THE SEMANTIC OF INDONESIAN DATIVE ALTERNATION
A Case Study in
Jawa Pos
Newspaper
THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya
ENGLISH DEPARTMENTFACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SUNAN AMPEL
SURABAYA
2016
By:
SEMANTIC CONDITION OF INDONESIAN DATIVE ALTERNATION
A Case Study in Jawa Pos Newspaper
Erminia Utari
A03212037
Thesis Advisor
Endartno Pilih Suwasono M.Pd.
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITYSUNAN AMPEL
SURABAYA
2016
ABSTRACT
Utari, Erminia. 2016. The Semantic of Indonesian Dative Alternation (A Case Study in Jawa Pos Newspaper). English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, State Islamic University Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
Advisor : Endratno Pilih Swasono, M.Pd
Key Terms : Indonesian, Dative Alternation, and Semantic
ABSTRAK
Utari, Erminia. 2016. The Semantic of Indonesian Dative Alternation (A Case Study in Jawa Pos Newspaper). English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, State Islamic University Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
Pembimbing : Endratno Pilih Swasono, M.Pd
Kata Kunci : Indonesian, Dative Alternation, and Semantic
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL SHEET I ... ii
APPROVAL SHHET II ... iii
DECLARATION ... iv
MOTTO ... v
PREFACE ... vi
ABSTRACT ... vii
ABSTRAK ... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix
TABLE OF DIAGRAMS, FIGURES, AND TABLES ... xi
CHAPTER I 1.1 Background of Study ... 1
1.2 Statement of the problems ... 6
1.3 Objectives of the Study ... 6
1.4 Significance of the Study ... 7
1.5 Scope and Limitations ... 8
1.6 Definition of Key Terms ... 8
CHAPTER II 2.1 Dative Alternation ... 10
2.1.1 Polysemy Approach ... 10
2.1.2 Monosemy Approach ... 12
2.2 Semantic ... 16
2.2.2 The Kind of Meaning ... 16
2.2.3 Thematic Roles ... 18
CHAPTER III 3.1 Research Design ... 21
3.2 Research Approach ... 21
3.3 Object of the Reseach ... 21
3.4 Data Source ... 22
3.5 Procedure of Analysis ... 22
3.5.1 Data Collection ... 22
3.5.1 Data Analysis ... 23
CHAPTER IV 4.1 Semantic Aspects of Indonesian Dative Alternation ... 25
4.2 The Characteristics of Indonesian Dative Alternation ... 49
4.2.1. The Characteristics of To-Variant ... 50
4.2.2. The Characteristics of Double Object ... 60
CHAPTER V 5.1 Conclusion ... 64
5.2 Suggestion ... 68
REFERENCES
TABLE OF DIAGRAMS, FIGURES, AND TABLES
List of Table
Table 2.1.2.1 Dative Verb Having Only A Caused Possession Meaning ... 13
Table 2.1.2.2 Dative Verb Having both caused motion and possession meaning 13
Table 2.1.2.3 A Summary of the Verb-Sensitive Approach ... 14
Table 4.1.1 For-dative verbs ... 39
Table 4.1.2 Passive form of Give-types verb in Indonesian Dative Alternation 40
Table 4.1.3 Passive form of English Dative Alternation ... 43
Table 4.1.4 Passive form of Send-types verb in Indonesian Dative Alternation 47
Table 5.1.1 The differences between this study and previous studies ... 65
Table 5.1.2 The similarities between Indonesian Dative Alternation and English Dative Alternation ... 66
Table 5.1.3 The differences between Indonesian Dative Alternation and English Dative Alternation ... 66
List of Diagram
Diagram 4.1.1 The differences between Goal and Recipient... 31
List of Figure
Figure 4.2.1 Lexical definition of ‘ke’ ... 49
Figure 4.2.2 Illustration of Give-types verb ... 51
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
Every language has properties including syntactic properties, phonological
properties, morphological properties, semantic properties, and others. These
properties can give us the primary data of linguistic. These have been discussed,
analyzed and studied by many linguists in different discipline of linguistic theory.
One of the topics which discuss overseas is dative alternation. Dative alternation
has been discussed in many kinds of linguistics property. The prominent study
about dative alternation is about its meaning which is not only studied in English
but also has been studied in a lot of languages. For example, Tobias Bernaisch,
Stefan Th. Gries, and Joybroto Mukherjee (2014) has studied The Dative
Alternation in South Asian English(es); Jorge Vega Vilanova (2012) has studied
Dative Experiencers in Catalan: Argument Structure, Thematic Roles, and their
Relation with Clitic Doubling; Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2008)
have studied about English ‘dative’ verbs and their counterparts in other
languages including Russian, Hebrew, Dutch, Warlpiri, Icelandic, Mandarin,
Yaqui and Fongebe; the thesis of master’s degree of Justin Rill (2011) by the title
Unified Analysis of Dative Shift in English and the Applicative Construction in
Chichewa; Joan Maling (2001) also has studied dative alternation in Germanic
languages (English, German and Icelandic); Demonte (1995) also studied Dative
2
Nevertheless, the study about dative alternation in Indonesian language is lack to
observe. However, Indonesian language has been studied overseas including
China, Japan, Philippine, Vietnam and so on. Regarding of that reasons, this study
may help them to understand more about the characteristic of Indonesian,
especially in dative alternation.
The reasons why I chose semantic as my theory to discuss dative alternation
in Indonesian language are influenced by the early studies. Many studies of dative
alternation have different point of views where double object (sometime called
direct object) and prepositional object (sometime called indirect object: to-variant
and for-variant) have different meaning. The point of view which argues the both
variant has same meaning uses monosemy approach (sometime called Dative
Shift). Monosemy approach linguists argue that the alternation which happens in
all dative verbs does not influence the truth meaning. The important studies
arguing for monosemy approach are Hall (1965), Emonds (1972), Baker (1988 &
1996), Larson (1988 & 1990) and den Dikken (1995), Kiparsky (1985), Dryer
(1986) and Aoun & Li (1989). The contrast one uses polysemy approach
(sometime called Dative Alternation). Polysemy approach linguists argue that all
prepositional object has caused motion meaning. Meanwhile, all double object
has caused possession meaning. The important studies arguing for polysemy are
Green (1974), Oehrle (1976), Pinker (1990), Jackendoff (1990), Hale & Keyser
(1996), Arad (1998), Speas (1990) and Krifka (1999 & 2003).
Richard Thomas Oehrle (1976) in his dissertation studied about The
3
that he uses polysemy where he is able to explain which one is acceptable and
which one is not acceptable in both variants; double object and prepositional
object. He proposes that a semantic criterion for dative verbs: the first object of
double object verbs must be a possessor and second object in the prepositional
must be goal (it also proposed by Green 1974, Goldsmith 1980 and Stowell 1981).
Nevertheless, in his study, he cannot provide insight into the problem of why
some verbs occur in the both double object and prepositional object and why
some verbs occur in only one of those variants. Regarding of this niche, I am
inspired to give the reason the restriction in Indonesian dative alternation to make
clear understanding.
Jess Gropen, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Gorldberg and
Ronald Wilson (1989) have studied about the learnability and acquisition applied
in 5 children. The children has different ages and the duration of recorded is
range. They used polysemy approach to found that (i) conservative usage of
prepositional and double object variant precedes the productive application of a
dative rule to new verbs that could not have been learned from the input, (ii)
children’s use of the dative rule appears to follow board-range constraints
pertaining to causation of possession at all stages, (iii) children can be productive
depend on their background tendency, and (iv) the reason of over generalize
dative verb is (1) the verb meaning of children are imperfect, (2) children do not
differ from adult. The third point of their finding shows that dative alternation is
one of conservatism. It means that most dative variants in children’s speech reflect
4
of children and adult utterance. Both adult and children rarely obey some version
of possession-change constraint. Yet, there is a few children’s utterance which
over generalize that must be consideration to sum up this study although it is low
frequency. This study does not answer: how can restriction to dative alternation be
learned? It is very important to answer why it is acceptable and vice versa.
Actually, it has answered by Manfred Krifka (2003) that lexical verb for dative
alternation can restrict the objects. He divided lexical restrictions into 6 root
meaning (possession, movement, continuous imparting of force, communication
verbs, verbs of prevention of possession and morphological restrictions). With
great regards, he missed the root meanings themselves. He argues that in the
Double Object, the basic meaning is change of possession, yet in Prepositional
case, it is movement to goal. Moreover, Malka Rappaport Hovav’s and Beth
Levin’s (2008) answer it in The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb
Sensitivity. They propose that every lexical have a root/base meaning (e.g. verb
give only has possession meaning). So, the resections depend on verb lexical
meaning. It explained in English, Russian, Dutch and German. How about in
Indonesian language? Do Indonesian verb lexical meaning can restrict the
Indonesian dative alternation? I will explain in Chapter IV.
Related to learnability and acquisition of dative alternation in English, in
1994, William D. Davies studied English Dative Alternation and Evidance for
Thematic Strategy in Adult SLA. This study involved learnability and acquisition
also, where they acquire and learn English as second language. The subject of this
5
Indonesia, Italian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, Thai, Farsi, Frensh, and
Greek. William used polysemy approach of Pinker (1984) is that bootstrapping
hypothesis to know SLA’s ability in the restriction of dative alternation. But, only
5 learners (Chinese and Farsi) who can determine or give respond about dative
alternation same or as the native English judgment. Two of them are advanced
level and three of them are intermediate level. It shows that the level of learners
do not influence the ability of SLA in English dative alternation. Indonesian
learners include in the ‘prepositional and double object construction acceptable
for all verbs’ category and ‘double object construction acceptable for governed
subset of verbs’ category. This shows that Indonesian learners do not know well
about dative alternation, especially in English. Therefore, by this study, I hope I
can give knowledge about dative alternation, especially Indonesian dative
alternation.
The recently study about dative alternation in children speech came from Erin
Conwell, Timothy J. O’Donnell, and Jesse Snedeker (2011). They found that early
emergence of double object form in the children’s early speech may be largely
based on highly frequent. It is same as adult behavior where double object is
preferred. It also happened in the usage of dative alternation in South Asian
English (see Bernaisch and friends, 2014, 18). I think that Indonesian language
does not so. Nonetheless, my hypothesis is that Indonesian language prefers to use
propositional object where the Goal or Recipient as the second object.
Indeed, there are many studies about dative alternation in overseas.
6
Indonesian students know that Indonesian has dative alternation. Concerning of
these reasons, Indonesian students and foreign learners do not know whether
Indonesian dative alternation has one meaning or two meaning. To give them
reference, I wanted to study about Indonesian dative alternation.
To get a focus discussion, I take Jawa Pos newspaper as my object of study
because this newspaper is popular in all groups of people. Therefore, I took ‘The
Semantic of Indonesian Dative Alternation: A Case Study in Jawa Pos
Newspaper’ as my title of study to know the meaning of both variants of dative
alternation in Indonesian language.
1.2. Statement of the Problems
Based on the background of the study above, this research is conducted to
answer the following questions:
1. How do semantic aspects of dative alternation apply in Indonesian
language?
2. What are the characteristics of Indonesian double object and Indonesian
prepositional object?
1.3. Objectives of the Study
Regarding the statement of the problems, this research has two aims.
7
1. To describe and explain semantic aspects of Indonesian dative
alternation.
2. To describe the characteristics of Indonesian double object and
Indonesian prepositional object.
1.4. Significance of the Study
The significant of this study is classified into two significant. Those are
theoretical and practical significant:
1.4.1. Theoretically
a. Academically, the result of this study, hopefully can give
contribution in cross-linguistic discipline, especially in semantic
field.
b. This study will be expected to increase the knowledge of language
for the reader including Indonesian native students, foreign students
who learn Indonesian language, and linguistic linguists.
1.4.2. Practically
a. In the globalization era, each people learn other language. In order
to help them, this study is going to be conducted to give
8
b. By this study, hopefully, can minimize misunderstanding in
reading comprehension Indonesian text and listening
comprehension Indonesian speech.
c. This study is expected to be reference to the next researchers.
d. This study is expected can develop previous studies.
1.5. Scope and Limitations
To get a focused discussion, this study concern to dative alternation in
Indonesian language. The scope of this study is dative alternation concerning to
two kinds predominant views in Jawa Pos newspaper by the date 23 and 24
September 2015. First is a caused possession meaning realized by the double
object variant. The second is a caused motion meaning realized by prepositional
object or to-variant. This limitation of this study in two verb cases in active and
passive sentence. Those are give (beri)-type verbs and send (kirim)-type verbs.
1.6. Definition of Key Terms
In this study, I give some definition related to the language terms and
Indonesian language to support the title and also to avoid misunderstanding.
1.Dative Alternation.
The term ‘dative’ refers to object. Meanwhile, alternation refers to
9
object. It can be happened in ditransitive sentence only. The different position of
objects evokes two variants which called as a prepositional object and a double
object. The prepositional object structure is also referred to as NP PP structure as
it consists of a Noun Phrase (NP) and a prepositional phrase (PP). The double
object structure is referred to as NP NP structure as it consists of two noun
phrases.
2. Semantic
Semantic is a part of linguistics that refers to the study of meaning changes in
meaning and the relationship between sentences or words and their meaning. In
another words, semantics is a study of the linguistic meaning of morphemes,
words, phrases, and sentences.
3. Indonesian Language
Indonesian language is a language which used by Indonesian people.
Indonesia is settled in South-East of Asia. Approximately 242 billion people use
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Dative Alternation
Dative alternation refers to the movement of the two objects. The position of
objects cause there are a prepositional object variant and a double objectvariant.
The both variants evoke different point of views. The first point of view is
polysemy approach which argues that those variants have different meaning. The
second point of view is monosemy approach which argues that those variant have
same meaning.
2.1.1 Polysemy Approach
One of the polysemy approach linguists is Richard Thomas Oehrle. He
has studied dative in his dissertation by the title ‘The Grammatical Status
English Dative Alternation’. In his dissertation, Oehrle (1976) discuss two
aspects (semantic and syntax). Nevertheless, in this study I focus on
semantic aspect only. Oehrle began his analysis by a sentence which is
multiply ambiguous as following.
(1) Nixon gave Mailer a book.
This sentence has several probably meanings. One the first reading, it may
be stated that the possession of the book pass from Nixon to Mailer. The
second reading is appropriate for a situation in which Nixon merely handed
11
reading is acceptable for a situation in which Mailer wrote a book which he
would not have been able to write if it had not been for Nixon.
By his explanations above shows the verb give does not always have
meaning of possession or ownership. However, every lexical verb have
inherent or root meaning as listed in the dictionary. Therefore, lexical verb
of give naturally have inherent meaning. It can be changed by several
reasons, one of them is situation. Study about language which is related to
situation it automatically talks about pragmatic in a discourse.
The uniform polysemy approach proposes that all dative verbs in
to-variant form have caused motion meaning and double object to-variant has
caused possession. It is consistently with the other polysemy approach
linguist, Manfred Krifka.
By looking at the verbs that can be used in the double object and prepositional object, we can learn something about structural semantics of these verbs: in the double object case, the basic meaning is change of possession, in the prepositional object case, it is movement to a goal.
(Krifka, 2003)
He has point of view in which the dative verbs can apply in two variant
(double object and prepositional object). He argued that the usage of those
variants make different meaning between those variants. For example:
(2a) I gave a gift to my best friend. (3a) I sent a gift to my best friend.
12
(2a) and (3a) are prepositional variant which have caused motion meaning.
Meanwhile, (2b) and (3b) are double object variant which have caused
possession meaning. It can be design as following:
a. Caused Possession : ‘X cause Y to have Z’ (Y is recipient)
b. Caused Motion : ‘X cause Z to be at Y’ (Y is spatial goal)
In addition, Oehrle’s proposal seems to correlate the meaning depend
on the situation and condition (context). Therefore, in this study I am going
to involve contextual meaning in my analysis because someone cannot judge
the meaning of sentence without knowing to whom, to what the end, when
and where the utterance produces.
2.1.2 Monosemy Approach
Mark C. Baker (1996) in his Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure
stated that dative alternation do not have different meaning. He argued that
there is no so clear result which show the clear differences between
to-variant and double object. However, Malka Rappaport Hovav and Beth
Levin (RH&L) (2008) who use verb-sensitive approach quoted previous
studies, especially Pinker (1989) about the nature of verb meaning and the
dative alternation through a closer look at the semantic classes of alternating
verbs. Those classes whose members are associated only with a caused
13
Dative Verb Kind of verbs
Verbs that inherently signify acts of
giving (give-type verbs)
give, hand, lend, loan, pass, rent,
sell, etc.
Verbs of future having allocate, allow, bequeath, grant,
offer, owe, promise, etc
Verbs of communication tell, show, ask, teach, read, write,
quote, cite, etc.
Table 2.1.2.1
Dative Verb Having Only A Caused Possession Meaning
From the table above, I provide the following examples.
(4a) My mother gave a new bag to me.
(4b) My mother gave me a new bag.
(5a) The manager offered a job vocation to Nia.
(5b) The manager offered Nia a job vocation.
He proposed that all sentences; (4a), (4b), (5a), and (5b) have caused
possession meaning, in which the subject caused the Recipient/Goal have the
Theme. Then, from those whose members may be associated with either a
caused motion or a caused possession meaning can be seen in table 2.1.2.2.
Dative Verb Kind of verbs
Verbs of sending (send-type verbs) forward, mail, send, ship, etc.
14
ballistic motion throw, toss, etc
Verbs of causation of accompanied
motion in a deictically specified
direction
bring, take, etc
Verbs of instrument of communication e-mail, fax, radio, wire,
telegraph, telephone, etc.
Table 2.1.2.2
Dative Verb Having both caused motion and possession meaning
RH&L’s approach to dative alternation is like Jackendoff’s in treatment
in verb case (1990). Give-type verbs different from throw-type verbs, with
the former having only a caused possession analysis and the latter having
both caused motion and caused possession analyses. Send-type verbs have
same possession as throw-type possession. To make easily understanding
about that classification, I put those in the following table:
To-Variant/ Prepositional Object
Double Object Variant
/direct Object
Give-type Verbs Caused possession Caused possession
Throw-type Verbs Caused motion or caused
possession
Caused possession
Send-type verbs Caused motion or caused
possession
Caused possession
Table 2.1.2.3
15
But, RH&L analysis differ from Jakendoff’s (1990) in two aspects. The
first is that semantic representation of caused possession does not involve a
path conceptual constituent. The second is that they do not ascribe two lexical
entries, differing on the action tier, to give-type verbs. It means that they do
not treat give-type differently at all semantically. In spite of the attributes
distinct meaning to the two variant (prepositional object and double object),
give-type verbs are often equivalent in truth condition by uniform multiple
meaning approach (Goldberg 1995: 91, Krifka 2004: 11, Pinker 1989: 83).
They also argue that, when, inherent meaning of the verb is joined to the
meaning of the caused motion variant it gives rise to exactly the same
meaning as when the inherent meaning of such verb is joined to the meaning
of double object.
Regarding of this, hopefully this study can answer what Indonesian
dative alternation category includes in. Language is dynamic (change over
times) and has creativity feature (as Chomsky idea in Jean Atchison’s book,
2008). Therefore, in this research, I treat dative verb flexibly depend on the
context of the discourse to know whether Indonesian dative alternation has
16
2.2. Semantic
The study of the linguistic meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and
sentences is called semantics. Subfields of semantics are lexical semantics, which
is concerned with the meanings of words, and the meaning relationships among
words; and phrasal or sentential semantics, which is concerned with the meaning
of syntactic units larger than the word.
2.2.1 Systematic Study of Meaning
Semantic is the systematic study of meaning and linguistic semantic is
the study of how languages organize and express meanings. Its means that,
meaning in linguistic semantic was very needed for us to limit ourselves to
the expression of meanings in a single language. Charles W. Kreidler (1998:
3) said there were three disciplines were concerned with the systematic study
of meaning: psychology, philosophy and linguistics.
The first is psychologist which was interest in how individual humans
learn, how they retain, recall or loss information. The second is philosophies
of language which were concerned with how we know how any particular
fact that we know or accept as true was related to other possible facts. Then,
the last systematic study of meaning is about linguistic, linguistics want to
understand how language works.
2.2.2 The Kind of Meaning
According to Abdul Chaer (2007: 289) the kind of meaning consist of
17
meaning, denotative and connotative meaning, conceptual and associative
meaning, and lexeme. Meanwhile, according to Charles W. Kreidler
(1998:41) the dimensions of meaning include reference and denotation,
connotation, sense relations, lexical and grammatical meaning, morphemes,
homonymy, polysemy, lexical ambiguity, sentence and meaning.
Nevertheless, this study uses lexical meaning and contextual meaning to treat
dative verbs. For contextual meaning would be helped by pragmatic study.
a. Lexical Meaning
Lexical meaning is the smallest meaning unit in the meaning
system of language that could be distinguished from other similar units.
It can occur in many different forms of actual spoken or written
sentences. Lexical meaning refers to the real meaning. Therefore, many
people who say that the lexical meaning is the meaning in the dictionary
or that of the lexeme meaning even without any contexts.
b. Contextual Meaning
Contextual meaning is the meaning of a lexeme or word inside a
context. A contextual definition is also a definition in which the term is
used by embedding it in a larger expression containing its explanation.
However, the contextual meaning could be regarded to the situation,
18
2.2.3. Thematic Roles
Thematic Roles (or Theta-Roles) are theoretical constructs that
account for a variety of well known, more or less clearly delimited empirical
facts. In other words, Theta-Roles are not directly observable, but they do
have content that is open to empirical observation. The concept of thematic
roles is a means of accounting for the functions of arguments in respect to the
predicate; thematic roles are the “grammatically relevant semantic relations
between predicates and arguments” (Frawley 1992: 201 in Brinton 2000).
This approach was proposed firstly by Charles Fillmore (1968, 1977) and
was originally known as case grammar. To define the roles of arguments,
Fillmore borrows the notion of case from traditional grammar, but uses the
term in a slightly different way. Traditionally, nouns may be inflected for
case, for nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and so on. The fact that
determination of thematic roles is described by one linguist as “intuitionism
run wild” (Dillon 1977: 73), the following as a list of some of the possible
thematic roles served by arguments in a sentence:
1. Agent (also called “actor”): the animate initiator, causer, doer, or
instigator of an action who acts by will or volition, takes
responsibility for the action, and is its direct cause;
2. Force (also “author”): the inanimate cause of an action, which does
not act by will or volition;
3. Instrument (also “means”): the means by which an event is caused,
19
instrument does not act but is acted upon; (Agent, Force, and
Instrument together could be considered “Cause”.)
4. Experiencer: the animate being affected inwardly by a state or
action;
5. Source: the place-from-which or person-from-whom an action
emanates;
6. Goal: the place-to-which or person-to-whom an action is directed;
7. Recipient: a special kind of goal associated with verbs expressing a
change in ownership, possession.
8. Path: the path taken in moving from one place to another in the
course of an action;
9. Location (also “place”): the place-at/in-which or the time-at-which
an action occurs (also “temporal”);
10.Possessor: the possessor of a thing, really a special kind of
locative, since the thing and the possessor must coincide; there are
two kinds of possession, depending on whether the possessor and
the thing possessed are inherently connected, such as Judy’s head
(inalienable possession) or not, such as Judy’s car (alienable
possession);
11.Benefactive: the person or thing for which an action is performed
20
12.Factitive (also “result” or “effected”): the object resulting from an
action or state, having no prior existence but coming about by
virtue of the action or state;
13.Patient: the person or thing affected by an action, or the entity
undergoing a change;
14.Theme: the person or thing which undergoes an action, or that
which is transferred or moved by an event but otherwise
unchanged;
15.Neutral: the person or thing which is not changed or even acted
upon, but simply present at an action:
16.Range (also “extent”): the specification or limitation of an action;
and
21
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Research Design
This study is qualitative research. Consequently, this study is intended
as a more descriptive and interpretations under study rather than judging or
evaluating them (Stainback, 1998: 22). It means that qualitative inquiry is
process the understanding of problem rather than to determine its value on the
appropriate subject for the qualitative research is linguistics.
3.2. Research Approach
This study does not use polysemy approach. This study uses
verb-sensitive approach which produces meaning based on the verb event of the
dative verbs. Unlike much previous study, this approach does not take all
dative verbs. This study takes two dative verbs which at least representative
caused possession and caused motion.
3.3. Object of the Research
The object of this study is Indonesian language in Jawa Pos newspaper
by the date 23 and 24 September 2015. Jawa Pos newspaper is Indonesian
22
3.4. Data Source
The primary data of this study is taken from Jawa Pos newspaper edition
23 and 24 September 2015. The data sources are Indonesian dative alternation.
I chose Jawa Pos newspaper because it can easily be gotten. Not only that,
Jawa Pos language style approximately can be received all the level of citizens.
It means can high class people, educated people, bourgeois, middle-low class
people and proletariat in Indonesia can understand Jawa Pos language.
3.5. Procedure of Analysis
3.5.1. Data Collection
In this study, I followed some steps in collecting the data. First, I
read the whole of Jawa Pos newspapers (September 23th 2015). While I
was reading I selected sentences which have dative verbs (give-types verb
and send-type verbs) by underlining the sentences. I did it twice to avoid
the missed dative verbs. Second, after selecting the sentences, I listed
dative verbs (send-types and give-types) by typing in Microsoft word in
order to make easily classification. Third, I separated those sentences
based on variant of dative alternation (a prepositional object and a double
object). Then, I also applied those steps for Jawa Pos September 24th
23
3.5.1. Data Analysis
The data compiled from what mention in data collection, analyzed
by verb-sensitive approach in both variants (to-variant and double object)
of dative alternation. In order to answer research question number one, I
follow these steps. Firstly, I begin my analysis by active form sentence of
give-types verb of Indonesian dative alternation. The analysis used
polysemy approach firstly which helped by thematic rules; consequently,
it might produce two meanings. Secondly, the meanings are distinguished
by the thematic rules: Recipient and Goal. After that, it was tested by a
lexical verb analysis or verb-sensitive approach to know whether the two
meanings still arise or not. Then, ensure them whether the two meanings
still arise or not, I related them in the context of the discourse. After the
discussion of active form of Indonesian give-types verb finished, I
continued to the passive form of Indonesian give¬-types dative. After
that, I made a table as following to show that Indonesian the passive form
of to-variant and double object are available which has specific
characteristics.
Number Passive Active
24
To answer research question number two, the analysis was begun
from the differences between both variant; to-variant and double object.
Secondly, from the differences, the characteristics are analyzed one by
one based on variant and event types. Finally, from those characteristics,
the alternation of object which happened in Indonesian language are
25
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter presents the analysis of the findings. I focus on the
differences of variants of Indonesian dative alternation. The variants of dative
alternation are prepositional object or to-variant and double object or indirect
object which analyzed by verb-sensitive approach. Then, I compare Indonesian
dative alternation with English dative alternation. The data are collected through
“Jawa Pos Newspaper” by the date 23 and 24 September 2015. Based on the
founded data, Indonesian dative alternation has two meanings in semantic view by
thematic rules. But, it does not always have two meanings in pragmatic view.
Moreover, after knowing whether the sentence of Indonesian dative alternation
posses one or two meaning, the next analysis is that compare them to English
dative alternation. It is reviewed and explained in each section below.
From 185 dative verbs found (send-types verb and give-type verb), there
are 70 ditransitive sentences. Those ditransitive consist of 37 to-variant, 18
for-variant and 2 double object or direct object in give-types verb. Then, there are 9
to-variant in send-types.
4.1. Semantic Aspects of Indonesian Dative Alternation
In English dative alternation there are restrictions either in using double
object or to-variant. The restriction is based on the syntactic realization factors.
26
syntactic factor. To know whether morphology and syntactic influence the
meaning of Indonesian dative alternation or not, I begin this analysis by the
simplest data which I found.
(1a) Ronny Arnaz memberikan sapi kepada yayasan pendidikan Islam. [Ronny Arnaz gave cow to Islamic school institute]
Agent Theme Recipient
(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 6)
According to Oehrle (1976: 19), for in such a case in English, it is perhaps
simplest to see the necessity for sharply separating the semantic properties of each
reading. It can apply in Indonesian dative alternation. On first reading, (1a) may
be stated that the possession of cow pass from Arnaz to Islamic school institute. It
means Arnaz owned a certain cow, then Arnaz acts in such a way as to transfer the
ownership of the book to Islamic school institute. The second reading, (1a) may
be appropriate for a situation in which Arnaz merely conveyed the cow to Islamic
school institute and the possession meaning is not relevant. It means that the cow
changes hands without the ownership being affected. (1a) may mean that Arnaz
got mandate to consign the cow to Islamic school institute for dispensing to
others. On the third reading, (1a) may be acceptable for a situation in which
Islamic school institute owed some money which they would not have been gotten
or bought cow if they had not gotten loan from bank in which Arnaz warrant it.
However, it may be stated that Arnaz gives inspiration, motivation and suggestion
to Islamic school institute in which they could not buy the cow if Arnaz did not do
it. It means that there is no relationship between subject (Arnaz) and first object
27
In English, (1a) cannot be applied on first reading, second reading and
third reading. Nevertheless, English can apply those readings if (1a) changed to be
double object variant. It means the ambiguity arise in double object only. Yet, all
sentence, either Indonesian or English can be define the meaning based on the
context.
Regarding of this reason, I believe that (1a) has only one meaning. We can
know it by pragmatic study, instantly we can choose one of those reading by
understanding context of the discourse and the situational context (Fromkin and
friends, 2011). The truth of (1a) is that a caption, while the title of the article is
‘Kasus Crane, Trafik Voice Meningkat 673%’ [Crane Case, Traffic Voice
increases 673%]. The linguistic context of this discourse is about the traffic voice
progress of Telkomsel (one of the Indonesia’s cellular telephone communication
companies) in Idhul Adha and the peak of this increase is Crane tragedy in
Makkah. Moreover, based on the situational context, Arnaz is delegation of
Telkomsel to cede that cow to Islamic school institute for Idhul Adha moment
(sacrificial animal). It shows by the picture of the caption. Arnaz and his friend
were wearing Telkomsel uniform and there was Telkomsel banner behind them
which written ‘Telkomsel peduli dan berbagi untuk negeri [Telkomsel care and
share for country]’. It means that, the first reading, the possession of cow pass
from Arnaz to Islamic school institute is not acceptable because that cow is not
owned by Arnaz. The second reading seems more appropriate to (1a) sentence,
where the cow changes hands without the ownership being affected. It is more
28
focus on the ownership between subject (Arnaz) and second object (Islamic
school institute) is not being affected. Sentence (1a) may have meaning Arnaz
consigned Islamic school institute the cow to share to the members of Islamic
school institute as meat (it means the name of sacrifice is Telkomsel and Rony
Arnaz is the first mediator and Islamic school institute is the second mediator
mediator); or (1a) may have meaning Arnaz consigned the cow to Islamic school
institute and at that time, the cow is owned by Islamic school institute which
would be shared for the members of Islamic school institute as meat (it means
the mane of sacrifice is Islamic school institute)
I found in tribunnews that he said that “… The national total, we donate
653 sacrificial animals.” ‘We’ refers to Telkomsel, in which represented by Arnaz.
So, Telkomsel donated the cows to Islamic school institute. It means that the
name of sacrifice is Islamic school institute; Arnaz consigned the cow to Islamic
school institute and at that time, the cow is owned by Islamic school institute
which would be shared for the members of Islamic school institute as meat.
Absolutely, the third reading is not appropriate in this situational context because
there is relationship between subject and second object. (1a) is to-variant and (1b)
is double object. To know they have single meaning or not, I use thematic roles as
in Chapter II.
(1b)*Ronny Arnaz memberikan yayasan pendidikan Islam sapi. [Ronny Arnaz gave Islamic school institute cow]
Agent Goal Theme
In cursory reading, these sentences ((1a) and (1b)) seem having same
29
every study. In my first hypothesis, (1a) and (1b) have same meaning. Yet, if (1a)
has same meaning with (1b), why is the usage of to-variant or prepositional
phrases is preferred (see in appendix). It discusses further in 4.2.
What have been debated on (1a) and (1b) by many linguists are their
differences in acceptability and semantic between these two contractions which
arise from the profiling relationship between the thematic roles of Goal and
Recipient, in which caused different entailment meaning: caused possession
meaning and coursed motion meaning. By seeing the differences thematic roles of
the both variant of dative alternation; prepositional object which represented by
sentence (1a) and double object which represented by sentence (1b).
Regarding of (1a) and (1b) meaning, Pinker (1989) in Krifka (2003)
propose as following
DO: [EVENT give [Ann Beth [STATE HAVE Beth the car]]]
PO: [EVENT give [Ann the car [EVENT GO the car [PATH to [PLACE Beth]]]]]
In English, DO (double object) and PO (prepositional object) are different,
in which those proposal may be interpreted as:
1. Pinker assumes that ‘Ann gave Beth the car’ express the meaning: Ann
caused Beth have the car.
2. Pinker assumes that ‘Ann gave the car to Beth express the meaning: Ann
30
He states that the meanings (DO nad PO) can be very closed indeed, nut in
certain contexts meaning differences appear, and certain verbs may be compatible
only with one meaning.
That proposal can be applied in Indonesian dative alternation also. Based
on Pinker’s proposal, Indonesian dative alternation in (1a) means that Arnaz
caused the cow to go to Islamic school institute, whereas sentence (1b) express the
meaning that Arnaz caused Islamic school institute to have the cow. In (1a) seems
there is spatial entailment indicate by prepositional to which is interpreted as ‘to
go to’. Meanwhile, (1b) involves caused possession meaning only. It seems there
is caused motion meaning in sentence (1a). Hence, sentence (1a) may be
interpreted as caused possession: ‘ARNAZ cause ISLAMIC SCHOOL
INSTITUTE to have COW’ (Islamic school institute is recipient) and caused
motion: ‘ARNAZ cause COW to be at ISLAMIC SCHOOL INSTITUTE’
(Islamic school institute is spatial goal). So, the semantic interpretation in this
case that the cow becomes Islamic school institute. Based on my data collection,
there is no (mem+root+kan in double object) variant like sentence (1b) in
Indonesian language. It will be discussed further in 4.2.
To know whether give-types verb has caused motion meaning or not,
firstly, let’s focus on the differences between Recipient and Goal. According to
Dillon (1977) Goal is the place-to-which or person-to-whom an action is directed.
Meanwhile, according to Jackendoff (1990), Recipient is a special kind of goal
31
that the general event type is Goal and the special of Goal is Recipient. I try to
illustrate it in the following diagram.
Diagram 4.1.1
The differences between Goal and Recipient
It is clearly that Goal (in Double object) is an objective of the agent to do
event verb at the time. Meanwhile, Recipient (in to-variant) is someone who
receives a theme from the agent. Nevertheless, I found in my data a sentence like
(2).
(2)*Tiongkok meminjamkan sepasang panda ke Malaysia. [Chinese loaned a couple of panda to Malaysia]
Agent Theme Recipient
(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 7)
32
office (e.g., RH&L 2008; 138, Krifka 2003; 2). Therefore, I treat the Agent same
as Recipient, in which Tiongkok refers to the organization in China.
I agree with RH&L definition in which all dative verbs involves an
alternate realization of recipient, where a ‘recipient’ is generally an animate entity
capable of possession, with corporations, governments and other organization
qualifying as ‘extended’ animated. It is also consistently with Goldberg 1995,
Green 1974 and Pinker 1989, in which the prototypical recipient is animate
because the prototypical relation of possession involves an animate possessor and
an inanimate possessum. However, possessors and thus recipients can be
inanimate in certain instances of inalienable possession, as in our god, Allah SWT
gives our face two eyes or the students give the page a number.
Sentence (2) includes in give-types verb where meminjamkan (loan) has
meaning temporally giving. ‘meminjamkan’ describes a more specific type of
possession, encoded in the possession type. It means that Tiongkok gave the two
pandas temporarily to Malaysia. By reading the discourse of sentence (2), I know
that it is not complimentary. It means that Malaysia must pay it by a particular
term.
Concerning the meaning of loan in Indonesian is meminjami or
meminjamkan which comes from the root pinjam (borrow). It is complicated case,
in which the affixes influence the meaning. It means pinjam or meminjam is not
‘loan’. The root is same, but they have different meaning. The event type of ‘loan’
33
include in dative verb criterion. To make easy understanding, I put them in
following example:
(2b) Tia meminjam sebuah buku. (Tia borrowed a book)
(2c) *Tia meminjami Tio. (Tia lent Tio)
(2d) Tia meminjami Tio sebuah buku. (Tia lent Tio a book)
(2e) Tia meminjamkan sebuah buku. (Tia lent a book)
(2f) Tia meminjamkan sebuah buku kepada Tio. (Tia lent a book to Tio)
(2g) Tia meminjamkan sebuah buku untuk Tio. (Tia lent a book for Tio)
Those sentences come from the same root; it is pinjam (borrow, loan,
lend). Based on contextual meaning, (2b) means that Tia did not have a book then
she borrowed a book (from her friend). Meanwhile, sentence (2c) means that Tia
had something and there was Tio who asked to borrow it, consequently, Tia lent
Tio X. This sentence is imperfect because (2c) need more complement. So, (2d) is
prefect form of (2c), in which Tia had a book and Tio asked to borrow it;
consequently Tia lent Tio a book. However, (2e) means that Tia had a book (or
more) and there was someone who asked to borrow Tia’s book; consequently, Tia
lent a book. (2f) means that someone in (2e) is Tio. Meanwhile, (2g) means that
Tio asked Tia to borrow a book from someone or Tia borrow a book in which the
book is for Tio. (2g) has benefactive meaning. From those sentences, I can
conclude that affixes (morphology) can influence and change the meaning of
This sentence describes event of caused possession but do not involve transfer of
possession. (3a) states that all who come will have a good time. Although
give-type verbs sometimes may be understood as a source, giving the impression that
the verb’s meaning does involve transfer of possession. Yet, this impression
follows from the nature of this form of possession.
Regarding abstract Theme in English dative alternation, I found Theme
which is not physical noun in my data collection. To know they have same
treatment as (1a) and (2) here is my analysis.
(3a)Saya harus memberikan kesempatan kepada semua pemain.
I must give opportunity to all players.
Agent Theme Recipient
(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 19)
(3b)FSG dikabarkan bersedia memberikan lebih banyak-
FSG was announced (that) ready give more
waktu dan kesempatan kepada Rodgers.
times and opportunity to Rodgers.
(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 15)
The important consideration in finding the acceptable meaning is knowing the
relationship between the arguments. Sentence (3b) means that saya caused the
35
often appear to involve transfer of possession from a source to a recipient, because
in the real world people assume that ‘A’ cannot cause ‘B’ to have possession of a
physical object unless A has possession of it first (Beth Levin: 2005).
Nevertheless, ‘A’ represented by ‘saya’ does not need to have ‘an opportunity’ to
cause ‘B’ which is represented by ‘all players’ to have an opportunity.
Situationally, ‘saya’ (coach) gave an opportunity to all players to be starter in
playing soccer. It means that ‘saya’ does not need opportunity to take a role as
starter in soccer. Regarding of that reason, caused motion meaning is not
acceptable in give-types verb.
The second reading, in which (3b) is not acceptable because saya can not
merely handed the opportunity to all players. The verb ‘hand’ cannot apply for
abstract theme whether in alienable or inalienable possession (Oehrle, 1976: 33).
Meanwhile, the third reading is not compatible with this context. Oehrle (1976:
67) state that the third reading of English sentences with give is that the
prepositional dative construction is not available or if so only in certain rather
special cases. He also emphasizes that in all cases in which the third reading is
available; the double object construction is base-generated (1976: 68). It means
that if give-types dative verb categorize in the third reading, the sentence will use
double object variant. It will discuss further in 4.2. Come back to the first reading,
RH & L have propose it as following:
36
thus cannot involve physical control, someone can bring a change of possession without being the original prosessor.”
(RH & L, 2008: 140)
Indeed, that quotation means that there is no caused motion in English to-variant
of give-types verb. It happens as the physical manipulation of being different
processor. It also happens in Indonesian prepositional object of give-types verb.
So, the meaning of sentence (3b) is that saya (coach) has authority as his
obligation to give opportunity to all players. It means that the theme become an
obligation for the subject and the theme become entitlement for the recipient. In
another words, sentence (3b) means that saya does not have opportunity to give
to the all players but saya has authority to do it.
The treatment of (3b) also applies in (3c) in which FGS (Fenway Sports
Group) is name of an organization. It is not inanimate subject. But, it is
metonymically Agent like the Agent of (2). FSG does not need to have more
times and opportunity firstly to have an ability to give them to Rodgers.
Regarding of abstract noun or abstract entity, which should not be posses
firstly to give to the recipient. It means that authority, ability, skill and
experience of the agent can give abstract noun to the recipient. Then, is there any
recipient does not receive or own although they had received the theme? Here, it
is the data which I collect.
(4a)Sebegitu cepatnya Anda menyerahkan segala-galanya kepada
How fast you relinquished everything to
Adv of manner Agent verb Theme Pre
37
(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 19)
In this case, the context of the word ‘segala-galanya’ refers to virginity. So,
‘Anda’ refers to the woman. When a woman gave her virginity to a man, the man
does not have virginity. It is similar to (4b) which proposed by Oehrle (1976:
22).
(4b) Nia gave John her telephone number.
(4a) and (4b) are same in which the recipient does not get the theme. However,
there are distinctions between them. The agent of (4a) lost her possession
(virginity). Nonetheless, probably, the agent of (4b) still has her number in which
the reading is ‘Nia dictated John her telephone number’. The other reading is ‘Nia
gave a scrap of paper which written her telephone number to John’. Therefore,
this case emphasizes that give-types verb do not involve caused motion because
there is no path from the source to the recipient or goal. The presence of
prepositional (to) does not mean the path exist in give—types verb in dative
alternation sentence.
I have discussed dative verb in which the theme are physical entity and
abstract noun. Absolutely, something that would be given is a noun whether it is
physical noun or abstract noun. The subjects of all data above are physical noun
which is Agent. Nevertheless, I found in my data collection that there are subjects
which are not physical entity. Davies (1994: 72) stated that give-types verb takes
tree arguments which can be thematically designated as AGENT, THEME, and
38
(5a)Kehadiran Aremania memberikan ketenangan kepada pemain.
Aremania’s attendance gave calm to player.
Subject Verb NP2 Pre NP1
(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 27)
‘kehadiran Aremania’ is not agent because it is not animate. It is causative or
force which caused an action mindlessly. Moreover, NP2 (calm) is predicational
noun; nominalization of a verb (see Oehrle 1976: 46). There is no ambiguity in
(5a). Nevertheless, if dative alternation consists of predicational noun and it is
double object, the ambiguity will arise. The ambiguity comes from the thematic
relation of NP1 (player). It may be theme of calm if the reading is ‘Aremania’s
attendance calm player’ in which subject caused player to be calm. The second
reading, NP1 may be agent if ‘Aremania’s attendance let player calm’ in which
the subject gave opportunity to calm. Yet, in the to-variant, the second reading is
not available. So, the proposal of Davies (1994) is not totally right. Subject is not
always an agent. There are several inanimate subjects in my data collection as
following:
(5b) Pengalaman pahit bisa memberikan inspirasi bagi seseorang. (Bitter experience can give inspiration for someone.)
(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 16)
(5c) Panjatan doa Nabi Ibrahim tersebut memberikan pelajaran bagi kita… (That spate of Prophet Ibrahim’s prayer gives a course for us)
(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 2)
Pengalaman pahait and panjatan doa Nabi Ibrahim are inanimate subject. Not
only that, but also there are many examples which propose by some linguists such
39
every journalist living in New York in the 1970s. I suggest that agent can be
replaced by causative or force. Therefore, I believe that there is no path from a
giver to the recipient/goal because inanimate subjects cannot possess noun
(theme), so that they cannot transfer it to the other. They can cause only without
responsibility.
In (5b) and (5c) do not use to as prepositional. Meanwhile, they use for as
prepositional variant. I already stated that in this study, I focus in double object
variant and to-variant only. Yet, I want to allude it at glance. Actually, in English
dative alternation there is no give-types verb classification of for-dative verbs. It is
consistent with Green (1974) in Oehrle (1976: 110). He classified for-dative verbs
into five classes as follow:
2 Verbs denoting activities involving selection
Buy, purchase, find, get, choose, pick out, gather, save, take, etc.
3 Verbs denoting performance considered artistic
5 Benefactive construction Rob me a bank
Table 4.1.1.
For-dative verbs
Therefore, in this case, Indonesian dative alternation differs to English dative
40
All data above is active voice (active sentence). In English, dative
alternation is available in active and passive. Indonesian language also has dative
alternation in active voice and passive voice. I found some passive form of dative
alternation in my source of data. I put them in the following table to show the
differences and similarities between passive forms of dative alternation and
active forms of dative alternation.
Indonesian
Passive Active
6a Kepala sekolah itu telah diberi
sanksi teguran oleh Dinas
Pendidikan kota Mojokerto. (That headmaster had been given rebuke
Sekolah itu teguran. (Mojokerto
educational government had given that headmaster rebuke)
6b Detektif cilik sering diberi cemilan
oleh Pak Kadir. (Kid detective used to give kid detective snack)
6c Rapel gaji diberikan secara
langsung kepada tenaga honorer
K-2. (overdue salary was given directly to K-2 honorary worker) (Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 39)
… memberikan rapel gaji secara
langsung kepada tenaga honorer
K-2. (….gave overdue salary
directly to K-2 honorary worker)
41
forfeited to Todung)
(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 11)
Todung)
Table 4.1.2.
Passive form of Give-types verb in Indonesian Dative Alternation
Passive form of Indonesian dative alternation can be identified by several points.
First are affixes. The passive form of to-variant can be seen in (6c) and (6d). In
to-variant the root beri added by prefix di to show passive verb form of sentence
(Warsiman, 2012: 13) and suffix kan to show that is prepositional object in
which be followed by preposition kepada, then followed by Recipient . In
contrast, (6a) and (6b) are double object which do not added by suffix kan.
Therefore, they are not followed by proposition, but followed by theme. The
second differences are hidden Agent. In to-variant the Agent is hidden. The
reason why does it is hidden will explain further in 4.2.
Related to table 4.1.2, if Indonesian double objects passive forms ((6a)
and (6b)) changed into the active form it seems like strange sentence. The reason
is that I did not find give-types verb in double object variant like them in my
source of data. The double object variant which I found is like (7a) and (7b)
(7a)Terima kasih telah memberiku kesempatan mengajar.
Thank you already given me opportunity instructing.
Goal Theme
42
(7b) Sang ayah kerap memberinya tugas mengocok adaonan. Respectful father often give her task mixing dough.
Agent Goal Theme
(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 23)
Both of these sentences followed by pronoun after give. However, the pronoun in
(7a) and (7b) stick to the event type verb; give. It means that those pronouns use
their short forms; -ku, the short form of aku which has meaning ‘me’; -nya the
short form of dia which has meaning ‘his/her’. Absolutely, (7a) and (7b) have
possession meaning only because there is no prepositional to which manipulate
the reading to guess these sentences have caused motion meaning. (7a) means
that me has the opportunity to teach. Here, the agent is not mentioned. So, I do
know exactly whose have the opportunity firstly. Based on explanation above,
opportunity includes in abstract entity which must not be transferred from A to
B. Then, (7b) means the father has a task to mix the dough in which the father
caused his daughter does his task. In short words, the daughter have the task
because of her father gave it.
Back to the passive form of Indonesian give-types verb, I guess that it is
similar to the passive form of English give-types verb. To make clear cut
understanding, I already put the passive form of English give-types verb in the
table below. Now, let’s compare passive form of Indonesian dative alternation in
43
Code English
Active Passive
8a … gave a book to me A book was given to me
8b (He) gave me a book I was given a book (by him)
Table 4.1.3.
Passive form of English Dative Alternation (taken from One-Soon Her’s ‘Lexical Mapping Theory Revisited’)
According to the both tables, there is no tight difference between English and
Indonesian dative alternation in passive form. Nevertheless, in English passive
form of double object variant, adding Theme is optional, yet in Indonesian does
not so. Then, in English passive form, there is no change in the verb form
whether in prepositional object or double object.
To entrust that give-types verb do not have path or caused motion
meaning, for instance the to phrase with give-type verb cannot be questioned by
the locative wh-word; where (di mana) (Levinson 2005 in RH&L 2008), but the
to phrase with send-types verb. It can be seen as follow:
(9a) * Where did you give those animals?
(9b) Where did you send those animals? To the jungle/To zoo
The answer of (9b) is ‘I send the animals to the jungle’. Related to this case, (9a)
can be answer if the wh-question by TO WHOM. So, the answer may be ‘To
Ermi/To zoo keeper’. Absolutely, ‘to whom’ refers to the animate. Meanwhile,
send-types verb can be followed by inanimate complement after prepositional to,
such as ‘jungle’ in (9b), yet, it does not apply in give-types verb (except
44
Knowing that give-types verb cannot be questioned by where, send-types
verb can be questioned by both of them.
(9c) To whom did you send the package? To my mother / to Julian
(9b) Where did you send the package? To Tuban / to Madiun / to Surabaya
Implicitly, give-types verb can be questioned by TO WHOM only, but send-types
verb can be questioned by both (TO WHOME and WHERE). It implies that
give-types verb have one entailed meaning only; it is caused possession meaning.
Meanwhile, send-types verb may have two entail meanings; it is caused
possession meaning and caused motion meaning.
RH&L proposal can be applied in Indonesian also, like the following:
(9e) *Kemana kamu memberi surat itu?
(9f) Kepada siapa kamu memberi surat itu? Kepada pamanku
(9c) is not correct grammar and the correct one is (9f). But, kemana and kepada
siapa can apply in Indonesian send-types verb.
Concerning to send-types verb can accept inanimate and animate recipient or
goal; it intends that in thematic role, send-types verb apply Goal. The following
data are the kinds of Indonesian send-types verb sentence in different recipient.
(10a) Sapi akan dikirim ke rumah pemotongan hewan… Cow will was sent to house slaughtering animal… THEME Mod V Pre GOAL
