• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Assimilation and reduplication in pangasinan adjectives
 

Assimilation and reduplication in pangasinan adjectives

on

  • 1,682 views

This is a morphophonemic analysis of Pangasinan adjectives

This is a morphophonemic analysis of Pangasinan adjectives

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,682
Views on SlideShare
1,681
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Assimilation and reduplication in pangasinan adjectives Assimilation and reduplication in pangasinan adjectives Presentation Transcript

    • ASSIMILATION and REDUPLICATION inPANGASINAN ADJECTIVES: A Morphophonemic Analysis Mark Anthony B. Austria Facu lty Research er/PSU Alam inos C ity201 2 U niversity Research In-H ou se Review and Sym p osiu m PSU Sta. M aria C am p u s; Ap ril 30, 201 2
    • Background of the Study The most ancient expressions of linguisticintellect known to man were recorded in thesecond and eleventh chapters of the Book ofGenesis in the Old Testament. The first reference isthe naming of the animals, and the secondrecorded the account of the Tower of Babel. From then on, most civilizations and cultures—in their sacred writings, in their oral traditions, intheir folklore—have some reference to the originoccasionally to the dispersion of speech. Only rarelydid the ancients try to learn something aboutspeech phenomena by observation orexperimentation.
    • Background of the Study These experimentations and linguisticinvestigations, in the controversial sense of theword, however, could not begin until philosophyand the analytic study of the language had beendeveloped. This goal was not realized until theGreeks and the Indians applied their peculiargeniuses towards investigating the nature oflanguage. Although they had certain goals incommon, their respective approaches to the studyof language were fundamentally different. By andlarge, the Greeks speculated about language,whereas the Indians described it.
    • Background of the Study Since language is a system, an organizedpattern of sounds and words and their meanings ingeneral, there are some specific features of thesystem that are common from one language toanother. This explains why while some Philippinelanguages like Filipino, Iloko, Kapampangan, Waray,Ibaloi and Pangasinan share some similarities. However, structural linguistics has it thatlanguages could differ from each other withoutlimit and in unpredictable ways. Linguists havetended to emphasize the respects in which alanguage differs from the other, i.e. each languageis uniquely structured, possessing idiosyncraticcharacteristics.
    • Background of the Study In addition, the idea of a sustainedscholarly study of these minority languagescould possibly propel the interest in theirrevitalization. Hence, this study attempts tooffer full of unexpected discoveries about thehidden linguistic mysteries and salient featuresof the Pangasinan language, particularly its setof adjectives. Also, this study is aimed atclassifying the Pangasinan language as a healthylanguage as evidenced by its capability toundergo morphophonemic changes such as theassimilation and reduplication process.
    • Background of the Study Hence, this study was designed toinvestigate the all-time controversial feature ofPangasinan to undergo morphophonemicchanges such as assimilation and reduplicationin order to understand how its certain adjectivesbehave when used in a certain environment. Finally, this is endeavored to declare thatPangasinan is a living language; it is healthy!
    • Statement of the Problem This study was aimed at identifying, analyzing,describing and evaluating morphophonologically theselected Pangasinan adjectives. Specifically, it sought tofind answers to the following questions:2.Are there adjectives in Pangasinan, which undergoassimilation and reduplication as morphophonemicchanges?3.What are the different types of these changes that takeplace in the adjectives and are there phonological rulesgoverning the same?4.Which of these adjectives are intelligibly used by thenative speakers?5.How are these adjectives recognized as toacceptability?
    • Significance of the Study This linguistic inquiry was conducted tobenefit the native speakers and the non-nativespeakers of the Pangasinan language, and mostspecially, the linguistics professors, instructors,students, and the young Pangasinenses. Through this study, Pangasinan speakers willbe rightfully informed about their own language.They may be guided as to the correct utterances oftheir language, particularly with regard itsadjectives. That consciously or unconsciously, theirmanner of utterances is ineffective, and thus thisstudy will guide them how some selected adjectivesare formed and uttered phonologically andmorphophonemically.
    • Significance of the Study The findings of this study could enrich thelanguage teaching and learning. The same findingscould provide valuable springboard for languageprofessors, instructors, and teachers in theteaching of linguistics, phonology, structure oflanguages (morphology and syntax), and lexicaltypology and registers, both in the undergraduateand graduate levels. This study also gives motivation to those non-native speakers of Pangasinan who want to learnthe language because like their own language it isnot difficult after all. It is attitudinal. Therefore,non-native speakers may start with the adjectivesin their quest for learning the whole language.
    • Significance of the Study Furthermore, college students specializing inlanguages may find this study worth reviewing, asthis study provides adequate linguistic accounts onthe long controversial features of languages, suchas the phonological rules and morphophonemicchanges. Finally, this study could offer inspiration tothose linguists and philologists to pursue studiesthat are more comprehensive on morphophonemicchanges and to explore and discover new insightsabout Pangasinan, which might lead to betterunderstanding the nature of languages. The aforementioned premises made thisstudy relevant, vital and significant.
    • Scope and Delimitation This study centered on gathered (thosederived from the Swadesh wordlist ofPangasinan language) adjectives, linguisticallytreated for possible evidence ofmorphophonemic processes and changes suchas assimilation and reduplication.
    • Scope and Delimitation Further, the gathered data consisted of onehundred twelve (112) Pangasinan adjectives. Onlythose derived from the Swadesh word-list ofPangasinan were selected and morpho-phonologically analyzed herein. The same sampleswere validated as intelligently used in dailyconversation and recognized as acceptable by theten (10) linguistic informants from the nine (9)Pangasinan-speaking municipalities and cities in thecentral and western parts of the province namelySan Carlos City, Malasique, Bayambang, Lingayen,Binmaley, Bugallon, Alaminos City, Dasol, andMabini, respectively. This study was conductedfrom July 15, 2011 to April 17, 2012.
    • Review of Related Literature The Pangasinan language (codes: pag, ISO639-2, ISO 639-3) is one of the twelve majorlanguages in the Philippines. Pangasinan is theninth most spoken native language in thePhilippines. It belongs to the Austronesian family oflanguages, specifically from the SouthernCordilleran Group of the Northern Philippinelanguages. It is an agglutinating language (Ethnologue,2009).
    • Review of Related Literature Moreover, as an agglutinating language, it iscapable of forming morphologically complex wordsby stringing together sequences of affixes beforeand/or after a root morpheme (Hall, 2005). Hence,it is also capable of undergoing morphophonemicprocesses and manifests evidence ofmorphophonemic changes brought about by thesequences of morphemes and phonemes. Further, Hall (2005) posited that from theperspective of linguistic theory, a language is (a) aset of speech sounds (b) a set of principles for howto put them together in meaningful ways; and (c) aset of principles for how to interpret the meaningsthey express.
    • Review of Related Literature These same sets of principles that Hall spokeof may shed light to the rare linguisticphenomenon, which has intrigued linguists foryears—the morphophonemic changes. It may benoted that certain speech sounds are eitherassimilated or reduced as they occur in sequencewith certain strings of morphemes. Consequently, the Pangasinan language beingan agglutinating one may show residues of thesemorphophonemic changes.
    • Review of Related Literature The practical goal of linguistics is to establish thephonology and morphology of an archaic and obsolescentlanguage like Pangasinan. In this, linguists were singularlysuccessful, due in part of their objective approach, but nodoubt due also to the structure of the language itself, for itis an idiom in which phonemic and morphemic “merging”,is beautifully formalized and obvious. Aristotle (384-322 BC), Father of Grammar in theOccidental World, believed and taught (in his essayentitled, “On Interpretation”) that language was arrived atby convention or agreement. In linguistics, therefore, theparticular form that a given word assumed was merely oneof an infinite number of material embodiments – those ofsounds and morphemes.
    • Review of Related Literature Durst (1997) stated that morphophonologydeals with the conditioned alteration of phonemes.Although the occurrence of particularmorphophonemes is controlled lexically, just likenon-morphophonologically alternating phonemes,morphophonemic alternations can be described interms of phonology alone, with no recourse themorphological process involved. Thus,morphophonology refers to a “layer” of descriptionthat handles the predictable alternating phonemes.
    • Review of Related Literature According to Ramlan (2001), morphophonemicrefers the changes of phoneme as a result from themerging of one morpheme and another. He also statesthat morphophonemic process is a process of formchanges in which phoneme and morpheme areinvolved. The study of Austria, et. al. (2004) found out thatthe Pangasinan adjectives are capable of undergoingthe various morphophonemic changes such asassimilation, reduplication, substitution, syncopationand reduplication in case of syncopation. They foundout that these changes occurring in the samplesanalyzed are predictable.
    • Review of Related Literature Therefore, morphophonology is seen as apart of linguistic code that deals with predictablealternation of sounds, not morphemes, and includeit under phonology—or at least not include it undermorphology. Since there is a very obviouslysomething phonological going on in a phenomenonthat was being described as morphologicalvariation. The term “morphophonemic changes”was used to describe such processes.
    • Methodology The descriptive method was employed in this study.It was aimed at describing prevailing linguistic patternsand/or conditions among phonetic and morphemicinventories in sequences with regard to formations ofadjectives in Pangasinan. Further, to determine the probablemorphophonemic features of the gathered adjectives, the“inspection” approach (as attributed to Gudschinsky) wasused to evaluate the same. Focusing on phonetic andmorphemic relationships, this approach attempted tomeasure the ‘relative degrees of lexical relationship’ ofclosely related phonemes (including their allophones) andmorphemes (including their allomorphs) as an indicator ofpotential morphophonemic changes.
    • Methodology In gathering the data, the researcher interviewedten (10) Pangasinan informants from nine (9) Pangasinan-speaking municipalities and cities in the central andwestern Pangasinan namely San Carlos City, Malasique,Bayambang, Lingayen, Binmaley, Bugallon, Alaminos City,Dasol, and Mabini, respectively. The informants werecarefully chosen through purposive sampling; which aimedat choosing a combination of elderly and educated youngnative speakers of the Pangasinan language. A questionnaire was used during the course of theinterview. The researcher also read a number of relevantmaterials, both old and current ones, published in thePangasinan language, in search for the adjective samples inthe Pangasinan language.
    • Methodology The gathered Pangasinan adjectives werematched accordingly if they were derivations of thebasic adjectives in the Swadesh word-list ofPangasinan. This study was mainly qualitative andpartly quantitative. As such, the data were collectedusing the following techniques: collection, translation,identification, evaluation and presentation ofphonological and morphological formations. Percentage was used to measure theintelligibility and frequency of usage of the adjectives. Arithmetic mean was used to determine the levelof acceptability in form and structure of the adjectives.
    • Results and Discussions Problem No. 1Pangasinan Adjectives which have Undergone the Assimilation and Reduplication ProcessesThe Pangasinan adjectives, undoubtedly and aspredicted, are capable of undergoing the processesof assimilation and reduplication as some phonemesand morphemes appear in certain sequences. Out ofthe 112 word samples, there were twenty-two (22)which manifested assimilation; the rest underwentreduplication, ninety (90) of them. The adjectives aswell as the changes noted were further evaluated,accordingly.
    • Problem No.1 Table 1aList of Adjectives which Underwent the Assimilation Process (22 out of 112 or 20%) Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (underwent assimilation only) (underwent assimilation in case of Pangasinan English Pangasinan reduplication) Englishamasa wet ambabanget more stinkyamaseng stink ambabasa more wetamanget stink ambasa-basa very wetamelat heavy ambebelat heavierametang hot ambetbetel colderametel cold ambetebetel very coldamuti white ampapaseng stinkaneket black/dark ampepetang hotteranikey short ampuputi whiteranokey long amputi-puti very whiteamalanga redamasiseng green/raw n = 12 (55%) n = 10 (45%)
    • Problem No.1 The Table 1a presents the adjectives which havegone through the assimilation morphophonemic change;and shows residues of the said process. Only twenty-two(22) out of the treated 112 samples or 20% of the sampleshave manifested indications of assimilation. There weretwelve (12) out of twenty-two (22) assimilated adjectives,which is equivalent to 55% manifested basic assimilation;while there were ten (10) or 45% manifesting assimilationin case of reduplication. As shall be evaluated further, such distinctions maydenote either full or partial assimilation occurrences. These 22 adjectives undergoing assimilation processare qualitative-descriptive in nature.
    • Problem No.1 Further, there were ninety (90) or 80% adjectives which havegone the reduplication morphophonemic change; and shows residuesof the said process. Eighty (80) out of ninety (90) adjectivesundergoing reduplication or equivalent to 89% appeared asdescriptive-qualitative ones; while ten (10) or 11% appeared indescriptive-numerical forms. As shall be evaluated in the next sections of this study, suchdistinctions may denote expressions of comparison and intensityeither to the most or to the least. A few of these adjectives may alsomanifest indications of absolute status, which make them not capableof being further qualified in any way. In addition, these adjectives may also be described in the nextsections of this study as either manifesting full or partial reduplication. As evidenced by the following list, the Pangasinan language isrich in phonetically and morphemically “processed” words; theseadjectives have set the examples. Thus, its capacity to undergo thetwo above-mentioned morphophonemic changes is one of the bestmeasures of its richness and health as a language.
    • Results and Discussions Problem No. 2 Types of Assimilation and Reduplication and thePhonological Rules Governing these Morphophonemic ChangesFull Assimilation This is most often caused by the tendency to facilitate the pronunciation of the two morphemes in the combination, by trying to use phonemes which are related or similar according to the criterion of the place of articulation. Full assimilation happens if the last prefixal phoneme changes completely and is identified with initial in the root; then, it practically merges with it and disappears in pronunciation. This is also a case of reduction or deletion since a phoneme is lost in the course of the process.
    • Problem No.2 Table 2a Indications of Full Assimilation Morphophonemic Change in the Pangasinan Adjectives (labial phonemes, part1) Morphological Process Phonological Processes Final Initially- /n/ → /m/ /b/ → Ø /_/m/ Form of the Prefix Root formed (/n/ becomes /m/ Processed (/b/ is deleted Word Word before /b/) Word after /m/)[an-] + [basa] anbasa [am-]+basa ambasa [am-]+[asa] amasa (wetness) (wet) (wet) (wet)[an-] + [banget] anbanget [am-]+banget ambanget [am-]+[anget] amanget (foulness) (stink) (stink) (stink)[an-] + [belat] anbelat [am-]+belat ambelat [am-]+[elat] amelat (weight) (heavy) (heavy) (heavy)[an-] + [betel] anbetel [am-]+betel ambetel [am-]+[etel] ametel (coolness) (cold) (cold) (cold)[an-] + balanga anbalanga [am-]+balanga ambalanga [am-]+[alanga] amalanga (redness) (red) (red) (red)
    • Problem No.2 Table 2a shows how the assimilation process happenstoward its fullness, as taking place from initial to final stages ofthe change, particularly concerning phonemes /n/, /m/ and /b/,respectively. The rule governing the initial change of the adjectivesfrom anbasa, anbanget, anbelat, anbetel, and anbalanga tonow popularly known and used forms as ambasa, ambanget,ambelat, ambetel and ambalanga may be expressed in thefollowing statement, Rule 1a: “The sonorant nasal and alveolar /n/ becomes the sonorant nasal /m/ when it occurs before an obstruent oral stops and labial /b/; hence resulting in the loss of the phoneme /n/.”
    • Problem No.2 Moreover, due to connected speech in dailyconversations among native speakers, the final phoneme /m/ ofthe assimilated prefixal morpheme [am-] and the initialphoneme /b/ of the root morphemes [basa], [banget], [belat],[betel] and [balanga] merges; hence the loss of the initialphoneme /b/ of the root morphemes resulting in amasa,amanget, amelat, ametel and amalanga. Rule No. 1b“The obstruent labial plosive /b/ is deleted when it occurs after sonorant nasal consonant /m/; hence, sonorant labial nasal /m/ has the greatest strength for assimilating other labial sounds into nasality.”
    • Problem No.2 Table 2bIndications of Full Assimilation Morphophonemic Change in the Pangasinan Adjectives (labial phonemes, part2) Morphological Process Phonological Processes Final Initially- /n/ → /m/ /p/ → Ø /_/m/ Form ofPrefix Root formed (/n/ becomes / Processed (/p/ is deleted the Word Word m/ before /p/) Word after /m/)[an-] + [petang] anpetang [am-]+petang ampetang [am-]+[etang] ametang (hotness) (hot) (hot) (hot)[an-] + [puti] anputi [am-]+puti amputi [am-]+[uti] amuti (whiteness) (white) (white) (white)[an-] + [paseng] anpaseng [am-]+paseng ampaseng [am-]+[aseng] amaseng (foulness) (stink) (stink) (stink)[an-] + [pasiseng] anpasiseng [am-]+ pasiseng ampasiseng [am-] +[asiseng] amasiseng (greenness (green/raw) (green/raw) (green/ or rawness) raw)
    • Problem No.2 Moreover, Table 2b shows how the assimilation processhappens toward its fullness, as taking place from initial to finalstages of the change, particularly concerning phonemes /n/,/m/ and /p/, respectively. The rule governing the initial change of the adjectivesfrom anpetang, anputi, anpaseng, and anpasiseng to nowpopularly known and used forms as ampetang, amputi,ampaseng, and ampasiseng may be expressed in the followingstatement, to wit: Rule 2a: “The sonorant nasal and alveolar /n/ becomes the voiced sonorant l/m/ when it occurs before an obstruent oral stopsand labial /p/; hence resulting in the loss of the phoneme /n/.”
    • Problem No.2 Moreover, due to connected speech in dailyconversations among native speakers, the finalphoneme /m/ of the assimilated prefixal morpheme[am-] and the initial phoneme /p/ of the rootmorphemes [petang], [puti], [paseng], and [pasiseng]merges; hence the loss of the initial phoneme /p/ of theroot morphemes resulting in ametang, amuti, amaseng,and amasiseng. Thus, the rule governing this final change shall beas follows, to wit: Rule No. 2b“The obstruent labial plosive /p/ is deleted when it occurs after sonorant nasal consonant /m/; hence, sonorant labial nasal /m/ has the greatest strength for assimilating other labial sounds into nasality.”
    • Problem No.2 Table 2c Indications of Full Assimilation Morphophonemic Change in the Pangasinan Adjectives (alveolar phonemes, part1) Morphological Process Phonological Processes Initially- /n/ ↔ /n/ /d/ → Ø /_/n/ FinalPrefix Root formed (/n/ remains Processed (/d/ is deleted Form of the Word /n/ before /d/) Word after /n/) Word[an-] + [deket] andeket [an-]+deket andeket [an-]+[eket] aneket (blackness/ (black/ (black/ (dark/dark) darkness) dark) dark)[an-] + [dokey] andokey [an-]+dokey andokey [an-]+[okey] anokey (length) (long) (long) (long)
    • Problem No.2 Table 2c shows how the assimilation process happenstoward its fullness, as taking place from initial to final stages ofthe change, particularly concerning phonemes /n/, and /d/,respectively. The rule governing the initial change of the adjectivesfrom andeket and andokey to now popularly known and usedforms as aneket and anokey may be expressed in the followingstatement, to wit: Rule 3a: “The sonorant nasal and alveolar /n/ remains in its placefeature when it occurs before a coronal and sonorant stops andalveolar /d/; hence resulting in the retention of the phoneme / n/.”
    • Problem No.2 This retention appears only in the said strings wherebythe phonemes in sequence share the same place and mannerspeech features; and which can only be possible through theprocess of assimilation. Moreover, due to connected speech in dailyconversations among native speakers, the final phoneme /n/ ofthe prefixal morpheme [an-] and the initial phoneme /d/ of theroot morphemes [deket] and [dokey] merges; hence the loss ofthe initial phoneme /d/ of the root morphemes resulting inaneket and anokey. Rule No. 3b “The obstruent alveolar plosive /d/ is deleted when it occurs after sonorant nasal consonant /n/; hence, sonorant alveolar nasal /n/ has the greatest strength for assimilating other alveolar sounds into nasality.”
    • Problem No.2 Table 2d Indications of Full Assimilation Morphophonemic Change in the Pangasinan Adjectives (alveolar phonemes, part2) Morphological Process Phonological Processes Final Initially- /n/ ↔ /n/ /t/ → Ø /_/n/ Form of thePrefix Root formed (/n/ remains Processed (/t/ is deleted Word Word /n/ before /t/) Word after /n/)[an-] + [tikey] antikey [an-]+tikey antikey [an-]+[ikey] anikey (shortness) (short) (short) (short)
    • Problem No.2 Table 2d shows how the assimilation process happenstoward its fullness, as taking place from initial to final stages ofthe change, particularly concerning phonemes /n/, and /t/,respectively. The rule governing the initial retention of the adjectiveantikey to its same known and used form as antikey may beexpressed in the following statement, to wit: Rule 4a: “The sonorant nasal and alveolar /n/ remains in its placefeature when it occurs before a coronal and sonorant stops and alveolar /t/; hence resulting in the retention of the phoneme / n/.”
    • Problem No.2 This retention appears only in the said strings wherebythe phonemes in sequence share the same place and mannerspeech features; and which can only be possible through theprocess of assimilation. Moreover, due to connected speech in dailyconversations among native speakers, the final phoneme /n/ ofthe prefixal morpheme [an-] and the initial phoneme /t/ of theroot morpheme [tikey] merges; hence the loss of the initialphoneme /t/ of the root morpheme resulting in anikey. Rule No. 4b “The obstruent alveolar plosive /t/ is deleted when it occurs after sonorant nasal consonant /n/; hence, sonorant alveolar nasal /n/ has the greatest strength for assimilating other alveolar sounds into nasality.”
    • Problem No.2 Finally, said full assimilation as a morphophonemicchange is non-significant because it has brought no change inmeaning in the samples. Full assimilation resulted in the finalforms of the adjectives following the Vowel-Consonant-Vowel(VCV) beginnings. It happens in prefixation construction only.Partial Assimilation Partial assimilation happens only when the contact islimited to making the features of the final phoneme of theprefixal morpheme similar with that of the neighboring initialphoneme of the root morpheme.
    • Problem No.2 Table 2e Indications of Partial Assimilation Morphophonemic Change in the Pangasinan Adjectives (bilabial phonemes, p1) Morphological Process Phonological Processes Initially- /n/ → /m/ Final Prefix Reduplic Root formed Word (/n/ becomes /m/ before /b/) Form of the atives Word[an-] +[ba] +[banget] anbabanget [am-]+ba+banget ambabanget (foulness) (more stinky) (more stinky)[an-] +[basa] +[basa] anbasa-basa [am-]+basa+basa ambasa-basa (wetness) (more stinky) (very wet)[an-] +[ba] +basa anbabasa [am-]+ba+basa ambabasa (wetness) (wet) (wet)[an-] +[be] +betel anbebetel [am-]+be+betel ambebetel (coldness) (colder) (colder)[an-] +[bet] +betel anbetbetel [am-]+bet+betel ambetbetel (coldness) (colder) (colder)[an-] +[bete] +betel anbetebetel [am-]+bete+betel ambetebetel (coldness) (very cold) (very cold)
    • Problem No.2 Table 2e shows how partial assimilation processhappens, as taking place from initial to final stages of thechange, particularly concerning phonemes /n/, /m/ and /b/, respectively. Furthermore, it shows that partial assimilation isonly basic to making similar in a certain place feature thefinal phoneme /n/ of the prefixal morpheme [an-] tosound like the neighboring phoneme /b/ of the rootmorphemes [banget], [basa], and [betel]; thus resultingin ambabanget, ambasa-basa, ambabasa, ambebetel,ambetbetel, and ambetebetel, respectively.
    • Problem No.2 Moreover, as can be further inferred from the table thatno change in meaning took place, just a change in form(spelling). Except for ambabasa (wet), which is an absolutesuperlative adjective, the rest can be qualified as eitherindicating comparison and/or intensity. With regard to the predictable pattern of phonologicalmodification which governs such change from anbabanget,anbasa-basa, anbabasa, anbebetel, anbetbetel and anbetebetelto ambabanget, ambasa-basa, ambabasa, ambebetel,ambetbetel, and ambetebetel, respectively, it may be said that: Rule 5a: “The sonorant nasal and alveolar /n/ becomes the sonorant nasal /m/ when it occurs before an obstruent oral stops and labial /b/; hence resulting in the loss of the phoneme /n/.”
    • Problem No.2 Table 2f Indications of Partial Assimilation Morphophonemic Change in the Pangasinan Adjectives (bilabial phonemes, p2) Morphological Process Phonological Processes Initially- /n/ → /m/ Final Prefix Reduplic Root formed Word (/n/ becomes /m/ before Form of the atives /b/) Word[an-] +[pa] +[paseng] anpapaseng [am-]+aa+paseng ampapaseng (foulness) (more stinky) (more stinky)[an-] +[pe] +[petang] anpepetang [am-]+pe+petang ampepetang (hotness) (hotter) (hotter)[an-] +[pu] +puti anpuputi [am-]+pu+puti ampuputi (whiteness) (whiter) (whiter)[an-] +[puti] +puti anputiputi [am-]+puti+puti amputi-puti (whiteness) (very white) (very white)
    • Problem No.2 Table 2f shows how partial assimilation process happens,as taking place from initial to final stages of the change,particularly concerning phonemes /n/, /m/ and /p/,respectively. It further shows that partial assimilation is only basic tomaking similar in a certain place feature the final phoneme /n/of the prefixal morpheme [an-] to sound like the neighboringphoneme /p/ of the root morphemes [pasaseng], [petang], and[puti]; thus resulting in ampasaseng, ampepetang, ampuputi,and amputi-puti, respectively.
    • Problem No.2 In addition, all the adjectives can be qualified aseither indicating comparison and/or intensity. With regard to the predictable pattern ofphonological modification which governs such changefrom anpasaseng, anpepetang, anpuputi, and anputi-puti, to ampasaseng, ampepetang, ampuputi, andamputi-puti, respectively, it may be said that: Rule 5b: “The sonorant nasal and alveolar /n/ becomes the sonorant nasal /m/ when it occurs before an obstruent oral stops and labial /p/; hence resulting in the loss of the phoneme /n/.”
    • Problem No.2 Finally, said partial assimilation as a morphophonemicchange is non-significant because it has brought no change inmeaning in the samples. Consequently, partial assimilationresulted in the final forms of the adjectives following the Vowel-Consonant-Consonant-Vowel (VCCV) beginnings. It happens inprefixation construction only, too. As partial assimilationhappens in case of reduplication, the presence of thereduplicatives has no bearing in the process. As Christopher J. Hall said in his book An Introduction toLanguage and Linguistics (2005), “any predictable modificationpatterns in phonology as in the change of /n/ to bilabial /m/before the following bilabials /b/ and /p/ will happen every timea prefixal morpheme with final /n/ bumps up against a word-initial bilabial, except in extremely careful speech.”
    • Problem No.2 There is also a predictable modification pattern inphonology as in the retention of /n/ in its original form beforethe following alveolar phonemes /t/ and /d/ will happen everytime a prefixal morpheme with final /n/ bumps up against aword-initial alveolar, except in extremely careful speech as well. This process of makes certain sounds in sequence similarin manner, place and class speech features; consequentlyproducing a seemingly new word; but actually just an improvedform in the case of assimilation. Therefore, certain soundsbecome more their neighboring sounds. As evaluated, Gemination (sound becomes identical toan adjacent sound) and Regressive Assimilation (sound on left isthe target, and sound on right is the trigger) were seen guidingthe manner of which assimilation is done; hence, theformulation of the phonological rules.
    • Problem No.2Reduplication Reduplication, as a kind of morphophonemicchange, occurs when a part or the entirety of theroot morpheme is repeated. The repeated part ofthe root morpheme or the entirety if repeated iscalled reduplicative. The morphological and phonologicalprocesses going on during this morphophonemicchange are also described in the tables that follow:
    • Problem No.2 Table 3a Indications of Reduplication in Numerical Adjectives Morphological and Phonological Processes Syllabic Structure of the Reduplicatives Final FormPrefix Reduplica Onset Nucleus Coda Full Root Root of the Word tives Morpheme - [sak-] X X sakey saksakey (only one) (one) - [du-] X X duara duduara (only two) (two) - [ta-] X X talora tatalora (only three) (three) - [a-] X apatira aapatira (only four) (four) - [li-] X X limara lilimara (only five) (five) - [a-] X anemira aanemira (only six) (six) - [pi-] X X pitora pipitora (only seven) (seven) - [wa-] X X walora wawalora (only eight) (eight) - [si-] X X siamira sisiamira (only nine) (nine) - [sa-] X X samplora sasamplora (only ten) (ten)
    • Problem No.2 Table 3a shows the syllabic structure of the Pangasinannumerical adjectives as they undergo the process of reduplication. Thereduplicatives in the table are open and simple. Their attachment tothe beginning of the words in the final forms categorically means“only” which is aimed at qualifying the root morpheme to the least.Hence, [sak-], [du-], [ta-], [a-], [li-], [a-], [pi-], [wa-], [si-] and [sa-] areall allomorphs of the English word “only.” Hence, the reduplication innumerical adjectives is significant. Further, the final forms, and since the beginning, are free ofprefixes, which could be inferred that: Rule No. 6 “Numerical adjectives entertain no affixes to further qualify themselves other than a part or the entirety of its very own root morpheme to indicate a qualified form, in this case the intensity (to the least).”
    • Problem No.2 Table 3a shows the syllabic structure of the Pangasinannumerical adjectives as they undergo the process of reduplication. Thereduplicatives in the table are open and simple. Their attachment tothe beginning of the words in the final forms categorically means“only” which is aimed at qualifying the root morpheme to the least.Hence, [sak-], [du-], [ta-], [a-], [li-], [a-], [pi-], [wa-], [si-] and [sa-] areall allomorphs of the English word “only.” Hence, the reduplication innumerical adjectives is significant. Further, the final forms, and since the beginning, are free ofprefixes, which could be inferred that: Rule No. 6 “Numerical adjectives entertain no affixes to further qualify themselves other than a part or the entirety of its very own root morpheme to indicate a qualified form, in this case the intensity (to the least).”
    • Problem No.2 Table 3bIndications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Derivational and Denoting Degree of Comparison) Morphological and Phonological Processes Syllabic Structure of the Reduplicatives Final FormPrefix Reduplic Root/Stem of the Word atives Onset Nucleus Coda Full Root Morpheme [a-] [-be-] X X - - beba abebeba (lowness) (lower) [a-] [-bo-] X X - - bolok abobolok (rottenness) (more rotten) [a-] [-li-] X X - - liwa aliliwa (ugliness) (uglier) [a-] [-ma-] X X - - maga amamaga (dryness) (drier)[an-] [-de-] X X - - deket andedeket (darkness) (more dark)[an-] [-ti-] X X - - tikey antitikey (shortness) (shorter) [a-] [-ra-] X X - - dawi ararawi (farness) (farther)[ma-] [-a-] - X - - abig maaabig (goodness) (better)
    • Problem No.2 Table 3b (continuation…)Indications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Derivational and Denoting Degree of Comparison)[ma-] [-ga-] X X - - gana magagana (beauty) (prettier)[ma-] [-ka-] X X - - kapal makakapal (thickness) (thicker)[ma-] [-kap-] X X - - kapal makapkapal (thickness) (thicker)[ma-] [-la-] X X - - lapar malalapar (width) (wider)[ma-] [-ru-] X X - - dutak marurutak (dirt) (dirtier)[ma-] [-ta-] X X - - talindeg matatalindeg (handsomeness) (more handsome)[ma-] [-ti-] X X - - tila matitila (dishonesty) (more dishonest)[ma-] [-i-] - X - - impis maiimpis (thinness) (thinner)[ma-] [-ep-] X X - - epel maep-epel (dullness) (duller)
    • Problem No.2 Table 3b and Table 3c illustrate how forty (40)descriptive-qualitative adjectives undergo the process ofreduplication, with thirty-eight (38) of them manifesting partialreduplicatives and two (2) bearing the fullness of its root or stemmorpheme, [maga] and [tila], respectively. As can be seen onthe tables that the structure of the initial syllables of the root orstem morphemes are open syllables, having only the onsets andnucleus, thereby making Pangasinan a relatively CV language. Analyzing further the respective tables lead to the theorythat Pangasinan adjectives were generally with nominalresidues. Hence, all the adjectives in these tables, studying theroot or stem morphemes, came from nominal origins. They werepreviously nominals that had assumed their adjectival formsthrough the combined processes of prefixation andreduplication. Reduplication happens internally.
    • Problem No.2 The derivational prefixal morphemes [a-], [an-] and [ma-]are called adjectivizers because they make the nominals intoadjectives; hence, assuming a new structural class—in adjectiveforms. Moreover, the nominals as observed have the greatertendency of becoming adjectives than any other structuralclasses of Pangasinan. A more careful look at Table 3b may lead to the followingrules, Rule No. 7 “If the initial syllable of the root/stem morpheme, or just partthereof, is repeated in the process of reduplication, it results in an expression of comparison (comparative degree).”
    • Problem No.2 Consequently, the reduplicatives [-be-], [-bol-], [-li-], [-ma-], [-de-], [-ti-], [-ra-], [-a-], [-ga-], [-ka-], [-kap-],[-la-], [-ru-], [-ta-], [i-], [-ti-] and [-ep-] are allomorphs ofthe English word morphemes “more” and “-er” whichdenote the comparative degree of adjectives; resulting inwords like abebeba, abobolok, aliliwa, amamaga,andedeket, antitikey, ararawi, maaabig, magagana,makakapal, makapkapal, malalapar, marurutak,matatalindeg, maiimpis, matitila and maep-epel. Hence, the process brought about a significantchange in the adjectives—comparison.
    • Problem No.2 Table 3c Indications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Derivational and Denoting Degree of Intensity) Morphological and Phonological Processes Syllabic Structure of the Reduplicatives Final FormPrefix Reduplic Root/Stem of the Word atives Onset Nucleus Coda Full Root Morpheme [a-] [-beb-] X X - - beba abebbeba (lowness) (very low) [a-] [-bolo-] X X - - bolok abolo-bolok (rottenness) (very rotten) [a-] [-liw-] X X - - liwa aliwliwa (ugliness) (very ugly) [a-] [-liw-] X X - - liwa aliwliwa (badness) (very bad) [a-] [-maga-] X X - X maga amaga-maga (dryness) (very dry)[an-] [-deke-] X X - - deket andekedeket (darkness) (very dark)[an-] [-doke-] X X - - dokey andokedokey (length) (very long)[an-] [-tike-] X X - - tikey antiketikey (shortness) (very short)
    • Problem No.2 Table 3c (continuation…) Indications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Derivational and Denoting Degree of Intensity)[an-] [-tik-] X X - - tikey antiktikey (shortness) (very short)[a-] [-raw-] X X - - dawi arawdawi (farness) (very far)[ma-] [-gan-] X X - - gana magangana (beauty) (very pretty)[ma-] [-ab-] X X - - abig maababig (goodness) (very good)[ma-] [-im-] X X - - impis maim-impis (thinness) (very thin)[ma-] [-inge-] X X - - inget mainge-inget (narrowness) (very narrow)[ma-] [-kapa-] X X - - kapal makapakapal (thickness) (very thick)[ma-] [-lap-] X X - - lapar malaplapar (width) (very wide)[ma-] [-rin-] X X - - dingot marindingot (dirt) (very dirty)[ma-] [-ring-] X X - - dingot maringdingot (dirt) (very dirty)
    • Problem No.2 Table 3c (continuation…) Indications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Derivational and Denoting Degree of Intensity)[ma-] [-ruta-] X X - - dutak marutarutak (dirt) (very dirty)[ma-] [-tal-] X X - - talindeg mataltalindeg (handsomeness) (very handsome)[ma-] [-tila-] X X - X tila matilatila (dishonesty) (very dishonest)[ma-] [-uge-] X X - - uges maugeuges (badness) (very bad)[ma-] [-epe-] X X - - epel maepe-epel (dullness) (very dull)
    • Problem No.2 In contrast, Table 3c shows that the reduplicatives [-beb-], [-bolo-], [-liw-], [-liw-], [-maga-], [-deke-], [-doke-], [-tike-], [-tik-], [-raw-], [-gan-], [-ab-], [-im-], [-inge-], [-kapa-], [-lap-], [-rin-], [-ring-], [-ruta-], [-tal-], [-tila-], [-uge-], and [-epe-] are allomorphs of the English word“very” which denotes a certain degree of intensity, notcomparison resulting in words like abebbeba, abolo-bolok,aliwliwa, aliwliwa, amaga-maga, andekedeket,andokedokey, antiketikey, antiktikey, arawdawi,magangana, maim-impis, maababig, mainge-inget,makapakapal, malaplapar, marindingot, maringdingot,marutarutak, mataltalindeg, matilatila, maugeuges andmaepe-epel. Hence, it brought about a significant change inthe adjectives—intensity.
    • Problem No.2 Rule No. 8“If the initial syllable and the second syllable or just a part thereof, or the root/stem morpheme is repeated in the process of reduplication, it results in an expression of intensity.” Therefore, reduplication in Pangasinan adjectives may bring about either an expression of comparison or an expression of intensity. Nevertheless, said adjectives were found out to be capable of being qualified for better expression and vivid usage.
    • Problem No.2 Table 3d Indications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Inflectional and Denoting either Comparison or Intensity) Morphological and Phonological Processes Syllabic Structure of the Reduplicatives Final FormPrefix Reduplic Root/Stem of the Word atives Onset Nucleus Coda Full Root Morpheme [a-] [-sing-] X X - - asinger asingsinger (near) (very near) - [bal-] X X - - baleg balbaleg (big) (very big) - [bal-] X X - - balo balbalo (new) (very new) - [balo-] X X - X balo balo-balo (new) (very strange) - [dat-] X X - - daan datdaan (old) (very old) - [dak-] X X - - dakel dakdakel (many) (very many) - [dake-] X X - - dakel dakerakel (many) (very many) - [mab-] X X - - mabeng mabmabeng (thin) (very thin)
    • Problem No.2 Table 3d (continuation…) Indications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Inflectional and Denoting either Comparison or Intensity)- [mat-] X X X - matdem matmatdem (sharp) (very sharp)- [mel-] X X - - melag melmelag (small) (very small)- [nap-] X X X - napno napnapno (full) (very full)- [nap-] X X X - napsel napnapsel (full) (very full)- [pig-] X X - - pigara pigpigara (few) (very few)- [ting-] X X - - tingot tingtingot (tiny) (very tiny)- [-si-] X X - - asinger asisinger (near) (nearer)- [ba-] X X - - baleg babaleg (big) (bigger)- [ba-] X X - - balo babalo (new) (newer)- [da-] X X - - daan dadaan (old) (older)- [da-] X X - - daiset dadaiset (few) (fewer)
    • Problem No.2 Table 3d (continuation…) Indications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Inflectional and Denoting either Comparison or Intensity)- [du-] X X - - duga duduga (right) (better)- [ma-] X X - - mainget mamainget (narrow) (narrower)- [ma-] X X - - mabeng mamabeng (thin) (thinner)- [ma-] X X - - maong mamaong (good) (better)- [ma-] X X - - matdem mamatdem (sharp) (sharper)- [ma-] X X - - mauges mamauges (bad) (worse)- [me-] X X - - melag memelag (small) (smaller)- [me-] X X - - melanting memelanting (tiny) (tinier)- [na-] X X - - napno nanapno (full) (fuller)- [na-] X X - - napsel nanapsel (full) (fuller)
    • Problem No.2 Here is another case of significant reduplication that happensduring inflection. It can be gleaned from Table 3d that Pangasinanadjectives are indeed capable of qualifying itself through inflectionto denote comparison. The table contains twenty-nine (29)adjectives inflected for either comparison or intensity. The sampledid not manifest their willingness to welcome prefixes.Reduplication, in cases of inflection, may take place internally likein the word asingsinger wherein the reduplicative [-sing-] found itsway within the root morpheme [asinger]; or initially like the rest ofthe samples. They were not prefixed. Moreover, the process occurs in predictable patterns withreduplicatives [-sing-], [bal-], [bal-], [balo-], [dat-], [dak-], [dake-],[mab-], [mat-], [mel-], [nap-], [nap-], [pig-] and [ting-] expressingthe allomorph “very”, hence denoting intensity in words likeasingsinger, balbaleg, balbalo, balo-balo, datdaan, dakdakel,dakerakel, mabmabeng, matmatdem, melmelag, napnapno,napnapsel, pigpigara, and tingtingot. Therefore, this case ofreduplication brought about an expression of intensity.
    • Problem No.2 In contrast, the reduplicatives [-si-], [ba-], [ba-], [da-], [da-],[du-], [ma-], [ma-], [ma-], [ma-], [ma-], [me-], [me-], [na-], and [na-]suggesting the allomorph “more” or “-er” in words like asisinger,babaleg, babalo, balbalo, dadaan, dadaiset, duduga, mamainget,mamabeng, mamaong, mamatdem, mamauges, memelag,memelanting, nanapno, nanapsel and pigpigara. Therefore, this caseof reduplication brought about an expression of comparison. Two reduplicatives show full syllable: [mat-] and [nap-]; while[balo-], full root. As a result and with exception of the presence ofprefixes during inflection, the rule may be read as follows: Rule No. 9 “In reduplication in case of inflection, either rule nos. 7 or 8 applies to denote either an expression of comparison or an expression of intensity, accordingly.”
    • Problem No.2 Table 3e Indications of Reduplication in Descriptive-Qualitative Adjectives (Cases of Absolute Adjectives) Morphological and Phonological Processes Syllabic Structure of the Reduplicatives Final FormPrefix Reduplicati Root/Stem of the Word Onset Nucleus Coda Full Root ves Morpheme - [duga-] X X - - duga dugaruga (right) (right) - [mali-] X X - - malimpek malilimpek (round) (round) - [malim-] X X X - malimpek malimlimpek (round) (round) - [ma-] X X - - maeta mamaeta (raw) (raw) - [map-] X X - - maptek mapmaptek (straight) (straight) - [mape-] X X X - maptek mapetepetek (straight) (straight) - [ma-] X X - - maptek mamaptek (straight) (straight) - [mapa-] X X - - mapatar mapapatar (flat) (flat) - [mapat-] X X X - mapatar mapatpatar (flat) (flat) - [matib-] X X - - matibokel matibtibokel (round) (round) - [mati-] X X - - matibokel matitibokel (round) (round)
    • Problem No.2 Table 3e illustrates examples of non-significantreduplication, as it brought about no categorical change inmeaning. It can be known that these adjectives, which exhibitnon-significant change, are in their absolute superlative forms;hence, there is no way of qualifying them in whatever sort.However, native speakers of the Pangasinan language havemistakenly attributed these changes as expressive ofcomparison or intensity. This study would like to clarify this belief; thus,forwarding the concept that "Certain adjectives denotemeanings that are absolute in nature. They can fill both theattributive and predicate slots, but they generally cannot bequalified or compared (Kolln and Funk, 1998).
    • Problem No.2 Further, based on Table 3e, the process of reduplicationbrought about no new words. The string of morphemes becamelonger but such addition of reduplicatives is not significant at all.Absolute adjectives shall always remain as absolute adjectives,not qualified and prefixed. Hence, the rule may be stated as Rule No. 10 “No amount of repeated syllable(s) or root can qualifyexpressions of absolute value, like that of absolute adjectives. Hence, reduplicatives are insignificant.”
    • Problem No.2 Finally, reduplication in Pangasinan adjectivesmay bring about either an expression ofcomparison or intensity; hence, significant. And in case of reduplication in absoluteadjectives, it was found out to be non-significant.
    • Results and Discussions Problem No. 3Intelligibility of Usage in Daily ConversationsOne hundred percent (100%) of the informantssaid that they use intelligibly in a dailyconversation basis the following 14 adjectives:pigpigara, saksakey, antiktikey, ambasa-basa,dakdakel, duduara, lilimara, balbaleg, aliwliwa,andekedeket, ambetebetel, marutarutak,arawdawi, magangana
    • Problem No.3 On the other hand, ninety percent (90%) ofthem said they use intelligibly in a dailyconversational basis the following 16 adjectives: makapakapal, mainge-inget, ambabanget,aliwliwa, amputi-puti, balo-balo, matilatila,melmelag, sisiamira, abolobolok , asingsinger,napnapsel, amagamaga, antitikey, ambebelat,malimlimpek
    • Problem No.3 However, seventy percent (70%) of them saidthey use intelligibly in a daily conversational basisthe following 15 adjectives: aapatira, malaplapar, tingtingot, andedeket,dugaruga, mamatdem, makapkapal, memelanting,antiketikey, maimimpis, maep-epel, malalapar,ampuputi, nanapno, mapetepetek
    • Problem No.3 Moreover, eighty percent (80%) of them saidthey use intelligibly in a daily conversational basisthe following 19 adjectives: pipitora, sasamplora, mabmabeng,napnapno, balbalo, matibtibokel, dadaiset,wawalora, andokedokey, dadaan, mamaong,marindingot, maaabig, tatalora, aanemira,abebbeba, mamabeng, maugeuges, matitila
    • Problem No.3 However, seventy percent (70%) of them saidthey use intelligibly in a daily conversational basisthe following 15 adjectives: aapatira, malaplapar, tingtingot, andedeket,dugaruga, mamatdem, makapkapal, memelanting,antiketikey, maimimpis, maep-epel, malalapar,ampuputi, nanapno, mapetepetek
    • Problem No.3 Also, sixty percent (60%) of them said they useintelligibly in a daily conversational basis the following 11adjectives: amuti, maringdingot, mapmaptek, memelag,makakapal, mamaimpis, amalanga, aneket,ampepetang, datdaan, maepe-epel Meantime, fifty percent (50%) of them said theyuse intelligibly in a daily conversational basis thefollowing nine adjectives: marurutak, mamaptek, asisinger, mamainget,mamaeta, matitibokel, babalo, maababig, matmatdem
    • Problem No.3 Moreover, forty percent (40%) of them saidthey use intelligibly in a daily conversational basisthe following 18 adjectives: dakerakel, ametel, mamauges, mapatpatar,mataltalindeg, amamaga, amelat, ambabasa,amanget, ametang, ambetbetel, nanapsel,mapapatar, magagana, babaleg, abebeba,malilimpek
    • Problem No.3 Further, thirty percent (30%) of them said they useintelligibly in a daily conversational basis the following fiveadjectives: amasaseng, aliliwa, ararawi, amasa, duduga Furthermore, twenty percent (20%) of them said theyuse intelligibly in a daily conversational basis the followingfour adjectives: anikey, anokey, ampapaseng, abolbolok Finally, ten percent (10%) of them said they useintelligibly in a daily conversational basis the adjectiveamaseng.
    • Problem No.3 Based on the above data, the most commonlyand intelligently used adjectives are those that haveundergone the reduplication as a morphophonemicchange. It can also be inferred that the native speakers ofthe Pangasinan language are linguistically aware of theoccurrence and use of these morphologically andphonetically processed adjectives; hence, they are usedin their daily conversation, accordingly.
    • Results and Discussions Problem No. 4 Level of AcceptabilityThe same list of adjectives was evaluated by thelinguistic informants as to levels of acceptability.Moreover, results show that the adjectives are allaccepted in form and structures in varying levels.
    • Problem No.4 There were twenty-nine (29) or 25.89% of theadjectives were recognized as highly acceptable, towit: pigpigara, saksakey, makapakapal,antiktikey, mainge-inget, mabmabeng, napnapno,ambasa-basa, aliwliwa, magangana, dakdakel,balbaleg, andokedokey, amputiputi, balobalo,aliwliwa, marindingot, melmelag, abebbeba,andekedeket, ambetebetel, ampuputi,maugeuges, abolobolok, marutarutak,mapetepetek, asingsinger, arawdawi, amagamaga
    • Problem No.4 There were fifty-six (56) or 50.00% of the adjectiveswere recognized as acceptable, to wit: pipitora, sasamplora, malaplapar, tingtingot,ambabanget, amuti, andedeket, napnapsel, balbalo,maaabig, maringdingot, marurutak, mamaptek,matibtibokel, mamatdem, amamaga, asisinger,mataltalindeg, dadaiset, duduara, lilimara, wawalora,makapkapal, memelanting, antitikey, antiketikey,mamainget, maimimpis, nanaksel, mamaong, mapmaptek,malimlimpek, maepel, ambabasa, dugaruga, aliliwa,magagana, matilatila, tatalora, aanemira, sisiamira, babaleg,malalapar, makakapal, ambebelat, mamabeng, mamaimpis,amalanga, aneket, nanapno, babalo, datdaan, malilimpek,matmatdem, mapmaepel, matitila
    • Problem No.4 There were twenty (20) or 17.86% of theadjectives were recognized as occasionally acceptable, towit: dakerakel, aapatira, ametel, mamauges,mapatpatar, amelat, mamaeta, ampetang, ambetbetel,ampepetang, abebeba, memelag, ararawi, matitibokel,abolbolok, dadaan, maababig, amasa, duduga,matatalindegThere were seven (7) or 6.25% of the adjectives wererecognized as acceptable but rarely existent, to wit: anokey, anikey, amasaseng, amanget,ampapaseng, mapapatar, amaseng
    • Problem No.4 The data mean to say that thesemorphophonologically-processed adjectives are recognized asacceptable by the native speakers of the Pangasinanlanguage. More so, it can be attributed that these adjectivesare existent in the registry of Pangasinan adjectives and areliving proof that Pangasinan speakers possess a certain levelof linguistic knowledge, awareness and beliefs to be able toidentify and recognize the same as acceptable regardless ofthe processes these adjectives have went through in thepassing of time. Further, the Pangasinan speakers can be described asable to cope up with the linguistic development of theirlanguage; hence, they are linguistically aware andknowledgeable.
    • Conclusions1. That the Pangasinan language is rich in adjectives which have undergoneassimilation and reduplication as morphophonemic changes; and that usingthe Swadesh word-list of Pangasinan adjectives, there are at least 112 ofthem manifesting residues of the assimilation and reduplication most of themnominal derivatives;2. That there take place full and partial types of assimilation processes inPangasinan adjectives though non-significant for it brings no categoricalsemantic differences between the original and initial adjectives and the finalassimilation-processed adjectives;3. That there also take place rare and isolated type of full reduplication; whilethere is rampant cases of partial reduplication; however, in cases ofderivational reduplication most adjectives are prefixed and are eitherexpressive of degrees of comparison and intensity; on the other hand,inflectional derivation in Pangasinan adjectives are not prefixed but arecapable of denoting either comparison or intensity; also numerical adjectivesare not prefixed and are limited to expressing degrees of intensity;
    • Conclusions4. That rules governing gemination and regression are the prevailingconditions in the cases of either partial or full assimilation; stricter rules onsyllabic structures are seen conditioning the presence of reduplicatives in theprocess of repetition; That the Pangasinan adjectives which have undergonethe process of reduplication are more commonly and intelligently used indaily conversational basis among native speakers compared to those thathave undergone the process of assimilation; hence, reduplication is the morefavored process;5. That these morphophonologically-processed adjectives are recognized asacceptable by the native speakers of the Pangasinan language; therefore, itcan be attributed that these adjectives are existent in the registry ofPangasinan lexicon and are living proofs that Pangasinan speakers possess acertain level of linguistic knowledge, awareness and beliefs to be able toidentify and recognize the same as acceptable regardless of the processesthese adjectives have went through morphophonologically; and that6. The Pangasinan language, as seen in its adjectives, is a culturally healthyand is a linguistically rich language.
    • Recommendations1. That the strengthened usage of assimilation and reduplication should bedeveloped continuously to make Pangasinan more productive;2. That in Pangasinan assimilation and reduplication, various rules must beconsidered;3. That said rules be practiced to develop one’s vocabulary; and that thefindings contained herein, including the rules, may be integrated in anygrammar book or instructional material in Pangasinan as may be developedlater;4. That respect to the Pangasinan language is necessary inasmuchas as itslinguistic prestige is concerned having capable of manifesting highlyperplexed yet significant linguistic changes;5. That the depth of understanding and recognizing the acceptability andcomprehensibility of Pangasinan adjectives in the language-related classes inthe basic and higher education as part of morphology classes is necessary forand in appreciating Pangasinan discourse and literary texts; and that6. These morphophonologically-processed adjectives shall be usedintelligently by native speakers for continued existence.
    • Salamat ed impandengel yo’n amin! “I d a y e w it a y o t a n u s a r e n s o s a l it a nP a n g a s in a n n a t a n t a n d ia ’d a n g g a d - a n g g a .”