PROCESS OF POLISEMY IN EAST JAVA LANGUAGE

( A STUDY AT LALONGGOTOMI VILLAGE

IN PONDIDAHA DISTRICT )

A THESIS
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting
Sarjana Pendidikan Degree at English Study Program
Of Lakidende University

By:
YULIANA
209 501 036

ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL FACULTY
LAKIDENDE UNIVERSITY
UNAAHA
2014

APPROVAL SHEET

PROCESS OF POLISEMY IN EAST JAVA LANGUAGE

( A STUDY AT LALONGGOTOMI VILLAGE

IN PONDIDAHA DISTRICT )

By
Yuliana
209 501 036

This thesis has been accepted

and approved by the

consultants for being submitted as a partial fulfillment of the

requirements for getting Sarjana Pendidikan Degree at English Study
Program of Lakidende University.

Unaaha, March
02nd, 2014
Approved by:

First Consultant

Second Consultant

Drs. Alimin, M.Hum

Irawati, S.Pd.,

M.Pd

LEGALIZATION SHEET
This thesis has been presented and accepted by the committee of thesis
examination at Educational Faculty of Lakidende University as a partial
fulfillment of the requirements for getting Sarjana Pendidikan Degree at English
Study Program on March 02nd, 2014.
The Examination Committee:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Chairman
Secretary
First Consultant
Second Consultant

: Dr. H. Haslan, M. Pd.

: Untung, S.S, M. Pd.
: Drs. Alimin, M. Hum .
: Irawati, S. Pd., M.Pd

()
()
()
()

The Examiners:
1. Dr. H. Haslan, M.Pd.
2. Saasa, S. Pd, M. Hum
3. Ishak Paway, S.Pd., MA

()
()
()
Unaaha, March 02nd, 2014
Legalized by:
The Dean of Educational Faculty
ofLakidende University
Dr. H. Haslan, M. Pd.

ABSTRACT
iii
PROCESS OF POLISEMY IN EAST JAVA LANGUAGE

( A STUDY AT LALONGGOTOMI VILLAGE

By:

IN PONDIDAHA DISTRICT )

YULIANA
209 501 036

The objective of the study was to analyze and describe process of

polisemy in Eas Java language. The problem should be solved in this study is:
How the process polisemy in East Java language. This study focused on process
polisemy in the adjective, noun, and verb forms.
This applied descriptive qualitative design. The techniques of data
analysis used poining analysis model. The writer was study at Lalonggotomi
village in Pondidaha district. The source of the data in this study was library and
field method.
Based the findings, the writer result of the study can be found on three
kinds, there are polisemy in adjective, noun, and verb forms. The first, dscription
of Polisemy Data is Adjective forms can be seen on d Data 01 by the words cilik
(small) and cilik (young-ones), Data 02 by the words gede (big) and gede
(adult), Data 03 by the words kendor (sag) and kendor (loose), Data 04 by the
words banter (race along) and banter (fast), Data 05 by the words kaku (took a
hard line) and kaku (stiff) , Data 06 by the words kelet ( sticky ) and kelet
( intimating) and Data 07 by the words kecut (sour) and kecut (sniff). The
second, Description of Policemy Data in Noun Forms can be seen on the data 08
by the words mbrodol (fall off) and brodeol (out), Data 09 by the words
kembang (flower) and kembang (girl) And the last Description of Policemy Data
in Verb Forms canb be seen on Data 10 by the words mlayu (run) and mlayu (run
away), Data 11 by the words mambu (smelt) and mambu (spoiled),Data 12 by
the words medon (low) and medon (go down) Data 13 by the words nyekel
(hold on) and nyekel (under arrest), Data 14 by the words anjlok (jump down)
and anjlok (go down), and Data 15 by the words otek (touch) and otek (use).
.
.

LIST OF CONTENTS

TITLE SHEET.........................................................................................................i
APPROVAL SHEET................................................................................................ii
ACKNAOWLEDMENT..........................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................iv
LIST OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................vi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study..............................................................................1

B.
C.
D.
E.

Problem Statement.......................................................................................3
Objective of the Study..................................................................................3
Significant of the Study................................................................................3
Definitions of Terms....................................................................................4

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Syntax Meaning ..........................................................................................5
B. General Perception of Semantic...................................................................6
C. Theoris of Meaning......................................................................................10
D. Kinds of Meaning.........................................................................................14
1. Word Meaning........................................................................................14
2. Phrase Meaning.......................................................................................15
3. Sentence Meaning...................................................................................15
E. The Process of Polisemy .............................................................................16
F. Polisemy and homonym...............................................................................22
CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE STUDY
A. Design of the Study......................................................................................27
B. Data Of Reseach..........................................................................................27
C. Technique of Data Collection.......................................................................28
D. Technique of Data Analysis..........................................................................29
CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION
A. Findings.....................................................................................................30
B.Description of Policemy Data in Adjective Forms........................................31
C.Description of Policemy Data in Noun Forms..............................................42
D. Description of Policemy Data in Verb Forms.............................................46
E.Discussion ...........................................................................................
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion.................................................................................................53
B.Suggestions...................................................................................................54
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, the writer would like to humbly thanks to the Almighty
Allah SWT. For the blessing and guidance; therefore the writer could finish the
writing of the thesis as a requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan of
Lakidende University.

The writer would like to express great thank to Drs. Alimin,M.Hum. As the
first consultant and Irawati,S.Pd.M.Pd as the second consultant for their great
contribution who encourage the writer to arrange this thesis, so it has been
finished on time.
Many thanks are also presented to the following people:
1. Ir. Saiful Bakhri, M.Si. as Rektor of Lakidende University.
2. Dr.H.Haslan, M.Pd as Dean of Education Faculty of Lakidende University.
3. Untung, S,S..M.Pd. as Head of English of Educational Faculty of Lakidende
University.
4. All lectures, especially English Departement Lecture of Educational Faculty
of Lakidende University.
5. Panggung Nismanto, as Headvillage of Lalonggotomi village who has given
opportunity the writer to conduct the study in his village and with all
informants who had allowed his conduct the study at their village as the site
of study.

6. Special thanks to Hetiani, Sartika Kalenggo,Imron Fadlillah, Luh Mariani

who have given their worthwhile help and suggestions, as well as moral
support in order to complete this study and all of her friends that cannot be
written one by one.
Last, her exaggerate thanks to dearest parents, Marjuki and Jumirah and
her sister Yatiin and her brother in law Budi Darmawan who had never been
tired in giving me a motivatioan, support, prayer, spirit, and advice that has
inspired to finish her study, actually so many people have made contribution to
her thesis. It is impossible to mention their entire name.

Finally, the writer realizes that this thesis still needs some improvements in
order to become perfect, so the writer really expect the contribution ideas and
suggestions from the readers.
Unaaha,

February 2014

Writer

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
In using language in the oral or written forms, of course any massage
which want to be told, and that may be accepted if the listener or reader can be
able to use about the language orally. That is naturally if Wallace and Chafe in
(Djajasudarma:1993) says that talking about language that meant, the language
will be depended on meaning directly. Giving meaning activity is caused the
communication between speaker and interlocutor. And the communication
activity will arise understanding habit that be important to learned. To know all
about meaning, we have to understand about semantic. Because semantics is the
subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of
words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The
basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between

different linguistic units. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger

chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of
meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative
reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse
analysis,

and

the

linkage

of

all

of

these

to

syntax

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics).
One of the special considerable study of semantic in linguistic area is
polisemi. That is a fondamental term on human speech that can be appeared by
some ways such as foreign language factor. Polisemi is taken from Elnglish
Laguage polisemy, that means double meaning, a word that is gouped with other
word in similar classification based on different meaning.

Lyons in

(Djajasudarma:1999) says that polisemy as multiple meaning is a property of a

single lexemes or it is olso the case that same word may have a set of different
meaning. And in other linguist says that is as a word wich has too (or more)
related meaning. And this is not only found on Indonesia or English Languages,
but in local language. Each local language that used by its speech community is
as a tool communication in their daily communication or social interaction.
Linguistically, every language has different form and structure in providing
words, phrase, and sentence. The differences are not only obtained on
international language or national language but also on every local language.
One of the local language or vernacular will be discussed in this study is
Java language. This local language is still used by its speech community in their
daily interaction. This language is spoken by Javanese people that has a semantic

meaning which need deep interpretation to know about its true meaning. And
this case always appear in the interaction process of Java people. But sometimes,
some people misundertand about the different for each word that cotent of
polisemy, because in lexicon meaning, they will see that the meaning is similar
but that is differnt.
Based in this problem, the writer chose the title of the study Polisemy in
East Java Language to know about that clearly.

B. Problem Statement
Based on the backgroud of the study above, the research question of this
study was: How is the process of policemy in East Java Language ?
C. Objective of the Study
Based on the research question above, the objective of this study was to
know the process of policemy in East Java Language.
D. Scope of the Study
To obtain data and illuminating it the writer make a scope of the study
was on the process of policemy in East Java Language.
E. Significant of the Study
This study expected to be one source of data for further study in the
world of education and teaching. And the next significances were:
1. Theoretical Benefits

10

The Study carried out is expected to give theoretical benefits of this

study can add and enrich the linguistic theory, particularly theory
linguistic study on the use of East Java language environment, the
application of theory linguistics, especially about the phenomenon
language especially the use of the East Java language by community.
2. Practical Benefits
In practical benefits of this research is to provide information about
polisemy in East Java language, and it can be used as a reference the
next study, useful in education and to the public in general.

F. Definitions of Terms
The definitions of terms in this study was as bellows :
1) Polisemy as multiple meaning is a property of a single lexemes or it is
also the case that same word may have a set of different meaning.
2) East Java Language is one of the local languages or vernaculars in
Indonesia which lives at Lalonggotomi village in Pondidaha district.

11

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Syntax Meaning
In linguistic the study of the rules that govern the ways in which words
combine to form phrases, clauses, and sentences as syntax. Syntax is on of the
major components of grammar. That is arragement of words in a sentence. There
is a basic distinction in language studies between syntax and morphology
(Charles:2008). Accroding to (Burgests:1968) said that it is mistake to believe
that some English speakers follow rules of syntax in their speech and other do
ont instead, it now eappear that alll English speakers are successful language.
(Baker:1995) said that many kinds of spoken language have a syntax of formal
writing. It is essential to understand that the differences exist not because spoken
language is a degradation of written language.
In the writers opinion that sintax is the grammar, structure, or order of
the elements in a language statement. Syntax applies to computer languages as
well as to natural languages. Usually, we think of syntax as word order.
However, syntax is also achieved in some languages such as Latin by
inflectional case endings. In computer languages, syntax can be extremly rigid as
in the case of most assembler languages or less rigid in languages that make use
of keyword parameters that can be stated in any orders. Basically, syntax is
the rules by which signs are combined to make statement. If you consider the
words of a language to be its signs, then its syntax is the rules which put signs
together to make statements, ask questions, and produce other utterances.

12

Grammatical function distinctions, in particular the distinction between

nouns and verbs, are found in all of the worlds languages (Baker:2001). The
importance of decisions regarding the grammatical status of individual words
during language acquisition (both L1 and L2) has been emphasized in the
literature (Levy:1988)) The possibility that there is a rich source of probabilistic
cues to grammatical category operating at the single word level is theoretically
important for number of reasons. For instance, the existence of such cues does
not fit easily with the traditional Saussurian view of arbitrariness between wordform and function. Of course, certain words such as onomatopoeiac words
suggest there are sometimes links between form and meaning but there is
growing interest in the possibility of a number of more systematic associations
within languages (Chater:1992).
B. General Perception of Semantic
Verhar (2001:184) said that semantic is kinds of linguistic study that
talking about meaning. Semantic always talking about wide meaning of oral and
non oral speak such as a symbol. And semantic can be classified into two kinds
they are:
1. Semantic grammatical
It is talking about the grammatical meaning such as morpheme (Bound
and free)
2. Semantic lexical
It is talking about lexical meaning and it has covered by meaning and
reference, denotation and connotation the last extensional and intentional
analysis.

13

In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of

meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units
of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of
signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units. A key concern
is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the
composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has
included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument
structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to
syntax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics).
According to Palmer (1981:1), semantic is the technical term used to
refer to the study of meaning, and, since the meaning is a part of language,
semantics is a part of linguistics. Unfortunately, meaning covers a variety of
aspects of language, and there is no general agreement about the nature of
meaning, what aspect of it may properly be included in semantics, or the way in
which it should be described.
Semantic term originally comes from the Greek, which means to
signify or define. As a technical term, semantic implies "the study of
meaning". Assuming that the meaning of being part of a language, it is part of
linguistic semantics. Like the sounds and grammar, a component of meaning in
this case also occupies a certain level. If the noise components generally occupy
the first level, the grammar on the second level, then the meaning of the
components occupying the most recent levels, the third component of the
relationship was consistent with the fact that; language was originally an abstract

14

sounds that refers to the specific symbols, the symbol is a set of systems that
have certain settings and relationships, and symbol set that has the shape and
relationship to associate a particular meaning (Palmer, 1981 in Aminuddin
2008:15).
Semantic is the study of meaning. Semantic examines the emblem or
symbol signs stating the meaning, the meaning of relationships with each other,
and their effects on humans and society. Therefore, the semantic meanings of
words included its development and changes. (Tarigan, 1985:7).
The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to
the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of
understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem
of understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long
period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics.
The task of explaining the main approaches to semantic theory in
contemporary philosophy of language might seem to face an in principle
stumbling block. Given that no two languages have the same semantics no two
languages are comprised of just the same words, with just the same meanings it
may seem hard to say how we can say anything about different views about
semantics in general, as opposed to views about the semantics of this or that
language. This problem has a relatively straightforward solution. While it is of
course correct that the semantics for English is one thing and the semantics for
French something else, most assume that the various natural languages should
all have semantic theories of (in a sense to be explained) the same form.

15

The aim of what follows will, accordingly, be to introduce the reader to

the main approaches to natural language semantics the main views about the
right form for a semantics for a natural language to take rather than a detailed
examination of the various views about the semantics of some particular
expression. (For some of the latter, see names, descriptions, propositional
attitude reports, and natural kinds.)
One caveat before we get started: before a semantic theorist sets off to
explain the meanings of the expressions of some language, she needs a clear idea
of what she is supposed to explain the meaning of. This might not seem to
present much of a problem; aren't the bearers of meaning just the sentences of
the relevant language, and their parts? This is correct as far as it goes; but the
task of explaining what the semantically significant parts of a sentence are, and
how those parts combine to form the sentence, is an enterprise which is both far
from trivial, and has important consequences for semantic theory.
Most philosophers of language these days think that the meaning of an
expression is a certain sort of entity, and that the job of semantics is to pair
expressions with the entities which are their meanings. For these philosophers,
the central question about the right form for a semantic theory concerns the
nature of these entities. Because the entity corresponding to a sentence is called a
proposition, or propositional semantic theories, however not all philosophers of
language think that the meanings of sentences are propositions, or even believe
that there are such things.

16

Besed on the explanations above the writer conclud that Semantics is the
study of meaning that is used by humans to express themselves through
language.
C. Theoris of Meaning
The term meaning is simply derived from the word mean. The word
meaning has a number of definitions as suggested by semanticist, for instance,
Leech (1990:23) notes three points of meaning. They are as follows:
1. Meaning involves the speakers intention to convey a certain meaning
that may or may not be evident from the message itself.
2. Consequently, interpretation by the hearer is likely to depend on the
context.
3. Meaning in the sense is something, which is performed rather than
something that exists is static way. It involves action (the speaker
produces and effects on the hearer) and the interaction (the meaning
being negotiated between the speaker and the hearer on the basis of
their mutual language).
There are some opinions about meaning according to semanticist:
1. Lyons (1977:2) says, the meaning can be distinguished by the
technique of substituting other words in the same context and enquiry
whether the resulting sentences are equivalent.
2. Crystal ( 1980:222) states, this basic notion is used in linguistics both
as a datum and as a criterion of analysis: linguists study meaning, and

17

also use meaning as a criterion for studying other aspects of language

(especially through such notions as contrastivity and distinctiveness).
3. Bloomfield (1933:139) cities, meaning of a linguistics form as a
situation in which the speakers utter it and response which it calls forth
in the hearer.
In General Semantics, David Lewis wrote I distinguish two topics:
first, the description of possible languages or grammars as abstract semantic
systems whereby symbols are associated with aspects of the world; and, second,
the description of the psychological and sociological facts whereby a particular
one of these abstract semantic systems is the one used by a person or population.
Only confusion comes of mixing these two topics. (Lewis, 1970 : 19).
Lewis was right. Even if philosophers have not consistently kept these
two questions separate, there clearly is a distinction between the questions What
is the meaning of this or that symbol (for a particular person or group)? and In
virtue of what facts about that person or group does the symbol have that
meaning?. Corresponding to these two questions are two different sorts of
theory of meaning. One sort of theory of meaning a semantic theory is a
specification of the meanings of the words and sentences of some symbol
system.
Semantic theories thus answer the question, What is the meaning of this
or that expression? A distinct sort of theory a foundational theory of meaning
tries to explain what about some person or group gives the symbols of their
language the meanings that they have. To be sure, the shape of a correct

18

semantic theory may place constraints on the correct foundational theory of

meaning, or vice versa; but that does not change the fact that semantic theories
and foundational theories are simply different sorts of theories, designed to
answer different questions.
To see the distinction between semantic theories and foundational
theories of meaning, it may help to consider an analogous one. Imagine an
anthropologist specializing in table manners sent out to observe a distant tribe.
One task the anthropologist clearly might undertake is to simply describe the
table manners of that tribe to describe the different categories into which
members of the tribe place actions at the table, and to say which sorts of actions
fall into which categories.
This would be analogous to the task of the philosopher of language
interested in semantics; her job is say what different sorts of meanings
expressions of a given language have, and which expressions have which
meanings. But our anthropologist might also become interested in the nature of
manners; he might wonder how, in general, one set of rules of table manners
comes to be the system of etiquette governing a particular group.
Since presumably the fact that a group obeys one system of etiquette
rather than another is traceable to something about that group, the anthropologist
might put his new question by asking, In virtue of what facts about a person or
group does that person or group come to be governed by a particular system of
etiquette, rather than another? Our anthropologist would then have embarked
upon the analogue of the construction of a foundational theory of meaning: he

19

would then be interested, not in which etiquette-related properties particular

action types have in a certain group, but rather the question of how action-types
can, in any group, come to acquire properties of this sort (Beaney:1997).
Our anthropologist might well be interested in both sorts of questions
about table manners; but they are, pretty clearly, different questions. Just so,
semantic theories and foundational theories of meaning are, pretty clearly,
different sorts of theories.
The term theory of meaning has, in the recent history of philosophy,
been used to stand for both semantic theories and foundational theories of
meaning. As this has obvious potential to mislead, in what follows I'll avoid the
term which this article is meant to define and stick instead to the more specific
semanitic theory and foundational theory of meaning.
Based on the explanations above the writer conclud that meaning
depends on the grammatical structure of the sentence. The meaning that the
speakers say have to express their ideas, minds and feelings.
D. Kinds of Meaning
1. Word Meaning
Acoording to Ramlan (2001 : 33) said that the word is the smallest
independent unit, or in other words, each free unit is the word.
Palmer (1981: 32) stated that the word is one of the basic units of
semantics. To begin with, not all words have the same kind of meaning as
others, some seem to have little or none.

20

Furthermore Palmer, the word, moreover, is not a clearly defined

linguistic unit. It is to some degree purely conventional, defined in terms of
the spaces in the written text.
Than according to Bloomfield (1933: 178) offered a solution by
suggesting that the word is the minimum free form, the smallest form that
may occur in isolation.
Hockett in Parera (1990: 3) characterized a word into silence and
isolabity. He viewed a word as segments of a sentence which are enclosed
by some sockets enable silence. The word also has important role in
language analysis. Moreover, the word is an unit of syntax in speech or
sentence (Parera, 1990: 4).
Based on the definition above, it can be concluded that the word is
one of the basic units and the minimum free form of semantics. The word
also has important role in language analysis.
2. Phrase Meaning
Phrase is a construction unit consisting of two or more words that
form a unity (Keraf, 1984: 138).
The phrase is also defined as unit of grammatical form of words that
are nonprediktif combined words, or also commonly called a compound
word that fills a syntactic function in the sentence (Chaer, 1991: 222).
According to Prof. M. Ramlan, phrase is a unit of grammatical
consisting of one or more words and not exceed the limit function or
position. This means that as much as any word is the origin does not exceed

21

his position as the Subject, predicate, object, complement, or even a

description, then it can still be called a phrase (Ramlan, 2001: 139).
3. Sentence Meaning
The sentence is essentially a grammatical unit; indeed it is the
function of syntax to describe the structure of the sentence and thereby to
define it. (Palmer, 1981: 37).
Koetjono in Chaer (2003: 240) stated that sentence is a syntactical
unit which is composed of basic constituens commonly as clause equipped
with conjunction if necessary, and ending intonation.
Verhar (2001: 161) stated that sentence is a unit from the whole units
that has intonation as sign for all.
Ramlan in Pateda (2005: 112) said that sentence is a grammatical unit
which is limited by long juncture and up and down pitch. He observed it
from its formal characteristic namely long juncture and up and down pitch.
Based on the some definitions above, it can be said that sentence is a
language unit which consists of a clause standing alone and has up and down
pitch with ending intonation.
E. The Process of Polisemy
A polisemy is a word or phrase with different, but related senses. Since
the test for polisemy is the vague concept of relatedness, judgments of polisemy
can be difficult to make. Because applying pre-existing words to new situations
is a natural process of language change, looking at words' etymology is helpful
in determining polisemy but not the only solution; as words become lost in

22

etymology, what once was a useful distinction of meaning may no longer be so

Some apparently unrelated words share a common historical origin, however, so
etymology is not an infallible test for polisemy, and dictionary writers also often
defer to speakers' intuitions to judge polisemy in cases where it contradicts
etymology. English has many words which are polisemous. For example the
verb "to get" can mean "procure" (I'll get the drinks), "become" (she got scared),
"have" (I've got three dollars), "understand" (I get it) etc.
A closely related term is metonym, in which a word with one original
meaning is used to refer to something else connected to it. There are several tests
for polisemy, but one of them is zeugma: if one word seems to exhibit zeugma
when applied in different contexts, it is likely that the contexts bring out
different polisemes of the same word. If the two senses of the same word do not
seem to fit, yet seem related, then it is likely that they are polisemous.
The fact that this test again depends on speakers' judgments about
relatedness, however, means that this test for polisemy is not infallible, but is
rather merely a helpful conceptual aid.
The

difference

between

homonyms

and

polisemes

is

subtle.

Lexicographers define polisemes within a single dictionary lemma, numbering

different meanings, while homonyms are treated in separate lemma. Semantic
shift can separate a polysemous word into separate homonyms. For example,
check as in "bank check" (or Cheque), check in chess, and check meaning
"verification" are considered homonyms, while they originated as a single word
derived from chess in the 14 th century.

23

Psycholinguistic experiments have shown that homonyms and polysemes

are represented differently within people's mental lexicon: while the different
meanings of homonyms (which are semantically unrelated) tend to interfere or
compete with each other during comprehension, this does not usually occur for
the polysemes that have semantically related meanings (Rodd : 2002).
According to (Hebdige : 1979) polysemy means that, "each text is seen
to generate a potentially infinite range of meanings," making, according to
(Richard Middleton : 2002) "any homology, out of the most heterogeneous
materials, possible. The idea of signifying practice texts not as communicating
or expressing a pre-existing meaning but as 'positioning subjects' within a
process of semiosys changes the whole basis of creating social meaning".
One group of polysemes are those in which a word meaning an activity,
perhaps derived from a verb, acquires the meanings of those engaged in the
activity, or perhaps the results of the activity, or the time or place in which the
activity occurs or has occurred. Sometimes only one of those meanings is
intended, depending on context, and sometimes multiple meanings are intended
at the same time. Other types are derivations from one of the other meanings that
lead to a verb or activity.
According to (Ratna, 2008:26-27) says that polisemy as multiple
meaning is a property of a single lexemes or it is olso the case that same word
may have a set of different meaning, for example in Indonesia languages as
bellows:
1. Saya turun dari mobil
2. Harga beras turun

24

3. Sifat-sifatnya turun padanya

The woed turun on the number one of the sentence above means go
down from the tree, the word turun on the number two of the sentence above
means depreciat and the word turun on thelast sentence means move on. In Java
Language we can found that on the example bellows:
1. Kembangku mati
2. Kembang desone ayu-ayu
The word kembang on the number one of the sentence above means
flower and the word kembang on the last sentence means girl.
Depend on the explanation above, the writer has outlined above Model A
of systematic polysemy, which seems to be the most widespread in the early
literature. However, this model allows for considerable variation in what
properties the rules that relate different interpretations to each other have and
what subsystem of grammar they belong to.
McCawley (1968) proposed that these are implicational semantic
relations that hold between contextual variants (lexical items as he himself put
it) of lexemes. That is, the lexicon only needs to specify a single interpretation of
systematically polysemous words and contain some rules that derive the further
interpretations. He mentions a principle that for each lexical item denoting a
temperature range there is a lexical item identical to it save for the fact that it is
restricted to articles of clothing and means producing the sensation
corresponding to the temperature range denoted by the original adjective.
McCawleys principles are probably supposed to be something like lexical rules
that apply to all members of semantically specified sets of words.

25

According to (Leech:1974) also locates the corresponding rules in the

lexicon. He postulates a set of lexical rules that operate in the lexicon and relate
lexemes (e.g. adjectives and their nominal derivatives in -ness) to each other by
specifying how their semantic, syntactic and morphophonological properties
differ. Rules that capture the interpretations of systematically polysemous words
are special cases of such lexical rules where the rule only modifies the semantic
and possibly also the syntactic properties (like argument structure) of words, but
not their form. Leech does not assert that these lexical rules are fully productive.
He rather suggests that they just relate existing lexical units to each other,
thereby increasing the economy of the lexicon (so they serve as redundancy
rules as well) and they may determine how to use new lexical units.
Thus they seem to be like descriptions of analogical structures in the
lexicon rather than actual rules. What follows from this is that systematic
polysemy should not be expected to be fully productive either.
There is a very obvious contrast between the general goals of
McCawleys version of Model A and Model B. McCawleys rules are supposed
to explain the contextual variation of meaning that appears as systematic
polysemy. Explanation is understood here in the sense as appropriate to the
specific theory of science that generative linguistics is based on in general: one
can claim to have explained something if one can derive, by way of deduction
based on a set of generalizations in the form of rules, certain predictions
concerning phenomena that were not considered directly when developing these
generalizations.

26

In the case at hand, this means that one can claim to have explained
systematic polysemy if one can provide a certain set of rules that define for
every context what interpretation a systematically polysemous word will receive
in this context.
When Deane claims that McCawleys rules are productive, he actually
seems to have in mind that they are predictive in this sense. Such rules are
logically fit to account for just those linguistic phenomena that are systematic
and creative. On the other hand, Model B of polysemy is not explanatory in this
sense. It allows for several related senses to be associated to a single word, but it
does not explain in any way how these meanings relate to each other and on
what conditions they are used. Leechs version of Model A is a yet different case.
The way its rules are understood to work has the effect that it is not explanatory
either, in the sense that it does not allow predictions.
However, Leechs model does provide some kind of explanations in
another sense. It relates structures in the lexicon to certain rules, but it does not
define an exact procedure for the derivation of new elements of the lexicon, it
rather specifies some general regularities of how new elements of the lexicon are
usually derived. To elucidate what such rules do, they can be paralleled to
explanations of diachronic linguistic change. Historical linguistics does not
claim to be able to make predictions concerning future change, but it does claim
to be able to provide the motivation for any future linguistic change by referring
to the same regularities that motivated linguistic change in the past.1 Leechs
non-explanatory rule-based model of lexical rules does not provide predictions

27

either, but it aims to specify by means of a set of rules the motivation for why
words are polysemous in the way they are.
As (Deane, 1987:54) correctly states, this model works best for
phenomena that are not fully predictable, which is true of non-systematic
polysemy (which is taken to be motivated by certain regularities of how we
conceptualize the world around us, but is essentially stored in the lexicon). To
summarize this section, Deane claims that in the early literature on polysemy it
is not only suggested that systematic and non-systematic polysemy can be
distinguished from each other but also that one should also adopt different
models of description for dealing with each, whereby the essential difference
between these two kinds of models is the explanatory power to which they
aspire.
Besides thw writer can conclud that polisemy is multiple meaning is a
property of a single lexemes or it is olso the case that same word may have a set
of different meaning.
F. Polisemy and homonym
Traditionally,

polisemy

is

distinguished

from

homonymy

(Weinreichs:1964). In polysemy, the different senses of a single lexical item are

seen as being related in some non-trivial way, whereas in homonymy, the
multiple encoding is a matter of historical accident. An example of homonymy is
the lexical form coach, which encodes the entirely unrelated meanings bus and
sports instructor. It is standard to see these as being represented as two
different lexemes (COACH1 and COACH2) in the mental lexicon.

28

However, drawing the distinction between related and unrelated senses of

a lexical form is often far from a straightforward matter. The question is: What
does it mean for two senses to be related? The criteria that have been suggested
include etymology and speaker intuitions about unrelatedness vs. relatedness of
meaning (Lyons:1977). According to the etymological criterion, two senses are
homonymous if they are historically unrelated.
On this approach, the linguistic form file would be an instance of
homonymy, as the sense folder or box for holding loose papers originates from
the French word fil, and the sense tool with roughened surface(s) comes from
the old English word fol.
That these two senses came to be associated with the same lexical form
in contemporary English is thus a matter of historical accident. According to the
same criterion, the noun position, which has the senses a particular way in
which someone or something is placed or arranged and a persons particular
view or attitude toward something, would be polysemous as a result of the
shared etymological origin of its senses.
However, this way of distinguishing between polysemy and homonymy
is problematic if we are concerned with characterising the linguistic knowledge
of speakers and hearers. To illustrate, consider the English word cardinal. This
word encodes the meanings leader of the Roman Catholic Church or North
American songbird of the bunting family. The two senses are historically
related; the male cardinals are mostly red in colour and so this bird was named
cardinal by virtue of its resemblance in colour to the red cassocks worn by

29

cardinals. According to the etymological criterion, then, cardinal would be

polysemous.
However, many speakers of English may not be aware of this historical
connection, and to them the two senses may seem entirely unrelated (i.e.
homonymous). So, distinguishing between polysemy and homonymy on the
basis of etymology does not, in many cases, capture differences in speakers
intuitions

of

semantic

relatedness,

and,

although

such

etymological

considerations are no doubt useful to lexicographers in the making of

dictionaries, it is doubtful whether they are relevant to a synchronic analysis of
polysemy.
Another criterion that has been suggested as a way to distinguish
between polysemy and homonymy is speaker intuitions about related and
unrelated senses. According to this criterion, two senses are polysemous if they
are judged by native speakers to be related, and homonymous if they are judged
to be unrelated (or at least their meanings are considered to be further apart than
polysemous senses as in, e.g., cardinal). Distinguishing polysemy from
homonymy would thus depend on a sort of folk etymology.
A problem that arises in connection with this criterion is that sense
relatedness appears to be a matter of degree, and, moreover, judgements about
the relatedness of the senses of a given word are likely to be subjective (Lyons
1977b). For instance, compare the different senses of the nouns right (morally
correct, the righthand part, side or direction), letter (symbol of the alphabet,
written communication), and position (a particular way in which someone or

30

something is placed or arranged and a persons particular view or attitude

toward something). Intuitively, we feel that the senses of position are more
closely related than those of right, whose semantic content is arguably quite
distinct, and than those of letter, whose senses might nevertheless be considered
to be more closely related than those of right.
The senses of these words thus seem to be related to different degrees.
Furthermore, it is possible that some speakers may claim to see a relation
between the senses of a word form where others do not. An example is the
different meanings of the noun ear, organ of hearing and seed-bearing head or
spike of a cereal plant. For some native English speakers, these senses may
seem related, while others may not see any relation between them at all. Such
facts make the prospect of drawing a clear-cut distinction between polysemy and
homonymy on the basis of speaker intuitions slim.
Most importantly, however, it is not clear that speakers intuitions about
relatedness and unrelatedness of senses have any bearing on the way in which
individuals use and understand words (Lyons 1977b: 552), quite unlike, for
instance, intuitions about grammaticality, which have been considered the basic
data to be explained within generative grammar. This is because it seems that
many of our intuitions about sense relations might be reflective (i.e. arrived at by
thinking about language) and thus not a direct reflex of the way in which word
meanings are represented in our linguistic systems.
It is possible to argue that the distinction between polysemy and
homonymy is of no theoretical significance, and to see them both as instances of

31

a more general phenomenon of linguistic ambiguity. This is the position taken by

Kempson (1977: 82), who treats the lexical form run as being represented as
several distinct entries in the mental lexicon, one for each of its meanings, on a
par with clearly homonymous forms such as file, coach or bank. Kempson sees
this as the appropriate way to account for the fact that run creates an ambiguous
sentence when more than one of its interpretations are possible.
To this kind of approach it has been objected (in particular by scholars
working within the cognitive linguistics paradigm, cf. Taylor 1989/2003: 107)
that it reduces polysemy to an arbitrary, unmotivated phenomenon, and thus
makes it impossible to explain patterns of polysemy that are observed repeatedly
across languages (e.g. Sweetser 1990).
Although this is a reasonable objection, and a semantic (or pragmatic)
theory that can explain these facts is clearly desirable, Kempsons position may
still be correct with regard to the representation of conventional polysemy, that
is, the cases where the related senses of a lexical form have become established
in the lexicon. What would be required, then, is an account of how polysemous
senses are derived, and a means to distinguish between conventional and
contextually derived instances of polysemy.

32

CHAPTER III
METHOD OF THE STUDY
A. Design of the Study
In accordance with the issues and objectives to be achieved in this study,
the writer used descriptive qualitative design. This is according (sugiyono :
1999). Thus, in this study explained the concepts of the relationship between
one another, and use the words or sentences, not numbers or statistics in a logical
structure and use a deep understanding. Everything is presented clearly or in
accordance with the reality to be found in this study ( Hemmings : 2013). In this
case the writer studied about polisemy in Java language.
B. Data of research
The data source in this study consists of two sources they were from
Library and Informans. To get the data, the writer used two methods they were :
1. Library method was done by reading some books and some result of
investigations that have close relationship with this writing. And the
books in here are Java Dictionary & Morphology.
2. Field method was done to obtain required data in the field of the study. In
this case, the writer will find the data from some informants as native
speakers of East Java language by using instrument that given to the
informants.
The informants of this study were native speakers of East Java language.
In relation to the informants, the writer applied snowballing technique in getting
data, the writer interviewed some informants, and each informant was

33

interviewed one by one. If the data had been not enough, the writer continued to
the other informant.
C. Technique of Data Collection
In collecting the data, the writer applied some techniques. According
(Rusty Capps : 1997) as follows:
1. Asking
In doing this technique, the writer asked the informants to answer some
questions about polisemy in East Java language which have been prepared by
the writer herself.
2. Noting
In this step the writer noted some information from library and
informants after answer the instrument sheet.
3. Introspection
This technique was applied when the writer skeptics to the data found in
this study. To clarify the gotten data, the writer introspected according to the
natural usage of target language in the speech community in this case Java
language. The writer introspect all achieved data based on her background
knowledge as one of the native speakers of the target language.
4.

Elicitation
Elicitation is the term applied subtle extraction of information during an
apparently normal and innocent convertion.Most intellegence operatives are
well trained to take advantage of propessional or social opportunities to interact
with persons who have access to clasified or other protected information.

34

Technique was used to check the validity of achieve data by asking to the other
informants of this study. It means that after the writer got the translated data
from the first informant particularly, furthermore the writer was met the second
and the third informants to ask whether the all data have already been correct or
not.
D. Technique of Data Analysis
The techniques of data analysis used pouring analysis model. According
to ( paul Raymont : 1999) which consist of three components were as following:
(1) Reduction of the data
(a) The data those were gotten by writer was written with details
specified and make simply
(b) The data those were chosen just the data which has correlation
with the problems and those in formations was true data in this
study.
(2) Presentation of the data
In this step, all of the data those have been valid; was arranged detail
in order to be understood easily to get description about polisemy on
Java language
(3) Give conclusion/verification
In this step, the writer made conclusion based on the data those were
gotten in this study. These conclusions still needed verification untill
result was more valid. Those components have correlation one to

35

each other and be done continual from the beginning to the end of
the study.

36

CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presented the findings and discussion of the study. The
findings consisted of describtion of polisemy data in adjective, noun, and verb
forms.
A. Findings.
The writer began the study in conduct a discussion with informants about
polisemy data in adjective, noun, and verb forms. The description was
further described in following subsection
B. Description of Policemy Data in Adjective Forms
Data 01
1. Omahe rina cilik
Rinas house is small
Rumahnya rina kecil
2. Ndek cilik Rina nakal
When Rina is still young ones, she is naughty
Waktu rina masih anak-anak rina nakal
Cilik

small

young-ones

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

kecil

second sentence

Policemy

anak-anak

The word cilik in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word cilik (root meaning) as adjective

37

refers to the noun omahe that show that the house (omahe) was small and the
word cilik (derivative meaning) in the second sentence as adjective refers to the
noun Rina and show that, when Rina was young one she is naughty.
So the word cilik in the first sentence tell us about the small condition.
And the word cilik in the second sentence tell us about young ones condition.
Data 02
1. Omahe Rina gede
Rinas house is big
Rumah Rina besar
2. Rina saiki wes gede
Rina is adult for this time
Rina sekarang sudah dewasa

Gede

big

adult

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(besar)

second sentence

Policemy

( dewasa)

The word gede in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word gede (root meaning) as adjective
refers to the noun Rinas house that show that the Rinas house is big and the
word gede (derivative meaning) in the second sentence as adjective refers to the
noun Rina and show that the Rina is adult.
38

So the word gede in the first sentence tell us about the big condition. And
the word gede in the second sentence tell us about adult condition of Rina.
Data 03
1. Celonoku kendor
My pants is lag
Celanaku longgar
2. Kulite embahku kendor
My grandmothers skin is loose
Kulitnya nenekku kendor
Kendor/lag

lag

loose

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(longgar)

second sentence

Policemy

(kendor)

The word kendor in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word kendor (root meaning) as adjective
refers to the noun my pants that show that the pants is lag and the word kendor
(derivative meaning) in the second sentence as adjective refers to the noun
Kulite embahku and show that the kulite Embahku (my grandmothers; skin) is
loose.
So the word kendor in the first sentence tell us about the lag condition.
And the word kendor in the second sentence tell us about loose condition.

39

Data 04
1. Rina mlayu banter
Rina runs fast
Rina berlari cepat
2. Kaline mili banter
The river race along
Kalinya mengalir deras
Banter/fast

race along

runs fast

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

( cepat)

second sentence

Policemy

(deras)

The word banter in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word banter (root meanings) as adjective
refers to the noun Rina and show that Rina runs quickly and show that the and
the word banter(derivative meaning ) in the second sentence as adjective refers
to the noun Rina and show that river is fast.
So the word banter in the first sentence tell us about fast condition Rina
when she runs. And the word banter in the second sentence tell us about
condition the river is race a long.
Data 05
1. Sikile Rina kaku
40

Rinas feet is stiff

Kakinya Rina kaku
2. Rina watak e kaku
Rinas character is took a hard line
Rina berwatak keras
Kaku

stiff

a hard line

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(kaku)

second sentence

Policemy

(keras kepala)

The word kaku in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word kaku (root meanings) as adjective
refers to the noun Rinas feet and show that the feet is stiff and the word
kaku(derrivative meaning ) in the second sentence as adjective refers to the noun
Rinas character that show that the character is took a hard line.
So the word kaku in the first sentence tell us about Rinas feet condition
is stiff, and the word kaku in the second sentence tell us about character of Rina
condition is took a hard line.
Data 06
1. Leme wes ora kelet
The glue is not sticky
Lemnya sudah tidak lengket
2. Rina kelet karo bapake

41

Rina is intimating with her father

Rina manja pada bapaknya
Kelet

sticky

intimating

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(lengket)

second sentence

Policemy

(manja)

The word kelet in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word kelet (root meaning) as an adjective
refers to the noun glue that show that the glue is sticky and the word kelet
(derivative meaning) in the second sentence as an adjective refers to Rina and
show that Rina is intimating.
So the word kelet in the first sentence tell us about gule condition is
sticky. And the word kelet in the second sentence tell us about Rina condition
isintimating.
Data 07
1. Jerok iki rasane kecut
This orange is sour
Jeruk ini rasanya kecut
2. Awakmu mambu kecut
Your body is sniff
Badanmu bau kecut

42

Kecut

sour

sniff

(root meanings)
)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(rasa kecut)

second sentence

Policemy

( bau kecut)

The word kecut in the first and second sentences are similar commonly, but
both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position in a
sentence. In the first sentence, the word kecut as an adjective refers to the noun
orange that show that the orange is sour and the word kecut in the second
sentence as an adjective refers to your body and show that the body is sniff.
So the word kecut in the first sentence tell us about orange condition is
sour. And the word kecut in the second sentence tell us about body condition is
sniff.
C. Description of Policemy Data in Noun Forms
Data 08
1. Rambutku mbrodol
My hair is fall off
Rambutku rontok
2. Bantalku mbrodol
The kapok of my pillow is out
Bantalku kapuknya keluar dari bantal
Mbrodol

fall of

out
43

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(rontok)
(keluar)

second sentence

Policemy

The word mbrodol in the first and second sentences are similar
commonly, but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on
the position in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word mbrodol (root meaning)
as noun refers to the noun my hair that show that the hair is fall of and the word
mbrodol (derrivative meaning) in the second sentence as noun refers to the noun
my pillow and show that the kapok of the pillow is out.
So the word mbrodol in the first sentence tell us about the hair condition
that is fall off. And the word mbrodol in the second sentence tell us about the
pillow condition that is out of its kapok.
Data 09
1. Kembangku layu
My flower is dead
Bungaku layu
2. Kembang desone ayu -ayu
The girls of the village is beautiful
Gadis-gadis desa itu cantik
Kembang/ flower

flower

girl

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

second sentence

44

(bunga)

Policemy

(gadis)

The word kembang in the first and second sentences are similar
commonly, but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on
the position in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word kembang (root
meaning) as noun refers to the noun layu that show that the flower is dead and
the word kembang (derivative meaning) in the second sentence as noun refers to
the noun deso show that the girl of the village..
So the word kembang in the first sentence tell us about the flower is
dead. And the word kembang in the second sentence tell us about the girl of the
village.
D. Description of Policemy Data in Verb Forms
Data 10
1. Rina ora iso mlayu
Rina cannot run
Rina tidak bisa lari
2. Rina mlayu teko penjara
Rina run away from the jail
Rina kabur dari penjara
Mlayu/run

run

run away

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

second sentence

45

(lari)
(kabur)

Policemy
(dissapear)

The word mlayu in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word mlayu (root meaning) as verb refers
to the noun Rina and show that Rina cannot run and the word mlayu (derivative
meaning) in the second sentence as verb refers to the noun Rina and show that
Rina cannot run away.
So the word mlayu in the first sentence tell us about Rina condition that
cannot run. And the word mlayu in the second sentence tell us about Rina
condition who runs away from the jail.
Data 11
1. Kelambiku mambu pengo
My clothes is smelt no good
Bajuku berbau tidak sedap
2. Jangane arep mambu
The vegetable will be spoiled
Sayurnya mau basi
Mambu/smelt

smelt

spoiled

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(berbau)
(basi)

second sentence

Policemy

46

The word mambu in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word mambu (root meaning) as verb
refers to the noun my clothes that show that the clothes is smelt and the word
mambu (derivative meaning) in the second sentence as verb refers to the
vegetable and show that the vegetable is spoiled.
So the word mambu in the first sentence tell us about clothes condition is smelt
no so good. And the word mambu in the second sentence tell us about vegetable
condition is spoiled.
Data 12
1. Bijianku medon meneh
My score is low again
Nilaiku turun lagi
2. Arek iku medon tekok wet kelopo
The child go down from the coconut tree
Anak itu turun dari pohon kelap
Medon/low

low

go down

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(nilai)
dari pohon)

second sentence

Policemy

(turun

The word medon in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word medon (root meaning) as verb refers

47

to the noun child (arek) that show that the child go down from the top of
coconut tree down to the was low and the word medon (derivative meaning) in
the second sentence as verb refers to the noun bijianku that show that the value
(score).
So the word medon in the first sentence tell us about the child who climb
is to go down from the top of coconut tree. And the word medon in the second
sentence tell us about the score who are gotten by people is low.
Data 13
1. Budi nyekel aret
Budi hold on the knife of rubber trees
Budi memegang arit
2. Nangwengngi wong-wong podo nyekel maling
Last night the people under arrest the thief
Tadi malam orang-orang menangkap pencuri
Nyekel/hold on

hold on

under arrest

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(memegang)
(menangkap)

second sentence

Policemy

The word nyekel in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word nyekel (root meaning) as verb refers
to the noun aret (knife of rubber trees) and show that aret (knife of rubber trees)
was hold on by Rudi (handful) and the word nyengkel (derivative meaning) in

48

the second sentence as verb refers to the noun burglar (Maling) and show that
the people under arrest the burglar by use two hands.
So the word nyekel in the first sentence tell us about aret (knife of rubber
trees) that is used by Rudi is held by using a hand. And the word nyekel in the
second sentence tell us about the people who under arrest burglar together with
two hands and engage all of body parts.
Data 14
1. Rina anjlok teko ndokor omah
Rina jump down from the top of house
Rina terjun dari atas rumah
2. Regane beras anjlok
The cost of rice go down
Harga beras merosot
Anjlok/jump down

jump down

go down

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(terjun)
(merosot)

second sentence

Policemy

The word anjlok in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word anjlok (root meaning) as verb refers
to the noun Rina and show that Rina

Jumps down and the word anjlok

(derivative meaning) in the second sentence as verb refers to the noun the cost of
rice and show that the rice cost is go down..

49

So the word anjlok in the first sentence tell us about Rina who are jump
down. And the word anjlok in the second sentence tell us about the cost of rice
that is go down.
Data 1
1. Ojo sampean otek pipiku
Dont touch my cheek
Jangan colek pipiku
2. Ojo sampean otek duwe iki
Dont use this money
Jangan gunakan uang ini
Otek/touch

Touch

use

(root meanings)

(derivative meanings)

first sentence

(colek)
(menggunakan)

second sentence

Policemy

The word otek in the first and second sentences are similar commonly,
but both of them as policemy contain to different meaning based on the position
in a sentence. In the first sentence, the word otek (root meaning) as verb refers to
the noun you and show that the people may not touch and the word otek
(derivative meaning) in the second sentence as verb refers to the noun you and
show that the people may not use the money.

50

So the word otek in the first sentence tell us about people who my not
touch lightly. And the word otek in the second sentence tell us about the people
who my not use the money.
E. DISCUSSION
Based on the resutl of the study

process of polisemy in east java

language at lalonggotomi village in pondidaha district that writer found three of

process polisemy in east java language. They are process polisemy in adjective,
noun, verb forms.
According to (Ratna, 2008:26-27) says that polisemy as multiple
meaning is a property of a single lexemes or it is olso the case that same word
may have a set of different meaning, for example in Indonesia languages as
bellows:
4. Saya turun dari mobil
5. Harga beras turun
6. Sifat-sifatnya turun padanya
The woed turun on the number one of the sentence above means go
down from the tree, the word turun on the number two of the sentence above
means depreciat and the word turun on thelast sentence means move on. In Java
Language we can found that on the example bellows:
3. Kembangku mati
4. Kembang desone ayu-ayu
The word kembang on the number one of the sentence above means
flower and the word kembang on the last sentence means girl.
Depend on the explanation above, the writer has outlined above Model A
of systematic polysemy, which seems to be the most widespread in the early

51

literature. However, this model allows for considerable variation in what

properties the rules that relate different interpretations to each other have and
what subsystem of grammar they belong to.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusions
After seeing the discussion of the chapter IV the writer gave some
conclusions as bellows:
1. The policemy in East Java language this study can be found on three
kinds, they are policemy in adjective form, policemy in noun form and
policemy in verb form.

52

2.

The policemy in East Java language can be found on three forms. The
first, Description of Policemy Data in Adjective Forms can be seen on
Data 01 by the words cilik (small) and cilik (young-ones), Data 02 by the
words gede (big) and gede (adult), Data 03 by the words kendor (sag)
and kendor (loose), Data 04 by the words banter (fast) and banter (race
along), Data 05 by the words kaku (took a hard line) and kaku (stiff) ,
Data 06 by the words kelet ( sticky ) and kelet ( intimating) and Data 07
by the words kecut (sour) and kecut (sniff). The second, Description of
Policemy Data in Noun Forms can be seen on the data 08 by the words
mbrodol (fall off) and mbrodol (out), 09 by the word kembang (flower) n
kembang (girld) The last Description of Policemy Data in Verb Forms
can be seen on data Data 10 by the words mlayu (run) and mlayu (run
away), Data 11 by the words mambu (smelt) and mambu (spoiled),12 by
the word medon (go down) and medon (low). seen on Data 13 by the
words mlayu (run) and mlayu (run away), 14 by the word medon (go
down) and medon (low). Data 15 by the word (touch) and (use).

B. Suggestions
Based on the above conclusion the writer gave some suggestions bellow:
1. The writer hopes this result of study can be new reference to the other
researcher who would like to do the researching about policmy.
2. The writer hope to the next researcher can complete this research because
this research just focuses on three forms they are adjective, noun and
verb.

53

REFERENCES
Alwasilah, A Chaedar. 1990. Beberapa Madhab dan Dikotomi Teori Linguistik
Angkasa.
Aminuddin. 2008. Semantik; Pengantar Studi Tentang Makna. Bandung. Sinar
Baru Algensindo.
Abdul Chaer dan Leonie Agustina. 2004. Sosiolinguistik Perkenalan Awal.
Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Aitchison, J. 1997. The Language Web : (The Reith Lectures). Cambridge:
Cambridge Unifersity Press.
Brown, Gillian. 1984. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: University Press.
Badudu, J. S. 1992. Morfologi. Bandung: Unpublished article.

54

Burgest. S.J. Language Meaning. 9th Edition. New York: Heinle and Heinle
Publisher.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York. Holt.
Charles. M. 2008. Semantic Morphology. 8th Edition.Belmon,CA: Publication
Crystal, David. 1978. A Dictionary of Linguistic and Phonetic. Great Britain:
Oxford Printed.
Djajasudarma, T. Fatimah. 1993. Metode Linguistik: Ancangan Metode
Penelitiasn dan Kajian. Bandung : PT. Eresco.
Dewi satria. 2011. Semantic Meaning of Rhyme Puzzle (Singguru) in Tolaki
Language. Konawe : Unilaki University.
Hymes, Dell. 1964. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Heinle and
Heinle Publisher
Hoey, M . 1991 . Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Keraf, Gorys. 1984. Komposisi, Sebuah Pengantar Kemahiran Berbahasa. Ende
Flores: Nusa Indah.
Levy, Y. (1988). The Nature of Early Languag: evidence from of development of
Hebrew morphology. In Y. Levy, I. Schlesinger and M. Braine (eds),
categories and processes in language acquisition. Hillsdale, Nj: Erlbaum.
Liana .2011.Morality in Metaphor on Traditional Utterance of Tolaki Language .
Konawe : Unilaki University
Leech, 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth : Penguin.
Lyon, John. 1977.Semantic Vol. 1 & 2. Canbridge: Canbridge University Press.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1992. Prosodic Morphology. Ms. University of
Massachusetts and Brandeis University.
Nababan, P. W. J. 1993. Sosiolinguistik: Suatu Pengantar. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia
Pustaka Utama.
Palmer, F.R. 1981. Semantics; Second edition. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.
Pateda, Mansoer.2005 Linguistik. Gorontalo ; vilandan Gorontalo
Ranta, Dewi.W.W. 2008 semantic Bahasa indonesia. Klaten ; intan pariwara

55

Rusty Capps. 1997. The spy who come to work . New Work. Security M.
Simpson & Weiner. 1987. Linguistik Bandingan. Jakarta: Gramedia
Tarigan, Henry Guntur. 1985. Pengajaran Semantik. Bandung. Angkasa..
Verhaar. 2008. Asas-asas linguistic umum. Yogyakarta : Univ. Gajahmada.
Widuribanyu. Blogspot/..../ kamus Bahsa Jawa Indonesia komplit.
Yrama Widya. 2002. Kamus Bahasa Jawa Indonesia - Jawa. Yogyakarta.
Gramedia

56

Appendix 1

I.

: Instrument

Carilah kata-kata dalam bahasa Jawa yang sama namun memiliki arti
yang berbeda dikarenakan fungsi dan kedudukannya dalam kalimat,
sebagaimana contoh dalam bahasa Indonesia berikut ini!
Turun
a. Dia turun dari pohon (turun = bergerak dari atas kebawah)
b. Harga beras bulan ini turun (turun = merosot)
c. Sifat orang tuanya turun padanya (pindah/diwariskan)

Data 01
1. Omahe rina cilik
Rinas house is small
Rumahnya rina kecil
2. Ndek cilik Rina nakal
When Rina is still young ones, she is naughty
Waktu rina masih anak-anak rina nakal
Data 02
1

Omahe Rina gede

Rinas house is big
Rumah rina besar

Rina saiki wes gede

Rina is adult for this time
Rina sekarang sudah dewasa

Data 03
1. Celonoku kendor
My pants is sag
Celanaku longgar
2. Kulite embahku kendor

57

My grandmothers skin is loose

Kulitnya nenekku kendor
Data 04
1. Rina mlayu banter
Rina runs fast
Rina lari cepat
2. Kaline mili banter
The river race along
Kalinya mengalir deras
Data 05
1. Sikile Rina kaku
Rinas feet is stiff
Kakinya Rina kaku
2. Rina watak e kaku
Rinas character is took a hard line
Rina berwatak keras

Data 06
1. Leme wes ora kelet
The glue is not sticky
Lemnya sudah tidak lengket
2. Rina kelet karo bapake
Rina is intimating with her father
Rina manja pada bapaknya
Data 07
1. Jerok iki rasane kecut
This orange is sour
Jeruk ini rasanya kecut

58

2. Awakmu mambu kecut

Your body is sniff
Badanmu bau kecut
Data 08
1. Rambutku mbrodol
My hair is fall off
Rambutku rontok
2. Bantalku mbrodol
The kapok of my pillow is out
Bantalku kapuknya keluar dari bantal

Data 09
1. Kembangku layu
My flower is dead
Bungaku layu
2. Kembang desone ayu-ayu
The girls of the village is beautiful
Gadis-gadis desa itu cantik
Data 10
1. Rina ora iso mlayu
Rina cannot run
Rina tidak bias lari
2. Rina mlayu teko penjara
Rina run away from the jail
Rina kabur dari penjara
Data 11
1. Kelambiku mambu pengo
My clothes is smelt no good
Bajuku berbau tidak sedap
2. Jangane arep mambu
The vegetable will be spoiled
Sayurnya mau basi

59

Data 12
1. Arek iku medon tekok wet kelopo
The child go down from the coconut tree
Anak itu turun dari pohon kelapa
2. Bijianku medon meneh
My score is low again
Nilaiku turun lagi
Data 13
1. Budi nyekel aret
Budi hold on the knife of rubber trees
Budi memegang arit
2. Nangwengngi wong-wong podo nyekel maling
Last night the people nab burglar
Tadi malam orang-orang pada nangkap pencuri
Data 14
1. Rina anjlok teko nokoor omah
Rina jump down from the top of house
Rina terjun dari atas rumah
2. Regane beras anjlok
The cost of rice go down
Harga beras merosot

Data 15
1. Ojo sampean otek pipiku
Dont touch my cheek
Jangan kamu colek pipiku
2. Ojo sampean otek duwe iki
Dont use this money
Jangan kamu gunakan uang ini

60

Appendix 2 : Informant
NIK
Nama
TTL
Alamat
RT/RW
Kel/Desa
Kecamatan
Pekerjaan
Pendidikan Terakhir

: 7402043112530002
: MARJUKI
: Bojonegoro, 31-12-1953
: Jln. Singkarak II
: 003/005
: Lalonggotomi
: Pondidaha
: Petani
: SD

NIK
Nama
TTL
Alamat
RT/RW
Kel/Desa
Kecamatan
Pekerjaan
Pendidikan Terakhir

: 7402047112630007
: JUMIRAH
: Bojonegoro, 31-12-1963
: Jln. Singkarak II
: 003/005
: Lalonggotomi
: Pondidaha
: Mengurus Rumah Tangga
: SD

NIK
Nama
TTL
Alamat
RT/RW
Kel/Desa
Kecamatan
Pekerjaan

: 7402041101740002
: YASMIN
: Bojonegoro, 11-01-1974
: Jln. Singkarak II
: 003/005
: Lalonggotomi
: Pondidaha
: Wiraswasta

61

Pendidikan Terakhir : SLTP/Sederajat

NIK
Nama
TTL
Alamat
RT/RW
Kel/Desa
Kecamatan
Pekerjaan
Pendidikan Terakhir

: 747109.101055.0001
: SADAR
: Bojonegoro, 10-10-1955
: Jln. Ahmad Yani
: 012/004
: Mataiwoi
: Wua-wua
: Wiraswasta
: SD

62