Indonesian X bar Theory AStudy of Formal Syntax.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320627365

Indonesian X-bar Theory: A Study of Formal Syntax

Article · February 2003

CITATION

1

READS

1,845

1 author:

Slamet Setiawan Universitas Negeri Surabaya 125PUBLICATIONS   338CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Slamet Setiawan on 27 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Kebudayaan

Metaforik

JURNAL ILMU-ILMU BUDAYA

FAKULTAS SASTRA TJNIVERSITAS IJDAYANA

No.

5

Tahun XIV

-

Februari 2003

Pelindung

Drs. AA. Bagus Wirawan, S.U.

Pengarah :

Drs I Mad€ Suastra, Ph.D., Drs Made Budiarsa, M-A.

Drs. I Made Suarsa, M.S., Drs. I Wayan Sukersa,

M.IIunL

Dewan Redaksi:

Prof. Dr. Sapardi Djoko Damono (UI), Dr. Kuniowijoyo (UGIO Pmf. Dr. T. Fatimah Djajasrdarma (Jnpad)

Ketua Redaksi :

Drs Made Jiwa Atrnaja, ^S.U.

Sekretaris:

Drs. I Ketut Sudewa. M.Hum.

Bendahara:

Dra- I Gusti K€tutAgung Sandriani Anggota Redrksr ^:

Drs. I Wayan Resen, M. A., Drs. I Wayan Suardiana, NI. Hum.

Dra. Ni Luh Nyoman Kebayantini, M. [Ium.

Drs. I Wayan Srijaya, M.tlum., Drs. F.X. Sunaryo, M.S.

Pembantu Umum ^:

Drs.I n-yoman Sarma, B.BA., Kadek Sariani, S.8., AA. Ngurah ^Rai Supartha Kehra SMFS LlNuD, Ketua BPIU FS UNtiD

Penerbit:

Yayasan Guna Widya, Fakultas Sastra LTNUD, Jl. Nias 13, DenpasaalTclp. (O361) 224121

ISSN0r5-9r98

KATAPI'NGAN'IAR

Kebudayaan Metaforik

'Tilsafat

tak lain dari metafora yang telah mati, yang tidak menyentuh, apalagi menggigit'', kata Nietzsche. Dengan ungkapan demikian, Nietzsche hendak

menyatakan

bahwa bahasa

harfiah filsafat

adalah bahasa

yang impoten. Demi ungkapan itu pula, Nietzsche diposisikan oleh

^para

pendukungaya _sebagai tokoh utama dalam

kelompok

^yang beranggapan bahwa dalam

berfilsafat

bahasa

metaforik

diutamakan dan bahasa

harfiah

justru _dianggap ilusi.

Keterbatasan bahasa harfiah dalam melukiskan dunia adalah salah satu sebab mengirpa kemudian filsafat

"dikembalikan"

kepada metafor4 ^padahal filsafat adalah

"ibu

kandung" ilrnu pengetahuan. Sebagai ibu kandung

ilmu

pengetahuan,

filsafat mengikuti

anak-ana.lcrya yang bersikap genit

dalam

membangrm rasionalitas. Kelebihan pada sang anak adalah sikap mengagrmg-

agungkan logika, rasionalitas dan pragmatisme yang oleh

sebagian pendukungya selalu diukur dengan nilai ekonomi. Sebagian anak-anak yang lain, dan dengan pendukungnya masing-masing memilih bersikap humanis,

tidak

pragmatis dalam arti

ekonomi,

namun

menyesali diri

harus

hidup

da.lam dtmia yang imajinatif dan mustahil.

Dunia yang diperhubungkan manusia

secara

primitif merupakan

kompleksitas, yang tidak terbatas. Selanjutnya, realitas

yarg komplcks itu, ditangkap dalam bahasa yang hanya dipahami secara khusus srja.

Berdasarkan aspek-aspek tertentu

ini,

kita memasukkan segala hal

dalam

kategori-kategori tertentu. Dengan perkataan lain, di situ kita

mengelompokkan

berbagai hal berdasarkan kesamaan-kesamaan tertentu yang

dimiliki

hal-hal itu.

Melihat

hal-hal yang sebetulnya berbeda

melalui kcrniripan-kemiripan tcrtentu,

maka kegiatan berbahasa

ini

dapat discl)ut kcgiatan bermetafora.

TIdak heran

bila

Nietzschc

melihat

kegiatan bcrmetafora ^adalalt ak:ir

segala kegiatan penamaan dan pemberian

identitas. Kegiatan

penamaan dan pemberian identitas itu adalahjuga kegiatan Iogika itu sendiri. Dengan

demikian,

^dapat

dikatakan

bahwa

filsafat

telah dan akan bekcrja dcngan metafora, bahkan

digenangi metafora,

yang

mungkin

tanpa disadari dan ditolak oleh sebagian orang. Filsafat dengan

klaim-klaim

kebenarannya tidnk

lain dari

metafora yang

dikaguminya,

disembah dan

dibakukan mcnjadi

kebenaran

harfiah.

Justru pembekuan dan pembakuan

ini

mcnyebabkan metafora menjadi kehilangan nilai kognitifnya-

Upaya pembakuan semacam itu terus berlangsung di dalam tubuh

ilmu

pengetahuan dengan

pembagian-pembagian ilmu-ilmu humaniora

dan kealaman. Vredenbregt

"menyerpih '

tubuh ilmu pengetahuan menjadi

ilmu

alpha, beta dan

gammr

Pembagian ini dirlasarkan ps.la 6ar-a-cara pcrolchan

[epistemologi],

^{bukan atas} dasarpresentasi

verbal-ontologis yang

keras dan menggejala di n:buh ilrnu pengetahuan itu sendid. Akibarnya, prDsenrasi verbal disepelekan, menulis tidak ditradisikan, sedangkan berbicara dibesar- besarkan, dan pembagian-pembagian ini dibakukan dengan pretensi ilmiah.

Kebekuan

ini

berlangsung selama peradaban manusia bergerak ke depan dan

melampat[

ranzrh yang demikian luas, antara lain kesusastraan,

politik,

kebudayaan, agama dan ilmu pengetahuan yang dianggap paling baku, yakni teori quantum.

Akan

tetapi, di seluruh ranah pemakaian bahasa

ini

metafora muncul

seprti

teroris yang menakutkan dan siap dilakukan secara scmbunyi- sembunyi unnrk memberi darah pada setiap presentasi ilmiah apa pun. Da]am bcrgerak ke depan

itu,

pengetahuan

manusiajuga

bergerak

mundur

Nlelihat kenyataan itu

-

sebagaimana j uga dibentangkan dalam artikcl

dengan gaya esai oleh Jiwa Atmaja "Metafora dalam Pcrsepktif

Kebudayaan"

- timbul

keinginan unnlk membangun sebuah

tcrminologi

baru, yakni terminologi "kebudayaan metaforik", suanr istilah yang mungkin tidak Iazim selazim unsur kebahasaan dalam kebudayaan cksprcsif,

Kalau

mcnggunakan pandangan bahwa bahasa adzrl:rh unsur kebudayaan tentulah ia sebuah terminologi yang lazim dan cenderung dianggap gampangan serta tidak bernilai ekonomis. Ketidaklaziman dalam melihat sesuatu yang _lu,

im

menyebabkirn kita lupa memahami dengan benar drn komprchensif mcngenui dunia kompleks yang dibangun dalam teks atau wacana. Kalau i:r wacana, apa pengcrliannya? Kalau ia teks apa pula pengertiannya?

Apikalt

pcrcbutan lnakna tcks dapat (lilakukan _sccara gantpangan, bila makna itu scnditi tidak

tcrbcrikan demikian

saja oleh sejarah?

Penanyitan-pcnanyuan ini

clapat

ditemukan dalam artikel Ahmad Norma Permata "Hcrmencutika

Fenomenologi Paul

Ricoeur".

Di luar itu, artikel I Ketut Riana "Geguritan Sudamala

_dan

Candi Sudamala dalam Perbandingan" mengingatkan kita mengenai objek

ntertektualit,s yang menyeberangi medra bahasa, yakni relief. Dengan

lug:s Riana mengatakan bahwa Geguritan Sudamala secara kontekstual

berhimpitan dengan peninggalan arkeologi relief Candi Sudamala Brgaimana mungkin sebuah

tek

sastra [geguriran] dikomparasikan dengan

relicf

Candi Sudamala bila pengertian teks itu sendiri terlalu sempit?

Justru karena dunia yang dipresentasikan sebuah teks begitu kompleks, maka

diperlakukan

strategi interpretasi teks yang relevan.

Ricoeur

yang

gagasan-gagasan linguistiknya terkesan ekstrim telah merancang

hermeneutika fenomenoligi untuk mengatur tentang metode penafsiran teks,

tanda-tanda lain

yang dapat dianggap sebagai sebuah teks. Gagasan

ini

akan dapat dipahami dengan baik bila

diikuti

alur pemikiran heremenurika dari Scheiermacher,

Martin

Heideggar dan Drlthey, sedangkan tradisi filsafati yang

juga

membangun konsepsi-konsepsi hermeneutika

fucoeur

adalah Georg Gadamar.

Di

satu pihak Rcoeur berpijak ^pada

titik

berangkat bahwa hermeneutika adalah

kajian

untuk mengungkapkan makna

objektifreks,

yang

memiliki jarak

ruang dan

waktu

bagi pembaca, sedangkan di

pihak

larn

Ricoeurjuga

beranggapan bahwa seiring perjalanan waktu, niat awal dari penulis sudah tidak lagi digunakan sebagai acuan utama dalam memahami

teks.Ini

adalah posisi Gadamer, yang

dilanju&an

Ricoeur dengan gagasan

"kematian pengarang"-

Kalau

saja

kita

mendapatkan sebuah

artikel lagi

mengenai gagasan- gagasan

Roland BaIthes, terutama mengenai pengertian penulis

dan penga.rang,

tulisan dalam

tahapan

kosong, mungkin

pemahaman

kita

mengenai hermeneutika Ricoeur akan lenih baik dan agaklengkap.

Tidak

adanya

tulisan itu, tampaknya kita

harus

disyukuri saat menerima

dan menurunkan artikel I Wayan Pastika mengenai '?erluasan Malma Kata dalam Bahasa

Indonesia"; artikel ini memberi bingkai

pemahaman mendasar sebelum

melanjutkannya

mengenai Ricoeur dan Barthes. Sementara

itu,

bah:xa yang kerap dibatasi hanya sebagai kajian

linguistik,

temyata fbahasa]

bcgcrak terus sepaaj ang

waku

membentrk difinya sendiri. Tiap kata, unsur gramatika, pribahasa, bunyi dan akscn sccara pelan-pelan akan mengubah

konsligurasi

dibentuk olch getar yang tidak tampak dan impcrsonal, yang

iii

merupakan hidupnya.

Jika

demikian

^masihkah

ditemukan

persamaan unsurtertentu di

alam

bahasa Indonesia dan bahasa Inggris, misalnya? Slamet Setiawan dari

Uni- versitas Negeri Surabaya mencoba menjawab hipotesis ini dengan

menggunakan

X-barTheory melaluijudul artikel "X-barTheory: A Study ofFormal Syntax",

Setiawan

mencari kemungkinan

atas

kategori yang

ditempatkan pada cabang

INFL (Irf/ecrirn).

Bahasa Indonesia yang

tidak memiliki

"tense" dan "agreen:"nt" dimungkinkan unnrk mengisi cabang

"aux- iliaries-like,

modals, aspect atau O [Zero]. ^Bahasa Indonesiajuga mengenal verb agreement yang dipicu oleh awalan pada kata keda.

Tidak

hanya

itu, artikel ini

boleh

dilihat

sebagai contoh aplikasi teoretik X-bar.

Dua tulisan lainnya adalah "Nyentana Sebagai Salah Sani

Altematif

^'

oleh Dian

Aryani

mungkin dapat dibaca sebagai selingan ^guna

meringarkan

beban setelah membaca sebuah dunia yang

terlalu

serius dan

kompleks.

Dari sudut yang lain, Prof. Shaleh Saidi memetakan kemampuan berbahasa Indonesia bangsa Indonesia sendiri dengan modus yang

bertingkat-tingkat.

Tulisan

ini

menjadi penting unh:k mengingatkan aparat pengembang bahasa agar tidak mengulang-ulang pendekatan yang digunakan.

Selamat membaca, semoga

pikiran

baik datang dari segala arah.

Denpasar,

Februan

2003

Daftar Isi

Pengantar Redaksi

Kebudayaan Metaforik Jiwa Atmaja

Metafora dalam

Persepektif

Kebudayaan

_...

Ahmad Norma Permata

Hermeneutika Fenomenologi

Paul

Ricoeur

...

I Wayan Pastika

Perluasan

Makna

Kata dalam Bahasa

Indonesia Slamet Setiawan

Indonesian X-bar Theory: A Study of Formal Syntax Jro Mangku I Ketut Riana

Geguritan Sudarnala dan Candi Sudamala dalam

Perbandingan

Dian Aryani

Nyentana

Sebagai Salah Satu

Alternatif

..._...

Shaleh Saidi

Beberapa Aspck yang Berhubungan dengan Usaha Mensukseskan Pengajaran Bahasa

Indonesia Redaksi

Pedoman

Bagi Pcnulis

I 40

63

'/6

115

123

126

96

Indonesian X-bar Theory:

A Study of Formal Syntax

Slamet Setiarvan

^*,)

My geat

gratitude is to Dr.

Harry t€der (fhe University of

Auckland,

New

Zraland)

for his valuable advice and

con-

stant support to

accomplish

this paper.

Abstract:

Setiap bahasa

mempunyai ciri

^khas

tersendiri

sebagai pembcda

dari

bahasa lainnya. Namun demikian, Chomsky berpendapat secara

univcrsal semua

bahasa

mempunyai persamaan kaidah dasar meskipun tidak

kongruen.

Kajianini

membahas persarriaan antara bahasa Indonesia dengan bahasa

Inggris ditinjau

dari

X-bar theory.

Pembahasan secara seksama

dilakukan untuk

mencari

kemungkinan

atas pertanyaan

kategori

apakah yang dapat

ditempatkan

^pada cabang

INFL (Inflection).

Pertanyaan

ltu muncul

karena bahasa

Indonesia tidak mengenal

^{Tense d.an}

Agreement

sebagaimanan ada di bahasa Inggris. Dimungkinkan bahwa calon lcrat untuk mengisicabang

ini

adaJalt

auxiliaieslike,

modals (termasuk tense

marker 'akan'), aspect

_{atau O} (baca:

zero)

^.

Dimungkinkan

pula bahwa bahasa

Indonesiajuga

m engenal ve

rb

agreement yang

dipicu oleh

awalan pada kata

kerje.

Key wonls: X-bar, inflection, and one/two place predicate

l. Introduction

The theory ofsubstantive universals claim that the pattem

ofevery

lan- guage _is drawn

from

a substantive base

(Chomsky l9&:2g).

Ir enrails rhat every language shares the same pattems

universally

although they are nor congment. Chornsky (1964:30) claims,

.The

existence of deep_seated for_

mal universals, . . ., implies that all languages arc cut to the same panem, but does not

imply

that there is any

point

_by

point

correspondence between

particular

languages.

It

does

not, for example, imply

that there must be some reasonable procedure for translafing between languages',.

This

paper is devoted to seek the possible phrase markers that

lndo_

nesian sentences

might

have. That is an

Inllecfion

(INIFL)

which

marks the head of the sentence. As in English thar

INFL

node is

filled

by Tense/Agree_

ment, Indonesian _is

likely

to have the

similarcategory. What

_the

stong

candidate _is and how

it works

is the main question

ofthe

paper. The func_

tion

oflndonesian

prefixes (i.e. rne- and

dj-)

^is questioned _{as these} prefixes are

fairly productive. How

to

determine

a

word whether it

is one

place

predicate

ortwo

is also addressed as to assign a

CASE

in a given _{Indone_}

sian sentence.

The paperis organized _as

follows:

the presentation of related _{data is}

in section l.

The

discussion of INEL category

can be

found in

sectron Z.

Section ₃ presents a discussion

ofthe

prefixes as verb agreement, and sec_

tion 4 presents a discussion

ofone

place predicate.

2. Relevant Data

Indonesian (as other languages do) distinguishes between intransi_

tive and

transitive

verbs. The

former

is one-place predicate verbs and the iatter, two-place predicate verbs.

How

does Indonesian distinguish bctween

the two morphologically and syntactically? Consider ttre

following

examples.

(l) a. Kiki telah tidur.

Kiki perf.

sleep

'Kiki

_has

slept.'

b. Kiki

scdang

ber-jalan

Kiki prog. walk 'Kiki

_is

walking.'

77

Kiki

akan

me-nangis.

Kiki will cry

'Kikiwill cry.'

(2) a.

^{Dia telah}

me.mbeli

_buku.

he perf. buy book

'

He

has

bought the book'

b. Aku

akan

me-njual

kudaku.

I will sell my

^horse

'I will

sell my

horse.'

The data in ⁽ 1) show that there are three forms of the

intransitive

verbs:

a) it does not take any

prefix

(i.e.

tidur

'ro sleep,), b)

it

takes the

prefix

Der_

(i.e.

ber-jalan'to walkl)

and c)

it

takes the

prefix

rn e-

(i.e. me-nangis

^,to

cry').The

data

from

^(2), however, show that the

transitive

verbs have

only

one marker, that

is

the

prefix

me- (i .e.

me-mbeli.tobty' andme_njual

^,to

sell').

This evidence suggests that intransitive verbs have more forms than transitive ones.

There _{is one}

thing

that

transitive

and

intransitive

verbs, as

far

as the

form

goes, have in

common,

that is the

prcfix

ma-.

This prefix

appears on both

intransitive

and

transitive

verbs.

How

shall we address this phenom-

enon?What

_{is the}

distinction

between the two? The discussion of this mat- ter can be seen

in

section 4. 2.

3.

INFL Category

Previots

studies on Indonesian syntax have not stated what properties that

INFL

has

(Halim

1981, Sie 1988). In these studies, the

INFL

category was left open. This node is not the

sisterofthe

VP

butit

is the sisters of

two

other constituents,

NPof

the subject position _and VP

constituent.

In other

words,

the phrase

markers

are

not

a

binary branching. The

absence

of

INFL

discussion may have been tnggered

by

claims that Indonesian does not have [Tense] and

[Agreement] (Tirtawijaya

_1988:44).

In

this section, however,

I

want to seek what properties that

might

be the candidate of the

INFL

category.

Following

Haegeman

(1994:l l3),

thc

INFL

has

two

features, namely

C

pTensel

_and

p

Agreementl. The

distribution

is that the finite clausc should have [+ ^Tense, +Agreement] features whereas

infinite

clause lacks

ofthose

features, that is _[- Tense, -

Agreement].

_{However, Raposo (19g7:92)}

finds

Lhat

infinite

clauses in Portuguese have [+ ^Tense,

-Agreement]

features.

Stowell

(1982:562) argues that certain

infinite

clauses in

English

have

[+

Tense,

-Agreement].

_{Based on this idea,}

it

seems that there is no clear cut of which features should be present in distinguishing finite from infinite clauses.

Although Indonesian does not have ffense,

Ageementl,

there is a strong candidate to

fill

the

INFL

node, thar is

auxiliary like ialah./adalah ,be'.

Ialah

and

adalalt'be'

have the same meaning, they are interchangeable.

Their function

is Iike that of the

copula

and equative in

English. Comp;re

tJrese Indonesian sentences and

theirEnglish

glosses below:

(3) a. Budi ialah/a.dalah seorang guru.

bea

'Budi

_{is a teacher.'}

teachcr

b. Budi

seorang

guru.

a teacher

'Budi

is a teacher.'

(4) a. Budi ialahtadalah bapakku.

be my father

'Budi is my father.'

b. Budi bapakku.

my father 'Budi

is my father.'

Sentences

in

^(3a) and (4a)

show

that

ialah/a-dalahis equaivalcnt

to

'be'

_in

English (Sie

1988:94). The place

of

this

property

is under

INFL

catcgory. I{owever, (3b) and (4b) suggest that the presence of ialaUa.dalah

'be' in

Indonesian is

optional. Hence,

the sentences

in

(3a) and

(3b)

are scmantically the same,

similarly

sentences

in

(4a) and (4b).

This

is

unlike English

that requires the presence

of 'be'

to make the sentence grarrunari cal.

It

also implies that

Englisli

has choiccs which

inflectional

r,,,ord form is takcn depcnds on the subject and tcnsc.

In

other words,

English

has sub-

79

ject-verb

agreement. Howeyer,

arlalah/ialah

can go

witt

all subjects

with- out

tense and agreement

in Indonesian. Note

in

particular

that there is a

difference

between

ialaUadalah'be'

in (3a) and in ⁽⁴

a).In (3t), adaktlu/

,dlai

indicates no free

ordering ofconstituent

that precedes and that

fol,

lows

^(copula). Whereas

adalah./ialah

in ^(4a)

allows

frce ordering

oI con-

stituents (equative).

This evidence

tells us that

ialah/adalah'be'

has

the

same

function

to relate

two

things and the

landing

site is undcr thc

I

head

which

is the same as in English

for 'be' (copuli

_{and equative).}

tP N

I

Budi ialah/adalah

seorang

guru

^(no free ordering ₌

copula)

Budi ialah/adalah bapakku.

^(free

oidering

₌

equative)

The construction

with

free ordering can be applied in pseudo cleft as

wcll

as

we can see in (6).

There

are cases,

however, that ialah./adalah 'be' must not

be presentwhen the sentence has adjectival or prepositional predicate. When it is present. it makes lhe scntence ungrammatical.

l7)r a. Budi ialuh./adalah pandai.

be

^c

levcr

'Budi

_{is c}

lever.' (s)

(6) Apa yang

saya

butuhkan adalah

sebuah buku.

rvhat comp. I need be a book

'What

I need is a

book.'

b. Budi pandai.

clever 'Budi

_is

clever'

(8) * a. Budi adalah di Jakarta be

^prep.

Jakarta

'Budi

is

in Jakarta'

b Budi di Jakana.

prep.

Jakarta

'Budi

_is

in Jakarta'

Sentences in (7a) and (8a) are not

grammatical

_because ralc

h./adalah'Lr'

is present in the I-head. The way to make them grammatical is by

deleting

ialah,/adalah

'be' from

_{the I-head}

(Siei988:94).

The sentences are

like in

(7b) and (8b). It does not mean thar I-head is delered bur only one

property

of

it

that is

ialaUadalah 'be'

is deleted.

Therefore

we

get

_@

underthe I-

head. The phrase markers

will

be

like

in (9) below.

(9) a.

Adjectival

predrcate

IP

AD]P

NP ADJ'

ADJ' I

O Budi

^pandai

61

r

I

(9) _b.

Prepositional

predicate

A Budi

IP

I

NP

I

I

di

NP

Jakarta

The

following

is further evidence rhat

INFL

has underlying

propefiies.

For instance, it has

ability

to assign

Nominative

case to the Np- Haegeman (1994: 107) gives example from Engfish.

(

l0)

They

will

wonder [whether [Poriot

wi]l

abandon the

investigationll

Under the I-head node, there is

wrll

that indicates the future tense.

Indone-

sian has simil ar example that is equal to English.

(ll) Mereka akan bertanya apakah Poirot akan meninggalkan penyelidikan.

they will wonder

whether

Poirot will abandon

invesigetion.

'They will wonder whether Poirot will abandon the investigatiotl-'

The word,

akan 'will'

shows the future tense that, I suggest, should be

put

under I-head as it is in English. Tlus place is not only

foralran 'will' only

but

it

accommodates other modals suclt as

mungkin 'mzy'

_,

pasti 'must'

and othcrs.

This

is in line

with Abncy

(1987:24) whosays rhat rhe

lcxicalclass

ofcategory Infl

includes the class

ofmodals.

Therefore, the phrase

marker of (10)

and (11) can be seen

in (12).

(12)

NP I'

NP

CP

C' IP

NP

They" will to wonderwhcthcr Poirot' will t'abandon theinvcsrisa- Ion

Mereka" akan

to

bcrtanya

apakah

Poirot'

akan

pcnyelidikar

nrcninegalkan IP

VP

I

C"

NP

I" VP

NP

I

83

Thewordakan' will'

^cannot be movedelsewhere otherwise it

will

make

ungrammatical

sentences, such ^as in (2b) _{above and}

now

in ⁽ 13).

(13) a. Aku akan menjual

kud.aku.

I will sell mu

horse

'I will

sell my horse.'

b. * Akan aku menjual kudaku.

c. * Aku menjual akan kudaku.

d. * Aku menjual kudaku akan.

The last discussion of the

Infl

category is by presenting data

from

⁽

lb)

and (2a) repered

in (14) below.

(14) a. Kiki tehh rtdur.

Kiki perf.

sleep

'Kiki

has

slept.'

b. Kiki

sedang

ber-jaltn Kiki prog. walk 'Kiki

is

walking.'

c. Dia telah me-mbeli buku

he perf. buy book

' He has

bought

the

book'

As in English, Indonesian also has two aspects, perfectrve and progressive.

The

former

is realized by the morpheme

telah 'have' (l4a

and c) and the latter is realized by the morpheme

radang 'be+ING'(l4b).

_These

two

_as-

pects behave the s atne as the

akan'will'

^{and other modals. This} means that the

ordering

cannot be

movedelsewhere

otherwise it makes the scntence

ungrammatical. Let's

take the sentence

in

⁽

l4a) for

an

example,

and

its

phrase structures can be seen

in

⁽¹⁵ ₎ below.

(1s) II)

I'

i

Kiki' telah t'

VP

tidur

..fpm

the aboVe discussion

I

can argue that even

though Indonesian

has

[-

^{Tense and}

-Agreement]

features, the

I-head

node iln

X-bar

has a property _{that is either}

auxiliaryJike @),

^modais (including _the furure rense

mrker akqn 'will'),

aspect (perfective _and progressive)

orO_ Ttusideais

based on Haegeman's explanation (

1994:\09),..

. . rhat is for

English,

rhat in all sentences,

with

or

without

overt auxiliaries, there is a separatcd node

topositthetense

morpheme, that is Infl

.'

Furthcrmorc, it might bc relevant to say that Indonesian has abstract subject agreement that _is not

molpho_

logically realized, This claim is triggered by

Haegeman,s

assumption

(1994: I

l2)

by using English as compared to French

orltalian.

English has less agreement than French or Italian.

Similarly,

Indoncsian does not have subject agreemcnt

morphologically

e xcept

adnlah/ialah,be, iIit

is counted

as agreement

al*tough

I doubt

it.

Now I should

state

that thcre

are

two

types

of INFL: one ls overt INFL

like

auxiliary-like

(be), modals (including _{the future rgnse ma.rker}

rliax 'will'),

aspect @erfective ^and progressivc) _{and the} other ty,pe is covert

INFL

that is @. This is

acrucial

matter since it

willdcter:rune

_{what tree}

stlxcturcs look Iikc,

and how caseis assigned. Thc examples

ofphrasc

structures as a result of the didtinction betwcen tl.rc ovcrl and covel1

INFL

can be sccn

in

(9a and b), ⁽ 12) and ⁽ I 5)

abovc. Irurthcr

discussion

o[

this martcr can be

iound

in section 4.

85

NP ---

4. Prefixes

as

Vcrb Agreement

Indonesian has several verbal prefixes _such as me-, ber- and r/r-.

Their

distributions are: th e prefix me- c.trt go

wift

tr-a.nsitive and intransitivc verbs, the

prefix

_{Der- marks}

intransitive

verbs and the

prefix di-

marks

transltive

verbs. The

following

is the discussion of their differences and theircontribu_

tion

to the

syntax. (I delib€rately

do not discuss the

prefix

Dcr- since its status is clear that

it belongs

to

transitive marker However,

thc

general

discussion in the end of this section

willcover

_the

prefix

ber-).

4.1

The

prefixes me- and di-

Indonesian

has a

particular

system

which distinguishes

_{between the} active and the passive construction. The former uses the prefix rne - whercas the latter uses the

prefix di-. Therefore,

the evidence that the

prefix r/i- in

passive

always corresponds

to the

prefix

_me-

in active

_is

called

_the

Ca- nonical Passive (Chung

1976). Examples

from

^(2a) are repeatcd

in

⁽

l6).

(16) Active

Dia telah me-mbeli

buku.

he perf. buy book

' He

_has

bought

_the

book'

d Passive

Buku telah di-beli oleh dia.

book perf. buy by him

'The book has been bought _by

him' In relation

to the

canonical

passive, Sie

(1988:50) claims

rhat ^.,

This

suggests that there is a productive

(morphological)

rule relating r/l- forms to

ne-

forms. Further, the relationship between the Canonical passive and its active counterpart is semantically regular,'. This claim implies that due to the

regularity

of the forms (i.e. the

prefix

me- and di-),these prefixes carry the regular semantic features. That is the

prefix

nle- carries an

[Active]

^fcature

whereas the

prefix di-

carries a [Passive] feature. Therefore, Sie ⁽ 1988:50) also

claims

that Ca.n

onical

Passive

is

govemed by syntactic rules.

1.2

The

prefix me-

It

is true as I stated

in

the

bcginning

that thc

prefix zr.r

appcars on thc

transilivc

and

intransitive

verbs.

Now,

the qucstion

from scction I

can lrc prcscntcd hcrc: What is the dilfcr cncc betwccn the

prellx arr:

in lhc

rutriLl-

sitivc

vcrbs and the prehx

lre-

in transitive vcrbs'? One ccrl:rin

tlil

fclr.:rrec rs

that the

prefix

me- in

intransitive

verbs do not take

object complements.

Consequently these verbs do not have their counterpart (i.e. the

prefix di-)

in the passive. This evidence suggests that the passive construction _{can be} made

if

and only

if

the verbs theta-mark their complement.

Now

Iet's

consider Anderson's claim,

quoted by Jensen and

Stong-

Jensen (1984:477 ₎ as

follows: ',.

.certain

molphological

properties _{are as-} signed on the basis of the position

ofa

word

within

a Iarger syntactic

com- bination.' This

means that there are properties that should be handled

by morphology

because they do not make any

contribution

to the s)mtax.

This

is in Iine with Lapoite's proposal of Generalized l-exical H),pothesis

(GLII), (1979)

as

cited by

Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1984:47

4). He says 'No

syntactic rule can refer to elements

ofmorphological structure-' Further-

more, Anderson (1982) claims that ^'the

inflectional morphology

depends

crucially on the output of the syntax and is therefore performed by

postsyntactic interpretive rules'. Itmeans that the

morphology

comes

after

the

matterof

the syntax is over.

This

is

all

true when

it

is

applied into

the prefix rne- in intransitive

verts

in Indonesian since it does not have inherent properties. Inherent

property

means that the element carries features that contribute to the s).ntax. Therefore, it should bc handled in thc syntax

(Ander-

son, 1982:574).

However there are properties in the morphology that should be handled

in syntax

because

of their contribution.

The proposal has been made

by

Baker, Johnson and Roberts (1989:220) by using English as a model.

They claim

that the

suffix -en in

the passive

construction should

be scparated

from

thc verb. They also propose that the

suffix

--er is positcd under the

I-

hcad node.

Furtlicrmorc,

they say (1989:223):

"Notice morcoverthar

there arc elements that are clitics phonologically but not, apparently, syntactically.

We propose that --en is syntactically a

clitic

but

phonologically

an

affix."

From

this vieu,, the Indonesian

prefix rre-

in transitive vcrbs behaves

similarly

in thc sense that

it

^is considered as a prefix

phonologically

buy it rs

a

clitic

syntactically.

Noq

the

distinction

bet.r,een the vcrbal

prcfix

rnc-

in intransitivc

and transitive verbs are;(1) Ttre

prefix rrrc

in

intransitive

verbs is

not

scparablc since

it

does not

carry inherent fcature

such as

IActive]

whcrcas thc

prefix llc-

in transitive verbs should bc scparatcd sincc it car rics

IActivc]

feature inherently. (2) The

prefix

rne-

in intransj[ivc

vcrbs is handlcd ^{in thc}

lcxicon

rvhereas thc prefix

rre-

in transitivc vcrbs is handlcd

87

in syntax. This

claim

is supporred by Chomsky and

Lsnik

(1978:270)

who

say that '. ..a

lexical

item is regarded _{as a} complex

offeatures, including in

particular lexical category and idiosyncratic _fcaturcs goveming exccptronal behavior (e.g.

irregular morphology).'

(3)

Following

Junus

1i967,18;

the prefix _me-

inintransitive

verbs is a

lexical

phenomenon rvhereas the

prcfix

me- in

tansitive

verbs is a construction phenomenon.

3.3

Verbal

agreenent

From

the discussion in sub-section _b above, it does not seem plausible to treat the

prefix

_{me- in}

transitive

and the

prcfix

nre_ in

intransitive

_verbs

differently

because they have the same form. Hcre I propose that the

prcfix

me- and all verbal- prefixes have _a function as verbal agreement. That is to say, given _any

prefix,

the

prefix

selects

aparticular

verband _its sub_catego_

rization.

To prove _this

claim,

let,s

take aworrljalan,road,

_anclbeli

,bly,

When prefixes _are attached to this word, the

following

are rhe

possibilities:

.

(11) Prefix ber-

me- me-

thing'

(e.g. _a car)

rvord

jalan

bcli

result

bcr-jalan 'to walk'

+me-njalan

me-njalan,kan 'to walk some-

*ber-beli

me-mbeli-(kan)'to

_{buy smth}

(for ber-

mc

someone)'

Theword,jalat'walk'

_{can be either} transitive or intransitive;

it

depends on the

prefix. When

_the

prefix

_{&er- is attachcd to}

it,

_{the new}

form will

bc an intransitive _{verb. Wh} enthe

prefix

_{me- is} attachcd, thc new

form

is ungram_

matical. Thus, the prefix _{rze- is} blocked in intransitive verbs. In other words, this is the way _{to avoid}

competition ofthe

prcfixes _{Der_ and rne_ to} form the

intransitive verb.'I'hc word will

be

transitivc if

rhe prefix rile- is

combined

with

the

suffix-tral

to form

acircumfix.

This cvidcnce shows that the

prcfix

cannot go

with

any verb, but it goes

with

a

ccrlain

vcrb by rvhich the

lornr

will

be

grammltical.

^'I-lris _{cvidence also implics} that therDis agrccrncnt l)c trveen the

prcflx

und thc verb _{at somc}

stlgc.

By

using this proposal, there is no di

ffercnt

treatrnent bctween the

pre, fix

me- in transitive verbs and the

prefix

nrc- in

intransitive

verbs_ In

other

words, all prefixes are regarded as verb agrecment therefore it

will

be handled in the syntax. The prefixes are able to license the verbs to theta,mark

their

argument

stuctures.

Further discussion of verb agreement can be found

in

section 4 .

5.

One-place Predicate

Before

discussing the active

construction,

it is

worth

discussing sen_

tences that have an intransitive verb.

This

issue should be addressed since

it

makes a salient

contribution toward

_the discussion

ofactive

and passive constructions

parlicularly

_in

deciding

the theta and case assignors. More_

over, it contributes to analyzing _the

prcfix

rne- syntactically. Consider the

following

example from

(la)

and now in (18) below.

(18) Kiki akan me-nangis.

Kiki will

^agr.

cry

'Kikiwillcry.'

From

the discussion in section _3.3 above, I propose that

all prefixes

are

verb

agreement. Here,

I

^propose

that prefixes

have a separate

node from \?.

The new node is

Agreemcnt

Phrase

(AGRp). This

phrase has a stronger position than VP because

it

is ablc to license

\?

to thcta_mark

its

argument stmcture.

Therefore, in

sentcncc (

l8)

I gloss the

preflx

me_ as

agr" (agreement)

which

is separate

from V". It

suggests that this proposal makes Indonesian phrase markers

different from

English oncs. Thc phrase markers

of

sentence (

l8

₎ can be secn

in

⁽

l9)

below.

E9

(le) IP

NP

I

I

I

NP

AGRP

AGR" \?

I

I

Y'

Kiki' akan t'

mc nangl s

The Spec of IP is

filled

by the NP

Kiki

after undergoing

Np move-

ment from the Spec of

AGRP

The

I

head node is

filled

by the future

marker

akan'wlll'

and the V-head node is

filled

by rrcngls

'cry'. Now,

_{let,s have}

a

look

at X-bar, theta and case theorics to account the one-place

predicate

construction in Indonesian. The discussion

will

be in tums as

follows:

5.1 X-bar theory

From

the phrase markers in (

l9),

we can say that the phrase

markers employ

binary branching. The Indonesian phrase structure

ofa one

place

predicate

has an

AGR

node

that accommodate

the

prefixes. In

⁽

l9)

the

prefix

is me-. This node has

SIrc

^where the NP is

initially

posited since

Vp

does

not

have a Spec.

The reason why VP

does

not have Spec is that

because the V-head as a

govemor

has an

ability

to assign theta

role

to

its

argument

if

and

only if

the

prefix lzc isattachedtoit.

AGR'

5.2 Tlteta theory

As

the

term

is used, the predicate assigns the theta role to one

argu- ment, that

is the

Agent. In

this respect, the

predicate nangis'cry' , after getting

licensed by

AGR,

assigns the

Agent

theta

role

to the

NP Kiki, Ir follows

that the Agent

ofthe

one-place predicate is in the subject

position.

It implies that the AGR-head is a strong governor,

allowing

it to govem the NP in its extemal argument (subject). This evidence shows that \aISH is

not

applied in Indonesian phrase structures

ofintransitive

verb predicates-

5.j

^Case

theory

The reason

why

the NP

Kiki

moves to the Spec of IP is to get a case.

Thepotential

govemor that can assign

NOM

case to the NP

Kiki

is

INFL-

head as a

govemorbecause iI

has an

overt INFL akan 'will' (i.e. future

tense marker). However, this marker does

not

assign the

NOM

case alone but

it

attracts the

AGR-head

and

V-head

together to assign

NOM

case

to

the NP

Kiki

after undergoing the

transformation. This

means that there is head

to

head

movement from V-head

to

AGR-head

and

they move to-

gether to the

INFL-head. Now,

rve can see these phrase strucrures

in (19)

as

in (20) below

after head to head

movement.

(20)

IP

NP

^I

AGRP

NI' AGR'

VP

Kiki'akanr-mc-+nangist' asr.t

^\,.t

91

AGR"

I'

The

i[st

question now, is how to account

for

a sentence whose its

verb

does not take any

prefix

such as in

(l4a), which

_{is now presented}

in (21).

(21) Kiki telah tidur Kiki perf.

sleep

'Kiki

has slept.

All

the explanations are the same as they are

for

^(16).

This

means that the phrase markerS

ofthis

sentence are

like

in (20) above. AJthough

it

looks like not having

AGR,

it cerrainly does. The difference is that the

AGR ofthese

phrase markers is _@.

This

is called an abstract agreement.

There-

fore, the sentence in (21) has a phrase marker

like

in

(22).

(22)

NP

Ag.t

v-t

V-head AGR-head I-head

= agre€mcnt trace

= verb trace

=nangis

=

me-

= akan

AGRP

AGR' IP

I' I

NP

AGR' \?

I

I

I I

Kiki' telah+

O

+nangis r'

^agr.t v.t

The second question is that how to account

for

the sentence that does not have

INFL overtly,

such ^as

in

(7b) now presented in

(23).

(23) Budi pandai clever 'Budi

is

clever'

This

senterce has a one-place predicate.

Although it

looks like not

having INFL, it certainly

does. The

difference

is that the

INFL ofthese

phrase markers is presented by @.

Underlyingly it

has

AGR

but

it might

undergo deletion. The phrase markers of this sentence can be seen in (9a) and

now

I bring

in

⁽²⁴⁾ to explain the theta and case assignrnent.

(24)

NP ADJ'

ADJ"

@ Budi pandai

In terms of theta

role

assignment,

it

is not

different Irom

the verbal

predi-

cate. That is, the adjectival predicate is able assign Agent theta- role to the NP. Is the O ^is able to assign

NOM

case to the NP?

Although

the I-head is

O, it

^does

not

^mean

that it

^does

not

have

properties. It

does.

It

^has

thc ability

to assign

NOM

case to the NP in the Spec ADJP.

This implies

that

.,',,hcn the I-head is not overt, the

NOM

case is assigncd by l-head by using

ECM

@xceptional ^Case

Marking).

Therefore, Ihe Spec

ofIP

is not necdcd since NP movement is not

applicd.

IP

I

I

9l

6.

Conclusion

Universally,

languages share the same core graJnmar, at least the base and the

transformation

nrles. The language leamer then has a task to

leam various idiosyncratic constructions

at the

periphery

that dep€nds on the language they have. It suggests that the language leamer is welcome _to en- rich descriptive device to be applied in their language. The evidence is

that

Indonesia;r shares the same core grammar with English, comparing _{the base} and the

transformation

rules,

pafticularly

_{in the view}

ofactive

and passive constructions-

Indonesian is

different from English

in the sense that Indonesian has

derivationaVinflectional morphology

that bears syntactic properties.

This

properties _are realized by the verbal prefix rze- that carries

[Active]

^featr.re

and the verbal

prefix r/i-

_that carries [Passive] feature

inherently. Hence,

these properties are seirarated

from

verbs by introducing the

AGRp (Agree-

ment Phrase) node on the phmse markers.

The descriptive device is needed in Indonesian

pkase

markers to ex-

plain

the property of

INFL

node. Indonesian has four strong candidates

for

this

category

namely

auxiliariesJike,

modals

(including

_rhe

future

_tense marker

akan 'witl'),

aspect or O.

This

property is needed to enable

I-head

to be a strong govemor and to assign

NOMMINAIIVE

case to the

Np

on the Spec

of

IP,

There are two types of

INFL:

one is overt and the other is covert.

The

former

implies

that the

INFL

category is realized by either

auxiliaries-like,

modals

including

the future tense marker

akan 'will',

or aspect,

which in-

cludes

progressive

and

perfective. The

latter

implies

that the

INFL caf

egory is

realizedby

@. This

distinction

is very salient sincc it influences: a) the shape of phrase structures both active and passive constructions

and

b) 'he _case assignment,

particularly NOM

case.

If

the constructions have

co- vert INFL,

the phrase

structures

do not need the Spec

ofIP. This is

be- cause

the NP movement

is ended

in

the Spec

of AGRP and thc-Np is

assigned a

NOM

case

from

I-head by

applying ECM.

-o-

Rcfcrences

Abney,

Steven

Paul. (1987).

Tlrc

English

Noun

phrase in

lts

Sententiol Aspect.

PhD Thesis.

M.I.T.

Anderson, Stephen R.

(1982).

'Where's

Morphology2'

. Ltuguistic

Inquiry, Vol.I3. No. 4, 5l \-612.

Baker,

Mark;Johnson, Kyle

and

Roberts,Ian. (I989).

^.passive _arguments

raised,'.

Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.20,

No.2,

219-251.

Chomsky, Noam. (1964).

_Aspects

ofthe Theory of Syntax. Cambndge,

Massachusetts:

M.I.T.

Press.

Chomsky, Noam

and

Lasnik, Howard. (1978). "A remark

on

contrac- tion'

.

Linguistic Inquiry, VoI.9,268-274.

Chung, S. (1976).

An Object-Creating

Rule in Indon esian.

Linguistic In- quiry,

Volume

7,

^pp.

4l-87

^.

Haegeman, Liliane. (1994). Introduction to Governntent & Binding

Theory.

Canbidge,

Massachusetts: B

lackwell

Publishers.

I-lalim,

Amran.

(1981). Intonation in Relation to Syntax in Indonesian

pa- cific Linguistics

Series D

- No.

^36.

Horrocks,

Geoffrey.

^(1987). Generat ive G

ranntar.

New

york:

_{l_ongman.}

Jensen, John T. and Stong-Jensen, Margaret_

(1984). 'Morphology

is

in

the

lexicon !'.

Z,n

guistic Inquiry, Vol

^15,

No.3,474-198.

Junus, Umar. (1967). 'Syntactical structure analysis of

written

Indoncsian .

Linguistics No. 32, 15-38.

Raposo, E.

(1987).

'Case theory and

INFL

to

COMP:

the

inflccred infini- tive

in European

Portuguese'. Lugr

istic

Inquiry, Vot. 18,85-109.

Sie,

Ing Djiang. (1988).

The

Syntactic Passive

in Bahasa

Indonesia;

a Study

in

Gove mment-B

inding

Theory.

PhD.

Thesis. The

Univcr-

si ry of Amsterdam.

Stowell,Tim. (1982).

'The tensc

ofrnfinirives'.

Linguistic

tnquiry, Vol.l3,

No.1

, 561-510.

Tirtaivijaya, Totong.(1988).aalrasa

Indone

sia

Unluk Pe

rguruan

Ting

gi

('lrdortesiart lttttguagc

_fo

r

Uttiversity ^',). Surabaya:

Universitl,

^prcss

IKIP

Surabaya.

Wojowasito,

Soeu,ojo, (1980). A

Kat'i Irticon_ Ann

Arbour,

Michilan:

Center

for

Southeast Asian Studic-(, 1-lie

Univcrsity ol Ndchiual.

I)oscn Jurusan Balrasa dan Sastra Inggr-is, l:akultas BaIasa dan Scni, l

lni

vcrsitas Negeri Surabaya.

9.5

View publication stats