Non-Subject Arguments in Indonesian

264 Pages·2016·2.02 MB·English

by  Musgrave Simon.

NNNNoooonnnn----SSSSuuuubbbbjjjjeeeecccctttt AAAArrrrgggguuuummmmeeeennnnttttssss iiiinnnn IIIInnnnddddoooonnnneeeessssiiiiaaaannnn

Simon Musgrave

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October 2001

Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
The University of Melbourne
i
Abstract

The grammatical function subject can be identified reliably in Bahasa
Indonesia (Indonesian), but the same is not true of other clause-level nominal
constituents in the language. The tests proposed in previous studies for
identifying an object grammatical function turn out to be unreliable and
inconsistent when the full range of data is considered. This thesis attempts to
clarify the problem by examining non-subject arguments in Indonesian in the
theoretical framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar. Both the properties
associated with the various types of argument and the means by which they
are licensed in clauses turn out to be problematic.
Two argument verbs appear in a range of clause types which are related
in interesting ways. I argue that it is possible to give a coherent analysis of the
system as a whole, treating it as the basic transitive system of the language,
when certain relationships are recognised as morphological rather than
syntactic. This analysis also reveals similarities between Indonesian and more
conservative Austronesian languages such as those of the Philippines. Another
type of clause, sometimes referred to as the 'adversative verb' clause type
shares an important property with one of the types of transitive clause, that of
allowing an oblique argument to appear without a licensing preposition if it is
adjoined to the verb which governs it. Another class of verbs, emotion and
cognition verbs, has a non-subject argument which can be either a
prepositional phrase or a bare nominal, but in this case the bare nominal is
not an oblique argument, adjunction is not the relevant syntactic relation. The
only possible analysis of these verbs, maintaining the assumption that the
transitive system has been identified, is that they have a subject and a
secondary object as their arguments. I argue that this analysis is implausible,
and that the assumption regarding the transitive system must be
reconsidered.
When this is done, I claim that Indonesian is best analysed as having
two distinct types of clausal organisation, one in which the major
constitutents are subject and verb phrase, and one in which they are subject
and predicate. Most verbs can head the predicate constituent in the second
type of clause, with morphology playing a crucial derivational role. Evidence
from nominalised clauses and from intransitive verbs supports this analysis,
but crucial aspects of the analysis resist statement in the framework of
Lexical-Functional Grammar, suggesting that the theory is overly-constrained
in important areas.
ii
Declaration

This is to certify that:
i. the thesis comprises only my original work except where indicated in the
preface,
ii. due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other material
used,
iii. the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps,
bibliographies and appendices.

Simon Musgrave Date:
iii
Preface

This thesis reports the results of research carried out between 1997 and
2001. The empirical basis of this research consists of a survey of texts carried
out by me (the sources used are listed immediately before the other
bibliographic references at the end of the thesis), example sentences elicited
from speakers of the languages studied, and published material as
acknowledged in the body of the thesis. Data on the Sasak language was
collected as part of the collaborative Lombok and Sumbawa Research Project
(Australian Research Council Large Grant A59803558, Principal researcher:
Prof. Peter K. Austin); the other work reported here was my own independent
research.
iv
Acknowledgments
My greatest debt is to the speakers of Indonesian, and of the other languages
discussed in this thesis, who generously shared their time and knowledge with
me. In particular, Umar Muslim was an endlessly patient teacher of both
Indonesian and Javanese, and was always willing to share his own insights as a
linguist. Katarina Sukamto, Eli Riharti, and Lalu Dasmara all also were very
helpful and Waruno Mahdi always answered my e-mails. Lalu Dasmara also
helped me with Sasak data, as did Herman Suheri, Syahdan and Yon Mahyuni. I
am grateful to Bukhari Daud and Samadi for assisting me with Acehnese data.
I am also grateful to Helen McKay for allowing me access to her corpus of
Indonesian text (and for employing me).
My supervisor throughout this research has been Peter Austin, and he has
made the experience enjoyable by his adroit balance of formal and informal
guidance, his enthusiasm for linguistics, and his deep knowledge which he is
always willing to share. During my probationary candidature, Lesley Stirling
and Dominique Estival were members of my supervisory committee, and I am
grateful to them both for helpful comments. The Department of Linguistics
and Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne is a stimulating and
friendly place to work. I am especially grateful to Nick Evans, who always has
time (how?) to discuss problems, and always has a suggestion as to how to
tackle them; to Rachel Nordlinger for her LFG library; to Anna Margetts for
incisive comments; and to Rob Schmittat for technical help (and coffee). I was
fortunate to do this research while the department was something of a centre
of Austronesian research, and I thank my fellow students Katarina Sukamto,
Anthony Jukes, Nick Thieberger and Yusuf Eades for their friendship and
support.
Beyond the department, the wider circle of Austronesian scholars were
wonderfully welcoming to a novice. I am grateful to all of the following people
for many different kinds of assistance: Sander Adelaar, Wayan Arka, Barry
Blake, John Bowden, Peter Cole, Susanna Cumming, Novi Djenar, Mark Durie,
Michael Ewing, Dan Finer, Margaret Florey, Bill Foley, David Gil, Gabriella
Hermon, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Arthur Holmer, Marian Klamer, Waruno
Mahdi, Bernd Nothofer, Bill Palmer, Andy Pawley, Stan Starosta, (and a special
mention for Mary Ellen Jordan, Austronesianist rtd.),. The LFG community were
also very generous; thank you to Avery Andrews, Kersti Borjars, Joan Bresnan,
Chris Manning, Jane Simpson and Nigel Vincent.
I am enormously grateful to the government of Australia, through the
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, for financial support in
the form of an Australian Post-graduate Award which allowed me to work full-
time on this thesis. I am also grateful to the Faculty of Arts, The University of
Melbourne for a travel grant which enabled me to attend the 8th International
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (Taipei 1997); to the Melbourne
Scholarships Office for a Melbourne Abroad Scholarship and to the
Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics for a travel grant which
together enabled me to attend the 7th Austronesian Formal Linguistics
Association meeting (Amsterdam 2000) and to visit the University of
Manchester. I am also grateful for support from the Lombok and Sumbawa
v
Research Project (Australian Research Council Large Grant A59803558) which
assisted me in attending the 2nd International LFG conference and the 4th
Australian Linguistic Institute (Brisbane 1998).
Portions of this work have previously been presented to the following
meetings: Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (Amsterdam 2000);
Department of Linguistics Seminar, University of Manchester; the workshop on
Voice in Austronesian, 2nd International LFG Conference (Brisbane 1998); the
2nd and 3rd Victorian South East Asian Languages Symposia (1998, 1999); the
University of Melbourne Linguistics and Applied Linguistics Post-Graduate
Conference (1999, 2000); the Victorian Austronesian Circle; and the
Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics Austronesian Informal
Seminar.
Finally, I could never have completed this thesis without the love and support
of my wife, Deborah - thank you for that, and for our two beautiful daughters,
Anna and Olivia.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract..........................................................................................................i
Declaration...................................................................................................ii
Preface..........................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgments.....................................................................................iv
Table of Contents.......................................................................................vi
Abbreviations...............................................................................................x
Glossing Practice........................................................................................xi
1 Introduction...............................................................................................1
1.1 Basic assumptions............................................................................... 1
1.2 Indonesian syntax................................................................................ 4
1.2.1 General issues............................................................................................................4
1.2.2 Tests of subjecthood.................................................................................................7
1.2.3 Tests of objecthood................................................................................................10
1.3 Lexical-Functional Grammar............................................................... 16
1.3.1 Types of representation..........................................................................................16
1.3.2 Correspondence principles...................................................................................19
1.3.2.1 C-STRUCTURE TO F-STRUCTURE................................................................................19
1.3.2.2 A-STRUCTURE TO F-STRUCTURE: LEXICAL MAPPING THEORY.......................................21
1.3.3 Functional categories in Indonesian syntax........................................................22
1.4 The licensing of arguments................................................................ 30
1.5 The origin of Bahasa Indonesia and the data used.............................. 33
1.6 Overview of the remaining chapters................................................... 35
2 Indonesian Transitive Clauses..............................................................37
2.1 The range of transitive constructions................................................ 37
2.2 The Status of di-............................................................................... 41
2.2.1 di- as pronoun...................................................................................................41
2.2.1.1 THE ARGUMENTS OF GUILFOYLE, HUNG AND TRAVIS................................................41
2.2.1.2 THE PHRASE-STRUCTURE POSITION OF DI-.................................................................44
2.2.1.3 ACTOR DOUBLING.................................................................................................49
2.2.1.4 SEMANTIC ROLE ASSIGNMENT................................................................................53
2.2.1.5 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE..........................................................................................54
2.2.1.6 SUMMARY............................................................................................................55
2.2.2 di- as verb prefix.....................................................................................................56
vii
2.2.2.1 POSTVERBAL ATTACHED PRONOUNS.......................................................................56
2.2.2.2 EXTRACTION AND TOPICALIZATION.........................................................................58
2.2.3 Summary..................................................................................................................62
2.3 Prefixed Verbs: meN-V and di-V clauses............................................. 62
2.3.1 The status of non-subject actors..........................................................................62
2.3.1.1 THE GENITIVE AGENT HYPOTHESIS............................................................................64
2.3.1.2 AGENT INCORPORATION.......................................................................................66
2.3.1.3 TERMS AND NON-TERMS........................................................................................68
2.3.2 Lexically specified linking................................................................................70
2.4 Pro-V clauses.................................................................................... 74
2.4.1 TOPIC and SUBJECT as distinct functions............................................................74
2.4.2 Syntax and morphology in Pro-V clauses...........................................................77
2.4.3 Pronoun actors and termhood............................................................................78
2.4.3.1 ONLY PRONOUN ACTORS CAN BE NON-SUBJECT TERMS...........................................78
2.4.3.2 PRONOUN ACTORS CANNOT BE NON-SUBJECT NON-TERMS......................................78
2.4.3.3 COMBINING THESE TWO GENERALISATIONS.............................................................79
2.4.4 Morphology of undergoer subject clauses........................................................80
2.4.4.1 A PREVERBAL MORPHOLOGICAL SLOT.....................................................................80
2.4.4.2 THE LIMITS OF MORPHOLOGY................................................................................82
2.5 An analysis....................................................................................... 87
2.5.1 Pro-V clauses...........................................................................................................87
2.5.2 Adding -nya to the picture...................................................................................90
2.5.3 Adding mereka......................................................................................................98
2.5.4 Bare DP actors in di-V clauses..............................................................................99
2.6 Summary.........................................................................................102
3 ke- -an verbs.........................................................................................104
3.1 A description of the ke- -an verbs......................................................105
3.1.1 Functions of the circumfix ke-...-an....................................................................105
3.1.2 Subgroups of ke- -an verbs.................................................................................107
3.2 Analyses of clauses with ke- -an verbs...............................................112
3.2.1 The analysis of Kana (1986).................................................................................113
3.2.2 Problems with Kana's analysis.............................................................................115
3.2.2.1 THE SECOND ARGUMENT.....................................................................................115
3.2.2.2 RESTRICTIONS ON BASE VERBS..............................................................................118
3.2.2.3 POSSESSOR SUBJECTS..........................................................................................119
3.3.3.4 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................119
3.3 A new analysis..................................................................................120
3.3.1 What are the base predicates?.........................................................................121
3.3.2 Properties of the ke- -an predicate...................................................................125
3.3.2.1 DERIVING THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE...................................................................125
3.3.2.2 WHAT GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS?......................................................................129
3.3.2.2.1 Subject......................................................................................................129
viii
3.3.2.2.2 The status of the second argument - predicative complements..............130
3.3.2.3 A LEXICAL ENTRY FOR KE- -AN..............................................................................134
3.3.2.4 THE CASE OF KETINGGALAN.................................................................................136
3.3.3 Obliques and adjunction....................................................................................138
3.4 Conclusion.......................................................................................141
4 Emotion/Cognition Predicates..........................................................143
4.1 A class of predicates .....................................................................143
4.1.1 Criterion of membership...............................................................................143
4.1.2 Range of constructions.................................................................................147
4.1.2.1 THE DATA...........................................................................................................150
4.1.2.2 PREPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTION..........................................................................150
4.1.2.3 BARE NOUN-PHRASE COMPLEMENTS.....................................................................156
4.1.2.4 APPLICATIVES AND CAUSATIVES...........................................................................158
4.1.2.5 TRANSITIVE VERBS................................................................................................161
4.1.2.6 INTRANSITIVE USES...............................................................................................161
4.1.2.7 CONSTRUCTIONS WITH COMPLEMENT CLAUSES......................................................162
4.1.2.8 NOMINAL USES...................................................................................................164
4.1.2.9 ATTRIBUTIVE USES.................................................................................................166
4.1.3 Lexical categorisation.........................................................................................168
4.1.3.1 NOMINAL USES OF EMOTION AND COGNITION WORDS..........................................169
4.1.3.2 ADJECTIVES AND VERBS IN INDONESIAN................................................................171
4.1.3.3 THE LEXICAL CATEGORISATION OF EMOTION AND COGNITION WORDS....................176
4.2 Emotion verbs and grammatical functions.........................................181
4.2.1 Transitive Clauses - SUBJ and OBJ.....................................................................182
4.2.2 OBL ........................................................................................................................185
θ
4.2.3 OBJ ........................................................................................................................188
θ
4.3 Formalising the analysis ..................................................................190
4.3.1 An LFG analysis.....................................................................................................190
4.3.1.1 TRANSITIVE OR TWO-PLACE UNACCUSATIVE...........................................................190
4.3.1.2 LEXICAL FEATURES OF THE STIMULUS.......................................................................195
4.3.2 P&P analyses - VP shells and internal arguments............................................196
4.3.3 Summary................................................................................................................199
4.4 Theoretical and empirical problems ..................................................200
4.4.1 The status of OBJ in LFG.....................................................................................200
θ
4.4.2 Empirical issues.....................................................................................................202
5 Two types of clause structure............................................................204
5.1 Strategies of relativization ................................................................204
5.1.1 Resumptive pronoun strategy............................................................................204
5.1.2 Subject and reduced pronouns.........................................................................205
5.1.3 Complementary distribution of relativization strategies.................................207
5.1.3.1 TOPIC-COMMENT STRUCTURES.............................................................................208
5.1.3.2 VOSKUIL 1996....................................................................................................210
ix
5.1.3.3 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................211
5.2 The distribution of -nya....................................................................212
5.3 Potentially predicative elements and arguments................................215
5.3.1 Semantic roles......................................................................................................216
5.3.2 Grammatical functions.......................................................................................217
5.3.3 Nonpredicative uses of prefixed verbs.............................................................220
5.3.4 Overt copulas.......................................................................................................222
5.3.5 Intransitive verbs: the prefixes ber- and ter-.....................................................224
5.3.6 Historical and comparative evidence..............................................................226
5.3.7 Summary................................................................................................................230
5.4 Problems for an LFG account.............................................................231
5.4.1 Where does SUBJ come from?...........................................................................231
5.4.2 Status of the non-subject argument..................................................................235
5.5 Conclusions......................................................................................238
Appendix: Indonesian and the accessibility hierarchy..............................240
Sources of Examples ...............................................................................242
References................................................................................................242