Assignment of Final Test

QUESTIONS:

1. What are the main differences between Basic Construction and Applicativeness?
2. What are the similarities between Unaccusative and Causativization?
3. What are the major differences between Canonical Passive and Inverted Passive?

1. 1.    The main differences between Basic Construction and Applicativeness

Basic construction here explains about intransitive construction (one-place verb), transitive construction (two-place verb) , and ditransitive construction (thee-place verb) in which the clause can bear one or two arguments based on the basic construction by using permutation test. While applicativeness refers to process of valency mechanism to add an argument of a verb (Spencer in Hanafi (2003)). The verb of applicativeness is marked with affixes.

The difference between basic construction and applicativeness  lies on the  construction or alternation. Basic construction, the derivation occurs without dropping out any kind of words, either it is in intransitive construction, transitive construction, or ditransitive contruction. While in Applicativeness, that is about the mechanism of valency changes and the applicative as well. It means that the applicativeness occurs by adding an argument of verb which is marked by affixes.

We can see the differences between basic construction and applicativeness as the examples below

1. a.    Basic Construction
• Ø One-Place verb (Intransitive construction)
1. Saya sedang bosan

“ I am bored”

1. Sedang bosan saya
2. *saya bosan sedang
3. *bosan saya sedang

The example above has one argument, because the derivation only has one acceptable allternation. Then, for the no (3,4) considers as the ill-formed, because the forms are unstructure or ungrammatical. In hence, it only has one acceptable alternation.

While for NP Mr. Ahmad is S and  NP Math is not an Object, but it is an complement such as the following example :

1. Mr. Ahmad teaches Math in my class.
2. Math, Mr. Ahmad teaches in my class,
3. In my class, Mr. Ahmad teaches Math
4. Mr. Ahmad, in my class teaches Math

The example above shows that there are some argument based on the basic construction, and all of them are acceptable alternations. The derivations above use permutation to test the acceptable argument that can be born by the basic construction without dropping out or adding any kind of words on the allternation. At the example no (5) whose complement becomes a topic of the clause and for no (6) the derivation  is derived by moving up the position of adverb becomes the topic of the clause. Most of them are not the ill fomred, hence these can be grammatical form.

On the other hand, by using the prmutation test, we can find the ill forms on the basic construction (5) such as the following example :

1. *Teaches, Mr. Ahmad Math in my class
2. * Teaches, in my class Mr. Ahmad
3.  * Mr. Ahmad, Math teaches in my class
4.  * Mr. Ahmad , Math in my class teaches
5.  * Mr. Ahmad, in my class teaches math

All of the sentences above are ill- formed. The derivation which move the postition of complement and subject create ungrammatical form. The derivations are unacceptable.

• Ø Two-Place verb (Transitive construction )

1. He throws a ball

2. A ball he throws

3. *He a ball throws

4.* Throws He a ball

5. * Throws a ball He

The example above shows the transitive construction and it bears two arguments without drop out any kinds of word. For the first, it is preverbal functioning as S, and the postverbal one function as object. NP He is S and the NP a ball is an Object. We can prove by using passive test :

A ball was thrown by him

On the other hand, the object a ball cannot be inserted between the preverbal argument and the verb as in (3). Then, it is same as 4 and 5 which has similar situation that preverbal argument cannot move to the end of the clause (5) or inserted the preverbal between verb and object (4).

• Ø Three-Place Verb (Ditransitive Construction)

According to Hanafi (2003) a ditransitive construction bears three arguments, that is Subject (S), Direct Object (DO), and Indirect Object (IO). There are some verbs of ditransitive verb such as give, deliver, send, borrow, supply and lend  (Dixon in Hanafi (2003) ). We can see the alternationat the following examples:

1.  Devi gave the umbrella to me
2. The umbrella, Devi gave to me
3.  To me, Devi gave the umbrella
4. * Devi the umbrella gave to me
5. * The umbrella gave to me Devi
6.  * Gave Devi the umbrella to me
7. * Gave the umbrella Devi to me

Based on the examples above shows that three arguments, in which some of derivations are acceptable and the others are not accepteble because of the ill-formed. NP Devi is S, and it is preverbal. The postverbal here is the umbrella in which it is also a proverty of DO. While Me is preceded by a preposition to is IO.

The example 1, 2, and 3 are the acceptable alternation, while (4) shows that the umbrell  is postverbal and proverty of DO cannot be placed between preverbal and verb, in hence the form is ill-formed. Then, (5) it shows that S cannot be placed at the final position. For (6)  that is the ill-formed because the S cannot be palced between verb and DO. At the last, (7), it is unacceptablae derivation because DO cannot be placeed between verb and  preverbal.

1. b.   Applicativeness

While applicativeness here refers to a process of valency mechanism to add an argument by having marker with affixes. It means that applicative construction appear to have similar meaning accros the languages, but their syntactic properties are different.  It is not like the basic construction in which the derivarion occurs without having any marker or drorpping and adding any kinds of words. Actually, hardly ever do we find applicative construction in English, because English does not have derivation of verb such as Indonesia language. On the other hand, applicative construction has two revaluation those are promotion and demotion. There are two kinds of promotion “ normal promotion and abnormal pormotion”.

To more understand about applicative construction, let’s take look the following example :

1. a.      Normal Promotion

According to Hanafi (2003) the normal promotion examines the oblique relations such as: locative, instrumental, benefactive, recipient, and destination in which these relation can directly promoted to Object position in the clauses. Look at the following example :

1. Ia     duduk     di         kursi    itu

3SG     sit        LOC    chair    that

‘She sat on that chair

1. Ia     menduduki      kursi    itu

3SG     AV. Sit-i         chair    that

‘she was sitting on that chair

The example above is derived from Arka, et. al (2009) in which show the applicative construction adds an argument by adding affixation –i. The properties-i can increase the valency of stem by promoting the oblique to be an object position. Moreover, the affixation-i is applicative marker here. While about the demotion, the Subject promoted to be Object like the example below :

1. Dia   datang            ke       BIL

3SG     come            to         BIL

“he came to BIL’

1. Dia   mendatangi                 BIL

3SG   Act-come-APPL         BIL

‘he came to BIL’

1. BIL      didatangi                     oleh-nya

BIL  Pass-come-app            choumer

The examples above describe about normal promotion and demotion of applicativeness construction in which the promotion (4) Bil (oblique) to object position and (5) that is demotion, because the Subject promote to Shomeur or “by” phrase ‘Dia à oleh-nya’ .

1. b.      Abnormal promotion

Abnormal promotion refers to the Promotion of source oblique to Subject that is should firstly go to O such as the following example:

1. Rozi             meminjam        buku    ke       perpustakaan

3SG             ACT. Borrow     book    to         Library

“ I borrowed a book to library’

1. Perpustakaan           meminjam-i               Rozi     buku

Library                     Act.borrow-appl          Rozi     book

‘Library lent Rozi a book’

As the result, we can see that the oblique promote to subject position, by having affix-i as applicative marker

In conclusion the main difference between basic construction and applicativenes lies on the derivation in which the basic construction does not add affix or drop out any kind of words, while applicativeness occurs by having a affix marker to increasse the valency of stem in the words.

1. 2.    The Similarities between Unaccusative and Causativization

Before we are going to look the similarities, firstly we look their definitions. Unaccusative denotes to an intransitive verb whose surface S is an underlaying (direct) object (Trask in Hanafi (2003). It is like the Hanafi syntactic test which defines that unaccusative occurs if the  Subject coresponds with patient. While for Causativization is one participant cause another to perform an action. Here, the similarities of unaccusative and causativization lies on the object of a causative. Hence, the unaccusative is a part of causative. If the causative is (x (y)), so the unaccustive is (y). Both of them have a causative marker in the clause, while it is the transitive causative marker. Let’s look the following example :

1. Kaca     pecah

glass      broken

‘the glass broken’

1. Saya      memecahkan               kaca

1SG      Act.break-Trans          glass

‘I broke the glass’

1. Saya      menangis        karena             memecahkan kaca

1SG      Act.cry              because            break               glasss

‘ I cried because break the glass’

The example above shows that (1) and (2) the verb intransitive becomes to be transitive in which the subject corresponds with patient, hence the verb becomes unaccusative. the example above denotes to an intransitive verb whose surface S is underlying object. The properties-i (2) is the causative marker. While (3) that is the analytic causative which has two component. Those are cause and effect in which the cause is broke the glass, then the effect is I cried. The word karena (because)  is the causative conjunction in which it uses to combine the cause and effect. If we take look the example above, we can say that the effect I cried is (x) and the cause break the glass (y).  It means that (y) on the example  (3) is unaccusative because that is underlaying the object. There is one argument of causative is unaccusative.Here, the similarity of unaccusative and causativization lies on the underlaying the object, in which one argument of unaccusativity exhibit the same characteristic as the object of causative.

In one side, acording to Halman who states that the argument that is licensed by the unaccusative is also licensed in the causative, and the attribution of the property denoted by the unaccusative to that argument also obtains in the causative. That is, the syntax and semantics of the unaccusative alternant persevere in the causative alternant, but not vice versa. These facts suggest that causatives are derivationally related to their unaccusative counterparts by a causativization process that is a morphosyntactic argumentation of that unaccusative counterpart. It means that the unaccusative is part of causativization, but syntactically the causative forms licenses an additional argument (causer) not licensed by the unaccusative form.

According to Halman, the form of causative in Arabic consists of two kind “Ablaut and gemination. However, the relation of causative and unaccusative lies on the Ablaut type in which Causative verbs may be formed from unaccusatives by changing the stem vowel to /a/ .  We can see in  these examples which are cited from Halman’s article.

c. waǧira (be scared) ⇒ waǧara (frighten)

Besides that we can see at the valency relation which shows that the similarity between unaccusative and causative. It describe about the Subject of the base clause within an intransitive verb is coded as DO in the causative clause. Here, it means that Subject of the intransitive which corresponds with the Object as same as a DO in the causative clause. Let’s see in the example below :

1. Nunuq nangis

Nunuq cry

‘Nunuq cried’

1. Awan    me-tangis        Nunuq

Awan    Act.CAUS.cry              Nunuq

The example above shows the represenrasion of valency relation can be expressed as the Subject of the base clause in an intransitive (1) is coded as DO in the causative clause which is called the causative verb. By looking that description, we can find that Causative verb has same process with unaccusative because the core of arguments of (1) are semantically aligned with DO of (2) and the derived intransitive verb is unaccusative. The unaccusative verbs which corresponds which patient, while causative verb Subject corresponds with Do. So, both of them is underlaying an object.

1. 3.    The main difference between canonical passive and inverted passive

According to Hanafi (2003), definitions of Canonical Passive and Inverted Passive is :

• Canonical Passive is marked by the presence of prefix on the verbs and the Agentive adjunct can optimally omitted. While for Inverted Passive is identical with the active form in the word order, but the verb is unmarked passive or without a prefix and there is no agentive adjunct after the basic verb.
• Based on the definition above, we found that the differences between Canonical Passive and Inverted Passive lie on Canonical Passive has prefix on the verb and Agentive adjunct, while in Inverted Passive is without prefix and Agentive adjunct.

We can take look at the examples below :

1. a.      Canonical Passive
1. Saya            di-pukul           oleh     mereka

1SG                PASS-kick        by        them

‘I was hit by them’

1.          Saya            di-pukul           mereka

1SG                PASS-kick        2PL

‘I was hit (by them)

The example above shows that Indonesia Canonical Passive Construction is marked by prefix {di-} on the verb and  oleh ‘by’ phrase can be optional. While for the agentive adjunct is able to form in postclitic (3) such as the example below:

1. Saya            di-pukul-nya

1SG                PASS-hit- postclitic

‘I was hit (by them)

While for the Sasak Language especially Ngeno-ngene dialect, the prefix {te-} as the marker of canonical passive and followed by isiq phrase like the example below:

1. Aku            te-empuk         isik      amaq

1SG                        PASS-hit         by        father

‘ I was hit by father”

1. Aku            te-beliang       kelambi            isik      bibik.

1SG                 PASS- buy      T-Shirt             by        aunt

‘ I was bought T-shirt by aunt ’

1. Inverted Passive

While for the example of inverted passive below showed by active form as like no (2). Besides that it is derived by deleting prefix {me-} in the active verb “menendang à tendang”.  In hence, the verb is unmarked passive and without a prefix.

1. Mereka       memukul         saya

3PL             act. Kick          1SG

‘They hit me’

1. Mereka       pukul               saya

3PL             hit                    1SG

I, they hit’

Referensi :

Arka, et. al .2009. A Linguistic and Computational Morphosyntactic Analysis for the

Applicative -i in Indonesian. CSLI Publication

Halman, Peter. Causativity and Transitivity in Arabic: Toronto. University of Torontoi

Hanafi. 2003. Syntax: Nusa Tenggara Barat. Mataram University