Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction: Syntactic Ergativity
Subject Selection ('Linking')
Subject-To-Object Raising Verbs
Conclusion
References

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol. 16, pp. 387-441, 1998]

Profile image of I Wayan ArkaI Wayan Arka

Abstract

This paper argues that variation between syntactically accusative and ergative clauses in Balinese results from different mappings between argument structure and syntactic realization. Our version of argument structure, essentially the ARGS feature of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, is the locus of anaphoric binding conditions. We further assume that passive, causative, and applicative are morpholexical operations on argument structure. This set of assumptions allows us to explain: (i) why conditions on Balinese binding are generally `thematic' and independent of `surface' grammatical relations or phrase structure position; and (ii) the specific exceptions to such thematic conditions that arise with raised arguments, direct/oblique alternations, and passive by-phrases.

Figures (1)
ditransitive clause: cp. categorial grammar), as in this simple Subject-V erb-Complements constraints licenses all phrases. We will not spell them out here (see Pollard and
ditransitive clause: cp. categorial grammar), as in this simple Subject-V erb-Complements constraints licenses all phrases. We will not spell them out here (see Pollard and

Related papers

Non-Subject Arguments in Indonesian Subject Arguments in Indonesian Subject Arguments in Indonesian
Simon Musgrave

2001

View PDFchevron_right
The Predicate Category and Characteristics of Arguments in Balinese Sentences
I Kardana

International Journal of Linguistics, 2017

This study discusses about sentence structure of Balinese language. For the analysis, inductive approach is considered to be important for this study as every language has its particular characteristics described based on the inductive approach. Based on the analysis it was found that predicate of Balinese simple sentences may be filled by verb and non-verb, such as noun, adjective, number, adverb. The number and function of the argument is different among the different predicates. The predicate filled by noun, adjective, adverb, number, and intransitive verb requires one argument functioning as the subject of sentence. Two arguments are required by transitive verb especially mono transitive verb. The two arguments can be the subject and object, the subject and complement, or the subject and adverbial. Meanwhile, di-transitive verb requires three arguments and they can be the subject, indirect object, and direct object, or the subject, object, and complement.

View PDFchevron_right
Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new perspective
I Wayan Arka

1998

This paper deals with the voice system of Indonesian, and argues that certain of the constructions traditionally analysed as passives, should be given a different treatment, parallel to arguments by Kroeger (1993) for Tagalog. We examine the role of different conceptions of subject and their place in binding. We show that, unlike other Western Austronesian languages, the logical subjectl-subject for short (i.e., the semantically most prominent argument) plays little role in binding: being a logicalsubject alone does not make an argument a binder. Syntactic prominence is crucial, and in particular the data on binding in Indonesian presented here further confirms the notion of syntacticised argument structured (a-str) first proposed in Manning (1994, 1996b) and also adopted in Arka (1998) wherein a central role is given to the notion of a-subject. Like other Austronesian languages, the (surface) grammatical subject (i.e., the SUBJ in the f-structure or gr-subject for short) plays little role, especially in the binding of morphologically complex reflexives. The data from binding is supported by other syntactic tests such as topicalisation with pronominal copy.

View PDFchevron_right
Locative-Related Roles and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Balinese
I Wayan Arka

Linguistic Discovery, 2014

This paper uses the realisation of locative-related roles in Balinese to show that there is no clear-cut distinction between arguments and adjuncts, supporting the gradient nature of grammatical functions (cf. Croft 2001; Langacker 1987; Aarts 2007). It argues that argumenthood is not wholly a property of a lexical head predicate and that a purely lexically based projectionist approach to syntactic argument structures cannot be maintained. It also explores the effect that the interplay between relevant properties of locatives has on their recruitability as arguments, and a novel argument-index analysis is proposed as a means to distinguish adjuncts from arguments. The analysis makes use of both general and languagespecific morphosyntactic and morphosemantic tests. Investigation of locative-related roles reveals that certain properties determine their status in the argument-adjunct continuum: thematic, individuated and animate locatives are more argument-like than non-thematic, inanimate and general deictic locatives (in line with Kittilä 2007, 2008; Peterson 2007). Interplay between these properties is shown to affect argument recruitment in Balinese, based on the value of the argument index for a given locative-related role. More generally, there also is evidence that languages vary in whether they allow true adjuncts to be recruited as arguments at all. 3 AV.buy rice UV.give=3 Nyoman '(S)he bought rice (for Nyoman).' 60 The Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Balinese Linguistic Discovery 12.2:56-84 (3b) Ia meli-ang Nyoman nasi. (Ben. appl.) 3 AV.buy-APPL Nyoman rice '(S)he bought Nyoman rice' (4a) Ia manteg panak-ne teken buku ento. 3 AV.throw child-3POSS with book that '(S)he pelted his/her child with the book' (4b) Ia manteg-ang buku ento sig panak-ne. (Instr. appl.) 3 AV.throw-APPL book that at child-3POSS '(S)he threw the book at his/her child' (5a) Ia demen teken Nyoman 3 happy with Nyoman '(S)he likes Nyoman' (5b) Nyoman demen-ang=a. (Stim. appl.) Nyoman UV.happy-APPL=3 '(S)he likes/loves NYOMAN' (6a) Ia meli baas (sig dagang-e ento). 'I bought a pencil from the person.' While 'the kiosk' in (29) is a thematic adjunct, relatively close to being an argument (it has an argument index of 0.15), its argument index drops to an absolute zero when it appears in a double locative construction in the presence of a more specific locative, as in (31).

View PDFchevron_right
Control and complex arguments in Balinese
Jane Simpson, I Wayan Arka

1998

View PDFchevron_right
Arka, I W., and Manning, C.D. 1998. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: a new perspective. Paper presented at the workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian Languages, LFG98 Brisbane Australia. Stanford: CSLI
I Wayan Arka

This paper deals with the voice system of Indonesian, and argues that certain of the constructions traditionally analysed as passives, should be given a different treatment, parallel to arguments by for Tagalog. We examine the role of different conceptions of subject and their place in binding. We show that, unlike other Western Austronesian languages, the logical subject -l-subject for short (i.e., the semantically most prominent argument) plays little role in binding: being a logicalsubject alone does not make an argument a binder. Syntactic prominence is crucial, and in particular the data on binding in Indonesian presented here further confirms the notion of syntacticised argument structured (a-str) first proposed in Manning (1994 and also adopted in Arka (1998) wherein a central role is given to the notion of a-subject. Like other Austronesian languages, the (surface) grammatical subject (i.e., the SUBJ in the f-structure or gr-subject for short) plays little role, especially in the binding of morphologically complex reflexives. The data from binding is supported by other syntactic tests such as topicalisation with pronominal copy.

View PDFchevron_right
Clause combining in the languages of Indonesia: Introduction
Asako Shiohara
View PDFchevron_right
Indonesian clause structure from an Austronesian perspective
cantik manis

Lingua, 2008

Although the neutral clauses of standard Indonesian are SVO, the language also permits verb-initial word order, and belongs to a branch of the Austronesian language family that was probably originally verb-initial. An analysis of Indonesian clause structure is investigated which exploits these connections, inspired by Cole and Hermon's analysis of the closely related language Toba Batak. In this analysis, VP must raise to the specifier of T and the subject can then raise to a specifier outside the clause proper. Such an analysis is shown to be inferior to an analysis of standard Indonesian in which SVO clauses are derived by simply raising the subject to the specifier of T. Evidence is presented that in some varieties of standard Indonesian, but not others, verb-initial clauses are derived by raising VP to an even higher specifier. Overall, the investigation serves to highlight some of the empirical considerations that can be brought to bear on 'abstract' analyses of clause structure. #

View PDFchevron_right
Musgrave, Simon, I Wayan Arka, and Gede Primahadi Wijaya Rajeg. 2024. "Applicative constructions in standard Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia)." In Applicative Constructions in the World's Languages, edited by F. Zúñiga and D. Creissels, 279-303. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Gede Primahadi Wijaya Rajeg, I Wayan Arka

2024

Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) is a standardised variety of Malay. The language has two suffixes, -i and -kan, which can attach to verbs and function as applicative morphology: in each case, the suffix causes the argument array of the verb to be modified and it is the non-subject arguments which are affected. Both suffixes also have other functions; in one case the suffix is extensively used also as a causative morpheme. Indonesian has some features of a symmetrical voice system, and undergoer subject constructions are more common than passives in English, for example. Applicative constructions interact with the voice system; in particular, in some cases the applicative possibility is preferred in undergoer voice. For one suffix (-kan), it is not uncommon for the morpheme to appear but for the preposition introducing what would be expected to be an applied argument to be retained. In light of these various complications, we suggest that applicatives in Indonesian are best understood as constructions with characteristics, some more prototypical than others, which can be manipulated to accommodate syntactic and pragmatic factors.

View PDFchevron_right
Argument structure, valence, and binding
Ivan Sag

1998

This paper develops within HPSG a model of grammar with two syntactic levels, valence lists and argument structure, at which sentences may have different representations: syntactically ergative and Western Austronesian languages are distinctive by allowing different prominence orderings between the valence lists and argument structure, while forms like passives and causatives have nested argument structure lists.

View PDFchevron_right

References (57)

  1. Åfarli, Tor A.: 1989a, 'Passive in Norwegian and in English', Linguistic Inquiry, 20.1, 101-108.
  2. Alsina, Alex and Sam Mchombo: 1993, 'Object Asymmetries and the Chichewa Applicative Construction', in S. Mchombo (ed.) Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 17-45.
  3. Andrews, Avery: 1985, 'The major functions of the noun phrase', in T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 62-154.
  4. Arka, Wayan: in progress, From Morpho-syntax to Pragmatics in Balinese. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  5. Arka, Wayan: 1997, 'On the double life of a pronominal form and two passives in Balinese.' Departmental Seminar paper, University of Sydney Linguistics Department, Sydney, Australia, May 9, 1997.
  6. Arka, Wayan and Stephen Wechsler: 1996, 'Argument Structure and Linear Order in Balinese Binding.' Paper read at the Workshop on Lexical-Functional Grammar, Grenoble, France, August 26-28, 1996.
  7. Artawa, K.: 1994, Ergativity and Balinese Syntax. PhD thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
  8. Baker, C.L.: 1995, 'Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English,' Language 71.1, 63-101.
  9. Baker, Mark: 1988, Incorporation-A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  10. Barss, Andrew, and Howard Lasnik: 1986, 'A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects'. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347-354.
  11. Bittner, Maria and Ken Hale: 1996, 'Ergativity: Towards a Theory of a Heterogeneous Class', Linguistic Inquiry 27.4, 531-604.
  12. Bobaljik, Jonathan: 1993a, 'Nominally Absolutive is not Absolutely Nominative,' Jonathan Mead (ed.), Proceedings of the 11thWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Association and CSLI, Stanford, California, 44-60.
  13. Bobaljik, Jonathan: 1993b, 'Ergativity and Ergative Unergatives.' In Colin Phillips (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19-Papers on Case and Agreement II, MIT Dept. of Linguistics, Cambridge, 45-88.
  14. Bresnan, Joan: 1995a, Morphology Competes with Syntax: Explaining Typological Variation in Weak Crossover Effects, Manuscript, Stanford.
  15. Bresnan, Joan: 1995b, 'Linear Order, Syntactic Rank, and Empty Categories: On Weak Crossover'. In M. Dalrymple, R.M. Kaplan, J.T. Maxwell III, and A. Zaenen (eds.) Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 241-274.
  16. Bresnan, Joan and Jonni Kanerva: 1989, 'Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case study of factorization in Grammar‚' Linguistic Inquiry, 20:1-50.
  17. Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi: 1990, 'Object Asymmetries in Comparative Bantu Syntax'. Linguistic Inquiry 21.2:147-185.
  18. Carrier, Jill and Janet Randall: 1992, 'The Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives.' Linguistic Inquiry 23.2, 173-234.
  19. Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding-The Pisa Lectures. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
  20. Chung, Sandra: 1976, 'On the Subject of Two Passives in Indonesian,' in C. N. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, Academic Press, NewYork, pp. 57-99.
  21. Chung, Sandra: 1978, Case Marking and Grammatical Relations in Polynesian. University of Texas Press, Austin.
  22. Clynes, Adrian: 1995, Topics in the Phonology and Morphosyntax of Balinese-based on a dialect of Singaraja, North Bali. PhD Thesis, Australia National University.
  23. Dalrymple, Mary: 1993, The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. CSLI Publications, Stanford.
  24. Davis, Tony: 1996, Linking and the Hierarchical Lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford.
  25. Dixon, R.M.W.: 1979, 'Ergativity', Language 55, 59-138.
  26. Dixon, R.M.W.: 1994, Ergativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
  27. Durie, Mark: 1985, A grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Foris, Dordrecht.
  28. Farkas, Donka: 1988, 'On Obligatory Control.' Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 27-58.
  29. Flickinger, Daniel: 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University Linguistics Department.
  30. Foley, William and Robert Van Valin: 1984, Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  31. Gawron, Jean Mark: 1986, Situations and Prepositions, Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 327-382.
  32. Giorgi, Allesandra: 1984, 'Toward a Theory of Long Distance Anaphors: a GB Approach'. The Linguistic Review 3, 307-361.
  33. Grimshaw, Jane: 1990, Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  34. Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis: 1992, 'SPEC of IP and SPEC of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages.' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10.3, 375-414.
  35. Hellan, Lars: 1988, Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht.
  36. Keenan, E. and B. Comrie: 1977, 'Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.' Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63-99.
  37. Kroeger, Paul: 1993, Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. CSLI Publications, Stanford.
  38. Langacker, R.: 1969, 'On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command.' In D. A. Reibel and S. A. Schane, eds., Modern Studies in English, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 160-186.
  39. Levin, Beth: 1983, On the Nature of Ergativity. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
  40. Manning, Chris and Ivan Sag: 1995, 'Dissociations Between Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations.' Draft, http://www.lcl.cmu.edu/ manning/papers/tuebingen.ps.
  41. Manning, Chris: 1994, Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations, PhD thesis, Stanford.
  42. Marantz, Alec: 1984, On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.
  43. Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag: 1987, Information-Based Syntax and Semantics--Vol. 1 Fundamentals. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  44. Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag: 1992, Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory, Linguistic Inquiry 23.2, 261-303.
  45. Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag: 1994, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California; and University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  46. Postal, Paul: 1971, Cross-Over Phenomena. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
  47. Reape, Mike: 1994, 'Domain Union and Word Order Variation in German,' in John Nerbonne and Klaus Netter and Carl Pollard (eds.), German in Head- Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford University, pp. 151-197.
  48. Sag, Ivan and Carl Pollard: 1991, 'An Integrated theory of Complement Control,' Language 67, 63-113.
  49. Schachter, Paul: 1977, 'Reference-Related and Role-Related Properties of Subjects.' In Peter Cole and Jerrold Sadock (eds.) Syntax and Semantics Volume 8-Grammatical Relations, Academic Press, New York, pp. 279- 306.
  50. Schachter, Paul: 1984, 'Semantic-Role-Based Syntax in Toba Batak', in P. Schachter (ed.) Studies in the Structure of Toba Batak, UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 5, UCLA, pp. 122-149.
  51. Travis, Lisa: 1997, 'Theta-positions and Binding in Balinese and Malagasy.' Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, University of California at Los Angelos, April 27, 1997.
  52. Uszkoreit, Hans: 1987, Word Order and Constituent Structure in German. CSLI Publications, Stanford.
  53. Wechsler, Stephen: 1994, 'Preposition Selection Outside the Lexicon.' In R. Aranovich, W. Byrne, S. Preuss, and Martha Senturia (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 416-431.
  54. Wechsler, Stephen: 1995, The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.
  55. Wechsler, Stephen and Wayan Arka: 1997, 'Balinese Binding and Raising.' Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, University of California at Los Angelos, April 26, 1997.
  56. Williams, Edwin: 1983, 'Against Small Clauses', Linguistic Inquiry 14, 287-308.
  57. Williams, Edwin: 1987, 'Implicit Arguments, the Binding Theory, and Control', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 151-180.

Related papers

Wechsler, S. and Arka, I W. 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: an argument-structure based theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 16 (2): 387-442
I Wayan Arka

This paper argues that variation between syntactically accusative and ergative clauses in Balinese results from different mappings between argument structure and syntactic realization. Our version of argument structure, essentially the ARG-S feature of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, is the locus of anaphoric binding conditions. We further assume that passive, causative, and applicative are morpholexical operations on argument structure. This set of assumptions allows us to explain: (i) why conditions on Balinese binding are generally 'thematic' and independent of 'surface' grammatical relations or phrase structure position; and (ii) the specific exceptions to such thematic conditions that arise with raised arguments, direct/oblique alternations, and passive by-phrases.

View PDFchevron_right
Arka, I Wayan. 2019. "Grammatical relations in Balinese." In Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations, edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel., 257-299. John Benjamins Publishing Company
I Wayan Arka

2019

This chapter discusses grammatical relations (GRs) in Balinese (ISO 639-3: ban, Austronesian, spoken by ~3 million, mainly in Bali, Indonesia). It is demonstrated that Balinese typologically shows relational properties typical for the Indonesian type of Austronesian languages, in terms of voice marking, argument marking, GR alternations, and other related processes such as relativisation, reflexivisation and control. In a wider typological context, Balinese shows splitS in terms of verbal morphology. Syntactically the overall grammar of Balinese shows a symmetrical alignment system: actor (A) and patient (P) arguments of transitive verbs can be equally selected as the grammatical subject or Pivot without the demotion of the other. In addition to voice morphology (showing AV, UV, and middle alternations), Balinese also has applicative and causative morphology, which is good evidence that semantic roles and surface grammatical relations are organised as two distinct layers in the grammar. It is demonstrated in this chapter that much of Balinese syntax revolves around the notion of the privileged argument of Pivot, and its related morphosyntactic and morphosemantic properties in the voice system, in both simple and complex structures; e.g. in clausal argument with/without control and adverbial clauses. We start with the distinction between grammatical relations and grammatical functions (section 2), followed by the selecting properties of Pivot (section 3). Balinese grammar also exhibits a set of properties distinguishing core arguments from obliques, discussed in sections 4 and 5. Three-place predicates are discussed in section 6. It is shown that Balinese exhibits a secundative alignment. Adjuncts are very similar to obliques but they are different in certain respects (section 7). Clausal dependants (complements and adverbial clauses) are discussed in sections 8-9. A conclusion is given in section 10.

View PDFchevron_right
Category Of Complement And Semantic Role Of Single Argument In Balinese Syntactic Constructions
Beni Wrihatnala

RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa

This study aims to analyze and describe the word category of complement and semantic roles of single argument found in syntactic constructions with complement in Balinese language. Data of this study was collected from Balinese speaking informants living in the city of Denpasar, Bali. The data was supported by those obtained from Balinese story books. The data was collected by observation method completed with recording and note taking techniques. The collected data was analyzed based on theory of semantic role proposed by Van Valin and LaPolla, 1997 and by I Saeed, 1997. The result shows that complement in Balinese can be filled in by noun, adjective, numeral, and verb. The verb predicate of constructions with complement are mostly intransitive verb with ma- but in few data of intransitive verb with N- are also found. Then, the semantic roles of single argument in constructions with complement are agent, experiencer, patient, and recipient. Key words: complement, semantic role, arg...

View PDFchevron_right
Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: an argument structure based theory
I Wayan Arka

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 1998

STEPHEN WECHSLER AND 1 WAYAN ARKA SYNTACTIC ERGATIVITY IN BALINESE: AN ARGUMENT STRUCTURE BASED THEORY' This paper argues thai the alternation between syntactically accusativi; and ergaiive clauses in Balinese results from different mappings ...

View PDFchevron_right
Arka, I Wayan 2014. Locative-Related Roles and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Balinese. Linguistic Discovery 12.2:56-84
I Wayan Arka

This paper uses the realisation of locative-related roles in Balinese to show that there is no clear-cut distinction between arguments and adjuncts, supporting the gradient nature of grammatical functions (cf. Croft 2001;. It argues that argumenthood is not wholly a property of a lexical head predicate and that a purely lexically based projectionist approach to syntactic argument structures cannot be maintained. It also explores the effect that the interplay between relevant properties of locatives has on their recruitability as arguments, and a novel argument-index analysis is proposed as a means to distinguish adjuncts from arguments. The analysis makes use of both general and languagespecific morphosyntactic and morphosemantic tests.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved