fact which presupposes his ability to hand down knowledge of their construction and use to his descendants.

(33)

Language is a highly structured system. Our own language we learn the natural and easy way— by constant exposure to it as children. But when we learn a second language in school, we are impressed by how much there is to it. Just as the study of anatomy and biochemistry impresses us with the marvelous complexity of the human organism, so the study of language impres.ses us with the complexity of the speech patterns constructed by the human brain. As in the human organism, the parts of a sentence are not a m re jumble. They mesh in intricate ways. Linguists studying the languages of so-called primitive peoples have found their ways of talking fully as rich and complicated as ours:

Grammar is a term often used by linguists to refer both to the structure of words and their arrangement in sentences. These are:

a). Morphology which is concerned with the way in which words and meaningful elements are constructed and with how they function within the grammatical system of a language and b). Syntax which deals with the combination of Units such words into phr.ses, clauses and

sentences.

Lexis involves the study of vocabulary, particularly those aspects which are outside the range of grammar.

Even in speech we can recognize that words are made up or parts which have meaning and which can be used in different combinations to build different words. Consider such words as:

happy—happiness, loud—loudness, slow—slowly, quick—quickly, home—homes, dog—dogs. Apart from elements such as happy, loud, slow, quick, home, dog, which we recognize

(34)

as full words, we can also isolate such elements as -ness, -ly, -s. We do not recognize these as words but we can see how they are used as units to build the words in the right hand column. Units which are used to form words are called morphemes, and the study of the way phonemes are combined into morphemes and morphemes into words is called morphology or morphemics. A word consists of at least one morpheme and it may consist of more than one. The words in the left hand column above consist of one morpheme each, since we cannot isolate any units within these words; each form in itself constitutes a homogeneous unit. The words in the column on the right, however, are made up of more than one such unit. We have already recognized -ness, -ly, and -s as units of word formation but we can see that they do not constitute words in the same way as the units on the left. This distinction tells us why morphemes are usually divided into two categories :free morphemes and bound morphemes. Free morphemes are meaningful units of language structure which can be used independently or in combination with other morphemes. A word which consists of only one morpheme must consist of a free morpheme. All the words in the left hand column above consist of a single free morpheme. Bound morphemes are meaningful units of language structure which can only be used in conjunction with another morpheme, which as we shall see later may be free or bound. The forms which we isolated from the right hand column above (-ness, -ly, -s) are examples of bound morphemes.

Let us take the word home as an example. The word home consists of the phonemes /houm/ and it is an independent linguistic form which can stand alone and have meaning, as for example in a house is not a home.

(35)

The form /houm/ is also a minimum form in the sense that it is impossible to remove any part of it and retain the meaning. If, for example, we remove the first phoneme /h/ the form becomes /-oum! ohm which has an entirely different meaning. (The fact that some speakers of English may pronounce the word home without the h so that it becomes homophonous with ohm is not relevant here since we are talking about one variety of English.) This minimum form fhoumf however may also be used in combination with other morphemes to form different units which have other or additional meanings. In the right hand column of the list above, the plural form homes is given which could be written phonemically as /houmz/ where it can be clearly seen that the addition of the phoneme /-z/ adds the meaning plural’ to the original meaning. The word home can, of course, be used with other bound morphemes to produce such words as homely, where the addition of the bound morpheme /-ly/ adds the meaning ‘adjective’, and homeward where the bound morpheme /-wardf adds the meaning ‘towards’. The complications of word formation in English do not end here, for the word home can be used in conjunction with other free forms to produce different or additional meanings. A word such as homework, for example, consists of the two free forms home and work. Such compound words may also take additional bound morphemes. For example, headland, which consists of two free forms head and land, can be made plural by the addition of the /z/ morpheme mentioned above. In such cases the inflexion is added only to the final part of the compound. We say, for example, toothbrushes not teeth- brushes. Continuing to use the term ‘word’ in the everyday sense outlined above we can categorize different types of words according to the way in which they are formed from their constituent rnorpheme.

(36)

A simple words consists of a single morpheme (which must, of course, he a free morpheme), e.g. cat, dog, home, elephant.

A compound word is made up of two free morphemes used together to form a single lexical unit, e.g. homework, head/and, block bird, toothbrush.

A complex words consists either of a free morpheme together with a bound morpheme, or of two bound morphemes. Examples o the first kind, free + bound, are: homes, quickly, loudness, kingdom; and also words such as befriend, return, prefabricate, untie, where the bound form precedes the free morpheme. Examples of the second kind, bound+bound, are:

resist, conclude, perceive, invest. The above scheme gives us four types of words which can be summarized as follows.

There are various other types of morphological process besides the three major ones of compounding, affixation and conversion, and the relatively minor one of back-formation. Thus the past tense form took is formed by vowel change from the simple stem take. The noun belief is formed from the verb believe by changing the final consonant. The noun import is formed from the verb import by moving the accent from the second to first syllable. The past tense form were is formed from be by ‘suppletion’, the relatively rare process where one stem is replaced by another bearing no significant phonological resemblance at all to it. Some is formed by ‘blending’ the stems smoke and fog. NATO and TV are ‘acronyms’, formed by putting together the initial parts of North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(37)

and tele + vision, and so on: we need not attempt an exhaustive listing, having covered the main processes and all that are relevant to the examples we shall be using.

When we talk about language as a system of communication, we are speaking of human language. Animals certainly have communication systems and they communicate in a variety of ways, but these are in general primitive and instinctive and incapable of expressing a wide range of concepts. Dogs bark, cats mew—dolphins, bees and ants have probably the most sophisticated animal communication systems. Yet, compared with human language, their range is restricted to instinctive responses to their immediate environment. Animal communication is confined to certain basic contexts such as courtship behavior, the rearing of offspring, fighting for territory or supremacy, or to those situations when co-operation within the species is desirable or necessary. Using only a very limited range of devices, animals communicate with retirence to certain concrete things of immediate relevance to their own needs and present in their surroundings. Unlike the language of even the most ‘primitive human beings, the most complex types of animal communication are incapable of expressing abstract concepts.

In the chain of evolution, man developed a brain with a far greater capacity than the most advanced of the higher primates for the manipulation of those processes which we call thought. His capacity for speech depends upon the existence of certain centers in the brain which enable him to produce and organize into a system an infinite combination of sounds and words based upon a comparatively narrow range of sound choices. Human language symbolizes thought in that sounds or groups of sounds are used to signify concepts with

(38)

which the sounds the. selves have no immediate connection. Man alone, therefore, among the animals developed this capacity to use a complex system of symbols to communicate.

Human language can be distinguished from animal communication in a n .ringer of ways. One important distinctive characteristic is what has been called duality. This term refer to the way in which a stretch of speech can be cut up into units. For instance, a sentence such as July sister’s new hat is green may be segmented into words ‘Mi’ sister’s/new/hat/is/green. These segments or words in turn can then be split up into further units, for example into sounds so that the word hat is seen to be made up of the sounds h/a/I. These same sounds can of course be used in the construction of other words in the English language. In the same way the individual words which we recognized in the sentence ‘My sister’s new hat is green’ can also be used to construct new sentences. The sentence ‘The new green hat is my sister’s’, contains all the words of the original sentence quoted but uses them in a different way. No known animal communication system has this feature; for instance it is not possible to separate units of sound in a dog’s bark or a horses neigh. Using this system of duality or ‘double articulation’ as the French linguist Martinet* has called it, it is possible to construct an infinite number of utterances with relatively few units of sound.

A second important characteristic of human language is its creativity. It is this feature which enables a speaker to understand and construct sentences which he has never heard before. When you read the sentence. The dear old lady in a green he tripped over a porcupine and fell on her nose, you understand the meaning of .this sentence because you know English, not because you have read the sentence before.

(39)

Creativity is an important characteristic of all stages in human language development. A child in the earliest stages of development, even when his sentences consist of only two words, is able to use the language creatively in this sense. Some animal communication systems, such as the dancing of bees, seem to have this feature in a more restricted way: bees apparently understand the meaning of a particular dance even though they may not have seen it before. Compared with human language, however, this is a very restricted ‘creativity’.

Human language also has another extremely important feature which has been called displacement. This enables language to be used at times and in places where the context referred to is not present. If a person mentions ‘a bottle of milk’ or ‘fish and chips’ all speakers of English will understand what is being referred to even if they cannot actually see the articles in question. In this sense the language can work within its own framework with little or no direct physical relationship to the meaning or act involved.

A further example can be seen in the situation where an intending passenger is running to catch a bus. He may be running because he has actually seen the bus approaching the stop, in which case there is a direct physical stimulus prompting his action; on the other hand he may be running because someone has called Out to him ‘The bus is coming’. In the latter case it is the utterance which has prompted the action and this time there is no direct physical relationship between stimulus and response. This feature is not unique to human language since bees can communicate the location of pollen not immediately visible by the patterns of dances they perform in front of the hive.

(40)

However, since the bees can only communicate the location of pollen and little else it bears little comparison to human language which can apply this principle to any aspect of human knowledge and experience.

Language is also self-perpetuating. The young child listens to the speech around him and develops his own system of communication which he gradually refines and brings nearer to that of the adult speakers of the same speech community. In this way language continues to be transmitted from one generation to another within a culture, each child learning to master the basic linguistic system during the first five or six years of his life. In contrast with animals, whose method of communication appears to be entirely instinctive, it should be emphasized that a child needs to learn his language in a cultural setting. This is highly relevant in helping us to understand problems of language acquisition because the child must have the mental capacity to learn such a complex system. Some linguists and psychologists suggest that there is in the human brain an innate disposition towards language learning, a kind of ‘genetic programming’ which is the result of centuries of evolution.

The origins of language, like those of many other aspects of culture, are lost in antiquity, and the final answer to the question ‘How did language originate?’ will probably never be known. However, there are many theories which suggest possible lines of development. Early theories such as Plato’s idea that there is an original ‘perfect’ language which human beings are striving to re-discover have long since been discredited. The same is substantially true for the theory which regards the origin of language as an act of God.

(41)

In Herb w or Christian fundamentalist terms this suggests that God invested Adam with the power to speak a fully-fledged language and that the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel accounts for the multiplicity of languages which developed later.

Today, language is thought of in the context of man’s social evolution. As he evolved so his cultural horizons expanded and his language inevitably developed at the same time. in the course of his evolution certain possible lines of linguistic development may be seen to emerge. For example he may have imitated, perhaps originally instinctively, and later more imaginatively, some of the sounds made by other living creatures such as the bark of a dog, the call of the cuckoo or the crowing of the cockers. This suggests that the origin of language may perhaps lie in an echoic or onomatopoeic imitation of sounds in nature. Unfortunately such a theory could account for only the comparatively few onomatopoeic words in a language and even these re subject to sound changes which naive modify them so much as to obscure than possible echoic origin. Nor do we find a greater proportion onomatopoeic words in the earliest known stages of any given language, and indeed, various languages represent the so-called natural sounds in different ways. it should also be borne in mind that there is no evidence to support the fact that onomatopoeic imitation was in fact a feature of primitive language. It is not inconceivable that it may have emerged at a much later stage when language had reached a comparatively sophisticated level of development.

Man’s primarily instinctive responses to certain physical and emotional stimuli have also been regarded as a possible basis for language development. Such ejaculatory responses to pleasure, pain, fear, and a variety of other stimuli could again account for only a very

(42)

small proportion of human communication, i.e. for the exclamations or interjections themselves. These are fairly predictable and seem incapable of extension or elaboration into more complex utterances. At this level they are similar to the instinctive responses of animals to similar stimuli. Man however, instead of responding with an interjection or exclamation, may use a variety of verbal expressions or may choose to remain silent.

Another suggested basis for the development of language which in the light of modern knowledge is felt to be unsatisfactory is man’s supposed ability to react to his environment in a mystical way. This leads to the hypothesis that he may have uttered sounds which were somehow felt to reflect certain concepts and impressions drawn from his surroundings about which he wished to speak. The origin of language has also been postulated in the sounds of exertion which may be made during co-operative physical labor. On the other hand, Jespersen suggested that music and song, evolving in certain emotionally-charged situations, may have been a factor in linguistic development. Gesture has also been regarded as significant, especially in that when man began increasingly to use his hands for wielding implements, any gestures which he may have previously employed or communication might perhaps tend to become more localized in the organs of speech.

While some of these theories are clearly more plausible than others they all remain inadequate to some degree and do not offer a final solution to the problem. Nevertheless, they allow for the fact that in primitive times language developed from man’s basic need to communicate. As we have already seen, man is unique in his ability to transmit ideas through

(43)

language and this quality distinguishes him not only from other animals but also from the machines which he himself has created. He is a social animal using language to communicate in such a way that it is indispensable to the maintenance of his culture.

Through the observations and discoveries in anthropology and sociology we have learned more and more about the nature and development of our culture. The investigation of the social phenomenon which we call language adds an important further dimension to our knowledge. Language is essential to human society and reflects every facet of our attitudes and behavior. It is central to our whole culture and therefore merits close and systematic study.

In its most general sense Linguistics is the study of language. It embraces all aspects of human communication, from a description of the sounds of speech to the analysis of the way in which the full complexity s of thought are expressed in spoken or written form. Linguistics is often called the ‘Science of Language’ and in many ways this is justified since it is concerned with observing facts about language, setting up hypotheses, testing their validity and accepting or rejecting them accordingly. Linguistics is scientific in its methodology. The linguist attempts to describe how a language works, not to give opinions as to how it should work or what is ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’. Linguists have sometimes been criticized for not making value judgments about language. This is rather like calling a physicist to task for not complaining that the speed of sound is slow compared with the speed of light. The analogy with so-called natural sciences should not be carried too far, however,

(44)

since it is important to remember that Linguistics is concerned with human behavior. Whereas the speed of sound is constant under given conditions, human behavior is often unpredictable and changes rapidly. It is part of the function of Linguistics to note and describe this behavior and its changes as objectively as possible but not to encourage or discourage such changes.

Reuters-Vatican (the writer of the Jakarta Post) sends his news to his readers on the newspaper which was published on the 26th

The writer of the Jakarta Post Newspaper used the suffix –s to nouns in the purposes of making the amount into plural for twenty six times. The suffix –s used to indicate the subject of the sentences are singular third person used for eight times. The suffix –ed used for thirty one times which function to change infinitive into past tense. The suffix –ment was used by for two times (environment, commitment). The suffix –ment used to form noun.

of December in 2013, volume 31 deals with the Christmas uses twenty sentences out of six hundred and twenty four words. In his writing he uses nine different suffixes. The nine suffixes are –able, ed, ful, ing, ly, ment, r, s, and -y.

1). Suffix –able is used to form adjectives. Examples: favorable and vulnerable.

2). Suffix –ed is used to form past tense of the infinitive. Examples: killed, armed, robbed, forced, wanted, asked, kidnapped, prepared, urged, sustained, called, believed, divided, prayed, battered, directed, and said.

(45)

4). Suffix –ng is used to form progressive and gerund. For examples: a). as a gerund—in promoting

b). as progressive—celebrating, speaking, drawing, threatening, praying, departing, reaching, feeling, saying, running, seeking, bringing, and focusing.

5). Suffix –ly is used to form adverb. Examples: elderly, lively, and humbly. 6). Suffix –ment is used to form noun. Examples: environment and commitment). 7). Suffix –er is used to change veer into noun, for example: believer and peacemaker. 8). Suffix –s is used in two purposes:

a). to form plural, examples victims, conflicts, soldiers, believers, pilgrims, nations, cities, families, thousands, lines, tribes, decades, Israelis, wars, Italians, Palestinians, religions, and atheists.

b). to show that the subjects of the sentences are the singular third persons. Examples, hopes, believes, lives, keeps, widens, says, and forces.

9). Suffix –y is used to form noun. Examples: duty, capacity, and balcony.

(46)

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

4.1 Conclusion

The writer of this paper has finished writing chapter one, the introduction, chapter two, the review of literature, and chapter three is the description. So now it is time for her to conclude the writing, it is chapter four. According to the data described in chapter three it can be seen that Reuter one of the Jakarta Post journalists sends his news to his readers deal with the atheists. According to the pope at the Vatican that he uses twenty sentences out of six hundred and twenty words. Applying these words he uses nine different suffixes. He does not use prefixes. The nine suffixes are –able, -ed, -ful, -ing, -ly, -ment, -r, -s, and -y. The suffix – ed is used dominantly and followed by the suffix –s.

(47)

4.2 Suggestion

As the writer of this paper has finished writing the description of the affixes found in the newspaper of Jakarta Post volume 31 numbers 234 which was published on the 26th

On this occasion she wants to encourage other students to write morphological process found in any writing he or she is interested in.

of December in 2013 she is fond of it and wants to write other writing deals with the description of affixes used in a novel. She hopes that this paper can be useful for the other students while they are writing their papers. She also hopes that it can be made as the addition to the collection of the library of USU in general and for the English Department in particularly.

(48)

REFERENCES

Corder, S.P. 1985. Applied Linguistics. Auckland: Penguin.

Carson, D. 1988. Oral Language Across the Curriculum. London: Matters.

Cramer, R.L. 1984. Language : Structures and Use. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Freeborn, D. 1987. A Course Book in English Grammar. Hongkog: Macmillan. Fromkin, V. 1993. An Introduction to Language. Philadelpia: Harcourt Brace.

Guth, H.P. 1980. American English Today: The Growth of English. San Francisco: College Press.

Huddleston, R. 1985. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Univ. Press.

Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Matthews, P.H. 1980. Syntax. Sydney: Cambridge Press.

Pei, L.T. 1986. A Current Study of Languages. Hongkong: Wing Tai Cheung. Petty, W.T. 1983. Experiences in Language. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Quirk, R. 1990. English in Use. England : Longman.

Richards, J.C. 1990. Second Language Teacher Education. Sydney: Cambridge Press.

(1)

(2)