Kasno Atmo Sukarto

ANALISIS KONTRASTIF SISTEM MORFEMIS NOMINA BAHASA JAWA-INDONESIA

Introduction

Analisis kontrastif sistem morfemis nomina bahasa jawa-indonesia. Analisis kontrastif sistem morfemis nomina bahasa Jawa-Indonesia. Temukan persamaan agglutinatif dan perbedaan vokal serta proses bunyi dalam studi mendalam ini.

Abstract

The similarity between Javanese and Indonesian appears to both characteristics; these languages are agglutinative and there are many mono morpheme words. For that reason, we have to conduct a contrastive analysis. A contrastive analysis is really challenging and highly hesitancy. On the contrary, the most different thing in mono morpheme process is the grouping system of vocals which in Indonesian there is no such thing. Besides, there is a contrary in the process of increasing or decreasing sounds.

Review

This paper proposes a contrastive analysis of the nominal morphemic systems of Javanese and Indonesian, a topic of considerable interest given the historical and linguistic proximity of these two agglutinative languages. The stated premise of shared agglutinative characteristics and the prevalence of monomorphemic words sets a reasonable starting point for investigation into both similarities and differences. However, the abstract suffers from significant clarity issues and a lack of precise academic language that hinders a clear understanding of the study's exact scope, methodology, and anticipated contributions. The justification for the analysis ("For that reason, we have to conduct a contrastive analysis") comes across as underdeveloped, lacking a robust theoretical or empirical motivation. A primary concern arising from the abstract is the imprecise articulation of the study's central arguments and findings. Phrases such as "A contrastive analysis is really challenging and highly hesitancy" are grammatically awkward and diminish the scholarly tone, suggesting an internal struggle rather than a concise summary of the research. Furthermore, the claims regarding specific differences—"the most different thing in mono morpheme process is the grouping system of vocals which in Indonesian there is no such thing," and "a contrary in the process of increasing or decreasing sounds"—are presented with insufficient detail. These statements allude to interesting phonological or morphophonemic variations, but without further elaboration on what constitutes a "grouping system of vocals" or the specific types of sound changes being referenced, their significance remains obscure. The abstract fails to outline the theoretical framework guiding the contrastive analysis, the corpus used, or the specific methods employed to identify and compare these linguistic features. To elevate the academic rigor and impact of this work, several improvements are imperative. The authors should revise the abstract to articulate a clear research question, define key terms with precision, and provide a succinct overview of the methodology. Explicitly stating the theoretical framework (e.g., Lado's Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, a specific model of morphology) would significantly strengthen the paper. Furthermore, the abstract should offer more specific examples or categories of the "grouping system of vocals" and the processes of sound increase/decrease to illustrate their claims effectively. By doing so, the paper can move beyond vague assertions to offer a concrete and valuable contribution to the understanding of Javanese and Indonesian nominal morphology and morphophonemics, fulfilling the potential inherent in its timely subject matter.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.