Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Figures
Overview
Is the Subject a Topic in Svo Clauses?
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Indonesian clause structure from an Austronesian perspective

Profile image of cantik maniscantik manis

2008, Lingua

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LINGUA.2007.08.002
visibility

…

description

30 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

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. #

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the implications of Indonesian's SVO structure on linguistic analysis?add

The study reveals that Indonesian's SVO structure is unexceptional, contrasting with claims of VP raising. This conclusion suggests that SVO simply reflects Indonesian's basic clause structure without significant syntactic innovations.

How do Indonesian verb-initial clauses differ from SVO clauses?add

The analysis indicates that verb-initial and SVO clauses may have distinct structures, with variations across dialects. Specifically, verb-initial clauses do not exhibit the same VP raising patterns as SVO clauses.

What evidence opposes VP raising in Indonesian's clause structure?add

Evidence from mirror-image effects and island conditions suggests that VP raising is not supported in Indonesian. The absence of these effects in SVO clauses argues against the hypothesis that VP raises in standard Indonesian.

Why do Indonesian subjects not require topic status in SVO clauses?add

Findings show that subjects in SVO clauses need not be familiar or definite, challenging the notion that they must occupy topic positions. This suggests a broader flexibility in subject positioning and semantics than traditionally asserted.

When did Indonesian's SVO order emerge from historical linguistic changes?add

The paper posits that Indonesian's transition to SVO order represents a lexical innovation that diverged from earlier verb-initial arrangements. This change reflects a complex reanalysis of syntactic structures occurring over time.

Figures (8)
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Provided for non-commercial research and education use. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Provided for non-commercial research and education use. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.
In (1), the subject originates external to the verb phrase, in the specifier of the functional head v, and then raises to become the specifier of the clausal head, represented here as T. Essentially this structure was first proposed for Indonesian by Guilfoyle et al. (1992). this structure was first proposed for Indonesian by Guilfoyle et al. (1992). There are, however, reasons for taking the time to assess the Indonesian evidence with some care. Conceptually, word order does not uniquely determine clause structure even in theories in which the two are tightly correlated (such as Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry theory). From a comparative historical perspective, the indications are that the SVO order found in Indonesian and closely related languages represents an innovation. Indonesian belongs to the Western Malayo-Polynesian sub-branch of the Austronesian language family. But many of the descendents of Western Malayo-Polynesian are verb-initial, including the languages of the Philippine subfamily, and Malagasy, Chamorro, and Palauan, whose subgrouping within Western Malayo-Polynesian is unclear. Of the Western Malayo-Polynesian languages spoken in Indonesia, the Batak languages and Old Javanese are verb-initial (Blust, 2006). Further, the Formosan languages, which are widely believed to constitute a separate branch or branches of the Austronesian family, are — except for Thao and Saisiyat — verb-initial (Blust, 2006). The Austronesian languages spoken at the geographical peripheries of the vast Austronesian area are verb-initial: Malagasy, the Formosan languages, and the Polynesian languages. Consistent with this, Proto-Austronesian is often assumed to be verb-initial (see e.g. Blust, 2006; Pawley and Reid, 1979). And Indonesian itself has verb-initial word order in non-neutral clauses. All these observations raise the question of how Indonesian’s SVO word order might have arisen historically. My aim here is to address a different, but ultimately related question: could one motivate a
In (1), the subject originates external to the verb phrase, in the specifier of the functional head v, and then raises to become the specifier of the clausal head, represented here as T. Essentially this structure was first proposed for Indonesian by Guilfoyle et al. (1992). this structure was first proposed for Indonesian by Guilfoyle et al. (1992). There are, however, reasons for taking the time to assess the Indonesian evidence with some care. Conceptually, word order does not uniquely determine clause structure even in theories in which the two are tightly correlated (such as Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry theory). From a comparative historical perspective, the indications are that the SVO order found in Indonesian and closely related languages represents an innovation. Indonesian belongs to the Western Malayo-Polynesian sub-branch of the Austronesian language family. But many of the descendents of Western Malayo-Polynesian are verb-initial, including the languages of the Philippine subfamily, and Malagasy, Chamorro, and Palauan, whose subgrouping within Western Malayo-Polynesian is unclear. Of the Western Malayo-Polynesian languages spoken in Indonesia, the Batak languages and Old Javanese are verb-initial (Blust, 2006). Further, the Formosan languages, which are widely believed to constitute a separate branch or branches of the Austronesian family, are — except for Thao and Saisiyat — verb-initial (Blust, 2006). The Austronesian languages spoken at the geographical peripheries of the vast Austronesian area are verb-initial: Malagasy, the Formosan languages, and the Polynesian languages. Consistent with this, Proto-Austronesian is often assumed to be verb-initial (see e.g. Blust, 2006; Pawley and Reid, 1979). And Indonesian itself has verb-initial word order in non-neutral clauses. All these observations raise the question of how Indonesian’s SVO word order might have arisen historically. My aim here is to address a different, but ultimately related question: could one motivate a
> For expository simplicity, I henceforth use “VP’ as a cover term for VP or some relevant higher projection in the functional layer separating VP from T, and ‘VP raising’ to refer to the raising of this projection to the specifier of T. All that is important is that (i) the raised projection must include VP and that (11) if this projection originally contained the subject, the subject must exit from it before VP raising occurs. TUMalll, LO LUC SPCCIUEr! OL WIG CldUsdl Ueda, Particularly valuable here is Cole and Hermon’s (in press) analysis of the clause structure of Toba Batak, a language of Indonesia which displays both SVO and verb-initial word orders. Cole and Hermon propose that VP — more precisely, the highest verbal projection in the functional layer above VP, which they take to be VoiceP — must raise to the specifier of the clausal head T in the derivation of every Toba Batak clause.’ SVO word order is produced when the subject raises even higher, to the specifier of a functional head Top; when the subject fails to raise, verb-initial word order is the outcome. rer % ae ae | a ae a ry 4 UU, +r 4 . +1 *.4 4
> For expository simplicity, I henceforth use “VP’ as a cover term for VP or some relevant higher projection in the functional layer separating VP from T, and ‘VP raising’ to refer to the raising of this projection to the specifier of T. All that is important is that (i) the raised projection must include VP and that (11) if this projection originally contained the subject, the subject must exit from it before VP raising occurs. TUMalll, LO LUC SPCCIUEr! OL WIG CldUsdl Ueda, Particularly valuable here is Cole and Hermon’s (in press) analysis of the clause structure of Toba Batak, a language of Indonesia which displays both SVO and verb-initial word orders. Cole and Hermon propose that VP — more precisely, the highest verbal projection in the functional layer above VP, which they take to be VoiceP — must raise to the specifier of the clausal head T in the derivation of every Toba Batak clause.’ SVO word order is produced when the subject raises even higher, to the specifier of a functional head Top; when the subject fails to raise, verb-initial word order is the outcome. rer % ae ae | a ae a ry 4 UU, +r 4 . +1 *.4 4
below for (4a).” Clauses of type (4) would be derived by first extracting PP complements from VP and then raising the remnant VP to the specifier of T. Just how the initial evacuation of VP would proceed would depend on one’s assumptions about movement and phrase structure, including whether the host of adjunction (=the lower segment of an adjunction structure) could be targeted by movement. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is possible, we might suppose that under certain circumstances, PP complements of V could (for whatever reason) left-adjoin to VP. The lowest VP segment would then raise, stranding the constituents adjoined to it, as sketched below for (4a).4 * Tf hosts of adjunction cannot undergo movement, there are other ways out: for instance, PP complements might raise to become inner specifiers of v, ‘tucking in’ as proposed by Richards (2001). The theoretical issues and their resolution are largely irrelevant here. For this reason, the rest of the discussion shifts the spotlight away from derivations of type (7) and largely ignores the (technical) question of what might motivate the movements shown in (6-8).
below for (4a).” Clauses of type (4) would be derived by first extracting PP complements from VP and then raising the remnant VP to the specifier of T. Just how the initial evacuation of VP would proceed would depend on one’s assumptions about movement and phrase structure, including whether the host of adjunction (=the lower segment of an adjunction structure) could be targeted by movement. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is possible, we might suppose that under certain circumstances, PP complements of V could (for whatever reason) left-adjoin to VP. The lowest VP segment would then raise, stranding the constituents adjoined to it, as sketched below for (4a).4 * Tf hosts of adjunction cannot undergo movement, there are other ways out: for instance, PP complements might raise to become inner specifiers of v, ‘tucking in’ as proposed by Richards (2001). The theoretical issues and their resolution are largely irrelevant here. For this reason, the rest of the discussion shifts the spotlight away from derivations of type (7) and largely ignores the (technical) question of what might motivate the movements shown in (6-8).

Related papers

Clause Linkage and Nexus in Papuan Languages
William Foley

Interclausal relations in Papuan languages and in particular their prototyical clause chaining structures have long presented serious descriptive problems. These have been analyzed variously as instances of subordination, coordination, and even a third unique type of relationship, cosubordination. This paper argues that clause chaining structures are actually a type of coordination, but distinguished from familiar types of coordination by the type of constituent coordinated, S versus IP. The parametric variation found in clause chaining constructions across Papuan languages is in turn accounted for in terms of the types of functional heads of verbal inflections, negation, mood, tense, illocutionary force, which head the individual IPs conjoined in clause chains. This paper presents a revision of the theory of clause linkage, in particular the theory of nexus, first developed in Foley and Van Valin (1984) and restated in Van Valin and La Polla (1997) and Van Valin (2005). The original theory proposed three categories of nexus, the traditional ones of subordination and coordination and a new type, cosubordination. Subordination and coordination were distinguished along the traditional lines of embedded versus non-embedded. For our purposes here, we will define an embedded clause as one which functions as a constituent, either core or oblique (Andrews 2007; Foley 2007), of another clause, the main or matrix clause. Conventionally, grammarians have called embedded subordinate clauses which function as core arguments complements, and those which function as oblique constituents, adverbial clauses, but in our view this is not the most perspicacious terminology because it obscures their overall similarity, a similarity clearly brought out in the structure of many Papuan languages. For that reason, in this paper we will refer to both types simply as subordinate clauses and note the level of embedding, core versus oblique. Clauses linked in a coordinate nexus are not in an asymmetrical relationship of embedded versus matrix clause, but rather are joined at the same level, strung along rather like beads on a string. Designating a clause by the exocentric category S (Bresnan 2001), we can represent the contrast between subordinate and coordinate nexus as Figure 1:

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
Clauses in the Sundanese Language
Yuyu Yohana Risagarniwa

2017

This study explores the clauses in Sundanese. The word Sundanese can refer to a tribe, culture, or a language in Indonesia. This study relates to the word Sundanese as a language. The Sundanese language is one of the biggest numbers of speaker among the local languages in Indonesia. It is the second rank after Javanese language as the biggest number of the speakers. Sundanese language as one of the Austronesian languages is different from English as the West Germanic languages. The aims of this study are to figure out the types of clauses and the pattern of clauses found in the Sundanese language compared to English language. The method applied in this research is descriptive method. In terms of predicates, there are two types of clauses; verbal clauses and nonverbal clauses in Sundanese language. Relating to the data, the clauses in Sundanese language, predicates do not always contain of a verb since it could contain of other open classes. The verbal clauses, similar to English language do always contain of verb while the nonverbal clauses could contain of adjectival, nominal, or adverbial as the predicate.

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

2001

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
Relative Clause Formation in Minangkabau Language: An Accessibility Hierarchy Motive
nur rosita

Minangkabau is an Austronesian, one of Indonesian language spoken in West Sumatera by approximately six million speakers defined by Ethnologue. Despite its large number of speakers and the spread of Minangkabau people throughout the Indonesian Archipelago, Minangkabau remains under-described when compared to other Indonesian type languages like Javanese and Sundanese. This paper seeks to improve current understanding about Minangkabau language by describing its relative clause formation and presents a systematic analysis of the forms and functions of relative clause in Minangkabau because this case has received little attention to date and poorly described in existing grammars. The paper also outlines an Accessibility Hierarchy approach to the facts that describe building on relative clause construction. The data was taken from some conversations with Minangkabaunese friends and feedback from the writer as a native speaker of the language into the analysis as well as taking the findings of recent typological and theoretical studies of Austronesian languages into consideration. From the analysis, it is found that Minangkabau language formulates object focus construction. In English, it is also possible to have object focus which called Object fronting. However, it should be noted that object focus in English is a marked or unusual structure, whereas object focus in Minangkabau as an unmarked or common structure. Moreover, object focus in Minangkabau makes the sentence partly passive and hence the term Non-cannonical passive. In contrast, English object fronting does not change the sentence from active into passive.

View PDFchevron_right
Clause combining in Sumbawa, Indonesia
Asako Shiohara

アジア アフリカの言語と言語学, 2014

This study examines clause combining patterns of Sumbawa on the basis of the colloquial data of the contemporary Sumbawa Besar dialect collected by the present author and relatively old written texts such as Jonker (1934). The contemporary oral data telling a folklore and old texts share some common features: (i) subordinate clauses without a conjunction, which occur frequently in elicited sentences, are not observed, (ii) temporal succession tends to be expressed by parataxis, rather than by subordination (e.g., by an adverbial and a main clause), and (iii) the verb phrase directly modifies the head noun in relative clauses and the relativizer adè, which often appears in elicited sentences, is never used. In addition, the adversative conjunction tapi (the equivalent of English but) is not attested in the old texts.

View PDFchevron_right
The Syntax of Indonesian-type Languages from a Generative Perspective
rhay nanda
View PDFchevron_right
Basic Structure of the Riau Malay Clauses
sofia rahmi

International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention

This study aims to explain the basic structure of Riau Malay clauses using a linguistic typology approach. Data obtained from oral and written data. The method used is Sudaryanto (2005). The discussion is based on the opinion of Jufrizal (2012). The results showed that the basic clauses of BMR were in the form of (1) non-verbal basic clauses whose predicates are nouns (pronouns), adjectives, numerals, and prepositions which are located one argument before the predicate (2) verbal clauses in the form of transitive and intransitive forms. Verbs that occupy the predicate position in the two clauses are marked morphologically with affixes and some can stand alone without affixes. The BMR intransitive clause has one argument that comes before the predicate (verb). There are transitive clauses that have two or three arguments.

View PDFchevron_right
Arka, I Wayan. 2021. "Pivot selection and puzzling relativisation in Indonesian." In Modular Design of Grammar: linguistics on the edge, edited by I W Arka, A Asudeh and T Holloway-King, 181-202. Oxford: Oxford University Press
I Wayan Arka

This paper argues that distinguishing Pivot (PIV) as an overlay discourse-syntactic function from (grammatical) subject (SUBJ) (Falk 2001) makes it possible to resolve certain perennial relativisation issues caused by yang in Standard and Colloquial Indonesian, which was otherwise unresolved based on previous accounts of Indonesian relativisation. Indonesian relativisation is shown to have a complex structure formation process whereby a flexible space of PIV selection is allowed by yang, and this is further constrained by voice morphology for well-formedness. Specifically, the constraints are summarised as follows: (i) whether the relativised unit is a core argument or not – where core arguments allow both gapping and pronominal copy strategies, but obliques only allow the pronominal copy strategy; (ii) whether close adjacency exists between yang and the relativised argument - where tight yang constructions obligate SUBJ relativisation by means of gapping, and; (iii) whether the verb is overtly marked by voice morphology - where (me)N- imposes a linkage between the Actor SUBJ and a DF-C (particularly FOC-C). The PIV-based analysis outlined in this paper not only offers a solution to the Indonesian relativisation puzzles presented, but in doing so, sheds light upon the fallibilities of existing generalisations in Indonesian relativisation processes, which assume gapping and pronominal copy strategies to be in complementary distribution. Instead, the PIV-based analysis offers a stronger account for these facts whereby the presence of overt SUBJ in the tight yang structure with nasal AV verbs renders the relativisation of OBJ unacceptable, irrespective of any relativisation strategy being used. This could be thought of as a ‘hard’ grammatical constraint of SUBJ relativisation in Indonesian, which requires gapping. It is also arguably related to the grammaticalised cognitive processing efficiency in SVO language systems (Hawkins 2004).

View PDFchevron_right

References (38)

  1. Among the issues that such a theory would have to address: (i) why resumption as a repair strategy seems unavailable, or less available, for relativization of other nonsubject DP's, including objects of prepositions, possessors of nonsubjects, and the like, and (ii) whether the resumption involved in relativization of possessors could be analyzed as agreement in some sense. With respect to the second issue, notice that the suffix -nya serves as a 'genitive marker' -perhaps a kind of possessor agreement -in certain varieties which are colloquial according to Wolff et al. (1992:251) and Javanese- influenced according to Sneddon (1996:145-146).
  2. Aldridge, E., 2002. Nominalization and wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 3, 393-427.
  3. Aldridge, E., 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
  4. Andersen, T., 1988. Ergativity in Pari, a Nilotic OVS language. Lingua 79, 289-324.
  5. Anderson, S., 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In: Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and Topic. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-23.
  6. Blust, R., 2006. Austronesian languages. Encyclopedia Brittanica, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-75196.
  7. Cartier, A., 1989. De-voiced transitive verb sentences in formal Indonesian. In: Kaswanti Purwo, B. (Ed.), Serpih-Serpih Telaah Pasif Bahasa Indonesia. Kanisius, Yogyakarta, pp. 84-145.
  8. Chomsky, N., 1977. On wh-movement. In: Culicover, P., Wasow, T., Akmajian, A. (Eds.), Formal Syntax. Academic Press, New York, pp. 71-132.
  9. Chomsky, N., 1986. Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  10. Chung, S., 1978. Stem sentences in Indonesian. Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 61, 335-365.
  11. Chung, S., 2006. Properties of VOS languages. In: Everaert, M., van Riemsdijk, H., Goedemans, R., Hollebrandse, B. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Blackwell, London, pp. 685-720.
  12. Cole, P., Hermon, G., 2005. Subject and non-subject relativization in Indonesian. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14, 59-88.
  13. Cole, P., Hermon, G. (in press). VP raising in a VOS language. Syntax.
  14. Cole, P., Hermon, G., Tjung, Y., 2006. Is there pasif semu in Jakarta Indonesian? Oceanic Linguistics 45, 64-90.
  15. Cole, P., Hermon, G., Yanti, this volume. Voice in Malay/Indonesian.
  16. Dixon, R., 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  17. England, N., 1991. Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 57, 446-486.
  18. Guilfoyle, E., Hung, H., Travis, L., 1992. SPEC of IP and SPEC of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 375-414.
  19. Kaswanti Purwo, B., 1984. The categorial system in contemporary Indonesian: pronouns. NUSA 19, 55-74.
  20. Kaswanti Purwo, B., 1989. Voice in Indonesian: a discourse study. In: Kaswanti Purwo, B. (Ed.), Serpih-Serpih Telaah Pasif Bahasa Indonesia. Kanisius, Yogyakarta, pp. 344-429.
  21. Kayne, R., 1994. Antisymmetry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  22. Keenan, E., 1972. Relative clause formation in Malagasy. In: Peranteau, P., Levi, J., Phares, G. (Eds.), The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL, pp. 169-189.
  23. Keenan, E., 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In: Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and Topic. Academic Press, New York, pp. 247-301.
  24. Macdonald, R., 1976. Indonesian Reference Grammar. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
  25. Manning, C., 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
  26. Massam, D., 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 153-197.
  27. McCune, K., 1989. Passive function and the Indonesian passive. In: Kaswanti Purwo, B. (Ed.),Serpih-Serpih Telaah Pasif Bahasa Indonesia. Kanisius, Yogyakarta, pp. 282-343.
  28. Musgrave, S., 2001. Non-Subject Arguments in Indonesian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  29. Pawley, A., Reid, L., 1979. The evolution of transitive constructions in Austronesian. In: Naylor, P. (Ed.), Papers from the 2nd Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages. Michigan Papers on South and South East Asia, vol. 15, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 103-130.
  30. Pearson, M., 2000. Two types of VO languages. In: Svenonius, P. (Ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 327-363.
  31. Pearson, M., 2001. The Clause Structure of Malagasy: A Minimalist Approach. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
  32. Pearson, M., 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A' element. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 381-457.
  33. Rackowski, A., Travis, L., 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In: Carnie, A., Guilfoyle, E. (Eds.), The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 117-141.
  34. Richards, N., 2001. Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Rizzi, L., 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  35. Sneddon, J., 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge, London.
  36. Tjung, Y. 2006. The Formation of Relative Clauses in Jakarta Indonesian: A Subject-Object Asymmetry. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
  37. Verhaar, J., 1988. Phrase syntax in contemporary Indonesian: noun phrases. NUSA 30, 1-45.
  38. Verhaar, J., 1989. Syntactic ergativity in contemporary Indonesian. In: Kaswanti Purwo, B. (Ed.), Serpih-Serpih Telaah Pasif Bahasa Indonesia. Kanisius, Yogyakarta, pp. 200-281.

Related papers

Clause combining in the languages of Indonesia: Introduction
Asako Shiohara
View PDFchevron_right
Clause and predicative constituents in an Austronesian language: Lampung language
Jessamine Cooke-Plagwitz

Topics in Linguistics, 2020

This research is conducted qualitatively and aimed at patterning and describing clause and sentence structure in Lampung language through the configuration of its constituents. Regarding the constituents, Lampung has two types of clause: minor and major clauses. A minor clause is indicated by only one constituent, which is commonly a subject, predicate or adjunct. Regarding its function, it can be classified as vocative, shown by exclamation (Wuy!, Huy!); a greeting, as shown by an expression (tabikpun ngalam pukha); and an Arabic greeting (assalamualaikum). On the other hand, a major clause minimally consists of a subject and predicate, and apart from these there can also be an object, complement and adverbial. Furthermore, this research finds various categories that can act as predicative constituents: they are a verb/verbal phrase, adjective/adjective phrase, and noun/nominal phrase. Additionally, a copular verb (iyulah) and existential marker (wat) can also be the predicate. Thi...

View PDFchevron_right
Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages
Joachim Sabel

2006

Just as teenagers divide the world into jocks, nerds, goths, preps, townies, posers, and so on, linguists tend to categorize languages in broad strokes by what is best known about them: Bantu languages are defined by applicatives and tones, Slavic languages by palatalization and aspect, Native American languages by polysynthesis and attrition, and so on. Ask any linguist who does not work on Austronesian what he or she knows about these languages and you are likely to hear about nasal substitution, infixation, verb-initial word order, articulated systems of grammatical voice, or restrictions on movement. Any book that is addressed to the general public, not just to Austronesianists, and that takes the reader beyond these staple topics fills an important gap. The book reviewed here does just that and more. If pressed to name its goals, I would identify them as twofold: to make issues which at first sight may seem parochial to Austronesianists relevant to the entire field by identifying the theoretical challenges they pose, and to move the analysis of Austronesian beyond the traditional stereotypes, such as named above, but in a way that also connects the new theoretical challenges with established ones. The interests of the three editors are nicely distributed: Gärtner is best known for his semantic work on a number of languages, Sabel is a dedicated explorer of everything Malagasy who has done important work in theoretical syntax, and Law combines interests in syntax with attention to Malagasy. Leaving phonology and morphology aside, the most publicized, although not yet fully understood, aspects of Austronesian languages include verb-initial word orders (often accompanied by the right-hand subject), articulated voice systems, and very rigid constraints on what can be extracted-usually the only constituent undergoing extraction is subject-like, or what many researchers call an external argument ("subject-only restriction"). The introductory chapter, "Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages," by Gärtner, Law, and Sabel, does an excellent job surveying the main approaches to these three phenomena, and in so doing will be of clear use not only to specialists in Austronesian but also to generalists and syntacticians. With respect to verb-initiality, a number of researchers have argued that pathways to verb-initial order may differ across languages, and even within a language family or group. The well-recognized possibilities include (i) nonconfigurationality (see, for example, Austin 2004); (ii) base-generation, with parametric variation in the position of the specifier in functional projections either to the right or to the left (the rightward specifier of T allows one to derive VOS order in a direct way); (iii) subject lowering (as argued for Chamorro and Māori by Chung 1998); (iv) verb-raising; and (v) VP-raising. The introductory chapter does a particularly good job presenting options (iv) and (v) and discussing their pros and cons. Still, more explicit comparisons with other verb-initial languages outside the Austronesian family would have been use-1. Abbreviations not found in the Leipzig Glossing rules are AF, agent focus; ASP, aspect; NON-SPEC.DET, non-specific determiner; PERS.DET, personal name determiner; and PRT, particle.

View PDFchevron_right
<i>Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages</i> (review)
Maria Polinsky

Oceanic Linguistics, 2009

ABSTRACT

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

Related topics

  • Cognitive Science

    • Cited by

    Successive cyclicity at the syntax-morphology interface: evidence from standard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese*
    Yosuke Sato

    Studia Linguistica, 2012

    This paper proposes a new analysis of the distribution of the active voice morphology in Standard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese. Specifically, I argue that an NP undergoes movement into the edge of v*P to delete the uninterpretable D-feature of the phase head (Chomsky

    View PDFchevron_right
    ICON: A Linguistically-Motivated Large-Scale Benchmark Indonesian Constituency Treebank
    Dea Adhista

    ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing

    Constituency parsing is an important task of informing how words are combined to form sentences. While constituency parsing in English has seen significant progress in the last few years, tools for constituency parsing in Indonesian remain few and far between. In this work, we publish ICON (Indonesian CONstituency treebank), the hitherto largest publicly-available manually-annotated benchmark Indonesian constituency treebank with a size of 10,000 sentences and approximately 124,000 constituents and 182,000 tokens, which can support the training of state-of-the-art transformer-based models. As part of the process of building the treebank, we review and revamp the constituent and POS tagsets in use in existing treebanks to ensure that the labels are relevant and suitable for the grammatical features of Indonesian. We establish strong baselines on the ICON dataset using the Berkeley Neural Parser with transformer-based pre-trained embeddings, with the best performance of 88.85% F1 scor...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Syntactic abilities in Malay adult speakers with aphasia: a study on passive sentences and argument structures
    Mohd Azmarul A Aziz

    Aphasiology, 2020

    Background: Within the last four decades, individuals with aphasia have been observed to face difficulties in understanding complex sentences despite having good understanding of single words. The difficulties observed have been proposed to follow a pattern predicted by the theory of grammar, making the deficit a special case of an underspecified language competence. Aims: The purpose of this study is to examine sentence typesreversible actives and passives and argument complexity among Malay speakers with aphasia, looking at sources of difficulties with non-canonical sentences in a language with free word order. Methods & Procedures: A group of five non-brain-damaged (NBD) adults and five adults with aphasia matched with age, education, and language were recruited. Subjects were tested in their sentence comprehension abilities via two picture matching tasks: a reversibility active/passive and an argument complexity task based on the number of arguments. Outcomes & Results: Generally, the control adults had better sentence comprehension than the group of adults with aphasia, with significant differences in the mean scores of both active and passive reversible sentences. The analysis of the argument complexity task showed that the comprehension level in adults with aphasia was preserved although lower compared to their normal counterparts. Finally, an error analysis of the responses showed that individuals with aphasia had different sources of difficulties: with thematic roles in passive sentences based on syntactic similarities and with active sentences based on semantic similarities. Conclusions: Individuals with aphasia, speakers of a free word order language demonstrated lower understanding of both reversible active and passive sentences with no apparent signs of canonicity patterns. A more detailed error analysis disentangled the source of difficulties with reversible errors for passives based on grammatical order and semantic-based errors for agent-driven sentences based on semantic preferences.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Neural correlates of thematic role assignment for passives in Standard Indonesian
    Yu-Yin Hsu

    PLOS ONE

    Previous studies of multiple languages have found processing differences between patient-first and agent-first word orders. However, the results are inconsistent as they do not identify a specific ERP component as a unique correlate of thematic role processing. Furthermore, these studies generally confound word order with frequency, as patient-first structures tend to be infrequent in the languages that have been investigated. There is evidence that frequency at the sentence level plays a significant role in language processing. To address this potential confounding variable, we will test a language where the non-canonical sentences are more frequent and are comparable to the canonical sentences, namely Standard Indonesian. In this language, there is evidence from acquisition, corpus, and clinical data indicates that the use of passive is frequent and salient. One instance of this difference can be demonstrated by the fact that it has been suggested that frequency may be the reason ...

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