Argument Structure in Riau Malay Language (RML)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51699/ijllal.v2i1.974Keywords:
Linguistic Typology, Riau Malay Language, Argument StructureAbstract
The term argument in the study of linguistic typology, especially at the syntactic level, refers to nomina phrase elements that precede and/or follow the clause predicate. This study aims to explain the structure of arguments in Riau Malay Language. The method used is descriptive qualitative. The approach used in this study is a linguistic typology approach, especially grammatical typology. The theory used in this study follows Manning and Alsina (1996) and Jufrizal (2002, 2004, and 2012). The results of the study show that the structure of the RML argument can be realized through predication in the form of verbal and non-verbal predicates. There are RML predications that consist of intransitive verbal predicates that require one core argument, transitive verbs that contain transitive verbs that require two core arguments, and bi-transitive verbs that require more than two arguments. Transitivity in RML can be formed through (a) causative construction and (b) applicative construction. Causative constructions in RML include the suffixes {-kan}, {per-}, {-i} and affix combinations such as {memper-kan}. The suffix {-i} in RML is more productive in forming applicative verbals.
References
Acherman, F. and Webelhuth, G. (1998). A Theory of Predicates. California: CSLI.
Ardianto, A. (2015). Argument Structure in Student Scientific Writing Discourse. LITERA, 14(1)
Alsina, A. (1996). The RDirect Objecte of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. California: CSLI.
Alwi, H., Dardjowidjojo, S., Lapoliwa, Moeliono, AM. (2000). Indonesian Standard Grammar. Jakarta: Language Center.
Artawa, I K. (1998). "Syntactical Flexibility in Languages: Balinese, Sasak, and Indonesian" in PELBBA 10. (Editor: Purwo, BK). Jakarta: Atmajaya University.
Basaria, Ida. (2011). Relations and Grammatical Direct Objects of Pakpak Dairi Language: Typology Study (Dissertation). Medan: Doctoral Program (S3) Linguistics, University of North Sumatra.
Black, JA and Champion, DJ (Koeswara, E., Salim, D., Ruzhendi, A.: Translator). (1999). Methods and Problems of Social Research. Bandung: Refika Aditama.
Chaer, A. (2007). General Linguistics. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Chiaka, T. (2000). Aspect and Argument Structure in Japanese. Disertasi. Tokyo: Department of Linguistics University of Manchester.
Comrie, B. (1983). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Cuervo, M. C. (2015). “Causation without a CAUSE”. Syntax 18:388-424
Culicover, P.W. (1997). Principles and Parameters: An Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Denzin, N. K. and Yvonna S. L. (1997). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication.
Donohue, M. (1999). A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dude, B. (2003). Qualitative Research Data Analysis. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Embick, D. (2004). “Uncausative Syntax and Verbal Alternations”. In the Uncausativity Puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-Lexicon Interface, edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopou, and Martin Everaert, 137-158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fauzi, M. and Mulyadi. (2020). Struktur Argumen Struktur Argumen Bahasa Melayu Dialek Akit Pulau Padang Kepulauan Meranti. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, Direct Object. 16, No. 2 Februari.
Givon, T. (1984). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction.vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Hale, K. and Jay, K. (1986). Some Transitivity Alternations in English. In Lexicon Project Working Papers 7. Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Harley, H. (1995). Subjects, Events and Licensing. Dissertation., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Harley, H. (2008). “On the causative construction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, edited by Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herman, van Thao, N., and Purba, N. A. (2021). Investigating Sentence Fragments in Comic Books: A Syntactic Perspective. World Journal of English Language, Vol. 11, No. 2. PP. 139-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v11n2p139
Herman, H., Purba, R., Sijabat, P. A., Saputra, N., Muhammadiah, M., & Thao, N. V. (2022). Investigating the Realization of Speech Function in a Speech through Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective. Script Journal: Journal of Linguistics and English Teaching, 7(01), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v7i01.917
Hopper, P.J. and Thompson, S.A. (editor). (1982). Syntax and Semantics: Studies in Transitivity. (Vol.15). New York: Academic Press.
Jo, J. (2021). Selection and Argument Structure: The case of Morphological Causatives in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Vol. 30 Issue 2, P141-175. 35p
Jufrizal. (2004). Struktur Argumen dan Aliansi Gramatikal Bahasa Minangkabau (Disertasi). Denpasar: Program Doktor (S3). Linguistik Universitas Udayana.
¬¬______. (2012). Tatabahasa Minangkabau: Deskripsi dan Telaah Tipologi Linguistik. Padang: UNP Press.
Katamba F. (1993). Morphology. London: Macmilland.
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). “Anticausativization” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27:77–138.
Lavine, James E., and Leonard H. B. (2019). “A New Argument for the Lexical Underspecification of Causers.” Linguistic Inquiry 50:803–824.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cam[1]bridge, MA: MIT Press
Lyons, J. (1987). Introduction to Theoritical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mallinson, G. & Blake, B.J. (1981). Language Typology: Cross-Linguistic Studies in Syntax. Amsterdam: North-HDirect Objectland.
Manning, C. D. (1996). Ergativity: Argument Structure and Gramatical Relations. California: CSLI.
Palmer, F.R. (1996). Grammatical Direct Objects and Relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Purba, R., Van Thao, N., Herman, Sitohang, D. R., & Thi Quynh Trang, P. (2022). How to Attract Viewers through Advertisement Slogans? A Case on Figurative in Semantic Study. Universal Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1), 1–5. DOI: 10.31586/ujssh.2022.213
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, T. (2002. The Theta System: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28:229–290.
Reinhart, T. and Siloni, T. (2005). The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and other Operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36:389–436
Sedeng, I. (2011). Pembentukan Verba Bersufiks {-kan} Bahasa Indonesia, Struktur Argumen, Struktur Logis, dan Makna Sufiks {-kan}. Linguistika: Buletin Ilmiah Program Magister Linguistik Universitas Udayana. VDirect Object.. 18 Sept. ISSN 2656-6419.
Seken, I Ketut. (2004). Being Polite in Balinese: An Analysis of Balinese (Dissertation). IKIP Malang.
Shibatani, M. (editor). (1976). Syntax and Semantics: The Grammar of Causative Construction. New York: Academic Press.
Son, M. (2006). Causation and syntactic decomposition of events. Dissertation. University of Delaware.
Subroto, D. E. (1992). Introduction to Structural Linguistic Research Methods. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University.
Van Valin Jr., R.D. and La Polla, R.J. (1999). Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verhaar, JWM. (2000). General Linguistic Principles. Yogyakarta: UGM
Woods, J. (2012). Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. New York University: Department of Linguistics.
