Free and Phonologically Conditioned Allomorphs of the Bidayuh-Somu Language



Abstract Views
372

Downloads
147

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Aug 7, 2022
Published Sep 6, 2022
10.24018/ejlang.2022.1.5.27

Abstract viewed = 372 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This study is on linguistics, that is, morphology. It aims to describe the morphemes and allomorphs of the Bidayuh-Somu Language. The study is descriptive, that is, documentary analysis. The data of this study is secondary, a-ready-to-use data, taken from a doctoral dissertation. It is an example sorted based on morphemes and allomorphs of the language. Since the language is indigenous and not in written form, the data is phonemic and morphemic transcription. As a limitation, the data is only morphemes with allomorphs. The sole morpheme with zero allomorphs is not included in this study. As an exemplification, this study describes the morphemes that are nominal and verbal. They are prefix {puN-} and circumfix {niN-ŋeh}. The allomorph of the morpheme for this current study is the element of nasalization consisting of the phoneme /m-/, /n-/, /ŋ-/, and /ɲ-/, and alternants. The allomorphs of this language are free and phonologically conditionedю

Keywords: Affixation allomorph morpheme morphology

References

  1. Alloy, S., Albertus, & Istiyani, K. S. (2008). Mozaik Dayak: Keberagaman Subsuku dan Bahasa Dayak di Kalimantan Barat (J. Bamba (ed.)). Institut Dayakologi. Indonesian.
     Google Scholar
  2. Asmah, H. O. (1983). The Peoples of Malaysia and Their Languages. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
     Google Scholar
  3. Asmah, H. O. (2013). The Iban Language of Sarawak: A Grammatical Description (Reprinted). Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
     Google Scholar
  4. Baese-Berk, M. M. (2019). Interactions between speech perception and production during learning of novel phonemic categories. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(4). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01725-4.
     Google Scholar
  5. Bloomfiled, L. (1933). Language. University of Chicago Press.
     Google Scholar
  6. Booij, G. (2019). The role of schemas in construction morphology. Word Structure, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0154
     Google Scholar
  7. Booij, G., & Booij, G. (2019). The interface of morphology and phonology. In The Morphology of Dutch. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198838852.003.0005.
     Google Scholar
  8. Bunau, E. (2019). Morfologi Bahasa Bidayuh-Somu Kabupaten Sanggau, Kalimantan Barat (The Morphology of the Bidayuh-Somu Language of District Sanggau, West Kalimantan). University of Malaya. Malaysian.
     Google Scholar
  9. Bunau, E., & Yusof, R. M. (2018). Morpheme {buN-}: an Example of Morphological Process through Affixation in Bidayuh-Somu Language. Lingua Cultura, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i2.3962.
     Google Scholar
  10. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2005). Affixes, stems and allomorphic conditioning in paradigm function morphology. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4066-0_9.
     Google Scholar
  11. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. D. (2002). 4. How stems and affixes interact. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.218.05car.
     Google Scholar
  12. Cristina, V., & Afriana, A. (2021). The Functions of Conversational Implicature in TV Sow “F.R.I.E.N.D.S”: Pragmatics Approach. Jurnal Basis, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.33884/basisupb.v8i1.2935.
     Google Scholar
  13. Crosson, A. C., McKeown, M. G., Lei, P., Zhao, H., Li, X., Patrick, K., Brown, K., & Shen, Y. (2020). Morphological analysis skill and academic vocabulary knowledge are malleable through intervention and may contribute to rea.ding comprehension for multilingual adolescents. Journal of Research in Reading. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12323
     Google Scholar
  14. Denham, K., & Lobeck, A. (2010). Linguistics for Everyone, An Introduction. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
     Google Scholar
  15. Greshchuk, V. (2019). Word-Formation Means Textual Cohesion and Coherence. Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 6(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.15330/jpnu.6.2.71-78
     Google Scholar
  16. Hankamer, J., & Mikkelsen, L. (2018). Structure, architecture, and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00266.
     Google Scholar
  17. Indrati, S. L. (2018). Philosophical Values and Local Wisdom in Java Panggih Traditional Ceremony Language. PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v7i2.93.
     Google Scholar
  18. Lane, H. B., Gutlohn, L., & van Dijk, W. (2019). Morpheme Frequency in Academic Words: Identifying High-Utility Morphemes for Instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 58(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2019.1617375.
     Google Scholar
  19. Lenci, A., Sahlgren, M., Jeuniaux, P., Cuba Gyllensten, A., & Miliani, M. (2022). A comparative evaluation and analysis of three generations of Distributional Semantic Models. Language Resources and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-021-09575-z.
     Google Scholar
  20. Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). Structural Anthropology. Allan Lane the Penguin Press.
     Google Scholar
  21. Maltseva, A. A. (2018). Aspects of the use of predicative morphemes with a dropping vowel in the Koryak and Alutor languages. Sibirskii Filologicheskii Zhurnal, 2018(2). https://doi.org/10.17223/18137083/63/20.
     Google Scholar
  22. Martín Arista, J., & Vea Escarza, R. (2016). Assessing the Semantic Transparency of Old English Affixation: Adjective and Noun Formation. English Studies, 97(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2015.1090742.
     Google Scholar
  23. Martini, I. D. A. K. (2016). Derivational of Bound Morpheme. International Research Journal of Management, IT & Social Science, 3(1).
     Google Scholar
  24. Mel’cuk, I. (2016). Language From Meaning to Text (D. Beck (ed.)). LRC Publishing House.
     Google Scholar
  25. Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670.
     Google Scholar
  26. Omar, A. H. (2014). Processing Malaysian Indigenous Languages: A Focus on Phonology and Grammar. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 04(05). https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2014.45063.
     Google Scholar
  27. Omar, A. H., & Yahaya, S. R. (2018). Malayic Aborigines of Malaysia: A Study in Subgrouping. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.53.3561.
     Google Scholar
  28. Plag, I. (2014). Phonological and phonetic variability in complex words: An uncharted territory. Italian Journal of Linguistics.
     Google Scholar
  29. Shin, C., & Collins, J. T. (2001). Six Bidayuhic variants of the Sekadau river.
     Google Scholar
  30. Smith, C. A. (2020). A case study of -some and -able derivatives in the OED3: Examining the diachronic output and productivity of two competing adjectival suffixes. Lexis (Peru), 16. https://doi.org/10.4000/LEXIS.4793.
     Google Scholar
  31. Stockbridge, M. D., Matchin, W., Walker, A., Breining, B., Fridriksson, J., Hickok, G., & Hillis, A. E. (2021). One cat, two cats, red cat, blue cats: eliciting morphemes from individuals with primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology, 35(12). https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1852167.
     Google Scholar
  32. Tomaschek, F., Plag, I. N. G. O., Ernestus, M., & Harald Baayen, R. (2019). Phonetic effects of morphology and context: Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with naïve discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226719000203
     Google Scholar
  33. Ulfsbjorninn, S. (2020). Segment–zero alternations in Galician definite article allomorphy. Acta Linguistica Academica, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2020.00011.
     Google Scholar
  34. Vythelingum, K., Estève, Y., & Rosec, O. (2018). Acoustic-dependent phonemic transcription for text-to-speech synthesis. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Interspeech, 2018-September. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1306.
     Google Scholar