BUKU PERSEMBAHAN KEPADA PROF. DR. ARON MEKO MBETE MEMASUKI MASA PURNA TUGAS
DEWAN ?Ei-lYUNTING I Nengah Sudipa Made Sri Satyawati
ANGGOT A PENYUNTING
Veronika Genua Lanny I.D.
Koroh I Gusti Agung Sri Rwa Jayantini
PENATASAMPUL Made Henra Dwikarmawan Sudipa
PENATA LETAK Putu Edi
Diterbitkan :
Program Magister dan Doktor IImu Linguistik Fakultas IImu Budaya-Universitas Udayana 2017
Percetakan:
SWASTA NULUS
JI. Tukad Batanghari VI B No.9 Denpasar Bali Telp. (0361) 241230 Email: [email protected]
Cetakan Pertama
September 2017, xxxiv + 1501 halaman, 15,5 x 23 em
ISBN:
978-602-7599-54-3
DAFTAR ISI
Purwakata ... ... . Refleksi ... ... . Apresiasi ... ... . Kontemplasi ... ... . Daftar Isi ... :.: ... . Sambutan Dekan Fakultas Ilmu Budaya ... .
v
Vll l Xll XVll XXI XXV
Kumpulan Artikel
1. BUDAYA AUSTRONESIA Ni Luh Sutjiati
Beratha, I Wayan Ardika ... 3 2. LEKS IKON BAHASA BALI Rona
MEREFLEKSIKAN RITUAL MASY ARAKA T
HINDU I Nengah Sudipa ... 12 4. Rona PUTIH PADA MASYARAKAT BALI:
KAJIAN X-PHEMISME Gede Doddi Raditya
Diputra ... 23
4. KETERANCAMAN KEDUDUKAN BAHASA
BALI SEBAGAI BAHASA IBU ProfDrs. I Made
Suastra Ph.DDra. Ni Nyoman Baktiari, Msi ... 30
5. KIDUNG INTERAKTIF DI PANGGUNG
ELEKTRONIK: ALIH W AHANA SASTRA BALI TRADISIONAL DI RADIO DAN
TELEVISI *), I Nyoman Darma Putra ... 45
Rona Bahasa I xxi I
-~~'--",.-."~
I,
I i
UNDERSTANDING MULTICUL TURAL
THE SOCIETY
6. BALI
IN A GLOBALISED WORLD, I Ketut Ardhana ... . GEDING/SEKAR RARE SEBAGAI MEDIA PEMBELAJARAN BAHASA ANAK BERBASIS
LINGKUNGAN, I Wayan Simpen ... 91 8. KONSEPTUALISASI DAN DINAMlKA
BUDAYA GOTONG ROYONG DALAM REALITAS SOSIAL ETNIK RONGGA DI FLORES, Fransiskus Bustan, Agustinus Semiun,
dan Hendrikus Pous ... 99 70 7
.
9. PERIBAHASA TINJAUAN
EPISTEMOLOGISNY A, I Ketut Darmalaksana 119 10. PRODUKTIVITAS PREFIKS {MA-} DALAM
BAHASA BALI, I Nyoman Kardana, Made Sri
Satyawati ...128 DAN
11. P ARRHESIA KEKUASAAN SASTRAWAN DALAM MENGUNGKAPKAN
KEBENARAN, Maria Matildis Banda ... 143 12. KONSEP W AKTU DALAM BAHASA JEPANG:
DARI BUDA Y A POLIKRONIK KE BUDAY A MONOKRONIK, Ketut Widya Purnawati, Ketut
Artawa ... 165 13. BAHASA DAN KEUTUHAN BANGSA:
EUFEMISME DAN UJARAN KEBENCIAN
Oktavianus ... 190 14. KEAGENAN
KLAUSA
SUBJEK GRAMATlKAL PENTOPlKALAN BAHASA MINANGKABAU,Jujrizal ... 199
xxii
I
Rona Bahasa15.ANCANGAN KAJIAN EKOLINGUISTIK KRITIS DALAM WACANA HIJAU: ANALISIS KELINGUISTlKAN YANG PROSPEKTIF,
Fathur Rokhmanl dan Tommi Yuniawan ... 222
16. BALINESE LEXICAL REFLEXIVES, I Nyoman
Udayana ... :... 248 17. HAK LINGUAL KULTURAL SUKU BANGSA
DAN STRATEGI PEMBERDAYAAN: Studi Kasus Undang-Undang Otonomi Khusus di Tanah
Papua Hugo Warami ... ... .... 272 18.MEMPERTEMUKAN MORFOLOGI DAN
LINGUISTIK KORPUS: KAJIAN KONSTRUKSI PEMBENTUKAN KATA KERJA [PER+AJEKTIVA] DALAM BAHASA INDONESIA Gede Primahadi-Wijaya-Rajeg dan I
Made Rajeg ... 288 19. PERJUANGAN MASYARAKAT KOLOK DI
DESA BENGKALA BULELENG MENINGKATKAN KUALITAS HIDUP
MELALUI BUDAY A Dian Rahmani Putri ... 328 20. TUNUHA DALAM PERSPEKTIF
EKOLINGUISTIK Nirmalasari, Lili Darlian ... 348 21. KAJIAN FILSAF A T ANALITIK BAHASA
DALAM MODERNISASI TERHADAP PERKEMBANGAN FUNGSI DAN KONSEP
BAHASA UNIVERSAL, Maulid Taembo ... 370 22. VERBA LEMP AR BAHASA SASAK: KAJIAN
MET ABAHASA SEMANTIK ALAMI Irma
Setiawan ... 397
Rona Bahasa
I
xx:ii I23. HlKA Y AT ME LA YU DALAM TRADISI LISAN BAKAYATSASAK(SEBUAHPENELUSURAN
SEJARAH) Suyasa, I Made ... ... 417 24.STRA TEGI PEMBELAJARAN KANJI
MENGGUNAKAN METODE MNEMONIC*) I
Gede Oeinada ... 449 25. KHAZANAH LEKSIKON KEPADIAN SAWAH
KOMUNITAS TUTUR SUNDA : KAJIAN
EKOLINGUISTIK Lien Darlina, Rosbaedi ... 491
Profil penyunting
xxiv I Rona Bahasa
|248| Rona Bahasa
16. BALINESE LEXICAL REFLEXIVES I Nyoman Udayana
Faculty of Arts, Udayana University [email protected]
Abstract
Lexical reflexives in Balinese manifest themselves with the middle voice marker ma- (and rarely with nasal prefix N-) attached to a verb root. The middle verb that enters into lexical reflexivity constitutes an action verb and the construal of its reflexivity can be predicted from the covert or overt presence of a (simple) reflexive cliticized to the verb root. Inherent in this type of middle verbs are body action middles.It isarguedthen that a body action middle, in and of itself,isreflexive, running counter to Kemmer’s (1993, 1994) claim.
Keywords: lexical reflexives, incorporated forms, clitic, middle marker
I. INTRODUCTION
Is a body action middle lexical reflexive?
Balinese has a middle voice system which is marked by the prefix ma-, which itself serves as an intransitive marker. Thus, the formma- has a detransitivizing effect when used for designating middle-marking verbs which are semantically dyadic/divalent or triadic/trivalent.
Looking at the middle constructions that behave in this manner, I appeal to the transitive/intransitive alternation to detect the meaning or property of the middle construction in question.
There are two kinds of derived constructions that can be associated with the use of the transitive/intransitive alternation. First, an intransitive clause (with an MV-marking) can be derived from a transitive clause (with an AV-marking) and the subject of the derived clause is the patient argument of the erstwhile clause yielding a medio-passive construction, i.e. a middle construction resembling a passive construction.
(1) a. I Nyoman meli buku ento ART Nyoman AV.buy book that ‘I Nyoman bought the book’
|249| Rona Bahasa
b. Buku ento mabeli book that MV.buy
‘The book was bought’
(2) a. I Ketut ngadep sampi ene ART Ketut AV.sell cow this
‘I Ketut sold the cow’
b. Sampi ene maadep cow this MV.sell
‘The cow sold/ the cow was sold’
Second, the derived sentences are middles (with MV-marking) whose subject corresponds to the agentargument of the transitive clause and they are always interpreted as lexically reflexive constructions as shown in (b) sentences which, with respect to the situation type, are called body- care middles (Kemmer 1993, 1994).
(3) a, Ia ngumbah awak/ anak cerik ento 3 AV.wash self/ person small that
‘(S)he washed herself/himself/ the small child’
b. Ia maumbah 3 MV.wash
‘(S)he washed herself/himself’
(4) a I meme nyemuhin awak/ anak ento ART mother AV.sunbathe self/ person that
‘Mother sunbathed herself/the child’
b. I meme majemuh
ART mother MV.sunbathe
‘Mother sunbathed herself’
In this paper I am concerned with the middles of this second type or specifically middles that exhibit lexical reflexives. However, lexical reflexivity as shown by body-care middles is not considered as a reflexive per se in Kemmer (1993, 1994). In what follows I am going to show that
|250| Rona Bahasa
they are reflexives. First of all let us have a look at Kemmer’s (1993) claim that dissociates middles from reflexives.
Kemmer argues that body care middles such as the ones in (3b) and (4b) are not an instance of reflexives. The middle verb maumbah ‘wash oneself’ in 3(b), for example, is taken as having initiating and endpoint entities but conceived of as having a single participant. With the reflexive type in (3a) headed by the verb ngumbah ‘wash’, on the other hand, the action involved is considered as involving a two-participant event which happens to be realized by one entity. Despite the fact that the two situation types have one thing in common in that the two have a single referent, she maintains that they are conceptually different. Bysymbolizing an action attributing to them (middles and reflexives)as a circle; a middle type is described as having one circle representing the initiating and end point of the action. The reflexive situation type, on the other hand, is described as having two circles with the first representing the initiating point while the second the end point. Crucially, the conception of initiator-endpoint action is taken to be a determining factor that distinguishes the two situation types in terms of distinguishability of participant event hierarchy as illustrated in (5), in which a reflexive is taken as leaning towards the left (a two- participant event) while a middle leaning toward the right (a one-participant event)(Kemmer 1993:
73).
(5) Two-participant Reflexive Middles One-participant
Event Event
+ -
To support her claim, Kemmer (1993), following Faltz (1977:7), notes that the difference between body action middles and reflexives has to do with whether the subject of a sentence is human or not. In body action middles, only a human subject is possible while in the reflexive, only non human subject is appropriate as shown by the following English examples (Kemmer 1993:
53).
(6) a. Tiger was washing himself [where Tiger is a cat]
b. John washed/John got washed [where John is my brother]
|251| Rona Bahasa
While it is clear that a middle clause in (6b) is only linked to humans while a reflexive in (6a) to nonhuman. The reflexive-middle distinction shown in (6) is not convincing, however. Lidz (2001) approaches this problem somewhat differently; it is the reflexive of (6a) type that he classifies as near-reflexive, i.e. the possibility of taking a non-identical antecedent, while that of type (6b) as a real reflexive. Following Jackendoff (1992), he claims that syntactic reflexives can exhibit a near- reflexive while lexically reflexive verb (body care verb) cannot. He illustrates the situation by a statue that portrays Ringo Starr. Suppose that Ringo Starr visits the museum of Madame Tussauds, which contains a wax statue that portrays him as a bearded man which he does not like then he might take a razor to change his portrayed image, the reflexive that best illustrates this situation is (7a) not (7b). Suppose also that he is portrayed as a man without beard in MmeTussauds museum and he likes this image but he has beard with him, he might take a razor to change his look so the action/the reflexive that can illustrate this situation can be either (7a) or (7b).
(7) a. Ringor Starr shaves himself b. Ringor Starr shaves
On the basis of this fact, sentence (6a) might also have the effect of near-reflexive reading.As is well known that animals can also perform some action resembling that of a human being;thus, sentence (6a) in and of itself can also be taken as a real reflexive in the sense of Lidz (2001) in which the cat tiger can go into a river or some kind of body of water to take care of its filthy body or to avoid the heat of the sun.Consider also the following example:
(8) Thecat washesseveral times a day (dictionary.die.net/wash)
Thus on this view, body care verb can also be attributed to nonhumans (animals) although the number of body-actions tied to them is certainly very limited in comparison with those tied to humans.
Lidz (2001) also uses data from Kannada to corroborate his claim. In (9a), is an intrinsically reflexive verb, thus ‘statue reading’ is impossible; while (9b) contains a syntactic reflexive, thus near-reflexive reading is achieved and ‘statue reading’ is also possible, see Lidz (2001) for more discussion.
|252| Rona Bahasa
(9) a. Hari tann-annu nooḍ-i-koṇ̣ḍa
Hari self-ACC see-PP-REFL-PST-3SM
‘Hari saw himself (=Hari, *statue)’ (Lidz 2001: 128) b. Hari tann-annu-taane nooḍ-id-a
Hari self-ACC-self see-PST-3SM
‘Hari saw himself (=Hari or statue)’ (Lidz 2001: 128)
Quite in a different view, however, Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and Reuland (2011), claim that a middle verb denoting body action such as maumbah‘wash’ above is reflexive.
Investigating languages that have two different forms of reflexive:simple reflexive (SE) as in Dutchzich and Norwegian seg, and complex reflexive(ZELF) as in Dutch zichzelf, and Norwegian segselv.1This phenomenon of reflexivizationappears in languages having a two-middle system (Kemmer1993). Note that the simple reflexive such aszich is used for determining an intrinsic reflexivization while its complex reflexive counterpart is used for exhibiting extrinsic reflexifization as shown in the following examples.2
1 The simple reflexive zich which is abbreviated as SE and the complex reflexive which is referred to ZELF are respectively considered as having universal characteristics. Following the generalization developed by Pica (1987) and Faltz (1985), Reinhart and Reuland (1993) claim that, besides indicating intrinsic reflexivity, the simple anaphor (SE) is also taken to be universally anti local in that it can be long-distance bound while the complex reflexive (ZELF) is universally local. This generalization is merely a tendency not universal (Huang 2000). Data on Balinese reflexives, complex reflexives not simple reflexives play a role as a long distance anaphors, support Huang’s claim.
The claim that the simple reflexive zich can be long-distance bound can be illustrated in the following examples. Sentence (ia), zich behaves like a pronominal in that its syntactic position can be filled by a pronoun. This is also supported in (ib) where it is anteceded by the subject of the matrix clause. Sentence (ic) is ungrammatical because the complex reflexive zichzelf is strictly local.
(i) a. Jan wast zich / Karel Jan washes self Karel ‘Jan washes himself/ Karel’
b. Max horde mij over sizh praten Max heard me about self speak
‘Max heard me talk about him’
c. *Max horde mij over sizhzelf praten Max heard me about selfself speak ‘Max heard me talk about him’
2Indeed the simple reflexive sizh in Dutch is connected to middle marking. Another type of middle called emotional middle is also found to take this reflexive as shown in the following example taken from Everaert (1993: 84).
|253| Rona Bahasa
(10) a. *Max haat zich Max hates self
‘Max hates himself’
b. Max haat zichzelf Max hates selfself
‘Max hates himself’
c. Max wast zich Max washes self
‘Max washes himself’
Example (10a) which is headed by the verb haat ‘hates’ is not compatible with the simple reflexive zich, however, when it takes a complex reflexive zichzelf in (10b) the resulting sentence turns out to be grammatical. Interestingly when another type of verb, a body care verb in the sense of Kemmer (1993, 1994), takes a simple reflexive, sentence (10c) is perfectly grammatical in contrast with (10a)3. Given these binding facts, Reinhart and Reuland contend that a sentence such as (10c) exhibits an intrinsic reflexivization which in Dutch happens to be marked by a reflexive marker but in other languages such as English it has no marking on the verb. 4Sentence (10b) indicates extrinsic reflexivization.
Reinhart and Reulandclaim that binding theory should have been able to account for these facts, which we turn to in the next sub-section.
II. LEXICAL REFLEXIVITY AND BINDING THEORY
Binding Theory so far formulated only fare well in favor of syntactic reflexivity, ignoring the fact that there exists a predicate that has intrinsic reflexivity. Thus, to account for this fact,
(ii) Jan scahmdezich/ *zichzelf
‘Jan was ashamed’
4 The same true in English, when the verb wash does take an object, the reflexive reading obtains as illustrated in (iii).
(iii) John washes
[= John washes himself]’
[ John washes someone else]
|254| Rona Bahasa
Reinhart and Reuland(1993: 660) propose that reflexivizationisa property of a predicate. The formulation is statable in (11).
(11) Condition A
A reflexive-marked (syntactic) predicate is reflexive Condition B
A Reflexive (semantic) predicate is reflexive-marked
Definitions
a. A predicate is reflexive iff two of its argument are co-indexed b. A predicate (P) is reflexive-marked iff
i. P is lexically reflexive, or one of P’s arguments is SELF anaphor, or ii. One of P’s argument is a SELF anaphor
iii. A SELF anaphor is morphologically complex anaphor
To conclude, lexical reflexivity marking correlates with middle marking associated with the language in question. If the lexical reflexive is unmarked, the middle associated with the language is also unmarked. Similarly, if a lexical reflexive is marked, the middle associated with the language is also marked. An interesting point relates to a language that has two reflexive markers:
simple and complex form. If the reflexive form is used as a middle marker, the choice is always the simple form.
(12)
Lexical Reflexive marking Middle marking
Simple reflexive form Yes
Complex reflexive form No
Zero form/unmarked Yes
|255| Rona Bahasa
III. THE TYPES OF LEXICAL REFLEXIVES IN BALINESE
As noted above, lexically reflexive constructions in Balinese are middle-marked. Each of the constructions can be identified with whether or not it takes a reflexive form. It has to be noted that Balinese has two reflexive forms: complex reflexive forms and a simple reflexive forms. If a middle construction takes a reflexive marker, it is always realized by the simple reflexive (awak/
iba/raga/dewek/ipun ‘self’). Let us just refer to the lexical reflexivity that appears in the syntax without reflexive forms as unmarked forms while those that take it as marked forms. The marked forms can be further partitioned into the forms that take obligatory simple reflexive (incorporated form) and the forms that take optional simple reflexive (causative form) which can also be subdivided into two forms: the ones that take one causative morpheme(-an) and those that take two causative morphemes (pa- and –an), which I will simply call one-causatives form and two- causative formsrespectively. Thus, there arepreciselyfour types of lexical reflexivity(in Balinese) which can be stated as follows.
(13) a. Unmarked forms b. One-causative forms c. Two-causative forms d. Incorporated form
3.1 Unmarked forms
The unmarked forms are essentially middles denoting body action verbs. Some of the body action verbshave been exemplified but in this section more examples are given including the division of body-care verbs into two: actions that onlyinvolve parts of the body and those involving all parts of the body. This partition has the same characterization. Its roots can be either realized by a verb or a noun. However, as noted by Arka (2003),a rootcan be bound or pre-categorial in that we cannot assign a meaning or a grammatical category (V, N, etc.) to the root prior to being bound by an affix. For example,the rootsugiis categorically a verb only after it takes a verbal affix such as -an orma- to respectively form sugian or masugi, then it means ‘wash one’s face’. Thus,
|256| Rona Bahasa
in the following paradigms, if a word root is precategorial/bound, meaning is only given to its middle form.5
(14) Body parts
Root Middle form
suah ‘comb’ masuah‘comb oneself’
-sugi masugi ‘wash one’s face
pupur ‘powder’ mapupur ‘apply powder on one’s face’
enci ‘lipstick’ maenci ‘put lipstick on one’s lips’
cilak ‘eye shadow’ macilak ‘apply eye shadow on one’s eyelids’
sisig ‘tobacco used to clean teeth’ masisig ‘to clean one’s teeth using sisig’
sikat ‘brush’ masikat ‘brush one’s teeth using toothpaste’
kemuh ‘mouth-wash’ makemuh‘rinse one’s mouth’
kuris ‘shave’ makuris ‘shave oneself’
ambuh ‘wash hair’ maambuh ‘wash one’s hair’
kaca‘mirror’ makaca ‘look at oneself in the mirror’
meka ‘mirror’ mameka ‘look at oneself in the mirror’
baseh‘wash’ mabaseh ‘wash one’s hands or feet’
(15) Whole parts of the body
jemuh ‘sunbathe’ majemuh ‘sunbathe oneself’
kidu‘warm oneself’ makidu ‘warm oneself near the fire’
embon ‘shady’ maembon/*ngembon ‘protect one’s body against the heat of the sun or rain’
etis ‘cool’ maetis/ngetis ‘to place oneself in a cool place’
umbah ‘wash’ maumbah ‘wash oneself’
boreh ‘wet powder’ maboreh ‘apply boreh on one’s body’
payas ‘dress’ mapayas ‘dress oneself’
5A root can be bound or precategorial because it can derive words of more than one grammatical category. For example, from the root silur, one can obtain the verb siluran ‘replace’ but a noun can also be derived from the same root as in pasilur ‘substitute/change’. Thus obviously, the root itself is unclear in terms of its grammatical category and its meaning. In the case of sugi, besides forming a derived verb such as masugi, a derived noun pasugian is also available which means ‘the place for washing face’
|257| Rona Bahasa
As noted above, Middle marking in Balinese corresponds to intransitive marking (prefix ma- and nasal prefix N-). Although generally speaking, it is ma- prefix that plays a role as a middle marker.
However, in a minority of verbs, N- prefix can also serve as a middle marker as seen in ngetis which is an alternative form of maetis. However, which middle verb can take N- form is not clearly predictable as seen in the impossibility of ngembon when taken as an alternative form of maembon
‘to place oneself in a shady place’.
The action performed tied to body partsand whole body parts leads to different reflexive readings. Ideally, reflexive action involved the whole body. However, the middle verbs related to body parts can be ambiguous between possessive reflexive reading and pronominal reflexive reading as seen in (16). Note that the middle form is the same across registers (low, mid, and high registers) but it is different only in the lexicon (the NP subject and the verb root).
.
(16) a. Cang masugi (low register)
1 MV.wash.face (i) ‘I washed my face’
(ii) ‘I (face-)washed myself’
b. Ipun maraup (mid register)
3 MV.wash.face
(i) ‘(S)he washed his/her face’
(ii) ‘(S)he (face-)washed herself/himself’
c. Ida maraup (high register)
3 MV.wash.face
(i) ‘(S)he washed his/her face’
(ii) ‘(S)he (face)-washed herself/himself’
The same possessive reflexivereadings also obtain when we have recourse to AV clauses
(17) a. Cang nyugi(-n)-in mua
1 AV.wash.face(LK)-CAUS face
‘I wash my face’
|258| Rona Bahasa
b. Ida ngraupin prarai
3 AV.wash.face-CAUSE face ‘(S)he wash his/her face’
(18) a. Cang nyugi(-n)-in awak
1 AV.wash.face.(LK)-CAUS self
‘I (face-)washed myself’
b. Ida ngraupin raga
3 AV.wash.face.CAUS self ‘(S)he (face-)washed herself/himself’
Note that the presence of the causative affix –in in AV clauses in (17) and (18) is obligatory otherwise the resulting sentences are ungrammatical as shown in (19). However, in the middle forms as seen above the causative morpheme is dropped without affecting the grammaticality of the sentence.
(19) a. *Icang nyugi mua
1 AV.wash.face face
‘I washed my face’
b *Ida ngraup prarai
3 AV.wash.face face
‘(S)he washed her/his face’
c *Ipun ngraup dewek
3 AV.wash.face self
‘(S)he (face-)washed herself/himself’
3.2 One Causative Form
This middle type takes a root, causative morpheme, plus an optional simple reflexive.
Likethe roots of unmarked forms, the roots of one-causative formscan also be bound/ precategorial, which is marked with no meaning. As noted, this middle type takes optional simple reflexive form and I just use the simple reflexive awak to represent one of the possible simple reflexive forms
|259| Rona Bahasa
that the verb in question can take. The evidence that makes the simple reflexive optionally appear lies in the fact that the verb root takes causative morpheme –an(g) in the middle forms, which as noted make this middle type distinct from the unmarked type.Note also that verbs indication body action middles can also take part in this middle type such asmaememan ‘make oneself immersed in the water’. Since these middle forms take one causative morpheme and optional reflexive, I subsume them under one-causative form type.
Root Middle form
seliah maseliahan (awak) ‘make oneself have a break’
dabdab ‘prepared in madabdaban (awak) ‘make oneself prepared’
an orderly slow manner’
tragia ‘ready’ matragian (awak) ‘make oneself ready’
selsel ‘regret’ maselselan (awak) ‘make oneself regret one’s deeds’
nyelsel (awak)
tegteg ‘calm/steady’ mategtegan (awak)‘make oneself do something calmly’
kitip ‘do something freely’ makitipan (awak) ‘make oneself do something freely’
emem ‘immerse’ maememan (awak) ‘make oneself immersed in the water’
(20) a. Ia maseliahan (awak/dewek/iba/raga)
3 MV.have.a.break.CAUS self
‘(S)he allowedherself/himself to have a break’
b. Ia nyeliahan awak/dewek/iba/raga 3 AV.have.a.break.CAUS self
‘(S)he allowed herself/himself to have a break’
Interestingly,the intransitive prefix N- is also available in this type of middle as seen in (20b).
Notice that the ma- form such as the one in (20a) consistently takes the cause morpheme –an, and the optional simple reflexive form. However, the middle in (21c) does not take the causative morpheme but the reflexive form it takes is optional. The mismatch is expected because if the
|260| Rona Bahasa
causative morpheme were retained, it would be no difference from the transitive reflexive form as in (21a).6
(21) a. Ia nyelselan awak/dewek/iba/raga 3 AV.regret.CAUSE self
‘(S)he regretted herself/himself’
b. Ia maselselan (awak/dewek/iba/raga) 3 MV.regret.CAUSE self
‘(S)he regretted herself/himself’
c. Ia nyelsel (awak/dewe/iba/raga) 3 MV.regret self
‘(S)he regretted herself/himself’
3.3 Two-Causative Form
Unlike the one-causative form type, this two-causative form type is more restricted. The formative pa- has a number of different uses such as a nominalizer (Kersten 1984). She also notes that one of its uses relates to causative marker, which is reminiscentof the causative morpheme per- in Indonesian. Thus compare the following examples:
Indonesian
(22) a. Besar-kan
‘big-CAUS’
‘Make something big’
b. Per-besar CAUS-big
‘Make something bigger’
c. Per-besar(-kan) CAUS-big-CAUS
‘Make something bigger’
6This serves as evidence that Balinese middle marker corresponds to intransitive marker and of the two intransitive markers: ma- and N-, it is the former that is widely used.
|261| Rona Bahasa Balinese
(23) a. Gede-(n)-an big-(LK)-CAUS
‘Make something big’
b. * Pa-gede CAUS-big
‘Make something bigger’
c. Pa-gede-(n)-an CAUS-big-CAUS
‘Make something bigger’
Root Middle form
angen‘compassionate’ mapangenan (awak) ‘cause oneself to be more angenan ‘cause to be compassionate’ compassionate’/regret oneself’
pangenan ‘cause to be more compassionate’
kiken mapakikenan (awak) ‘make oneself more ready’
kikenan ‘make ready;
pakikenan ‘make more ready’
itung ‘consider’ mapaitungan ‘cause oneself to consider more itungan ‘cause to consider’ (lit.)/‘cause oneself to act more deliberatively’
paitugan ‘cause to considermore’
(24) a. Ia mangenan awak/dewek/ iba/raga 3 MV.regret.CAUS self
‘(S)he regretted herself/himself’
b. Ia mapangenan (awak/dewek/iba/raga)
3 MV.CAUS.regret.CAUS self
‘(S)he regretted herself/himself’
|262| Rona Bahasa 3.4 Incorporated Form
This form of middles is very restricted in Balinese. The root is realized by a noun which semantically understood as a relational noun (Udayana and Beavers 2013).
Root Middle form
dagang ‘trader’ madagangawak/dewek/iba/raga ‘sell oneself’
capil ‘hat’ macapil ‘ have a hat on’
The reflexive element cliticized to the verb is obligatory. Thus the omission of the clitcized element does not trigger (lexical) reflexivity, as shown in (25c). Note that the verb madagang closely related to its active form adep ‘sell’. However when this verb takes ma-form, it must be interpreted as belonging to a medio passive which is shown by the fact that the middle verb maadep cannot combine with the reflexive element, as illustrated in (26c).
(25) a. Ia madagang awak/dewek/iba/raga 3 MV.trader self
‘(S)he sold herself/himself’
b. Ia madagang awak/dewek/iba/raga 3 MV.trader self
‘(S)he sold herself/himslf’
c. Ia madagang 3 MV.trader
‘(S)he sells something’
(26) a. Ia ngadep awak/dewek/iba/raga 3 AV.sell self
‘(S)he sold herself/himself’
b. *Ia maadep awak/dewe/iba/raga 3 MV.sell self
‘(S)he sells’
|263| Rona Bahasa
IV. Syntactic Structures of Balinese Lexical Reflexives
All types of Balinese lexical reflexives can uniformly be taken as a structure in which the verb root headed by the ma-form takes a dyadic predicate XP complement (which can be a VP or NP) and the XP complement may further take an NP complement which is eventually incorporated into the ma-from. This operation is assumed to be achieved by head to head movement.
First let us consider the unmarked form lexical reflexive, as shown in (27). The tree diagram depicts the situation that the dyadic verb is incorporated into the ma-form and the NP predicate does take any complement, indicating that the middle verb is interpreted as inherently reflexive.
(27) TP
NP VP
V int VP ma-
V dyadic
One-causative form and two-causative form reflexives have the same c-structure representation in which the dyadic VP predicate is incorporated into the ma-form. And this NP predicate complement further takes an optional object (which is realized by the simple reflexive element).
|264| Rona Bahasa (28) TP
NP VP
V int VP ma-
V dyadic (NP)
Finally, the incorporated form lexical reflexive is illustrated in (29). The predicate NP complement is a relational N which is obviously dyadic. This NP complement further takes obligatory reflexive element ensuring the resulting middle verb to have the lexical reflexive interpretation.
(29) TP
NP VP
V int NP ma-
N dyadic NP refl
V. CONCLUSION
The ma-form in Balinese is traditionally understood as an intransitive marker. Following Kemmer (1993, 1994), I have shown that the ma-form serves as the exponent of middle marker.
There are many situation types associated with the ma-forms, one of them being what is referred to as body action middles by Kemmer (1993). Body action middles in Balinese encode reflexivity, either with covert or overt (simple) reflexive element, awak/dewek/iba/raga ‘self’, cliticized to a verb base. This paper argues that body action middles are an instance of lexical reflexives, rejecting Kemmer’s (1993) claim that dissociates them from reflexivity. To support the claim, the
|265| Rona Bahasa
transitive/intransitive alternation strategy is adopted in which the interpretation of the body action middles can be detected. It is shown that the meaning of the (transitive) form is preserved in the intransitive (middle) form and importantly reflexivity interpretation is also well maintained even though the presence of the reflexive element is covertly or overtly required in the ma-form.
References
Ackema, Peter and MaaikeSchoorlemmer. 1994. “The Middle Construction and the Syntax- Semantics Interface” in Lingua, 93: 59-90.
Ackema, Peter and MaaikeSchoorlemmer. 1995. “Middles and Non movement” in Lingua, 26:
173-197.
Arka, I Wayan. 2003. Balinese Morphosyntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Canberra:
PacificLinguistics, School of Pacific and Asian Studies, the Australian National University.
Authier, J-Marc and Lisa Reed. 1996. “On the Canadian French Middle” in LinguisticInquiry, Condoravdi, C. 1989. The Middle: Where Semantics and Morphology Meet. In MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 11, 18-30. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Syntax and Semantics: Lexical Functional Grammar. New York:
Academic Press.
Everaert, Martin. 1993. “Contextual Determination of the Anaphor/Pronominal Distinction” in Long-Distance Anaphora. Koster, Jan and Eric Reuland (eds.)
Fagan, Sarah M.B. 1988. “The English Middle” in Linguistic Inquiry, 19:181-203
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland Publishing.
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaufman,Inggrid. 2007. “Middle Voice” in Lingua 177, 1677-1714.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1994. Middle Voice, Transitivity, and Events. Voice: Form and Function, ed.
by Barbara A. Fox and Paul J. Hopper. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kersten, J S.V.D. 1984. Bahasa Bali. Ende: Penerbit Nusa Indah.
Keyser, Jay Samuel and Thomas Roeper. 1984. “On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English” in Linguistic Inquiry, 15: 381-416
|266| Rona Bahasa
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2001. ‘Condition R’ in Linguistic Inquiry, 32: 123-140
Marelj, Marijana. 2004. Middles and Argument Structure across Languages. Doctoral Dissertation, OTS, Utrecht University.
Matthews, P.H. 2007. Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nichols, Johanna. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In W. Shipley, ed., In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, pages557– 610. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Palancar, Enrique L. 2004. “Middle Voice in Otomi” in International Journal of American Linguistics 70 (1): 52 – 85.
Pica, Pierre .1987.On the nature of the reflexivization cycle.NELS 17.
Rapoport, T.R. 1999. “The English Middle and Agentivity” in Linguistic Inquiry, 30: 147-155 Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland. 1993. “Reflexivity” in Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 657-720
Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni. 2004. “Against the Unaccusative Analysis of Reflexives” in TheUnaccusativityPuzzle: ExplorationsoftheSyntax-LexiconInterface. Alexiadou et al.(eds).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni. 2005. “The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and Other Arity Operations” inLinguistic Inquiry, 36 (3): 389-436.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. “The Theta System: An Overview” in TheoreticalLinguistics 28:
229-290.
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. “Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation”
LinguisticInquiry,18:267-310.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-) Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shibatani, Masayoshi and KetutArtawa. 2007. The Balinese middle voice. SEALSXIII: Papers from the 13th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2003), 239-261.ed. by Shoici Iwasaki, Andrew Simpson, Karen Adamas, and Paul Sidwell.
Stroik, Thomas. 1992. “Middles and Movement” in LinguisticInquiry,23: 127-137.
Stroik, Thomas. 1999. “Middles and Reflexivity” inLinguistic Inquiry, 30: 119-131
Udayana, I Nyoman. 1994. The Indonesian Reflexive. M.LittThesis. The University of Sydney.
|267| Rona Bahasa
Udayana, I Nyoman and John Beavers. 2013. Middle Voice in Indonesian. A Talk Given at LSA 2013 Annual Meeting. Massachusetts, Boston.