Indonesian X-bar Theory: A Study of Formal Syntax.pdf | Slamet ...

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 Pmf. Dr. T. Fatimah Djajasrdarma (Jnpad)

(UGIO

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 kognitifnyaUpaya 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 dibesarbesarkan, 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 scmbunyisembunyi 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

ll

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 gagasangagasan 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 "auxiliaries-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

lv

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

I 40 63

'/6

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

96 115

123

Redaksi Pedoman Bagi Pcnulis

126

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 constant 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 16

l. Introduction The theory ofsubstantive universals claim that the pattem ofevery language 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

C

(2)

a.

Kiki akan me-nangis. Kiki will cry 'Kikiwill cry.' 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 phenomenon?What is the distinction between the two? The discussion of this matter 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

18

has

two features, namely

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

INFL node, thar is auxiliary like ialah./adalah ,be'. Ialah and adalalt'be' have the same meaning, they are interchangeable. candidate to

fill

the

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 teachcr 'Budi is a teacher.'

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 without 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 constituents (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).

(s)

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).

(6)

Apa yang saya butuhkan adalah sebuah buku. rvhat comp. I need be a book 'What I need is a book.' 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

'Budi is c lever.'

80

c

levcr

b. Budi pandai. clever 'Budi is clever' (8) * a. Budi adalah

be

di

Jakarta

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 Ihead. The phrase markers will be like in (9) below. (9) a. Adjectival predrcate

IP I

r I

AD]P NP

ADJ'

ADJ'

O

Budi

pandai

61

(9) b. Prepositional predicate

IP

I

NP I

NP

A

I

Budi

di

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. Indonesian has simil ar example that is equal to English.

(ll)

Mereka akan bertanya penyelidikan.

apakah Poirot akan meninggalkan

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) IP

I'

NP

VP

NP CP

C'

I

C"

IP

NP

I"

VP

NP NP

They"

will

to wonderwhcthcr Poirot'

will

t'abandon theinvcsrisa-

Ion Mereka" akan to bcrtanya apakah Poirot' akan

I

nrcninegalkan

pcnyelidikar

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. will mu horse 'I will sell my horse.' b. * Akan aku menjual kudaku. c. * Aku menjual akan kudaku. d. * Aku menjual kudaku akan.

I

sell

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

c.

is

walking.'

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 aspects 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.

3,1

(1s)

II)

I'

NP ---

i

Kiki' telah

VP

t'

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

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 diIndonesian 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 Canonical 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 rutriLlsitivc vcrbs and the prehx lre- in transitive vcrbs'? One ccrl:rin tlil fclr.:rrec rs

8(r

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 StongJensen (1984:477 ) as follows: ',. .certain molphological properties are assigned on the basis of the position ofa word within a Iarger syntactic combination.' 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-' Furthermore, 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 (Anderson, 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 Ihcad 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

rvord

bcr-jalan

bermemething' (e.g. a car)

bermc someone)'

result

jalan

'to walk'

+me-njalan

me-njalan,kan

'to walk

some-

*ber-beli bcli

me-mbeli-(kan)'to buy smth (for

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.

It8

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

AGRP

NP

AGR' AGR"

\? I

I

Y'

Kiki' akan t'

mc

nangl

s

The Spec of IP is filled by the NP Kiki after undergoing Np movement 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.

90

5.2 Tlteta theory As the term is used, the predicate assigns the theta role to one argument, 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 INFLhead 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 together 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

I'

AGRP

NI'

Kiki'akanr-mc-+nangist'

AGR' AGR"

VP

asr.t

\,.t

91

Ag.t v-t

= agre€mcnt trace = verb trace

V-head AGR-head I-head

=nangis = me= akan

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. 'Kiki

sleep 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. Therefore, the sentence in (21) has a phrase marker like in (22).

(22)

IP

I'

NP

I

AGRP

NP

AGR'

AGR'

\? I

I

I I

Kiki' 92

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)

IP I

I

NP

ADJ'

ADJ"

@

Budi

pandai

In terms of theta role assignment, it is not different Irom the verbal predicate. 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.

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 enrich 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 constructionsIndonesian 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 (Agreement Phrase) node on the phmse markers. The descriptive device is needed in Indonesian pkase markers to explain 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 includes 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 covert INFL, the phrase structures do not need the Spec ofIP. This is because 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-

91

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 contraction' . Linguistic Inquiry, VoI.9,268-274. Chung, S. (1976). An Object-Creating Rule in Indon esian. Linguistic Inquiry, 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 pacific 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 infinitive 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 Univcrsi 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