Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduced and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists.
In doing the study, the concepts and terms must be used and clarified to have the same perspective of the implementation in the field. Theoretical frameworks related to this study are needed to support and to help for analyzing the data correctly and detail, the concepts or terms which used in this research need to be theoretically to explain avoid misinterpretation.
The subdiscipline of linguistics that deals with such patterns is called morphology, Booij (2005:4). The existence of such patterns also implies that word may have an internal constituent structure, for instance, walking can be divided into the constituents walk and –ing. Morphology deals with the internal constituent structure of word as well. Based on the expression above morphology is the study of internal structure that concerning with the word constituent.
Katamba (1994:19) states that morphology is the study of word structure. The claim that the words have structure come as a surprise because normally
speakers think of words as indivisible unit of meaning. This is probably due to the fact that many words are morphologically simple. For example, the, fierce, desk, eat, boot, at, fee, mosquito, etc., cannot be segmented into smaller units that are themselves meaningful. It is impossible to say what the –quito part of mosquito or the –erce part of fierce means. The idea that expressed by katamba above is much more about the structure that describing word as small unit of meaning.
Nida (1949:1) states that morphology is the study of morphemes and their arrangements in forming word. Morphemes are the minimal meaningful units which may constitute words or parts of words, for example, re-, de-, un-, -ish, -ly, -ceive, -mand, tie, boy and like in the combinations receive, demand, untie, boyish and likely. The morphemes arrangements which are treated under the morphology of a language include all combinations that form words or parts of words. According to Nida above morphology is study of morpheme that concerning with arrangements of word.
According to Aronof and Fudeman the term morphology is generally attributed to the German poet, novelist, playwright and philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), who coined it early in the nineteenth century in a biological context. The idea that explains by Aronof and Fudeman above are that morphology is the study of the form or forms that refers to the mental system involved in word formation or the branch of linguistics that deals with words, their internal structure and how they are formed.
Sibarani (2002:1) states that morphology is the branch of linguistic studying how words are structured and how they are put together from smaller parts. Naibaho in sibarani (2002:2) said that the study of morphology can be traced as far back as Franch Bopp, a German linguist who in 1860 published a comparative study of verbal ending of number of related language family, including German. This term is parallel to the German Formmenlehre means the study of forms. Based on the explanation by Sibarani and Naibaho above morphology is the word structure or how the word is form.
Finch (1986:176) states that morphology is Morphology is concerned with the structure of words – the term itself is of Latin origin and means ‘of the structures of things. Lieber (2009:2) states that morphology is the study of word formation, including the ways new words are coined in the languages of the world, and the way forms of words are varied depending on how they’re used in sentences.
Based on Finch explanations above morphology is the word formation that concern with structure of words.
Nida (1949:6) states that morphemes are the minimal unit. Bloomfield in Nida (1949: 6) states that morpheme is a linguistic form which bears no partial phonetic-semantic resemblance to any other form. The definition seems rather strangely worded. Instead of being a positive statement about forms being similar and having similar meaning, e.g. like the –ish in boyish, mannish, piggish, girlish, and the –en in fatten, broaden, widen, deepen, the definition describes the relationship in a negative fashion.
It means that forms belonging to the same morpheme may not consist of identically the same phonemes and they may not have precisely equivalent meanings, but if these verifying forms with correspondingly different meanings still do not overlap on other sets of forms with their respective meanings then they may be regarded as constituting a single morpheme.
As the definition states, they bear no partial phonetic-semantic resemblance to other forms. The significance of this negative type of definition will become more obvious as we consider the various principles which determine the identification of morphemes.
Katamba (1994: 36) states that morphemes are to morphs what lexemes are to word-forms. Morphemes and lexemes are the abstract entities found in the lexicon while morphs and word-forms are the physical entities found in speech or writing. In addition to different morphemes being represented by the same morphs, we can also have the situation where different grammatical words are represented by the same word-forms.
Sibarani (2002:4) states that Morphemes cannot be equated with syllables. On the one hand a single morpheme can have two or more syllables and in the other hand there are sometimes two or more morphemes in single syllable, for example: judged (judge+-ed). Finch (1986:176) states that Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning, and the smallest units of grammatical analysis in the language.
a. Free Morpheme
Roots which are capable of standing independently are called as free morpheme. Katamba (1994:41) states that root is the irreducible core of word, with absolutely nothing else attached to it. Root is the part that is always present, possibly with some modification, in the various manifestation of a lexeme. For example walk is a root and it appears in the set of word-forms that instantiate the lexeme WALK such as walk, walks, walking and walked.
Sibarani (2002:23) states that free morphemes are linguistic forms that can be used on its own or which can exist as independent word. For example: Betty, horse, red, write, love and drive. katamba (1994:41) states that free morphemes are example of lexical morpheme. They are nouns, adjectives, verbs, preposition and adverbs. Lieber (2009:33) states that free morpheme is the morpheme that can stand alone as word.
b. Bound morphemes
Bound morpheme is a morpheme that can only occur when bound to a root morpheme. For example, -ed, -ing, -ly (http://en.wiktionary.org/ wiki/bound_morpheme). Bound morpheme is a morpheme that cannot stand alone. Sibarani (2002:23) states that bound morphemes are linguistic forms which are never used alone but must be used with another morpheme, e.g. as an affix for example the English suffix –ing must be used with the verb stem, e.g. writing, loving and driving.
Katamba (1994:42) states that bound morphemes are the roots which are incapable of occurring in isolation and always occur with some other word-building element attached on them. Finch (1986:177) state that these small units – able, y, ship, ant, ily, wards – which are bolted on to the root word are called bound morphemes. Lieber (2009:33) states that the morphemes that cannot stand alone are called bound morphemes, the bound morphemes are un-, -ize, and -ation. Bound morphemes come in different varieties.