Functional Change: The Case of Malay Constituent Order 9783110864540, 9783110118551

Citation preview

Functional Change

Discourse Perspectives on Grammar

2 Editors

Paul Hopper Sandra Thompson

Mouton de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Functional Change The Case of Malay Constituent Order

by

Susanna Cumming

Mouton de Gruyter · Berlin • New York

1991

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cat aloging-in-Publication

Data

Cumming, Susanna, 1959 — Functional change : the case of Malay constituent order / by Susanna Cumming. p. cm. — (Discourse perspectives on grammar; 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-89925-524-8 (cloth : acid-free paper) 1. Malay language —Syntax. 2. Malay language —Grammar, Generative. 3. Malay language —History. 4. Malayan languages —History. I Title. II. Series. PL5115.C85 1991 499'.285 —dc20 91-11134 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek

— Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Cumming, Susanna: Functional change : the case of Malay constituent order / Susanna Cumming. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1991 (Discourse perspectives on grammar ; 2) ISBN 3-11-011855-6 NE: Η ST; G T

© Copyright 1991 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30 All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. N o part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Typesetting: Asian Research Service, Hong Kong. — Printing: Gerike G m b H , Berlin. — Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. — Printed in Germany.

Table of contents

1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction 1.1.1. Constituent order change 1.1.2. The discourse function of constituent-order alternation 1.1.2.1. Function and genre 1.1.3. Summary 1.2. Malay, Malaysian, and Indonesian 1.2.1. "Old Malay" and the Malay homeland 1.2.2. Classical Malay 1.2.3. The nationalization of Malay 1.2.3.1. Indonesian 1.2.3.2. Malaysian 1.2.4. Summary 1.3. Methodology

1 1 2 5 7 8 8 10 11 13 13 16 18 18

2. Grammatical preliminaries 2.1. Introduction 2.2. The noun phrase 2.2.1. Pronouns 2.3. The prepositional phrase 2.4. The trigger system 2.4.1. Semantic and syntactic roles 2.4.2. Transitivity 2.4.3. Definition of "trigger" 2.5. Transitive clauses 2.5.1. Agent trigger clauses 2.5.2. Patient trigger clauses 2.5.2.1. No agent 2.5.2.2. Proclitic agent 2.5.2.3. Enclitic agent 2.5.2.4. Bare noun phrase agent 2.5.2.5. Oleh agent 2.5.2.6. Status of di2.5.2.7. Akan in Classical Malay 2.6. Intransitive clauses 2.6.1. Noun phrase predicates

21 21 21 25 28 29 30 31 31 34 36 37 37 37 39 40 40 42 42 45 45

VI

2.6.2. 2.6.3. 2.6.4. 2.6.5. 2.6.6. 2.7. 2.7.1. 2.7.2. 2.7.3. 2.7.4. 2.8. 2.8.1. 2.8.2. 2.8.2.1. 2.8.3. 2.8.3.1. 2.8.3.2. 2.8.3.3. 2.8.3.4. 2.8.3.5. 2.9.

Prepositional phrase predicates Unprefixed verbs Ber- verbs Ter- verbs The role of the trigger Some special clause types Questions Imperatives Exclamatories Possessor dislocation Clause combining Relative clauses Clausal arguments Direct quotation Serial verbs Modals Restrictions on the role of the shared argument One event Separate events Possessor serialization Summary

3. Classical Malay 3.1. Introduction 3.1.1. Data 3.1.1.1. The Hikayat Indraputra 3.1.1.2. The Sejarah Melayu 3.2. The discourse particles pun and lah 3.2.1. Pun, preverbal position, and identifiability 3.2.2. Pun and discontinuity 3.3. Constituent order in pun-less clauses 3.3.1. Individuation 3.3.2. Semantic role 3.3.2.1. Descriptive predicates and possessed trigger 3.3.3. Participant introduction 3.3.4. Eventiveness 3.3.4.1. Intransitives: the suffix lah 3.3.4.2. Transitive clauses: trigger choice 3.4. The interaction of factors and inter-text differences 3.4.1. Pun and trigger choice 3.4.2. Constituent order and trigger choice

46 46 47 48 49 51 51 53 54 55 57 58 61 66 68 69 72 75 78 80 82 84 84 85 87 88 90 93 98 107 108 110 113 115 123 123 128 133 134 141

VII

3.4.3. 3.4.4. 3.4.5. 3.4.6. 3.4.6.1. 3.5. 3.6.

Constituent order and lah Non-trigger arguments Summary of differences between hikayat Summary of interactions: competition and convergence Competition and discourse salience Basic order Conclusions

143 144 146 147 149 151 154

4. Modern Indonesian 4.1. Introduction 4.1.1. Data 4.2. The loss of pun 4.3. The transitive clause 4.3.1. Grammatical developments 4.3.1.1. The loss of akan 4.3.1.2. One-argument patient-trigger clauses 4.3.1.3. The clitic-agent restriction 4.3.2. Eventiveness and patient-trigger syntax 4.3.2.1. Stylistic considerations 4.3.2.2. Information status of the patient 4.3.3. Summary: trigger choice and constituent order 4.4. Intransitive clauses 4.4.1. Constituent order and eventiveness 4.4.2. Presentativeness 4.4.2.1. Place presentatives 4.4.2.2. Movement presentatives 4.4.2.3. Verbs of perception 4.4.2.4. Persistence and participant introduction 4.4.2.5. Participant introduction: summary 4.4.3. Exclamatories and possessed trigger 4.5. Differences between authors 4.6. Basic order 4.7. Conclusions

155 155 156 159 161 162 163 164 167 170 172 175 178 179 180 183 184 186 187 190 193 194 196 198 199

5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.2.3. 5.2.4.

202 202 202 203 203 204 205

Conclusions Introduction Other varieties Classical Malay Modern Indonesian A transitional peninsular Malay text A modern oral Sumatran Malay text

VIII

5.2.5. 5.2.6. 5.3. 5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.3.2.1. 5.3.2.2. 5.3.3. 5.3.4. 5.3.5. 5.4. 5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.5.

An oral Javanese Indonesian text Conclusions The path of change The earlier state Narrowing of pun Consequences for the PT clause Consequences for the ST clause Loss of semantic role marking External triggers The outcome The role of contact Malay in Java Modern Literary Indonesian Conclusions

206 206 208 208 209 210 210 211 212 212 213 213 215 215

Appendix

218

Notes

220

References

231

Index

244

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Introduction This work explores a particular instance of syntactic change which has occurred in Malay. Put in the usual terms of constituent order typology,1 Malay can be argued to have undergone a shift from "basic" verb-initial or VSO order (in "Classical Malay", represented in texts of the 17th century) to "basic" verb-medial or SVO order (in the modern standard languages known as Indonesian and Malaysian). A closer examination shows that Malay had both orders available at both stages; therefore what actually occurred was a change in the frequency of the two orders. This change in frequency, in turn, results from a change in the function of the contrast between the two orders. This functional change conditioned and was conditioned by a number of other changes which took place concurrently, so that functions previously marked by the VS/SV alternation came to be marked by other means, while the VS/SV alternation took on new functions. This view of constituent order change reflects the view that a change in which order is "basic" is simply a side effect of changes in the discourse functions of variant orders. I will propose a general principle which can be seen as underlying several aspects of the form/function redistribution which accompanied the Malay constituent order shift: A.

A mapping between a discourse function and a morpho-syntactic form is salient to the degree that clauses which have that function are associated with that form, and vice versa.

B.

A change which leads to a reduction of the salience of a mapping may lead to the loss of that mapping.

C.

In this event, either the function will cease to be marked, or it will come to be marked by some other morpho-syntactic form.

This principle stems from a very old idea in the theory of language change: that changes in one part of the system can lead to erosion of the

2

Chapter 1

form-function correspondence in another part of the system, which in turn can lead to "reanalysis" or "restructuring" of the whole system.2 This idea in turn has its basis in the principle that languages tend to preserve "one form/one meaning" iconicity. Researchers in phonological and morphological change have long been aware of the importance of this principle; studies in syntactic change have lagged behind in this respect, probably because ways of expressing the "meaning" of syntactic alternations (which I take to correspond to the function of the alternations in discourse — i.e. the use speakers make of the alternations) have only recently begun to be formulated with the requisite degree of precision. The data I have investigated for this study come principally from the literary varieties of two periods: the Classical Malay hikayat (a literary form which emerged in the 17th century) and the contemporary Standard Indonesian novel. "Indonesian" is the name for the variety of Malay which was adopted as the standard national language by the Indonesian government when independence was declared in 1945; its status is thus parallel to that of the variety I will call "Malaysian", the standard national language of Malaysia. I will use the term "Malay" as a neutral term, embracing both new and old, standard and non-standard varieties of the language. The relationships among these varieties will be discussed more fully in Section 1.2 of this chapter.

1.1.1. Constituent order change As a description of an instance of syntactic change, this study is intended as a contribution to the typology of syntactic change, that is, to the enterprise which has as its goal the enumeration and classification of possible paths of syntactic change, as set forth by Greenberg (1968:155): Just as historically unrelated synchronic phenomena can become the subject of generalizing attempts, so too can historically independent instances of process — that is, typologically similar changes. As such, it also represents a contribution to the study of linguistic universals: an understanding of possible linguistic changes is essential to our understanding of what constitutes a possible language, since a possible language must have changed via a possible path from another possible language. This view is expressed by Greenberg (1966:10) as follows:

Chapter 1

3

No change can produce a synchronically unlawful state and all synchronic states are the outcome of diachronic processes. In recent years, a good deal of attention has been paid to the interactions between diachronic and synchronic generalizations which are implied by this statement. In particular, attention has been focussed on implicational relationships between the orders of constituents in different parts of the grammar. These generalizations have been seen as constraining and being constrained by possible paths of change. This type of idea has been developed in different ways in, among others, Vennemann (1975), Lehmann (1978), Lightfoot (1979), and Hawkins (1984). Before I proceed with a discussion of how this study relates to the research tradition exemplified in these papers, a terminological caveat is in order. I will use the familiar labels "S", "V", and "O" in this section in order to relate my work to past work in constituent order typology and change. However, as I will argue more extensively in Chapter 2, these labels are not very satisfactory in relation to the categories of Malay syntax. Terms such as "verb-initial", "verb-medial" etc. are not satisfactory either, since even in clauses in which the verb precedes all of its arguments, there are very frequently linkers, adverbials, or other elements before the verb. In future sections the terms S and Ο will be avoided. Instead, I will use the term "trigger" (or "T") to refer to the grammatical role of the obligatory argument of the clause. When semantic rather than syntactic roles are at issue, I will use the terms A (more or less "agent"), Ρ (more or less "patient"), and S (the single argument of an intransitive clause). Unfortunately, the strand of research exemplified in the recent typological literature has little bearing on the constituent order change which forms the topic of this study. This is because a change from VS to SV does not test any of the claims that have been made about implicational relations between stages: there are no characteristics of VS languages that are not also frequently found in SV languages. Therefore, the VS > SV change has been viewed as of little theoretical significance. It is a possible change; in fact, it is a common change; and it does not entail any other changes in basic constituent orderings according to known principles. Thus, accounts relating word order type to word order change simply have nothing to say about an instance of change of this sort. Verbinitial languages commonly (in fact, probably universally) have an alternative SV order available to their speakers in addition to the "basic" VS order (c.f. Universal 6 in Greenberg 1963: "All languages with dominant VSO order have SVO as an alternative or as the only alternative basic

4

Chapter 1

order." 3 ) This fact suggests that this kind of change can come about simply by a change in the relative frequency of the variants — an insignificant change from a purely structural point of view. There is in the literature a widespread recognition that the VS > SV change involves pragmatic factors, since the constituent order variation which is known to exist at each stage is pragmatically conditioned. However, such pragmatic factors tend to be seen as operating in a relatively random and unconstrained way. This view is reflected in remarks such as that of Bickerton and Givön that "all a language has to do in order to make the VS-SV change is to reanalyze the marked topicality order as unmarked" (1976:30), or, in Mallinson and Blake's characterization: "an originally fancy pattern has lost its novelty and is becoming the plain pattern" (1981:402). Mallinson and Blake go on to motivate this type of change in terms of Lightfoot's (1979) principle of "expressivity", which in turn is linked to a putative universal human need for variety for its own sake. Underlying these remarks there seems to be an assumption that if a change is "merely" pragmatically motivated, nothing more needs to be said. Similar shortcomings are apparent in those synchronically-oriented typological studies (such as Tomlin 1986; Mallinson & Blake 1980) that rely heavily on discourse categories, such as "theme", to explain the numerical preponderance of certain constituent orders over others. Typically, a principle is invoked to the effect that themes tend to precede other elements, and that subjects tend to be themes. What such studies fail to explain is the existence of languages which do not have subject-first order. Are we to conclude that in these languages "subjects" are not "themes", or that "themes" are sometimes non-initial? The answers to questions like these cannot typically be found in the grammatical descriptions which form the basis for large-scale typological studies; ultimately, only detailed discourse studies of large numbers of the relevant languages can solve the apparent paradox. It is in precisely this kind of case that the study of discourse function can shed some light. If one sees pragmatically-conditioned alternation as systematic and governed by general principles, then the VS > SV shift does not appear random or unconstrained. In fact, reflection reveals that such a change must have preconditions and consequences in other parts of the system, just as a change from VO > OV does. Myhill (1985) represents one attempt to approach the VS > SV shift in precisely this way. He compares the function of verb-initial and non-verb-initial order in languages along the continuum from strongly VS to strongly SV, and shows that there are in fact differences in the way information distribution

Chapter 1

5

is grammaticized which correlate with the frequency of verb-initial clauses, noting a tendency for (morphologically) deverbal forms, which he assumes to be associated cross-linguistically with "presupposed" information status, to occur in non-initial position in verb-initial languages.4 This study is similar in spirit, although instead of looking at the synchronic situation of several unrelated languages, I will examine several varieties of a single language at different periods. I will show that the VS/SV alternation in Malay was not a matter of "plain" syntax vs. "fancy" syntax, nor was "topicality" the only (or even the main) discourse factor involved in the alternation. Rather, constituent order alternation was part of a complex system of surface devices used to encode a variety of discourse functions. To the extent that the need for a discourse function remains invariant over time, 5 a change in the relative frequencies of variants must reflect changes in the distribution of functions and forms. It is odd that the role of variation in syntactic change has been neglected to such a wide extent, since the role of variation in phonological change has long been recognized, and brought to the forefront within the last two decades in the work of Labov. We must attribute this difference to the fact that the "envelope of variation" is relatively accessible in the case of phonology: it is easy to identify variant pronunciations of the "same word". Syntactic variation, on the other hand, is more elusive: when are two different sentences ways of saying the "same thing"? Differences in the order of elements are more apt than phonological differences to be interpreted as reflecting differences in the message. It is probably due to this dissimilarity between the nature of phonological and syntactic alternations that social conditioning of phonological alternation is widely documented and discussed, while examples of socially-conditioned syntactic alternations are relatively difficult to identify (except when lexical material such as affixation is involved). However, as I have already suggested in my discussion of the principle of discourse salience, the relationship of variation and change at the level of syntax is in some ways parallel to the relationship of variation and change at the level of phonology.

1.1.2. The discourse function of constituent-order alternation If the typological/diachronic literature has neglected discourse pressures on syntactic change, neither is the discourse literature as rich as one would like in studies with a well-documented diachronic dimension. While there

6

Chapter 1

are dozens of studies on the function of word-order alternation in languages of varying types, only a handful have provided data from more than one stage of the language examined, and as a result our understanding of the interaction of syntactic change and discourse function is still fairly speculative. This study aims to improve on this situation. Like the typological literature, the discourse literature provides us with a good number of putatively universal constraints or tendencies relating to constituent order. In the case of the discourse literature, however, the generalizations have to do with the relationship of particular functions to particular positions or positional contrasts. For instance, Givön claims that VS constituent order is associated with continuous (i.e. old or given) S in languages with flexible constituent order (Givön 1983:19), but that in languages with rigid constituent order, VS order is used to introduce new topics into a narrative (Givön 1983:26). However, in any given language the functions of constituent order are likely to be more varied and complex than is suggested by these generalizations. Even in a rigid "subject-first" language like English, for instance, we may note that "inversion" or VS order is used for a fairly wide range of functions. As predicted by Givön we have presentative inversion ("On the table was an apple"), but there are also question inversion ("Who is she?", "Have you gone?"), comparative inversion ("She reads more than does her brother"), quotation inversion ( " Ί know,' said she), and a host of others. Moreover, both the syntactic and the pragmatic properties of these inversions are quite various, and the mapping between syntactic type and discourse function is not at all straightforward (Green 1980). Thus, in any given language, very general principles of discourse function interact with each other and with other grammatical properties of the language, so that the resulting systems may be extremely complex. The degree of complexity may remain hidden, however, when only one language variety is examined: it is often too easy to lump together several subtly distinct functions under a familiar label, such as simply labeling as "topicalization" alternations that bring an "old" referent to the beginning of a sentence, or labeling as "afterthought" alternations that bring it to the end. The process of comparing two or more similar language varieties provides a good corrective for the tendency to overgeneralize about constituent order function: this process tests whether a generalization is fine-tuned enough to distinguish between the two varieties if in fact there is evidence (for instance, from frequency differences) that they are not functionally identical. The comparative work involved in this study permitted the discovery of a host of small distinguishing characteristics between the two varieties

Chapter 1

7

of Malay which are related to the statistical difference in constituent order frequency, and whose importance has gone unnoticed in previous studies which focussed on only one of the two varieties examined. At each stage the mapping between functions and constituent orders is not one-to-one: the T- > V/V- > Τ alternation is used to encode several different kinds of functional and semantic distinctions, while distinctions which are sometimes coded by constituent order may also be coded by other means under other conditions. The interference which results from a variety of functions competing for a small number of forms tends to result in the decrease of the discourse salience of certain of the mappings. These mappings, according to the principle of discourse salience, then tend to disappear. Thus, a perturbation in one part of the system can have many and far-reaching effects on the distribution of functions over forms. I shall examine in some detail the ways in which different functions which compete for the same surface realization interact at each of the stages I will be discussing; and, in addition to constituent order, I will also discuss at some length the functions of several other aspects of the grammatical system of Malay, including verbal morphology, discourse particles, and noun phrase marking.

1.1.2.1. Function and genre Because of the time depth involved in this study, my sources of data are necessarily written documents; though several genres of text were available at each of the stages being studied (for Classical Malay, for instance, we have several long poetic works and legal codes available), I chose to work with prose narratives. Prose, because the phonological constraints on poetry introduce a complicating factor; and narratives, because the discourse functions which are particularly relevant to narrative presentation are understood better than those relevant to any other genre. As is well known, however, the mere fact of two texts both being characterizable as "written prose narratives" does not prevent there being considerable differences between them, especially when they were produced in different places at different times for different audiences. Some of these differences have a direct bearing on the inventory of "discourse functions" that require coding in the text, since "discourse function" is simply another term for "author's goals". While some goals that authors have (such as to be understood, or to conserve energy) are very general and may be taken to apply to almost all texts, others (such as

8

Chapter 1

to show respect for a raja, or to sound up-to-date) are peculiar to particular times, places, authors, and audiences. Thus, a "functional change" such as those described here may involve not only the redistribution of those functions which remain constant among grammatical realizations, but also the loss of old functions and the addition of new ones. This latter type of change may be seen as a matter not of linguistic change, but rather of the evolution of a genre, i.e. a cultural entity; however, since very general (universal) functions and very particular (genre-specific) ones have the same linguistic resources available for their realization, a comparative study such as the present one cannot choose to document only universal functions to the exclusion of those that are genre-specific.

1.1.3. Summary This book, then, addresses both descriptive and theoretical issues. On the descriptive level, it sets forth a detailed analysis of the function of constituent order alternation in two diachronically related varieties of Malay. On the theoretical level, it seeks to enrich our understanding of the factors which constrain and enable syntactic change by showing how a change in markedness can come about. As such, it demonstrates the possibility of an explanation of syntactic change in terms of general discourse/functional principles, a type of explanation which is often proposed but rarely carried out with any thoroughness. In the remainder of this chapter, I will offer a brief history of the Malay language, in order to elucidate the historical and social context of the changes under discussion; and finally I will discuss the method I used in collecting and analyzing the data.

1.2. Malay, Malaysian, and Indonesian "Malay" is the name given to a range of language varieties which have been spoken over a wide geographical area, in a number of different social functions, over a long period of time. In addition to the varieties which are commonly described as Malay dialects, there are other varieties which are commonly considered separate languages, but which may be as closely related to varieties recognized as Malay dialects as any of them are to each other. The "Malay dialects" may be lumped together with these other "languages" under the term Malayic:

Chapter 1

9

Malay is spoken in coastal areas of the Malay peninsula and Kalimantan, in South and Southeast Sumatra, and in nearly all major trade centers of the Indonesian archipelago. The Malay language belongs to the group of Malayic languages, which also includes Minangkabau and Kerinci in Sumatra, and various languages/ dialects of inland Western Kalimantan, of which the most important islban. (Adelaar 1985:1) Modern Malaysian/Indonesian are most closely related to those varieties clustered in and around the Strait of Malacca, in the shaded areas on the map in Figure 1.

MALAYSIA

ACEH

Malacca Johor Baru

NORTH \ | | SUMATRA

'SINGAPORE Kep Riau • Λ Kep Lingga

M M M h RIAU

SUMATRA west^I _ SUMATRA^

Jambi JAMBI

National boundaries Indonesian provincial boundaries ——— Language boundaries

Palembang SOUTH * SUMATRA j. BENGKULU

V////A Minangkabau 111 Malay

Figure 1. Sumatran and peninsular Malay

jLAMPUNG

10

Chapter 1

The range of sociolinguistic statuses occupied by Malay varieties is probably almost as great as the geographic range of communities of speakers. In some communities it is the only language of monolingual speakers, while in others it is a marginal contact language used only by a small segment of the population. It is a national language in four countries — Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore — but it evokes different attitudes, and fills different sociolinguistic niches, in each of these nations. In areas where a Malay dialect is an old trade language, that variety of Malay may compete for social functions with both the standard national variety and a completely different local language. Similarly, there is a diachronic dimension to the variety of Malay; it possesses a long written tradition, including an old classical literature. It is the diachronic dimension I wish to explore in this study. In order to isolate this dimension of variation as far as possible, it is necessary to attempt to eliminate or reduce the elements of geographical and social variation. In this section I will discuss the historical and social setting of the two varieties of Malay which are compared in this study, and thus elucidate the connection between them.

1.2.1. "Old Malay" and the Malay homeland The geographical origin of the first speakers of the Malay language is a matter of some debate, although perhaps the most generally accepted hypothesis places the "Malay homeland" in Eastern Sumatra, in an area which is still predominantly Malay-speaking. The oldest inscriptions in a language which is putatively Malay (on the basis of its morphological and phonological characteristics) date from the second half of the seventh century; they commemorate victories of the empire of Srivijaya, and are found in the empire's capital in Palembang, southern Sumatra (Coedfcs 1964; see map). These inscriptions, written in an Indie script, show that Malay (or a closely related language6) was the language of Srivijaya, an early maritime power with wide-ranging dependencies; the capital of this empire was first located at Palembang, and later at a place formerly called Malayu (now Jambi) somewhat to the north (Wolters 1970). (This is probably the source of the name "Malay", which in Modern Malaysian and Indonesian is written Melayu.) This "empire" consisted of a loose network of coastal trading ports; we may presume that the widespread dispersion of the Malay language as the language of commerce throughout much of coastal Southeast Asia began at least during this period, and perhaps even earlier. Concrete evidence of the importance of Malay as a

Chapter 1

11

lingua franca before the rise of Classical Malay is provided by the use of Malay in inscriptions in places where the local language was probably not Malay, including western Java, Pasai in Aceh (northern Sumatra), and finally, by the 14th century, in Trengganu on the Malay peninsula — by which time an Arabic script had begun to be used.

1.2.2. Classical Malay "Classical Malay" is the name given to the literary language of the court of the Malacca empire, whose capital was in the Southern part of the Malay peninsula, and its successor states in the Riau archipelago (a group of small islands in the Straits of Malacca, between Sumatra and the Malay peninsula) and Johor (see map). Like the earlier Srivijaya empire, Malacca was a maritime empire with dependencies on both sides of the straits as well as elsewhere in Southeast Asia. In the Malay Annals, a historical document intended to legitimize the Malaccan emperors, the royal family is traced back, via the rulers of Srivijaya, to a union between Alexander the Great and an Indian princess (Wolters 1970). However accurate the genealogical link set forth in the Malay Annals, the language of the Malaccan court was certainly closely related to the language of the Srivijayan inscriptions. The Malacca empire fell in 1511 when the Portuguese took its capital, but the rulers established a new center in the Riau archipelago (later moved to Johor) where the life of the court continued to flourish, even though its geopolitical supremacy would never be regained. It was in this setting that most of the Malay hikayat — epic tales based initially on Indian and Persian romances, and then branching out to embrace historical material, Muslim religious traditions, and narrative traditions from Java and other parts of Indonesia — were initially adapted, composed, chanted and copied (in an Arabic-type script usually called "Jawi"). The process of copying the Hikayat was very important to the linguistic nature of the rescensions available today. In the steamy tropical climate, frequent recopyings were necessary, and the Malay copyist considered himself a participant in the creative process rather than merely as a preserver of tradition; he improved and adapted the material he was given, rather than merely passing it on. In the words of Teeuw (1959:149),

12

Chapter 1 Unlike the Balinese copyists of the Old Javanese literature, who preserved the original texts with surprising fidelity and accuracy century after century, the copyists of Malay literature not only set to work rather carelessly, they often even seemed to deem it their duty and even their honor to purify their material, adapting it to the requirements of the day and smoothing out everything they considered to be an inequality.

Thus, there are often large differences between different rescensions of the "same" Hikayat. For this reason, in doing linguistic work, the date of a particular manuscript is probably of more relevance than the date of composition. Although a few manuscripts of considerable age have been preserved in European collections, the majority of manuscripts available for research today date from the nineteenth century. It is appropriate to mention here that while the language of the Hikayat is unarguably written language, it should perhaps not be taken to be literary language in the sense usually understood today. This is because the Hikayat were in all probability not intended to be consumed by an isolated reader, but were rather read (or "performed") aloud in a sort of rhythmic chant for a largely illiterate audience (Sweeney 1980a). While this mode of performance may have had some effect on the syntactic forms of the language employed (the most commonly cited examples of this are the use of "punctuation words" such as maka to separate "sentences", and the extensive use of parallelism and repetitive formulas), it is not clear what influence this mode of presentation might have had on the issues under exploration here. Whatever restrictions were imposed by this mode, however, the limitations of oral composition (with all the associated features of "unplanned discourse") were not among them; nor were the exigencies of rhyme and meter. Although a tradition of epic poems or syair existed alongside the Hikayat tradition, and many tales existed in both forms, the two were clearly distinct. Thus, the difficulties in interpreting the relationship between the language of the Hikayat and the spoken language of the same period are no greater than those attending the historical linguist's interpretation of the language of premodern documents in other cultures (European as well as Asian) in which writing had found a place but "reading" in the modern sense had not yet become a general phenomenon.

Chapter I

13

1.2.3. The nationalization of Malay As the language of the Malacca Empire, which was active over a large part of Southeast Asia in commercial as well as military ventures, Malay maintained its ancient role as a maritime lingua franca. This remained the case when the colonial powers entered the area and gradually usurped the power of the local leaders. Although European languages — Portuguese, Dutch, and English — played important roles as contact languages at various times and places, if a "local" language was used for contact purposes, it was almost always Malay. Malay was also the language chosen for education by the British and the Dutch, when colonial policy called for the promotion of literacy in a local language. Thus, it is not surprising that both Indonesia and Malaysia chose Malay as their national language when they gained independence from the Dutch and the British in 1945 and 1957 respectively.

1.2.3.1. Indonesian In the Youth Congress of October 28, 1928, the budding nationalist movement of Indonesia adopted three basic principles: Pertama: Kami putera dan puteri Indonesia mengaku bertumpah darah yang satu, Tanah Indonesia. Kedua: Kami putera dan puteri Indonesia mengaku berbangsa yang satu, Bangsa Indonesia. Ketiga: Kami putera dan puteri Indonesia menjunjung bahasa persatuan, Bahasa Indonesia. 'First: We the sons and daughters of Indonesia acknowledge that we have one birthplace, the Land of Indonesia. Second: We the sons and daughters of Indonesia acknowledge that we belong to one people, the People of Indonesia. Third: We the sons and daughters of Indonesia uphold the language of unity, the Language of Indonesia (i.e. Indonesian).' This "language of unity" was Malay, renamed at the congress to Indonesian {Bahasa Indonesia, lit. 'the language of Indonesia'). Thus, as is often noted, Indonesian is actually the "same language" as Malay. However, this statement is of little use to a linguist: given the diversity

14

Chapter 1

among Malay varieties mentioned at the beginning of this section, it is critical to know what kind of Malay it is. This question, surprisingly, is not easy to answer; while Indonesian experts discussing issues of language planning are often conscious of the influences of local languages on standard Indonesian ("corrupting" or "enriching", depending on the point of view), and while they are aware of the differences between standard Indonesian and the so-called "Malay dialects" spoken natively in various parts of Indonesia and the Malay peninsula, the question of the geographical and social origin of the standard is rarely scientifically addressed, though there is no shortage of politically-motivated statements. The usual claim is that the standard is based on "Riau-Johor Malay", the language of most of the inhabitants of the east coast of Sumatra (mostly in what is now the province of Riau), the Riau and Lingga Archipelagoes, and the adjacent peninsular region of Johor (see map). This is approximately the same geographical region where the exiled Malaccan court held sway after the Portuguese took Malacca. Abas (1987:18) cites the following resolution from a 1954 Congress on Indonesian: "The origin of Indonesian is Malay. Indonesian is based on Malay which has developed and been enriched through the inclusion of items from other vernaculars of the Indonesian archipelago." He adds, "If we look closely at the deliberations of the Congress on Indonesian in Medan, it is in fact ML-Riau [Riau Malay] that is implicitly referred to as the origin and base of Indonesian" (Abas 1987:19). Thus, in Indonesia the question of the historical origins of Indonesian is often treated as a political matter, requiring policies and proclamations, rather than an empirical question requiring research. For this reason also, Indonesian writers prefer to speak of "Riau Malay" and Malaysian ones of "Johor Malay" when discussing the origin of their standard languages; but this distinction too is primarily political rather than linguistic. The two regions, though geographically adjacent and historically unified, have been divided politically since 1824, when the English and the Dutch drew a boundary between their territories along the Strait of Malacca, between Singapore and the rest of the Riau archipelago. It is clear, however, that in fact standard Indonesian is not actually the dialect currently spoken in the Riau province of Indonesia; impressionistic accounts suggest that these dialects may differ as much from "Standard Indonesian" as taught in schools (and practiced by authors, journalists, etc.) as any of the various regional dialects of the Malay peninsula. The only text of Sumatran Malay I have been able to examine (which, however, comes not from a Riau speaker but a Serdang speaker, from the area around Medan), published in Rafferty 1983, confirms these

Chapter 1

15

impressions; with respect to the features of interest to this study it would seem to "retain" some features of the Classical Malay texts which are no longer present in Indonesian, but with respect to other features, it differs from both the varieties which form the primary foci of this study. (This text is discussed further in Chapter 5.) What, then, is the basis for modem Standard Indonesian, if not the Riau dialect of today? The historian Benedict Anderson traces it to the variety used by Dutch administrators: By a slow, largely unplanned process, a strange language-of-state evolved on the basis of an ancient interinsular lingua franca. Called dienstmaleisch (perhaps 'service-Malay' or 'administrative-Malay'), it belonged typologically with Ottoman' and that 'fiscal German' which emerged from the polyglot barracks of the Hapsburg empire. By the early nineteenth century it was solidly in place inside officialdom. When print-capitalism arrived on the scene in a sizable way after mid-century, the language moved out of the marketplace and the media. Used at first mainly by Chinese and Eurasian newspapermen and printers, it was picked up by inlanders [the Dutch term for 'natives' — SC] at the century's close. Quickly the dienst branch of its family tree was forgotten and replaced by a putative ancestor in the Riau Islands. (Anderson 1983:121) However, it seems that even the Malay used and promoted by the Dutch was not as uniform as Anderson suggests. In several studies, Ellen Rafferty has investigated the roles of various varieties preserved in literary documents of the 1920s in shaping the modern literary standard (Rafferty 1984, 1985, 1987). These studies emphasize the contrast between the archaizing "High Malay", much admired by the Dutch and promoted by their presses and in their schools, and the "Low Malay" exemplified in publications by the Javanese-born Chinese community and the emerging nationalist community. High Malay, in turn, was a direct descendent of the literature of the Malacca courts, including the Malay of the Hikayat. This variety of the language met with European approval, since it already had many of the attributes of a standard language, including an orthography with fairly standardized spelling and a colorful literary tradition. Those British and Dutch administrators who became scholars of Malay were themselves great admirers of the idiom of the Hikayat, especially the Malay Annals, and held it up as a standard from which any deviation was seen as corruption; 7 the Hikayat were even edited to be

16

Chapter 1

used as texts in the teaching of reading in the schools (Shellabear 1915 and 1917 are examples of these efforts). Because of these factors, in the early years of Bahasa Indonesia (i.e. the twenties and thirties), the literary world of the Dutch East Indies was dominated by a group of mostly Sumatran authors who had been educated by the Dutch in High Malay and who were published by the Dutchsponsored publishing house, the Balai Pustaka. Interestingly, for the most part these authors (the "twenties generation") were not native Riau Malay speakers, but Minangkabau from West Sumatra (Freidus 1977). At the same time, however, a "low Malay" press flourished without official sponsorship in Java, publishing works mostly by Java-born ("peranakan") Chinese on the one hand, and Javanese nationalists on the other hand (Rafferty 1985). After Indonesian independence was declared in 1945, other ethnic groups (but principally Javanese) became increasingly involved in the national literary scene, and today the majority of authors are of Javanese origin. Thus, the language of contemporary literature can be expected to contain both "high" and "low" Malay elements, reflecting linguistic usage both from Sumatra and Java. The identification of these elements will be discussed further in Chapter 4. It is worth noting here that, while there has been considerable attention paid (in both Indonesia and Malaysia) to "modernizing" Malay to better suit it for its new functions as a national language, it seems unlikely that the kinds of changes brought about by the national language planning agencies of the two countries have influenced the aspects of language use investigated in this study. "Modernization" is primarily concerned with the normalization of spelling, the addition of lexical items, and questions of "usage" and to a lesser degree with the "rationalization" of the grammar, i.e. choosing a "correct" form when more than one variant is in vogue, and avoiding potentially "ambiguous" constructions (c.f. Karim 1978, 1981; Alisjahbana 1972; Moeliono 1985). Thus, whatever changes may have occurred in the standard language as a result of government intervention, the changes which will be discussed here must find their motivation elsewhere.

1.2.3.2. Malaysian The development of Malay as a standard literary language occurred considerably later in Malaysia than in Indonesia — Malaysia (previously called Malaya) did not become independent until 1957, and although Malay was declared the only national language at that time, ten years were

Chapter 1

17

allotted for the implementation of this decision. In practice the process of replacing English with Malay took much longer than that, and is still not complete (Karim 1981). In national schools, for instance, Malay did not become the only medium of instruction until 1983. Thus, even now Malay does not have the status in Malaysian life that it has in Indonesia. This is due to the differing political history and ethnic makeup of the two countries. In Indonesia, Malay was the native language of a relatively small group; thus, it did not provide much of a political threat to any other of the linguistic minorities, as the choice of (say) Javanese, spoken by a more numerous and politically dominant portion of the population, would have done. Moreover, modern attitudes in Indonesia towards the Dutch precluded the selection of Dutch or another European language as the national language. In Malaysia, however, the story is different. Post-World War II relations between England and Malaysia were for the most part not hostile, and attitudes towards English have been and often still are extremely positive. Moreover, Malaysia has large populations of both Chinese and Indians, each of which groups had separate educational systems in their own languages during the colonial period; these groups also had a history of political and economic rivalry with the (mostly Malay-speaking) indigenous population, which comprises only just over half of the population of the country. Due to this rivalry, the choice of Malay as the national language proved divisive rather than unifying. Eventually, the concerns of the Chinese and Indian populations were addressed by the renaming of the language in 1963 from Bahasa Melayu, 'the Malay language' (rendered here as Malay8), to Bahasa Malaysia, 'the Malaysian language' (rendered here as Malaysian). The implication is of course that Malaysian is the language of all the citizens of Malaysia, not just the so-called Malays (a particular ethnic group). Because of these factors, the development of Malay as the national language of Malaysia was late and slow compared to the situation in Indonesia. When such development did take place, Indonesian models were very frequently followed, because Indonesia had already done a good deal of language development work. This is as much true of the development of a national literature as it is of (for instance) terminology and educational materials; Malaysian authors did not begin writing modern literature in Malay until well after the "twenties generation" and their successors had already produced a large body of literature in Indonesia. Thus, Modern Indonesian literature was and is consciously taken as a model by many Malaysian authors writing in standard Malaysian.

18

Chapter 1

For these reasons, I have selected modern Indonesian rather than Malaysian literary writing as the representative of "Modern Malay" in this dissertation. Not only is Malay better established as a literary language in Indonesia than in Malaysia, it is also more directly connected to the literary language of the Hikayat, via the Sumatran writers of the 20s.

1.2.4. Summary As should be evident by now, Malay rivals any of the world's languages in the diversity and complexity of its history. The sketch offered above barely scratches the surface, since no mention has been made of the history of the language in the many outlying regions where it has more or less successfully competed with local languages for millenia. It should also be apparent that the gaps in our knowledge of the history of Malay are many and large. The conclusion which is relevant to the present study, however, is that the Malay of the Hikayat and the Malay of contemporary Indonesian literature are as clearly and directly linked as any two varieties of Malay from different time periods, and that therefore these varieties provide the best possible locus for a diachronically-oriented study of Malay discourse.

1.3. Methodology In this section I will give a brief account of the methods used in collecting and analyzing the text data which form the basis of this study. I will not give a description of my sources themselves here, since these are described in some detail in chapters 3 and 4. The general methodological paradigm used in this study is that of quantitative discourse analysis: given a connected text as data, various surface features of the text are identified and correlated to other surface features and to more abstract aspects of text structure. These correlations are interpreted as providing hints as to the discourse functions of the forms examined. The assumption behind this method is that by identifying the kind of place where a given feature tends to occur, we will have a clue as to its function. As a large number of features were considered and compared in this study, I used a fairly simple (non-relational) computer database program to facilitate sorting, comparing, and counting features. The unit which

Chapter 1

19

was initially chosen as the basic unit of storage was the clause, conceived as a predicate together with its arguments (plus associated adverbial material, linkers etc.); later, I recoded some of my data in units including an entire clause series in each unit. (A clause series contains a sequence of predicates, each of which shares an argument with the following one; for a more precise characterization of this notion, see chapter 2). Each clause was stored in a single database record; each record contains a number of fields, or labelled slots for information. The fields contain information relating to the clause as a whole, its predicate, and its arguments. The form of the data record evolved somewhat during the course of the project, but at least the following kinds of information were represented for all the data: Indexing: a line number and the name of the source the clause is from. The indexing scheme allowed me to locate each clause easily, in its original context if desired. Text: the actual text of the clause or series. Arguments: information about characteristics of each of the noun phrase arguments of the clause (or the first clause in a series), by semantic role. Included is information about form and complexity, position (relative to the predicate), semantic class, and lookback (distance to last mention). There are fields for this information for the arguments in each of four "direct" roles (Agent, Subject, Patient, and Complement) and three "obliques" (usually prepositional phrases). The role of an argument in subsequent clauses in a series was also coded where relevant. Trigger: information about the role and position of the "trigger" argument in the clause. This serves to cross-reference grammatical status (trigger) with semantic role, since a trigger is an Agent, Subject or Patient. Predicate: information about the morphological composition of predicates and auxiliaries, and the identity of the lexical root. Clause combining: in embedded clauses and clauses with an overt linker, the linking conjunction and the type of clause combination.

20

Chapter 1 Clause summary: the relative order of all elements, including predicate, arguments, and auxiliaries. Other: a "comment" field, and a "date" field to show when the data was entered or altered.

Some of the text fragments I used as data were stored in their entirety, i.e. each clause had a record; in other text fragments only selected clauses were coded, for instance only those clauses with an overt (non-zero) trigger. Where I present text counts, it will be made explicit which coding technique was used. The strategy I used in analyzing the data which had been stored in this format was to print out computer-generated "reports" containing subsets of the data sorted and arranged in such a way that the contents of the fields I was interested in were conveniently juxtaposed. This enabled me to easily see patterns of cooccurrence in the data, and to determine the strength of various correlations that I found. Usually the full text of the clause was included in these reports, to assist me in spotting data entry errors and in correctly interpreting the results of my counts. Rather than proceeding directly to the findings of the study carried out by this method, I will interpose a chapter containing a sketch of relevant aspects of Malay grammar, which also serves as an introduction to the grammatical terminology used in this work. Thereupon I will describe my findings concerning constituent order function in Classical Malay (in Chapter 3), and describe and contrast constituent order function in Modern Indonesian (in Chapter 4). Chapter 5 contains discussion of these results and general conclusions.

Chapter 2 Grammatical preliminaries

2.1. Introduction This chapter contains a sketch of as much of Malay morphology and syntax as is relevant to this study. Each grammatical point will be illustrated with examples from texts. Along the way I will provide explanations of non-standard terminology. The analyses presented here are for the most part the conventional ones, and are not original with this author; arguments and justification will be presented only where there is some controversy in the literature over the correct analysis. Most of the sentence types treated in this chapter are those which are common to both Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian; grammatical points will be illustrated from both varieties wherever possible. Areas where Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian are different will be discussed in more detail in chapters 3 and 4 respectively. Where a particular type of clause has been eliminated from my text counts due to special properties which relate to constituent order, I will comment on the fact here. An explanation of the conventions and abbreviations used in the examples in this and subsequent chapters may be found in the appendix; unglossed morphemes whose use is explained in the text may be found in the Index.

2.2. The noun phrase The noun phrase is generally head-first. All modifiers except quantifiers follow the head, in the following order: possessors (and other modifying nouns), relative clauses (including "adjectives" and prepositional phrases), and demonstratives.

22

Chapter 2

(1)

strup merah yang τη aha 1 itu syrup red REL expensive that yang hanya dijual di kota REL only DI:sell at city 'that expensive red syrup which is only sold in the city' (SrS)

(2)

Istana raja itu palace king that 'the king's palace'

(MI:5009)

(3)

hikayatnya yang termasyhur itu hikayatrhis REL famous that 'that famous hikayat of his' (SM:0715)

(4)

perempuan woman

di pondok in hut

dekat near

tempat pembuangan sampah itu place throwing:out garbage that 'the woman in the hut near the garbage dump' (SDJ)

Simple quantifiers usually directly precede the head noun; more complex quantity expressions (e.g. numeral + classifier) may also follow it. There is a fairly simple numeral classifier system, with a set of classifiers selected by the semantic class of the head which intervene between a number and the head. The number 'one' (satu or suatu) may have a special prefix form se- when it precedes a classifier. Some common classifiers are orang (lit. 'person') for humans, ekor (lit. 'tail') for animals, batang (lit. 'stem') for stick-like objects, and buah (lit. 'fruit') as the default classifier for inanimates. (5)

segala tanah yang tinggi-tinggi itu all land REL high:2 that 'all the high ground' (SM:1019)

(6)

sebatang rokok kretek one:CL cigarette kretek 'a clove cigarette' (SDJ)

(7)

tiga botol bir three CL beer 'three bottles of beer' (SDJ)

(8)

kedua utusan itu both envoy that 'the two envoys' (AI:0506)

Chapter 2 (9)

23

utas pandai dua orang craftsman clever two CL 'two clever craftsmen' (MI:5120)

Possessor is indicated by a full noun phrase, an independent pronoun, or one of the enclitic pronouns -ku 'my' (first person singular), -mu 'your' (second person singular), or -nya 'his or her' (third person). (The same series of clitics can function as prepositional object or as Ρ in certain clause types.) (10)

rumah perdana menteri house prime minister 'the prime minister's house'

(11)

anak-ku child:IP 'my child' (SDJ)

(12)

nasehat-mu advice:2P 'your advice' (SrS)

(MI:5301)

There are no morphemes which are specialized for marking definiteness, specificity, or identifiability; but as in many languages, other resources may be coopted for this purpose. The numeral 'one' may be used to indicate non-identifiability, while the deictic demonstratives ini 'this' and itu 'that' may be used to mark identifiability.9 The fact that the demonstratives are the last element of the noun phrase leads to scope ambiguity if there is any other noun phrase intervening between the head and the demonstrative (as when there is a possessor, a prepositional phrase, or a relative clause); this ambiguity can be seen in example 2 above, where the Indonesian has the same ambiguity as the English "that king's palace". The potential ambiguity is intensified by the fact that it seems to be ungrammatical to pile up several demonstratives at the end of the noun phrase: you can't say *istana raja itu itu ('that palace of that king'). The third person possessive enclitic -nya is also sometimes used in contexts where it is hard to get a "possessive" reading, and it seems that its function in these cases is purely that of marking specificity. (13)

esok hari-nya tomorrow day:3P 'the next day' (MI:5502)

(14)

Dahlia menerima keadaan-nya yang demikian Dahlia MENG:accept situation:3P REL thus 'Dahlia accepted the situation the way it was'

(SDJ)

24

Chapter 2

A related use of -nya is as a nominalizer on a verb. (15)

Oposisi ini mau-nya cuma menjatuhkan kabinet opposition this want:3P only MENG:bring:down cabinet 'The desire of this opposition is simply to bring down the cabinet' (SDJ)

A relative clause in Malay/Indonesian starts with the relative marker yang, and the clause itself contains a gap corresponding to the head. (16)

pohon bidara yang sudah berbuahan tree date rel pfv ber:fruit 'date trees which were already bearing fruit'

(SM:132)

(17)

mobil "Cadillac" yang berwarna merah car Cadillac REL BER:color red 'a dark red Cadillac' (SDJ)

tua dark

(18)

orang yang memalu mong-mongan itu person REL MENG:beat gong that 'the person who was beating the gong' (MI)

(19)

seorang kawannya yang membaca karangan itu one:CL friend:3P REL MENG:read article that 'a friend of his who had read that article' (SDJ)

Further discussion of the syntactic properties of relative clauses can be found in section 2.8.1 below. "Adjectives" in Malay/Indonesian can be treated as a semantically unified subclass of intransitive verbs. I know of no argument for treating them as a separate class; in particular, they have no syntactic or morphological restrictions which distinguish them from all other verb classes. In attributive position they are distinguished from fully verbal predicates (but not from, e.g., prepositional phrases within the noun phrase) only in that the relative clause marker yang is frequently omitted. In example 1 above, for instance, both merah and mahal would ordinarily be translated as adjectives, but only mahal is marked with yang. I will, however, occasionally use the term "adjective" or "adjectival verb" to refer to the class of verbs that can be modified with intensifying adverbs such as amat, sangat, sekali 'very' and terlalu 'too, exceedingly'. (This class includes not only morphemes that translate into English adjectives, but also more "verby" morphemes, such a s f a h a m 'understand' and kasih 'love'.) A noun phrase may also consist of a headless relative clause, which may refer to a unique individual or a class depending on context. The headless relatives in the following examples are in < angled brackets > .

Chapter 2

(20)

Adapun Demang Lebar Daunlah

your:humble:servant

'Demang Lebar Daun was the first who used the terms "your majesty" and "your humble servant".' 10 (SM2:24:177) (21)

Ada suatu dorongan be one impulse untuk mengetahui to MENG:know

keinginan desire

. DI:know:3P

'There was a desire in his heart to know that which he didn't know.' (GA:0254)

2.2.1 Pronouns Malay has an extremely wide range of pronominal forms for human referents. (Inanimate referents are usually referred to in anaphoric contexts by a "bare", i.e. unmodified, noun; however, occasionally the third person forms dia or -nya may be used.) Speakers choose between these forms on the basis of social factors. The particular set used by any given speaker, and the conventions regarding pronoun choice, differ widely from place to place and class to class even within the "Standard Indonesian" of today. Therefore I will not attempt to give a complete catalogue, but will rather mention two types of pronoun which have rather different properties: the "pure" pronouns, which are morphemes whose primary function is pronominal reference; and the "honorific" pronouns, including kinship terms, titles, proper names and the like, which may be used to refer to first, second or (anaphoric) third person referents, but which otherwise have properties similar to those of full noun phrases. Particular forms may shift (primarily from the second group into the first group), but the distinction between the two classes remains clear back to the oldest texts.11 The "pure" pronouns include all the pronouns which are derived from proto-Austronesian pronouns; several of them have clitic forms as well as independent forms. These are the following:

26

Chapter 2

person

full form

proclitic

enclitic

lsg

aku

ku-

-ku

lpl inc. exc.

kita kami

2nd

kamu engkau

3rd

dia

-mu kau-nya

Figure 2. Pronouns

These pronouns have come to have an "informal" (or T, in the sense of Brown & Gilman 1960) range of meanings, since their use contrasts with the explicitly deferential or self-deprecating forms discussed below. Thus the old pronouns are prototypically associated with mutual use among the common people, and from ruler to subjects. The honorific pronouns are mostly derived from kin terms and titles. They express social inequality by analogy with age or generational inequality. They are in general not specific to a particular grammatical person, and can have either a first, second, or third person interpretation, although they are more commonly used for second person reference than for first (where a more neutral form is likely to be chosen). These forms blur the line between the pronoun and a simple anaphoric noun phrase; the syntactic consequences of this blurring will be discussed further below. For instance, hamba, patik, or saya/sahaya (all of which originally meant 'slave') are often used for first person reference, and tuan, tuan hamba or tuanku 'lord, my lord' are often used for second person reference. These forms were originally asymmetrical, but in Modern Indonesian saya at least has become the most neutral first person form, and tuan is common as a translation of 'Mr'. The most common third person respect forms are baginda ('his highness', from Sanskrit 'fortunate'; in the Hikayat it is invariably used for royalty) and the modern beliau (which didn't occur in the Hikayat). In Classical Malay, kin terms (including those used as pronouns) sometimes receive an honorific or affectionate ending -nda, often added to shortened forms and sometimes causing phonological adjustment if consonant clusters result;

Chapter 2

27

thus nenek 'grandmother' can become nenda, cucu 'grandchild' can becomes cunda etc. Some patterns of reference are illustrated below. In example 22, the speaker is a king, but he is addressing his father-in-law, also a king. The speaker thus refers to himself humbly as hamba 'slave', to his interlocutor respectfully as tuan hamba 'lord of slave' or 'my lord' and to his children with the neutral pronoun dia. All of these are potentially third-person forms, even those used for first and second person reference. (In these examples, the anaphoric forms are underlined.) (22)

Jlkalau when

anak hamba ketiga child slave three

ini sudah this PFV

hendaklah tuan hamba hantarkan desire:LAH lord slave bring

dia 3P

besar, big ke dalam to in

dunia world

\When these three children of mine are grown up, please (you) bring them into the world' (SM)

In the following Indonesian example, second person plural reference is achieved with saudara 'sibling', third person reference is achieved with the same form used as a title, saudara Halim or 'Brother Halim', and only first person plural inclusive reference is achieved with a specialized pronoun form (kita). (23)

Sebagai as

saudara tahu, sibling know

saudara Halim sibling halim

praktis sudah sebagai experienced already as

anggota member

partai party

kita our

4

As you know, Mr. Halim is already experienced as a member of our party' (SDJ)

By and large, pronouns do not distinguish number. The exceptions are in the first person (aku and saya cannot be plural, though kami is occasionally singular) and the third person (there is one pronoun, mereka, which is specialized for plural). Moreover, both bound and free pronominals can serve a wide variety of grammatical functions (including possessor, cliticized argument, prepositional object etc.) without changing form.

28

Chapter 2 The following abbreviations will be used in the glosses: First person: Second person: Third person:

IP (singular) 2P (neutral) 3P (neutral)

I I P (exclusive) 12P (inclusive) 3P1 (plural)

2.3. The prepositional phrase As implied by the title of this section, Malay has prepositions, which are used to mark times, locations, and a variety of oblique case-marking functions. Case prepositions include kepada 'to' (dative), untuk 'for' (benefactive), dengan 'with' (comitative), etc. The "direct" arguments A and Ρ may also be marked with the prepositions oleh and akan respectively; this will be discussed further in the next section. (24)

(25)

kepada rajanya to king:3P 'to t h e i r king'

(MI)

dengan Dahlia with Dahlia 'with Dahlia' (SDJ)

Locational prepositions can be divided into two classes: the three "basic" prepositions di 'at', ke ' t o ' , and dari 'from'; and the more specific locationals such as dalam 'in(side)', luar 'outside (of)', sekitar 'around, surroundings', atas 'above', depan '(in) front (of)', etc. The latter class (which is quite large) are usually used in combination with one of the three basic prepositions; they all have some affinity with nouns, and can be used as such (as the glosses I have given suggest), although most of them can also be used as independent prepositions. (26)

di kantor polisi at office p o l i c e 'at the p o l i c e office'

(SDJ)

(27)

di dalam sungai itu at in river that 'in t h a t river' (SM2:20:12)

(28)

dari dalam laci from in drawer 'out from the d r a w e r '

(SrS:S038.4)

Chapter 2 (29)

29

dal am hatinya in heart:3P 'in his heart' (SDJ)

In their function as clausal adjuncts, prepositional phrases are positionally very free: they can occur almost anywhere in a clause. In addition to this function, they can also function as modifiers in noun phrases (as in example 4 above) or as nonverbal predicates (section 2.6.2 below).

2.4. The trigger system In this section I will discuss the voice or "trigger" system of Malay, and its characterization in terms of role structure and transitivity. The trigger system of Malay distinguishes three clause types: the intransitive clause, the agent-trigger clause, and the patient-trigger clause. Before explaining and motivating these categories, a brief illustration is in order. Consider the following three clauses: Intransitive: (30)

maka baginda sampai pada serokan negerl Hindi. LNK 3P arrive to bay country India 'He arrived at the shores of India.' (SM:0405)

Agent-trigger transitive: (31)

dengan demikian sehari-hari ia memalu bende itu with thus daily 3P MENG:hit gong that 'thus, he beat the gong every day' (MI:5508)

Patient-trigger transitive: (32)

Maka dipegang perdana menteri tangan Indraputra then DI: hold prime minister hand Indraputra 'the prime minister held Indraputra's hand

Each clause type is characterized by the intersection of the syntactic properties of the trigger, its semantic role, and the morphology of the verb: intransitives are most commonly affixless, while agent and patient-trigger verbs are most commonly prefixed with meng- and di- respectively.

30

Chapter 2

2.4.1. Semantic and syntactic roles The specification given here to the semantic role structure of the clause is minimal, in that I make only the smallest number of distinctions necessary for a statement of the syntactic patterns of the language. For these purposes, I have adopted a three-way distinction such as that proposed in Dixon (1979) and Comrie (1981). Following Comrie, I have adopted the labels A, Ρ and S, as follows: the A is "that argument of the transitive construction which correlates most highly with agent", Ρ is "that one which correlates most highly with patient", and S is "the intransitive subject" (Comrie 1981:64). Dixon uses the terms A, Ο and S in much the same way. A and Ρ are similar to the "actor" and "undergoer" roles of Foley and Van Valin (1984) in that they are generalized case roles or "macro-roles" related to but not to be equated with more specific "microroles" such as "agent", "instrument", "experiencer", "beneficiary", "goal", "patient", "theme" etc. Foley and Van Valin characterize actor and undergoer as follows: the actor is "the argument of a predicate which expresses the participant which performs, effects, instigates, or controls the situation denoted by the predicate", and the undergoer is "the argument which expresses the participant which does not perform, initiate, or control any situation but rather is affected by it in some way" (Foley & Van Valin 1984:29). I have adopted the Dixon/Comrie three-way distinction rather than the Foley and Van Valin two-way contrast because the actor/undergoer distinction is neutralized in the case of the direct argument of an intransitive verb: for the most part, there is no morphosyntactic motivation to class S with either A or Ρ in Malay. Occasionally, however, I will wish to distinguish the two types of S, and for this purpose I will use the terms Actor and Undergoer. As Foley and Van Valin point out, there is some semantic overlap among the A and Ρ roles; therefore morphosyntactic as well as semantic criteria are taken into account in assigning role labels to clauses. In particular, I will only use the labels for direct arguments. Moreover, the distinction between A and Ρ is determined partly by the verb affixation, as will emerge below. Any noun phrase which is not an A, P, or S will be referred to as an "oblique". Except for some kinds of time expressions and the "indirect" objects of ditransitive verbs, obliques are marked by prepositions. In Malay, as we will see, there are also a number of alternations involving suffixation of the verb and "promotion" of various kinds of obliques to the syntactic status of P; thus, it will be seen that Ρ in particular represents a wide range of actual semantic relations to the verb. This will be discussed further in section 2.5.

Chapter 2

31

While for the most part Malay/Indonesian has no case-marking on non-obliques, there are two prepositions, oleh and akan, which can be used to mark the A and Ρ roles respectively. Oleh is found in both Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian, while akan has lost its P-marking function in Modern Indonesian; it is restricted now to marking the complements of certain psychological predicates, and is best regarded as an ordinary oblique preposition.

2.4.2. Transitivity The concept of transitivity is central in Malay grammar, and I will often have occasion to distinguish transitive from intransitive clauses. Precisely what that means, however, differs slightly in different contexts. The three following cases should be distinguished: A) Morphologically transitive clauses are clauses with a Ρ argument; that is, all di- clauses (with and without an A), and meng- clauses which have an overt P. If I simply use the term "transitive", this is the class to which I am referring. B) Two-argument clauses are clauses with both an A and a Ρ — either overt or strongly implied by the context (as in the case of argument sharing). Thus, di- clauses are not included unless they have an overt A, and so this category is slightly more restricted than the previous one. C) Discourse transitive clauses are clauses with a relatively high degree of "discourse transitivity" in the sense of Hopper and Thompson (1980); in this sense, transitivity is seen as scalar, with characteristics of the verb, the agent, and the patient all potentially contributing to high transitivity.

2.4.3. Definition of "trigger" The transitive clauses of Malay/Indonesian can be divided into two types: "agent-trigger" or AT and "patient-trigger" or PT. "Trigger" is a syntactic role label: it is the participant which is a) obligatory, and b) functions as the shared argument or "pivot" (in the sense of Heath 1975, Dixon 1979, and Foley & Van Valin 1984) under clause-combining. As we have seen, in an AT clause the trigger is A, and the verb is typically prefixed with meng-; in a PT clause the trigger is P, and the verb is typi-

32

Chapter 2

cally prefixed with di-. The term "trigger" is meant to suggest the argument whose semantic role "triggers" this verb morphology. The term was first introduced for Tagalog in Fox (1982) as a replacement for the "topic/focus" terminology prevalent in Philippine studies, and has since been adopted in studies of Toba Batak and Malay varieties by various authors. A full discussion of clause combining will be given in section 2.8; I will only give a few examples here to illustrate the status of the trigger as pivot. In the following sentences, the form of the verb in the non-main clause (the relative or non-initial clauses) is determined by the semantic role of the shared argument with respect to that verb. In these examples, the shared argument is underlined and the non-main clause is in < angled brackets > . Relativization: (33)

Berderit balinq-balinq bambu BER:squeak weathervanes bamboo

REL DI:fasten child shepherd 'The weathervanes which the shepherd children put up squeaked.' (Rong:R006.1)

(34)

Sebelum before

matahari sun

terbit akan datang para tetanqqa rise will come PL neighbor

. REL will MENG:buy bongkrek 'Before the sun rose the neighbors who were going to buy bongkrek (a fermented soybean preparation) would come.' (Rong:R028)

Serialization: (35)

Sebermula LNK

maka Raja Suran pun berkira-kira . MENG:attack country China 'Raja Suran thought he would like to attack China.' (SM:1007)

Chapter 2 (36)

Sebermula LNK

33

maka Perdana Menteri duduk LNK prime minister sit

. DIrface OLEH people 'The prime minister was sitting in audience' 'faced by people') (AI:0808)

(lit.

The examples given here have intransitive main verbs, and the pivot is trigger in both clauses; however, trigger choice in transitive main clauses is determined primarily by discourse (rather than syntactic) considerations. As I will show in the next two chapters, the way this works is considerably different in Classical Malay and in Modern Indonesian, but relevant factors may include the aspect of the predication, the discourse status of the participants, and text structure. Others have used the terms "active" and "passive" for AT and PT respectively, and the term "subject" for "trigger"; I have avoided this terminology, since triggers often don't have properties (such as agentivity and topicality) associated cross-linguistically with subjects, and the AT/PT distinction functions very differently from the active/passive distinction in a language like English. In particular, there are some PT clauses which are highly transitive and have a highly topical agent; in some text types, PT clauses are more frequent than AT clauses; PT clauses are in many ways syntactically and morphologically more flexible and less restricted than AT clauses; and so on. These arguments will be presented at length in the following two chapters. A further reason to avoid the use of the term "subject" is its ambiguity. Even within the standard literature on Indonesian, it is used in different ways by different authors. For instance, Lewis (1969) uses the term as equivalent to "A and S"; MacDonald and Dardjowidjojo (1967) and Moeliono and Dardjowidjojo (1988) use it as equivalent to my "trigger"; and Wolff (1980) uses it as something like "topic" or "theme" (actually, for Wolff "predicate" seems to mean something like "information focus", and "subject" is the remainder of the sentence). In recent work, various approaches have been taken to the problems with the traditional labels "passive" and "subject". Chung (1976) suggested that there are two different passives in Indonesian, of which only one is a "canonical" passive; others (e.g. Cartier 1976, 1979; Tchekhoff 1980; Hopper 1983, forthcoming; Verhaar 1983, forthcoming) have subsequently suggested that only some of the PT clauses are passive, while the others are actually ergative. Cumming and Wouk (1987) argue against the use of the term "ergative" in connection with this clause type; while

34

Chapter 2

we would agree that "passive" is an unfortunate label, the use of the term "ergative" is equally inappropriate. The importance of syntactic pivot properties in the characterization of the category "trigger" might suggest that "pivot" itself would be a good label. As used by Heath (1975) and Dixon (1979), this term was apparently defined only in the clause-combining context; but Foley and Van Valin (1984) interpret it as a general syntactic category, recognizable in simple as well as complex sentences. However, the term "trigger" is not coextensive with (clause-combining) "pivot" in Malay. In particular, possessors can be pivots — they can be relativized and serialized (see sections 2.8.1 and 2.8.3.5) — but they are not triggers — they are not obligatory, and the verb does not reflect their semantic role. Moreover, trigger choice in main and non-main clauses is quite a different matter; in the latter case, it is almost purely syntactically determined, but in the former, it is discourse determined. Foley and Van Valin generalize across these two cases, suggesting that in either situation, the pivot "is the NP around which the construction is built" (1984:110). Their following discussion makes it clear that they take the properties of the pivot argument to be most crucial in determining voice — whether the determining factor is semantic (role) or pragmatic (information status). However, in languages like Classical Malay, it is not properties of the trigger itself that are relevant to main-clause trigger choice, but rather properties of the predication as a whole — both pragmatic and semantic in nature; and these properties are not related in any synchronically transparent way with the syntactic factors which condition trigger choice in non-main clauses.12 Therefore, I prefer to use the term "pivot" only in relation to clause combining. The abbreviation "T" will occasionally be used to refer to the trigger, especially in the following abbreviations for the two constituent order types: V > T "predicate before trigger" and T > V "trigger before predicate".

2.5. Transitive clauses Before launching into a discussion of trigger morphology, a brief discussion of the two suffixes -i and -kart is in order. These derivational suffixes are associated with transitive verbs and may occur in both AT and PT clauses. Both -i and -kan have the function of altering the argument structure of a verb, for instance by introducing a new argument slot or by allowing an oblique argument to become a direct argument (in Relational Grammar terms, they "promote" oblique arguments to direct arguments).

Chapter 2

35

Verbs suffixed with either are invariably transitive. The precise effect of these affixes depends on the semantic class of the stem, -j generally promotes a recipient, a location, a goal, or some other oblique participant, adding a direct argument. The functions of -kan are more varied; the most frequent are the following: With an intransitive, Stative verb or noun, it adds an argument to create a transitive verb, often causative in meaning. The causer becomes A, the causee becomes P. With a transitive verb, it forms a benefactive; the beneficiary becomes?. With a ditransitive (three-argument) verb involving transfer, it chooses the theme as Ρ and the recipient as an oblique. The valence-increasing function of suffixation is illustrated in the following examples. (37)

From mandi, 'wash oneself, bathe': Maka LNK

baginda 3P

laki-isteri pun mandilah di husband-wife PUN wash:LAH at

seri pane a persada bathing:pavilion

itu, dimandikan oleh Bat. that DI:wash:KAN OLEH Bat

'The husband and wife bathed in the ceremonial pavilion; they were washed by Bat.' (SM)

(38)

bathing

From panas, 'hot', and sedia, 'ready, prepared': Isteri wife

Mandur Kasir selesai Mandur Kasir finish

di dapur, dan datang at kitchen and come

memanaskan sayuran ME:hot:KAN vegetables

menyediakan makanan ME:ready:KAN food

ke meja. to table

'Mandur Kasir's wife finished heating up the vegetables in the kitchen, and came to lay out the food on the table.' (SDJ)

However, as is typical of derivational morphemes, both affixes have a wide range of idiosyncratic interactions with individual lexical items, a description of which is beyond the scope of this study (see e.g. Wolff 1980; Verhaar 1984; Moeliono & Dardjowidjojo 1988). For this reason I have not attempted to analyze -/ and -kan derivatives in the glosses.

36

Chapter 2

2.5.1. Agent trigger clauses In an AT clause, the verb is usually prefixed with meng- and its allomorphs me-, men-, meny-, and mem-,n and there is an explicit P. The meng- prefix forms both transitive and intransitive verbs from a variety of root types; its transitive use is exemplified in this section. Constituent order in the AT clause is fixed at AVP. (39)

Maka Raja Kida Hindi pun memanggil perdana menterinya LNK king Kida Hindi PUN MENG:call prime minister:3P 'Raja Kida Hindi called his prime minister' (SM:0427)

(40)

Mereka mencari mangsa. 3P1 MENG:seek prey 'They were seeking prey.'

(Rong)

Certain ber- verbs are also most conveniently classed as AT. Ber- is a prefix usually associated with intransitives, but (especially in conjunction with the suffix -kan) occasionally takes a patient. (41)

segala yang berkuda bergigitkan kudanya all REL BER:horse BER:bite:KAN horse:3P 'Everyone on horseback made their horses bite each other' (SM:1208)

(42)

Itu berarti

that BER:mean MENG:blind:KAN eye to history 'That means closing one's eyes to history' (GA)

There are also a few unprefixed verbs (especially those of psychological activity, such as tahu 'know') which take an argument which is most conveniently classed as a P, and which therefore can be considered as AT.14 (43)

maka Indraputra makan buah de lima itu. LNK Indraputra eat fruit pomegranate that 'Indraputra ate the pomegranate.' (MI:5208)

(44)

Tahulah dia bahwa semalam ada orang know:LAH 3P that yesterday be person tidur dan masak sleep and cook

di situ. at there

'He knew that someone had slept and cooked there yesterday' (Perg:P085)

The patient of a transitive AT verb may be expressed as an independent noun phrase, as in the above examples, or with the enclitic pronouns -ku,

Chapter 2

37

-mu, and -nya 'me', 'you', and 'him or her'. (These are the same clitics as are used for possessors.) (45)

Tidakkah not:Q

mungkin Ahmad menanggapnya possible Ahmad MENG:consider:3P

perempuan yang murah? woman REL cheap 'Wasn't it possible that Ahmad considered her a cheap woman?' (GA)

2.5.2. Patient trigger clauses PT clauses usually have verbs prefixed with di-. Di- forms PT verbs from (almost) the same class of stems that take transitive meng-. Constituent order in the PT clause is relatively free (although there were more possibilities in Classical Malay than in Modern Indonesian; this will be discussed more fully in chapters 3 and 4). This is related to the fact that there are several special alternatives for the coding of the agent of a PT verb. These alternatives are described below.

2.5.2.1. No agent If the agent is either irrelevant or obvious from the context, it may be omitted altogether. (46)

Sebuah lampu minyak besar dinyalakan. one:CL lamp oil large DI:light Ά big oil lamp was lit.' (Perg)

(47)

maka ikan kayu itu dilepaskan dal am air itu LNK fish wood that DI:free in water that 'The wooden fish was loosed in the water' (MI:5131)

2.5.2.2. Proclitic agent If the agent is pronominal, it may be procliticized to the verb, in which case the PT prefix di- is dropped. Various anaphoric forms may be procliticized. (The agent is underlined in the following examples.)

38

Chapter 2

(48)

mahkota crown

kudrat power

yang REL

di dalam at in

perbendaharaan treasury

Paduka Mambanglah hatnba ambil Paduka MambangrLAH IP take 'I will take the magic crowns which are in the treasury of Paduka Mambang' (SM) (49)

Buah-buahan tidak mereka temukan. fruit:2 not 3P1 find 'They didn't find fruit (of any kind).'

(Rong)

There are two proclitic forms which are written as part of the same word as the verb. They are the first and second person proclitics ku- and kau-, from the pronouns aku Τ and engkau 'you'. (50)

Buah curian itu kuberikan kepadanya. fruit stolen that IP:give to:3P Ί gave her that stolen fruit.' (Rong)

The longer pronominal forms such as hamba and mereka in examples 48 and 49 are considered as clitics rather than as separate words because, as with the prefixed forms, no word may intervene between the pronominal and the verb stem, and the pronominal cannot receive independent stress. Even longish expressions such as proper names may occur in this position, if they are fully anaphoric (i.e. functioning as honorific pronouns). The existence of verb forms such as those in 22 and 49, PT but apparently unprefixed (exactly as are many intransitive and AT forms), raises the question: how is it possible to determine whether an unprefixed verb stem which appears in a text in a two-argument clause is PT or not? The following examples of A V Ρ clauses illustrate this problem: (51)

jikalau if

tiada not

kamu bicarakan hasratku 2P discuss:KAN desire:IP

nescaya kubunuh engkau necessary lP:kill 2P

inl this

sekalian all

'If you don't deliberate over this desire of mine, I will certainly kill all of you.' (AI)

Chapter 2 (52)

Di sini akan dia adakan at here will 3P hold

39

pengajian Koran:recital

untuk kaum bapak for group father 'Here he would hold the men's Koran recital' (Perg:P019.7)

The only fully general answer is that one must know the lexical properties of the verb stem in question. Only a few transitive verbs (which are, however, rather common; c.f. examples 43 and 44 above) can ordinarily occur without a prefix in standard written varieties, though in colloquial spoken Indonesian there is a tendency to "drop" the AT prefix, so the incidence of these diathetically ambivalent clauses is much higher than it is in the varieties examined here. One type of imperative also involves unprefixed verbs; see section 2.7.2, and in Classical Malay, unprefixed verbs may also occur in the complements of verbs of ordering, such as suruh and titah. However, other unprefixed verbs are necessarily subject to the PT/proclitic analysis. Thus, in the above examples, the fact that bicarakan and adakan are normally prefixed verbs shows that these clauses must be PT; otherwise the forms would be membicarakan and mengadakan. In some cases, other factors lend support to this conclusion; for instance, modal auxiliaries (such as nescaya in example 51 and akan in example 52) and negative morphemes (such as tiada in example 51) normally intervene between A and V in an AT clause, so if one of these is present and precedes the A the clause must be PT. Similarly, the suffixes -/ and -kan normally occur only on prefixed verbs, so if one of these suffixes is present the clause must be PT.

2.5.2.3. Enclitic agent A third person anaphoric agent may be encliticized as -nya. (53)

(54)

dipujinya kebaikan hatinya DI:praise:3P goodness heart:3P 'He praised the goodness of her heart' maka ditaruhnya bakulnya LNK DI:put:3P basket:3P 'She put down her basket'

(SDJ:L111)

(MI:5210)

There is a tendency for first and second person agents precede the verb in proclitic position, while third person agents follow the verb — either as

40

Chapter 2

enclitics as in examples 53 and 54, or as free expressions. This generalization has been elevated by some grammarians with prescriptive or pedagogical concerns to the status of a "rule" (e.g. Wolff 1980). However, most authors have also noted the occurrence of the "unacceptable" forms (e.g. with preverbal third person or postverbal first or second person A) in everyday usage (MacDonald & Dardjowidjojo 1967; Karim 1978; Moeliono & Dardjowidjojo 1988). Kaswanti Purwo (1988) argues that there is a functional distinction in modern written Indonesian between proclitic third person forms (as in example 52) and enclitic third person forms (as in example 53), in that the former foregrounds the verb while the latter backgrounds it.

2.5.2.4. Bare noun phrase agent If the agent is a full NP, it may occur directly following the verb. This may represent a type of encliticization; its position is identical with that of -nya, it is analogous to the proclitic agent in that no intervening material is allowed, and it may not receive contrasiive stress. Functionally, a postverbal agent of this type is more likely to be anaphoric and generally lower in information content than an oleh agent (Cumming 1986; Myhill 1988). However, a postverbal agent expression may consist of a full noun phrase, and thus may be much longer than is expected of a clitic. (55)

Maka dipegang perdana menteri tangan Indraputra LNK DIshold prime minister hand Indraputra 'The prime minister held Indraputra's hand' (MI:5324)

(56)

Mereka akan dikejar dan dimangsa burunq qaqak. 3P1 will DI:pursue and DI:preys upon bird crow 'They would be pursued and preyed upon by crows' (Rong)

2.5.2.5. Oleh agent An agent may be marked by the preposition oleh. Like other prepositional objects, the agent may enclit;cize to the preposition as -ku, -mu or -nya. And like prepositional phiases generally, it has considerable freedom of position.

Chapter 2

41

(57)

Scitu hal disembunyikan oleh Nvai Kartareja. one thing DI:hide OLEH Mistress Kartareja 'One thing was hidden by Mistress Kartareja' (Rong)

(58)

Maka disambut bung a itif oleh bini perdana menteri LNK DI:receive flower that OLEH wife prime minister 'The prime minister's wife accepted the flowers' (MI:5304)

(59)

Maka diperbuat oleh pandai kavu itu seekor ikan LNK DI:make OLEH woodworker that one:CL fish 'The woodworker made a fish' (MI:5128)

(60)

nescaya binasalah benua Cina ini olehnya necessary ruined:LAH continent China this by:3P 'China will certainly be destroyed by him' (SM)

Oleh + agent can cooccur with the enclitic -nya on the verb (though this is rare in Modern Indonesian): (61)

Maka dikuncinva. LNK DI:lock:3P

oleh baoinda pintu peti OLEH 3P door box

itu that

dari dalam from inside 'He locked the door of the box from inside' (62)

(SM:1426)

dan oleh Mandur Kasir diperkenalkannya LNK OLEH Mandur Kasir DI:introduce:3P isterlnya wife:3P

pada orang itu. to person that

'Mandur Kasir introduced his wife to that person.' (SDJ)

A detailed analysis of the factors which determine the choice between the different possibilities for agent coding are beyond the scope of this study, and thus will not be discussed in further detail. To summarize, however, in most varieties of Malay the following generalizations account for the majority of cases: obvious or unimportant As are omitted, first and second person As are procliticized, fully anaphoric third person As are encliticized, given or old (but not fully anaphoric) third person As immediately follow the verb, and new, contrastive and unexpected As are marked with oleh.

42

Chapter 2

2.5.2.6. Status of diSome authors (e.g. Cartier 1979; Verhaar 1984) have suggested that the di- prefix in examples like 46, 47, 53 and 54 is sometimes (in "ergative" clauses, in their terminology) actually a third person singular anaphoric morpheme, in a paradigm with the proclitic forms as in 50, 51 and 52. (For Cartier, this can only be the case where the enclitic -nya is also present.) This is an old analysis, going back at least to van Ophuijsen (1910); it was attractive to early European linguists because it allowed for a neat paradigm of first, second, and third person prefixes, supported by the phonological resemblance of the di- prefix to the third person singular pronoun dia. However, I have not seen any convincing evidence for this analysis, which is in any case dependent on the idea that some PT clauses are ergative. In the case where -nya is present, it is hard to imagine how one could argue for the claim (put forward by Cartier) that it is di-1 -nya rather than simply -nya that accomplishes the third person reference. Similarly, in the case where no overt agent is present, it is difficult to imagine how one could argue for the claim that it is the di- rather than a discourse or syntactic zero that accomplishes the reference. Therefore, I will continue to treat all instances of di- uniformly, as tokens of the PT prefix. The absence of di- in examples 49, 50, 51, and 52 is simply due to a morphological restriction, to the effect that di- cannot cooccur with a proclitic (because there is only one "slot").

2.5.2.7. Akan in Classical Malay One important respect in which Classical Malay syntax is quite different from that of Modern Indonesian is the use of the preposition akan to mark the Ρ in the PT construction. 15 In many ways akan is quite parallel to oleh. Both are "optional", and they may occur together or independently, as the following examples show: (63)

Arakian LNK

maka LNK

dianugerahkan Raja DI:bestow:KAN Raja

akan Tuan Puteri AKAN princess kembali return

kepada to

Syahru Syahru

Iskandar Iskandar

"1-Bariyah *1-Bariyah

ayahnya Raja Kida father:3P Raja Kida

Hindi Hindi

'Then R a j a I s k a n d a r g a v e P r i n c e s s S y a h r u ' 1 - B a r i y a h back to her father, R a j a K i d a Hindi' (SM:0727)

Chapter 2

43

(64)

Maka Indraputra disambar oleh merak itu LNK Indraputra DI:seize OLEH peacock that 'Indraputra was seized by the peacock' (MI:5149)

(65)

terlalu sangat dikasihi oleh Raja Kida Hindi akan dia very very DI:love OLEH Raja Kida Hindi AKAN 3P 'Raja Kida Hindi loved her very much' (SM:0820)

Where both oleh and akan occur, they always occur in that order, and on the same side of the verb. However, they may occur before the verb as well as after it: (66)

Maka oleh Raja Kida Hindi akan cunda baginda LNK OLEH Raja Kida Hindi AKAN grandchild 3P

itu that

dinamai Raja Aristun DI:name Raja Aristun 'Raja Kida Hindi named his grandson Raja Aristun' (SM:0819)

In spite of this apparent parallelism, however, the status of these two markers is quite different in several respects. The preposition oleh is practically restricted to the Α-marking function; 16 it has survived in this use to the present day. The preposition akan, on the other hand, had a wide range of functions, of which some have survived while others have disappeared or been replaced by other prepositions. As in Modern Indonesian, it marked objects of psychological verbs (including clausal objects); but it also marked recipients (of verbs of giving and saying), location (with a directional component, like 'onto'), and a variety of other limited uses which are difficult to classify. When it marks the trigger in a PT clause, there is usually a strong directional component to the verb, which is either inherent in the semantics of the verb stem (as with the verbs panah 'shoot (an arrow) at', pandang 'gaze at', etc.), or added to the stem by one of the suffixes -i or -kan.xl The preposition akan is clearly related to the suffix -kan, and some grammars (e.g. Winstedt 1927) have attempted to relate the two synchronically, suggesting that the unsuffixed verb with akan is in complementary distribution with the verb suffixed in -kan. However, in my data akan is found marking verbs in -kan (as in example 63 above) and verbs in -i (as in example 66) as well as unsuffixed verbs. Thus in my judgment the suffix and the preposition must be considered independently. Similarly, Hopper (1983:75) considers that -kan and akan are functionally related, both being associated with "affectedness of patient". However,

44

Chapter 2

no such semantic generalization holds for my data; if anything, the patients of -kan verbs and those marked with akan are less affected than other Ps. In fact, the directionality associated with akan is frequently a type which never makes contact with the "target", as in examples 63, 65, and 66; in the terms of Hopper and Thompson (1980), these verbs have low kinesis. Another possible approach would be to treat these clauses as a sort of "subjectless" (or "impersonal") passive; Woollams (1988) takes this approach to a similar class of clauses in Karo Batak, in which the apparent trigger is marked by the preposition man 'to, for'. Moreover, there are a few examples in my data of what might be termed "prepositional triggers" in non-PT clauses; in these examples, the constituent which seems to be the trigger (on semantic grounds) is marked by a preposition. These are examples like the following: (67)

Maka LNK

setelah after

maka LNK

segala all

bertemulah antara kedua BER:meet:LAH between both rakyat lalu berperanglah people then BER:war:LAH

pihak side

terlalu very

itu, that ramai crowded

'After the two sides met (lit. 'met between the sides'), all the soldiers fought vigorously' (SM)

However, all the similar examples I have are also subject to an analysis in which the trigger has been omitted under clause-combining, the prepositional phrase serving merely to further elaborate the semantic role of the trigger. In that case PT clauses are unique in having the possibility of prepositional triggers, and thus it seems undesirable to posit a class of "triggerless" clauses just for this clause type. Therefore I will simply treat akan phrases (like oleh phrases) as case-marked direct arguments. Whether the akan phrase should be considered direct or oblique, however, clearly the possibility of marking the Ρ in the PT clause with a preposition is highly anomalous under the "passive" analysis of this construction, since in the usual cross-linguistic characterization of passive, Ρ is "promoted" while A is "demoted"; but the presence of a directional preposition smacks of demotion. Thus, the existence of the akan PT clauses provides further evidence that the term "passive" is incorrectly applied to di- clauses.

Chapter 2

45

2.6. Intransitive clauses Intransitive (or ST) clauses have a wide variety of predicate types, including nonverbal predicates and verbal predicates with several different types of affixation. While I will distinguish verbal from non-verbal predicates in this section, in the remainder of this study the terms "verb" and "V" will refer freely to a predicate of either type. In both Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian, constituent order varies more freely in ST clauses than in either AT or PT clauses.

2.6.1. Noun phrase predicates The usual way to equate two noun phrases is simply to treat one as the predicate. While there are some copula-like terms (adalah, ialah, merupakan), they tend to be used only in fairly complex clauses, where simple juxtaposition would lead to ambiguity. (68)

yang dia kerjakan REL 3P do tanpa without

selama ini adalah satu as:long this ADALAH one

ketrampilan skill

spontanitas. spontaneity

'What he had been doing all this time was an unspontaneous exercise.' (MG:S253)

These terms were even less used in Classical Malay, in which adalah functioned primarily as a clause-initial connective. The following examples illustrate the usual way to express an equational: (69)

Rumah xtu rumah model lama house that house model old 'That house was an old-fashioned one' (SDJ)

(70)

kendaraannya lembu putih vehicle:3P cow white 'His mount was a white cow'

(SM2:22:91)

Various types of clausal elements can function as noun phrases, and as such may participate in equational constructions. These include nominalizations, headless relative clauses, and ordinary finite and non-finite (i.e. triggerless) clauses. The latter two types will be discussed further in section 2.8.

46

Chapter 2

(71)

Oposisi ini maunya cuma menjatuhkan kabinet opposition this want: 3P only MENG:bring:down cabinet 'The desire of this opposition is simply to bring down the cabinet' (SDJ)

(72)

Tuanlah yang dapat mengobati penyakit pun kakang. 2P:LAH REL able medicate sickness PUN IP 'You are the one who can cure my sickness.' (HAP)

In equational clauses, it can be very difficult in the absence of intonation to determine which element is the predicate and which is the trigger; this is especially true when both elements are specific. Because of this, I have not included this type of clause in my constituent order database.

2.6.2. Prepositional phrase predicates A prepositional phrase may serve as a predicate. (73)

(74)

Kamar tidur dl belakang. room sleep at behind 'The bedroom was in back.'

(SDJ)

kotanya daripada batu hltam tujuh lapis city:3P from stone black seven layer 'The city was made of seven layers of black stone' (SM:1124)

2.6.3. Unprefixed verbs The majority of unprefixed verbs are intransitive. These include many verbs which are very common, including simple verbs of motion, and also most "adjectival" verbs. (75)

Daun kuning serta ranting kering jatuh. leaf yellow and twig dry fall 'Yellow leaves and dry twigs fell.' (Rong)

(76)

Baginda pun naik ke atas kuda itu 3P PUN mount to top horse that 'He mounted the horse' (SM)

(77)

Sekarang kami pun tualah now IIP PUN old:LAH 'now we are old' (SM)

Chapter 2 (78)

47

Saimun diam saja. Saimun ailent just 'Saimun was silent.' (SDJ)

2.6.4. Ber- verbs No easy generalization is possible about the meaning or function of the prefix ber-. It tends to be attached to verbs of human behavior. Winstedt (1927) compared it to the middle voice of Greek. Its range of meanings can include reflexive and reciprocal senses (especially in Classical Malay), but often it seems to indicate habitual or repeated action. (79)

Pucuk-pucuk top:2

pohon tree

di pedukuhan at village

yang semplt itu bergoyang. REL narrow that BER:sway 'The tops of the trees in that narrow village swayed.' (Rong) (80)

Maka bertemulah kedua gajah itu lalu berperang LNK BER:meet:LAH two elephant that then BER:war 'The two elephants met and fought' (SM:1230.5)

Ber- can also be used to form a verb from a noun root, in which case it usually means something like 'having N \ In this case, postverbal elements are often interpreted as modifiers of the noun stem rather than as verbal complements; put another way, the ber- can be treated as attached to the whole NP rather than simply the head noun. (81)

maka baginda pun beranak empat orang LNK 3P PUN BER:child four CL 'He had four children' (SM2:27:273)

(82)

dia bercelana pendek 3P BER:pants short 'He was wearing shorts'

(SJ2:283:17)

48

Chapter 2

2.6.5. Ter- verbs The intransitive prefix ter- forms verbs with a stative, accidental, or potential meaning; the common semantic feature is something like "non volitional" (Wouk 1980). (83)

Seakan hidupnya tergantung pada sebatang rokok as:if life:3P TER:hang on one:CL cigarette 1 It was as if his life depended on one cigarette' (SDJ)

(84)

Maka Indraputra pun tersenyum. LNK Indraputra PUN TER:smile 'Indraputra smiled.' (MI)

(85)

Maka tuan puteri pun tertldurlah. LNK princess PUN TER:sleep:LAH 'The princess fell asleep.' (HAP)

Ter- has been treated as a "passive" prefix (in e.g. Karim 1978); like a di-verb, it can take an agent with oleh (though the other coding possibilities for PT agents are mostly not available with ter-). (86)

Dia tidak 3P not

dapat can

menamakan MENG:name:KAN

apa yang what REL

terasa olehnya. TER:feel OLEH:3P

'He couldn't name what he was feeling'

(SDJ)

The circumfix ke- \ -an sometimes occurs with some of the functions of ter-; this is commonly attributed to Javanese influence (Sarumpaet 1980; Kartomihardjo 1981; Poedjosoedarmo 1982), but at least in the abilitative sense it is found even in Classical Malay: kedengaran = terdengar 'audible', kelihatan = terlihat 'visible'. (87)

lalu ke benua Cina kedengaran kabar itu. then to continent China could:hear news that 'That news could be heard all the way to China' (SM2:27:283)

Chapter 2

49

2.6.6. The role of the trigger Should intransitive clauses be treated as AT, as PT, or neither? So far, I have discussed the AT/PT distinction only in regard to transitive verbs, but there is some indication that the split extends to intransitives. In the literature on Malay and Indonesian, intransitive verbs in ter- have been treated as passive or PT (it has been described as the "agentless passive"), and intransitive verbs in meng- and ber- have been treated as active or AT. The "inherent nature", active or passive, of the unprefixed verb has come in for a good deal of discussion in the literature; even in 1914, Winstedt discussed the issue of whether the "basic" verb is active or passive, abandoned both solutions, and concluded (quite correctly) that "anyhow, the difference between transitive and intransitive is not the same in Malay as it is in European languages" (Winstedt 1927:62). Nowadays probably the most common stance is to treat some ter- verbs as passive and all other intransitives as active. The fact that this controversy exists, however, suggests that perhaps Malay is a "split-S" or "active" language. Durie (1985, 1988) has defended this analysis for Acehnese, a Western Austronesian language of northern Sumatra. Languages of this syntactic type have no processes that characterize the S category; among the single arguments of intransitive verbs, some are treated as As, and some as Ps, according to the degree of control they exercise over the process expressed by the verb. In Acehnese, most verb stems can be classed as either "basically" controlled or "basically" uncontrolled; and there is an elaborate system of morphology for deriving controlled verbs from uncontrolled verbs, and vice versa. Some of these morphemes have clear cognates in Malay with apparently similar functions: thus Acehnese teu- (c.f. Malay ter-) derives uncontrolled verbs, and Acehnese meu- (c.f. Malay meng-) has as one of its functions the derivation of controlled verbs. There is some evidence that this split also exists among the intransitive verbs of Malay. As illustrated above in example 86, ter- verbs may occasionally occur with a second argument marked by oleh, the preposition normally used to mark the A in a PT clause. This is also true for a number of unprefixed intransitive verbs with 'non-controlled' meanings, though this fact has seldom been noted in the literature:

50

Chapter 2

(88)

Laki-laki man

pertama first

lunglai weak

oleh keracunan tempe bongkrek OLEH poisoning tempe bongkrek 'The first man was weakened by tempe bongkrek (a fermented soybean preparation) poisoning' (Rong) (89)

dan Islam yang lumpuh oleh kedangkalan LNK Islam REL paralyzed OLEH shallowness taklid massa unquestioning mass

pemeluknya. embracer:3P

'...and Islam which is paralyzed by the unquestioning shallowness of the masses of those who embrace it.' (GA) (90)

Maka alahlah Raja Kida Hindi itu oleh Raja Iskandar LNK lose:LAH Raja Kida Hindi that OLEH Raja Iskandar 'Raja Kida Hindi was conquered by Raja Iskandar' (SM:0415)

In these examples, intransitive pr T , as do PT clauses with high "eventiveness" (as we will see in the following chapters), and the suffix -Iah is also associated with high eventiveness in indicative clauses. Thus, several of the grammatical characteristics of imperatives seem to be associated with a particular kind of indicative clause, the eventive clause. This convergence bears more investigation. However, since (like questions) this construction is most frequently found in conversational passages, I will not pursue the issue in this study, nor did I include imperatives in my constituentorder database.

2.7.3. Exclamatories "Exclamatory" clauses, where a surprising degree of some quality is predicated of the trigger, almost always have V > T order. There is usually an intensifier. (109)

Alangkah sukanya hatl ibu bapak melihat klta ini. how delight:3P heart parents MENG:see 12P this 'How delighted our parents would be to see us now.' (HAP)

(110)

Oh, alangkah nikmatnya kebebasan, pikir Tono. Oh how pleasant:3P freedom think Tono 'Oh, how pleasant freedom is, thought Tono.' (MG:S164.3)

(111)

Terlalu ajaib ia very amazed 3P 'he was extremely amazed'

(SM:1518)

(112)

Senang benar hatinya. happy truly heart:3P 'He was truly happy.' (SDJ:L107)

(113)

Bukan main senang hatinya. not play happy heart:3P 'She was extremely happy' (lit. 'her happiness was no joke') (SrS:S037.3)

(114)

Sederhana saja aksi itu. simple just action that 'The action was perfectly simple'

(SrS:S022)

Chapter 2 (115)

55

Amat gembira rasa hatinya. very joyous feeling heart:3P 'He was very joyful' (SDJ:L051)

Moeliono and Dardjowidjojo (1988:292) discuss V > T exclamatories with alangkah and bukan main, and Sarumpaet (1977:171) mentions a few other possibilities. However, in my data the pattern was general for a large range of intensifiers, as illustrated in the above examples. The predicate in the alangkah clause is prescriptively marked -nya, as in examples 109 and 110 above; in practice, this is sometimes omitted. The term alangkah is supposed to come from the stem alang 'trifle' plus -kah, the question suffix: thus example 110 would once have meant 'is the pleasantness of freedom a trifle?' (Lewis 1969). However, that must have been a long time ago, since alangkah is used in exactly the same way in Classical Malay. Some of the other intensifiers common in exclamatories have similar origins: bukan main means 'no fooling' and tiada kepalang means 'not just a little', now simply 'very'. There are relatively few exclamatories in my constituent-order database, since I excluded conversational passages; however, those that occurred were included, since (as I will illustrate) there is no clear dividing line between exclamatory clauses and "ordinary" stative predications.

2.7.4. Possessor dislocation In "possessor dislocation" constructions, the trigger is a possessed which is marked with the cross-referencing possessor clitic -nya and curs adjacent to the predicate; the possessor of the clitic is expressed an independent noun phrase. In the examples below the possessor is derlined. (116)

Adapun baqinda itu terlalu amat besar kerajaannya. LNK 3P that very very large kingdom:3P 'Now that king, his kingdom was exceedingly large' (AI:0903)

(117)

rakvat Raja Suran seperti hutan rupanya troops Raja Suran like forest appearance:3P 'Raja Suran'a troops looked like a forest' (SM)

NP ocby un-

56

Chapter 2

(118)

maka segala menteri yang muda-muda itu LNK all minister REL young:2 that dengki hatinya akan Indraputra envious heart:3P AKAN Indraputra 'All the young ministers were envious of Indraputra' (MI:5708)

(119)

Ini Sri baru tahu akan maknanya sesudah this Sri only know AKAN meaning:3P after digauli suaminya selama dua belas DI:associate husband:3P during twelve

dia sempat 3P can

tahun. year

'Sri only understood the meaning of this after she had the opportunity to associate with her husband for twelve years.' (SrS) (120)

Buah randu telah menghitam kulitnya. fruit kapok PFV MENG:black skin:3P 'The skin of the kapok fruit was already turning black.' (Rong)

(121)

Piiitan tanqannva vang adem itu terkenal khasiatnya massage hand:3P REL calm that famous virtue:3P 'The virtue of the massaging of those calm hands was famous

As can be seen, the possessor usually occurs to the left of the clause, but it may occur to the right as well: (122)

amat bijaksana budi pekertinya puteri itu very discreet character:3P princess that 'The princess was very sensible' (SM:0425)

This construction is a very common way of predicating a quality of a person or other entity. Rather than predicating the quality directly of the entity (as is normally done in English), the quality is predicated of some attribute (a part or aspect, such as thoughts or feelings) of the entity. The entity is expressed as the possessor, and the attribute is expressed as the trigger of the predicate. For terminological convenience, I will continue to use these terms to refer to the parts of the construction. These labels could be applied to e.g. example 120 as follows: (120')

Buah randu fruit kapok possessor entity

telah menghitam PFV MENG:black predicate

kulitnya. skin:3P trigger attribute

Chapter 2

57

The function of the attribute is to add specific information about the domain of the predication. The attribute chosen is usually the standard or stylized one for that particular predicate: some things are predicated of the hati 'heart (lit. liver)', some of the pikiran 'thoughts', some of rupa 'appearance' etc. Thus the possessed argument is often highly predictable, and thus should perhaps be thought of as incorporated into the verb; under this analysis the possessor rather than the attribute is the trigger, and the predicate-attribute order within the verb is not a syntactic matter. In further support of this analysis, it can be noted that in clause-combining constructions, possessors have pivot properties, as do triggers: they can be relativized or shared among serial verbs (as will be shown in the next section). One way of accounting for this would be to treat the possessor as having been "promoted" (or "raised") to trigger status. However, it is important to note that possessors do not have other trigger properties; they are not obligatory, and their semantic role is not reflected by the verb morphology. For these reasons, I will continue to distinguish "possessor pivots" from "triggers". Thus, in the constituentorder database, possessor-dislocation sentences in which the predicate comes between the possessor and the possessed (such as example 120) were treated as having V > Τ order.

2.8. Clause combining A fairly detailed account of clause combining is in order here, since clause combining phenomena interact with constituent order in a number of ways. In one type of clause combination, a clausal argument itself functions as trigger, in which case we need to be able to make a statement about its order relative to the predicate. In another type of clause combination, a noun phrase functions as an argument of more than one clause, in which case we need to be able to make a statement about its order relative to more than one predicate. As we will see, there are special generalizations concerning constituent order in clause combining situations. Four types of clause combinations may be distinguished. Each involves a "primary" clause (the one which is the main, matrix, or independent clause, or the first clause in a paratactic combination) and a "secondary" clause (the one which is subordinate, dependent, or embedded, or the second clause in a paratactic combination). The secondary clause may be a relative clause; it may be embedded as an argument (A, S or P) of the primary clause; it may be an adverbial clause (with an explicit linker) modifying the primary clause; and finally, both clauses may

58

Chapter 2

share an argument, neither having a linker marking it as dependent on the other (the "serial verb" construction).

2.8.1. Relative clauses As we have seen in the discussion of the category "trigger" (section 2.4.3), Malay shares the well-known Western Austronesian constraint that the trigger is the only direct argument that may be relativized; in this respect relativization is the same as other types of clause-combining which involve argument sharing. Thus, if the head noun has the role A in the relative clause, the verb in the relative clause will be A T : (123)

orang yang memalu mong-mongan itu person REL MENG:beat gong that 'the person who was beating the gong' (MI)

(124)

seorang kawannya yang membaca karangan itu one:CL friend:3P REL MENG:read article that 'a friend of his who had read that article' (SDJ)

If the head noun is Ρ in the relative clause, the verb will be PT: (125)

pelbagai permata yang ditinggalkan oleh datok neneknya various jewels REL DI:leave OLEH ancestors:3P 'various jewels which were left by her ancestors' (SM)

(126)

pidato yang speech REL

hendak want

nanti malam tonight

di parlemen at parliament

diucapkannya DI:utter:3P

'the speech he was going to give that night in Parliament' (SDJ)

And, of course, if the head noun is the only direct argument of the relative clause (i.e. it is intransitive), there is no constraint on the verb. (127)

(128)

pohon bidara yang sudah berbuahan tree date REL PFV BER:fruit 'date trees which were already bearing (SM:1324) mobil "Cadillac" yang berwarna merah car Cadillac REL BER:color red 'a dark red Cadillac' (SDJ)

fruit'

tua dark

Chapter 2

59

Non-direct arguments, however, may also be relativized: there are relativization strategies for adverbials such as time and place expressions, and for possessors. The former are rather rare. They are not formed with the relativizer yang; rather, they are formed on an appositional pattern, introduced by a fairly empty word. For place, this is usually the word tempat 'place', and for time, a word such as waktu 'time, when' or saat 'moment' . (129)

kantor tempat mereka dibayar office place 3P1 DI:pay 'the office where they were paid' (SDJ)

(130)

hingga saat polisi datang until moment police come 'until the moment (when) the police came' (SDJ)

Question words (such as di mana 'where') are sometimes used as relativizers in this type of clause, as in examples 131 and 132; Becker and Wirasno (1980) suggest that this pattern is due to European influence. I have found no examples in the Hikayat of either strategy for adverbial relativization. Prescriptively, the use of question words in this context is considered "incorrect" in Standard Indonesian (c.f. Sarumpaet 1980:168), but it is not at all uncommon, even in the written language. (131)

sepasang puting di mana aku menetek one:pair nipple at where IP MENG:suckle hampir selama dua tahun. almost for two year Ά pair of nipples where I had suckled for almost two years' (Rong:Rl04.3)

(132)

ketiganya three:3P

berjalan ke sebuah tempat BER:walk to one:CL place

di mana mereka at where 3P1

sering often

bermain. BER:play

'The three of them walked to a place where they often played.' (Rong)

Possessor relativization, on the other hand, is quite common. The relativizer yang is used, and there is a resumptive possessive clitic within the relative clause. (This construction is clearly related to possessor dislocation, discussed above in section 2.7.4.)

60

Chapter 2

(133)

isteri yang balk parasnya wife REL good looks:3P 'a beautiful wife' (HAP)

(134)

segala orang tua yang sudah tanggal giginya all people old REL PFV fall:out teeth:3P 'all the old men whose teeth had fallen out' (SM:1325)

(135)

rakyat Raja Suran yang tiada troops Raja Suran REL not banyaknya many:3P

terpermenai TER:calculate

Itu that

'those troops of Raja Suran's whose number was incalculable' (SM:1224) (136)

tanjung-tanjung yang amat banyak jumlahnya promontory:2 which very many number:3P 'promontories, of which there were very many' (GA) (lit. 'whose number was very many')

(137)

Seorang yang tegap badannya one:CL REL sturdy body:3P 'a person with a sturdy body' (SDJ)

(138)

ikan pantau yang slsl tubuhnya fish pantau REL side body:3P bundaran circle

memiliki MENG:have

hitam besar. black big

'pantau fish whose sides have big black circles.' (Perg:P049) (139)

pelayan hotel yang bajunya bertuliskan attendant hotel REL shirt:3P BER:write "Dolce far niente" "Dolce far niente" 'a hotel attendant whose shirt had "Dolce far niente" written on it' (GA:0151)

The lengths to which this can go are illustrated in 140, which contains two levels of possessor relatives:

Chapter 2 (140)

Boom delman sebelah shaft carriage side oleh tembaga OLEΗ copper

yang REL

kiri, left

yang REL

ujungnya tip:3P

61

disalut Discover

telah hitam warnanya PFV black color:3P

'The left-hand shaft of the carriage, whose tip was covered by copper which was (lit. 'whose color was') already black' (SDJ)

As has been illustrated above in examples 20 and 21, headless relative clauses may function as clausal arguments.

2.8.2. Clausal arguments The trigger morphology of Indonesian treats clausal arguments (for the most part) the same way as simple noun phrase arguments. A clausal argument may be trigger or non-trigger, and if it is trigger, the verb morphology reflects its role.18 There are three "complementizers" which may occur with clausal arguments, namely supaya and untuk (roughly 'for/to'), and bahwa (roughly 'that'). Clauses of these types may occur as complements to noun phrases (often nominalizations) as well as verbal arguments. Bahwa occurs with complements which refer to facts, or actual states of affairs; a bahwa clause must contain an explicit trigger. 19 (In these examples, the argument clause is in < angled brackets > . ) (141)

Telah masyurlah pada PFV famous:LAH in

segala all

negerl country

anak raja anak cucu Raja Iskandar child king descendent King Iskandar turun ke Bukit descend to Hill

Siguntang Mahameru

'It was well-known in every country that the princes descended from King Iskandar D z u Ί - K a r n a i n had come down (to earth) at Bukit Siguntang Mahameru.' (SM2:24:139) (142)

Nyata kelihatan,

clear visible that 3P MENG:receive matter that 'It was plain that she accepted the matter' (GA:0252)

62

Chapter 2

Supaya and untuk refer to unrealized states of affairs, e.g. intentions, commands, and future events. Supaya occurs with a clause which contains an overt trigger: (143)

Datang come hari day

perintah order itu juga that too

to T a n j u n g A u r

'An order came that the inhabitants e v a c u a t e t h a t very day to Tanjung A u r . ' (Perg:P091.1)

Untuk, on the other hand, occurs with a triggerless clause (i.e. the trigger is either understood as coreferential with an argument of the matrix clause, or it is unspecified). It is used much more commonly in Modern Indonesian than in Classical Malay, perhaps under the influence of European infinitive structures. (144)

Kepada to

penumpang passenger

diperintahkan DI:order

BER:two:2

'The p a s s e n g e r s w e r e ordered to d e s c e n d into t h e b o a t by twos.' (GA:0114)

Untuk also marks irrealis adverbial clauses (e.g. purpose and the like), which do not function as direct arguments. (145)

Dipilihnya sebuah kutang D I : c h o o s e : 3 P one:CL b r a lalu diberikannya then DI:give:3P . DI:carry

'She chose a bright yellow brassiere, and gave it to Nyai K a r t a r e j a to carry.' (Rong:R131)

In Classical Malay a clausal argument may receive markers usually associated with simple noun phrases. For instance, the P-marking preposition akan may be used to mark a clausal P:

Chapter 2 (146)

tiada not

diketahui DI:know

oleh Raja OLEH King

that pregnant

'Raja Iskandar didn't know that his wife was pregnant' (SM:0805)

Or a "given" clausal Ρ may be marked with the determiner itu: (147)

Maka LNK

datanglah come:LAH

Maka LNK

Indraputra pun setelah Indraputra PUN after

datang come

ia ke dalam 3P to in

itu> maka that LNK

kebun itu. garden that melihat T clauses (apparently under the assumption that the speaker is the T); I will argue, however, that this is an inappropriate analysis. These are clauses like the following: (159)

Maka LNK

kata Demang Lebar Daun pada say Demang Lebar Daun to

"Tinggallah stay:LAH

tu an hamba 2P

saudaranya, sibling:3P

memeliharakan MENG:protect

negeri ini" country this

'Demang Lebar Daun said to his brother, and defend this country"' (SM2:29:370) (160)

Maka LNK

sahut saudaranya, answer sibling:3P

yang REL

mana kata what say

tuan hamba 2Ρ

"You stay here

"Baiklah, good:LAH tiada hamba not IP

lalui." disobey

'His brother said, "all right, whatever you say I will not disobey".' (SM2:29:377) (161)

"Carl sebatang cungkil," kata Rasus. seek one:CL pick say Rasus '"Look for a pick," said Rasus.' (Rong)

(162)

"Air?" eiek Darsun, anak yang ketiga. water insult Darsun child REL third '"Water?" said Darsun, the third child, insultingly.' (Rong)

As can be seen from these examples, the root which refers to saying (underlined in the above examples; I shall refer to these as "quotative morphemes") precedes the sayer in this construction. The sayer if anaphoric is referred to with the -ku/-mu/-nya series of clitics:

Chapter 2 (163)

67

maka katanya, "Inilah hal yang kita lihat LNK say:3P this:LAH thing REL 12P see semalam itu." yesterday that she said, "This is what we saw yesterday".' (SM2:22:83)

(164)

"Boleh jadi may happen "'It might be resolutely.'

demikian, Nek," iawabku mantap. thus Grandma answer:IP resolute like that, Grandma," I answered (Rong)

In the Indonesian novels the quotative usually follows the quote, while in the Malay hikayats it precedes. One analysis of this construction is that the quotative morpheme does not function as a verb at all, but rather as a noun, and that the speaker is the possessor of the noun. Thus, these examples can be interpreted as equational in structure, with the quoted material as trigger and the quotative morpheme + speaker as predicate. This view is supported by the fact that even normally prefixed verbs usually take no prefix in this construction, and that the speaker can be encliticized to the quotative morpheme using the clitic series normally used for pronominal possessors. (Note that while the third person -nya form could be interpreted as the agent clitic in a PT verbal construction — although then it would be hard to explain the absence of di the fact that -ku is enclitic rather than proclitic rules out this analysis.) Against the nominal analysis must be placed the observation that many morphemes which occur as quotatives don't normally occur as nouns in affixless form. Indeed, some of the morphemes commonly used quotatively are basically nouns, i.e. the bare stem is interpreted as a noun and derivational morphology is required to make it a verb. For instance, when not used quotatively, kata and ujar mean 'word' and 'phrase' respectively, while the derived verb forms mengatakan and mengujarkan mean 'say'. However, many other quotative morphemes are basically verbs and normally require derivational morphology to be interpreted as nouns. For instance, ejek 'insult (verb)', used quotatively to mean 'say insultingly', has ejekan 'insult (noun)' as its noun form in Standard Indonesian; similarly, the noun form of sahut 'reply' would be sahutan.20 It seems likely that the latter set, which are most directly related to verbs, arose by analogy with the possessed noun forms after these were reinterpreted as verbal; this hypothesis is supported by the fact that the

68

Chapter 2

most semantically neutral quotative morphemes are generally of the noun group. Whichever the correct analysis is, it seems that special principles apply to this type of quotative construction, and therefore I have not included these clauses in my constituent-order database.

2.8.3. Serial verbs The term "serial verb" is used here more or less as it is used in Li and Thompson (1981:594), "to refer to a sentence that contains two or more verb phrases or clauses juxtaposed without any marker indicating what the relationship is between them". However, I use this term in a slightly more limited way than they do, in two senses: 1) I take "argument sharing" (in which a single noun phrase is understood as belonging to two different verbs) to be a necessary component of the constructions I will characterize as instances of verb serialization; and 2) while they include "one verb phrase or clause serving as the subject or direct object of another verb" as a type of verb serialization, I have treated this phenomenon separately in the previous section. A brief discussion is in order here on the criteria used to distinguish cases of clausal argument from cases of verb serialization, since I include with verb serialization certain types of clause combinations which could conceivably be treated as cases of clausal P. These include for the most part combinations involving verbs whose English translations have been described as "raising" and "equi" verbs. These are distinct from cases of clausal Ρ in that there is a pivot, i.e. a noun phrase that functions as an argument of both clauses, and there is no complementizer; and they are distinct from other kinds of argument sharing constructions in that the predicate as well as the trigger of the lower clause has a role as a complement of the main verb. In English, it is generally possible to tell on the basis of case marking and verbal morphology what the argument structure of each verb is in any given clause; while most of these verbs have the possibility of participating in more than one pattern, the patterns can be distinguished on morphological grounds. In Malay, however, such cues are not available. Consider the following examples:

Chapter 2 (165)

69

Maharaja Bikrama Buspa pun melihat Maharaja Bikrama Buspa PUN MENG:see anakanda child

baginda 3P

hilang disappear

'Maharaja Bikrama Buspa saw his child disappear' (or) 'M.B.B, saw that his child had disappeared' (AI:0510) (166)

Dia mengira itu hanya satu kelesuan sementara saja. 3P MENG:think that only one weakness temporary only 'She thought it only a temporary weakness' (or) 'She thought it was only a temporary weakness' (GA)

Here, there are two possible English glosses, the first corresponding to a "raising" analysis, and the second to a "non-raising" (clausal argument) analysis; the two structures are distinguished by various features of the English versions, but the cues are not available in the Malay. Going by what is available, I will treat such suspect clause combinations as cases of clausal argument only if there is an overt complementizer (as in examples 141-144), a comma, a determiner (as in 147), a case preposition (as in 146), or if the complement clause has its own, clearly unshared, trigger; otherwise I will treat them as cases of verb serialization with argument sharing.

2.8.3.1. Modals One further phenomenon which should be distinguished from cases of verb serialization is the presence of modal/auxiliary elements. These are prefixless verbal elements which generally precede the verb directly, although they may occur in other positions as well. They fall into several classes, of which the most important are the temporal modals and the epistemic modals. The temporals express such concepts as 'perfective' (sudah, telah, habis), 'progressive' (sedang, lagi), 'future' (akan, not to be confused with the preposition of the same spelling). The modals in this section are underlined. (167)

Maka segala negeri itu habis takluk kepada baginda LNK all country that finish submit to 3P 'All those countries yielded to him entirely' (SM)

(168)

telah hampirlah masak padi itu. PFV approach:LAH ripe rice that 'the rice was already almost ripe.'

(SM2:20:26)

70

Chapter 2

(169)

Maka Indraputra pun sudah besar panjang LNK Indraputra PUN PFV large long 'Indraputra was (already) big and tall'

(170)

(AI:0811)

Ja akan menantinya 3P FUT MENG:wait:3P sampai sarapan di hotel itu until breakfast at hotel that

selesai finish

'He would wait for her until breakfast at the hotel was over' (GA:0245) (171)

Dari pintu telah ditangkap oleh Ahmad matanya from door PFV DI:catch OLEH Ahmad eye:3P 'From the door Ahmad had already caught her eye' (GA:02493)

(172)

Di lapangan at field

sepak kick

upacara hari ceremony day

bola sedang diadakan ball PROG DI:conduct

kemerdekaan independence

'In the soccer field the independence day ceremony was being held' (Perg:P099)

The epistemics express such concepts as ability/possibility (bisa 'can', boleh 'may', dapat 'can') and necessity/obligation (mesti 'must', harus 'must, should', tidakusah 'needn't'). (173)

patik tiada dapat bercerai dengan IP not can BER:separate with 'I can't part from you' (SM2:29:361)

(174)

akan bisa diatasi will can DI:overcome persoalan problem

duli dust

Tuanku. lord:IP

mengongkosi anaknya itu. MENG:support child:3P that

'The problem of supporting her child would be able to be overcome.' (SrS:S007) (175)

Ahmad mesti melekatkan badannya Ahmad must MENG:stick body:3P serapat-rapatnya close:2:3P

kepada to

Janet. Janet

'Ahmad had to squeeze his body as close as possible to Janet.' (GA:0121)

Chapter 2

71

The negative morphemes tidak, tiada (and variants) 'not', bukan 'not' (for NP predicates and counter-expectation), belum 'not yet' may also be treated as modal elements. (176)

Maharaja. Syahsian itu tiada beranak. Maharaja Syahsian that not BER:child 'Maharaja Syahsian didn't have children.'

(AI:0905)

(177)

la tidak mendaftarkan diri pada suatu hotel juapun 3P not MENG:register self at one hotel any 'He didn't register at any hotel' (GA:0138)

(178)

kecantikan beauty melainkan but

Srintil bukan milikku, Srintil not possession:IP miliknya. possession:3P

'Srintil's beauty was not my property, but hers.' (Rong:R056.1) (179)

roh Ki Secamenggala belum menghendaki kematianku. spirit Ki Secamenggala not:yet MENG:want death:IP 'Ki Secamenggala's spirit did not yet wish for my death.' (Rong:R047)

Some words, e.g. dapat 'can, obtain', mau 'will, want', perlu 'need' etc., may function either as modals or as main verbs; thus, when one of these occurs in combination with another verb, it may be analyzed either as a modal or as the initial verb in a serial construction. However, there is a general syntactic test which distinguishes modals from verbs: the "actor" of a modal does not function as a syntactic pivot, i.e. it is not subject to the requirement that it be the trigger of the secondary clause (c.f. e.g. Wolff 1980:74). This can be seen in sentences such as the following, where under the serial analysis the "shared argument" of the modal and the main verb is the A of the latter, but not its trigger (they are all PT verbs).

72

Chapter 2

(180)

Maka LNK

raja Cina mengutus ke Palembang king China MENG:envoy to Palembang

kepada to

Sang Sapurba sepuluh Sang Sapurba ten

meminang anakanda MENG:propose child yang REL

perempuan female

buah CL

baginda 3P

seorang, one:CL

pllu ship

itu that

hendak diperisteri want DI:marry

baginda 3P

'The king of China sent as envoys to Palembang, to Sang Sapurba, ten ships, to ask for the hand of one of his daughters, he wanted to marry her' 21 (SM2:27:284) (181)

sudah dapat kulihat tempat tidur berkelambu PFV can IP:see place sleep BER:mosquito:net Ί could already see the mosquito-netted bed' (Rong:R080)

(182)

inqin ditepiskannya tangan Santayib want DI:ward:off:3P hand Santayib 'He wanted to push away Santayib's hand'

(183)

(184)

Mereka boleh dikatakan dilumpuhkan 3P1 may DI:say DI:paralyze 'they might be said to be paralyzed'

itu that

(Rong:R036)

(GA:0069)

Tidak tahu dia apa yang harus dikerjakan. not know 3P what REL should DI:do 'he didn't know what should be done.' (SDJ:L018.1)

Verhaar (1988) argues that this pattern provides evidence for the syntactic ergativity of Indonesian; however, as Dixon (1979:115) points out, morphemes in precisely these semantic classes tend crosslinguistically to be interpreted as sharing an actor with the following verb regardless of the behavior of other kinds of clause combinations, and are thus unreliable as typological indicators.

2.8.3.2. Restrictions on the role of the shared argument We can now return to "true" serial verb constructions. Such constructions are subject to the following constraint: (I) A shared argument must be the trigger of the non-initial verbs in the series, or be in a possessor relationship with an argument of the non-initial verbs.

Chapter 2

73

This constraint holds without exception for the stronger types of verb serialization; "looser" verb series, where the absence of a tight bond is indicated by intonation in speech and may be reflected in writing by punctuation (usually, a comma) or the presence of lexical linking material, are not subject to it. The following is an example of such a "loose" series: (185)

Tetapl but

Janet tiada J a n e t not

menjawab, dipalingkannya MENG:reply DI:turn:3P

lalu berjalan masuk ke dalam t h e n B E R : w a l k e n t e r into dl atas at o n

dek kapal d e c k ship

mukanya, face:3P

bar bar

ifcu. that

'But Janet did not reply, t u r n e d her face away, w a l k e d into the b a r o n the deck of t h e ship.' (GA:0053)

and

In this example Janet is first trigger, then a non-trigger A, then trigger again; the conceptual independence of the clauses for the author is reflected by the commas that separate them as well as his choice of voice. There are three possible word orders for (pairs of) serial verbs with a shared argument: the shared argument may precede both verbs, intervene between the two verbs, or follow both verbs. Examples of the last type are extremely rare (none occur in my data), and therefore this order will not be discussed further here. The two common orders can be distinguished in terms of the position of the trigger relative to the first verb; thus we can conveniently refer to them as NP-V-V and V-NP-V constructions. Both patterns are illustrated in the following examples: NP-V-V: (186)

Maka LNK

ia pun segera turun dari atas 3P PUN immediately d e s c e n d from on

kursinya chair:3P

berdiri di tanah B E R : s t a n d on g r o u n d 'At o n c e he got off his chair and stood o n the ground' (SM:0604) (187)

Anak perahu selalu harus datang menolong. child boat always must come help 'The b o a t m a n always had to come help.' (GA)

74

Chapter 2

V-NP-V: (188)

Maka keluarlah api memancar-mancar LNK come:out:LAH fire MENG:spout:2 'Flames came pouring out' (AI)

(189)

Kemudian datanglah Samsu menggarap. then come:LAH Samsu MENG:work:on 'Then Samsu came to work on him.' (MG:S154)

In general, a wide range of argument patterns can occur with either order; the shared argument can be A, Ρ or S of either clause, and it can be a trigger or a non-trigger of the first clause (though it must be a trigger of the second). However, not all combinations are equally possible in both NP-V-V and V-NP-V combinations. Some are ruled out by an additional restriction: (II) Non-trigger arguments tend not to precede the predicate. Violations of (II) virtually never occur in written Malay with AT verbs. With PT verbs, as already noted, an agent marked with oleh does occasionally precede the verb; this however is rare in written language, and I have no examples in my data of preverbal PT agents in a verb series. The restrictions in (I) and (II) have the combined result that when the shared argument precedes both verbs in a series, it must be the trigger of both verbs, unless the first verb is PT. When the shared argument intervenes between the two verbs, however, there is no such requirement, and thus there is a wider range of grammatical roles available in the primary clause. For instance, the NP-V-V versions of V-NP-V constructions in the following examples do not occur. (190)

Maharaja Bikrama Buspa pun melihat Maharaja Bikrama Buspa PUN MENG:see anakanda child

baginda 3P

hilang disappear

'Maharaja Bikrama Buspa saw his child disappear' (AI:0510) (191)

Dia mengira itu hanya satu kelesuan sementara saja. 3P MENG:think that only one weakness temporary only 'She thought it was only a temporary weakness.' (GA)

Chapter 2 (192)

Demikian thus

75

Tono ingat Samsu Tono remember Samsu

menutup perdebatan MENG:close debate

itu. that

'That was how Tono remembered Samsu closing the debate.' (MG) (193)

Dicobanya menangkap denyut bayi di dalamnya. DI:try:3P MENG:catch heartbeat baby at inside:3P 'He tried to catch the baby's heartbeat inside [her stomach].' (MG)

Even with the restrictions imposed in (I) and (II), however, verb series in Malay are quite flexible: the grammar gives speakers a fair amount of leeway to manipulate the variables of trigger choice and constituent order independently. What further factors condition these choices? As we will see, considerations having to do with both discourse factors and with the semantic class of the predicates (particularly of the first verb of the series) place tight limits on the patterns that occur. We can distinguish a number of common situations, each of which has its own tendencies in terms of trigger choice and constituent order; these tendencies are discussed in the following sections.

2.8.3.3. One event In this category are the clauses involving "raising" and "equi" type constructions, i.e. clauses in which both the shared argument and the secondary predicate function as complements of the initial verb. Like the shared argument in other kinds of serial verb constructions, the shared argument in this clause type may occur either before both predicates or in between them. The verbs that may serve as the primary predicate in these sentences belong to a fairly restricted range of semantic classes; I give examples below of the most ones which are most frequent in my data.

76

Chapter 2

Cognition: (194)

Sebermula at:first

maka LNK

Raja Suran pun berkira-kira hendak King Suran PUN BER:consider:2 want

menyerang negeri Cina. MENG:attack country China 'Raja Suran thought he would like to attack China.' (SM:1007) (195)

Ingin benar ia meneruskan percakapannya. want true 3P MENG:continue conversation:3P 'He really wanted to continue the conversation.'

(GA)

(196)

Dia mengira itu hanya satu kelesuan sementara saja. 3P MENG:think that only one weakness temporary only 'She thought it was only a temporary weakness.' (GA)

(197)

Demikian thus

Tono ingat Samsu Tono remember Samsu

menutup perdebatan MENG:close debate

itu. that

'That was how Tono remembered Samsu closing the debate.' (MG)

Perception: (198)

Raja Gongga Shah Johan melihat Raja Suran datang King Gongga Shah Johan MENG:see Raja Suran come 'Raja Gongga Shah Johan saw Raja Suran coming' (SM:1111)

(199)

Dilihatnya Samsu digiring ke luar penjara DI:see:3P Samsu DI:drive out of jail 'He saw Samsu being driven out of the jail.' (MG:S148.1)

(200)

Suara langkah sepatu terdengar makin mendekat. sound step shoe TER:hear increasingly MENG:close 'The sound of shod footsteps could be heard approaching. ' (MG)

(201)

Grendel pintunya terdengar dikancingkan. bolt door:3P TER:hear DI:fasten 'The bolt of the door could be heard being (MG)

(202)

Dia memang me ras a terpojok. 3P really MENG:feel TER:corner 'He really felt cornered.' (MG)

fastened.'

Chapter 2

11

Speaking: (203)

Kalakian next

maka LNK

nenek kebayan grandmother

itu that

bermohon BER:ask

pulang ke rumahnya. return to house:3P 'Then the grandmother asked to go home.' (204)

Kemudian then

(ΆΙ:0804)

Samsu minta ditunjukkan Samsu request DI:show

hasil-hasil result:2

pekerjaan work

Tono. Tono

"Then Samsu asked to be shown the results of Tono's work.' (MG) (205)

la boleh dikatakan ditelan oleh politik. 3P can DI:say DI:swallow OLEH politics 'He could be said to be swallowed up by politics.' (GA)

Causation: (206)

Maka LNK

Raja Kida Hindi pun menyuruhkan Raja Kida Hindi PUN MENG:order

menghimpunkan MENG:gather

segala all

perdana prime

menteri minister

rakyat people

'Then Raja Kida Hindi ordered his prime minister to gather together all the people' (SM:0409) (207)

Dipaksanya cucunya itu duduk diam-diam. DI:force:3P grandchild:3P that sit quiet:2 'She made her granddaughter sit quietly.' (SrS:S038.3)

(208)

Pengayuh menyuruh mereka menunduk pula. oarsman MENG:order 3P1 MENG:duck again 'The oarsman ordered them to duck again.' (GA)

78

Chapter 2

2.8.3.4. Separate events These are verb series involving any of a wide range of rhetorical relations between the clauses, including temporal sequence, simultaneity, cause and purpose relations. The exact nature of the relationship must be inferred by the reader, and in many cases there is more than one possibility. They are distinguished from the combinations in the previous section in that the event referred to in one clause is not naturally interpreted as "part o f the event referred to in the other. Unlike the series in the previous section, they could generally be paraphrased as coordinate clauses or as a main clause plus an adverbial clause which has a linker explicitly indicating the semantics of the relationship. (209)

Maka LNK

Perdana Menteri pun lalu bangkit prime minister PUN then rise

memegang tangan MENG:hold hand

sendirinya himself:3P

Indraputra. Indraputra

'The prime minister rose, taking Indraputra's hand' (AI:0711) (210)

Sebermula maka to:begin:with LNK

Perdana prime

Menteri duduk minister sit

dihadap oleh orang. DI:face OLEH people 'The prime minister was sitting in audience.' (AI:0808) (211)

Maka LNK

cunda baginda grandchild 3P

Raja Suranlah kerajaan King Suran:LAH rule

menggantikan nenda baginda MENG:replace grandfather 3P 'Then his grandson, Raja Suran, ruled in place of his grandfather' (SM:1001) (212)

Sekaliannya tertawa mendengar ucapan Gerametta itu. all:3P laugh MENG:hear saying Gerametta that 'All of them laughed when they heard that quip of Gerametta's.' (GA)

Chapter 2 (213)

Kecut hatinya shrink heart:3P

79

menginsafkan MENG:realize

kemajuan go longan advancement group

komunis. communist

'His heart shrank to think of the advancement of the communists' (GA:0064) (214)

Kedua two

unggas bird

itu telah that PFV

melayang MENG:fly

beratus-ratus kilometer mencari genangan air. BER:hundred:2 kilometerMENG:seek pool water 'The two birds had already flown hundreds of kilometers looking for a pool of water.' (Rong)

As the above examples show, any two events which can be conceived as sharing a participant can be joined in this way; there are thus no generalizations as to the class of the predicates involved. However, the most commonly encountered clause combinations of this type involve a motion verb. These are of two types. In the first type, the motion verb is intransitive and occurs first in the series; the verbs most commonly encountered in this type are deictic verbs such as pergi 'go' and datang 'come'. (215)

maka LNK

Indraputra pun turun daripada Indraputra PUN descend from

ayahanda father

baginda his

pergi go

ribaan lap

melihat merak emas MENG:see peacock gold

mengigal di atas talam MENG:strut at on tray

itu. that

'Indraputra got down from his father's lap and went to see the gold peacock strutting on the tray.' (AI:0507) (216)

Indraputra itu datang menolong Nobat Rom Syah. Indraputra that come MENG:help Nobat Rom Syah 'Indraputra came to help Nobat Rom Syah.' (AI)

(217)

Datanglah Raja Kida Hindi membawa anaknya come:LAH king Kida Hindi MENG:bring child:3P 'Raja Kida Hindi came bringing his daughter' (SM:0630)

(218)

Anak perahu selalu harus datang menolong. child boat always must come MENG:help 'The boatman always had to come help.' (GA)

80

Chapter 2

(219)

Kemudlan datanglah Samsu menggarap. then come:LAH Samsu M E N G : w o r k : o n l T h e n Samsu came to w o r k on him.' (MG:S154)

In the second type, there are two verbs of motion, in which the first (which is intransitive) encodes manner and the second (which is transitive) encodes direction. The latter class includes verbs such as menuju 'go towards', masuk 'enter, go into', and meninggalkan 'leave, go away from' (lit. 'cause to remain') which can function rather like directional prepositional phrases. The resultative character of these verbs is presumably related iconically to their typical position late in the series. (220)

maka LNK

Indraputra pun berjalan menuju matahari Indraputra PUN BER:walk M E N G : a i m sun

mati die

berjalan masuk hutan rimba belantara BER:walk enter forest forest forest 'Then Indraputra w a l k e d t o w a r d s the sunset, going into the forest' (AI) (221)

Bila angin when wind

berembus blow

tampak appear

ratusan kupu terbang h u n d r e d s butterfly fly meninggalkan MENG:leave

pohon tree

seperti like menuruti arah angin MENG:follow direction wind

dadap. Erythrina

'When t h e w i n d blew, it w a s as if hundreds of b u t t e r flies flew in the direction of the w i n d away from t h e E r y t h r i n a tree.' (Rong)

2.8.3.5. Possessor serialization There are many instances of clause combinations which (by analogy with possessor relativization) can be treated as a kind of serialization in which the role of the pivot in the secondary clause is not trigger but possessor of trigger. While all such constructions could also be treated as clause series with no argument sharing (since there are no "gaps" in the argument structure of the secondary verb), the existence of possessor dislocation and possessor relativization and the generally tight linkage among these clauses (as evidenced by punctuation in writing and intonation in speech) supports the idea that these should also be treated as a kind of serialization. The role of the trigger in the secondary clause (the possessed

Chapter 2

81

"attribute") is almost always S; this is because possessor dislocation in general is strongly associated with descriptive (stative, intransitive) predicates. However, the role of the possessor in the primary clause is as various as for other kinds of serialization, as the following examples show. NP-V-V: (222)

Bermula first

raja dalam king in

negeri itu country that

bernama Raja Syahsyian BERrname Raja Syahsyian terlalu very

besar kerajaannya large kingdom:3P

dan banyak and many

menterinya minister:3P

'The king in that country was named Raja Syahsyian. His kingdom was very large and his ministers were many.' (SM) (223)

Waktu when

dia masuk kembali 3P enter again

ke dalam desanya... to inside village:3P

tergetar juga hatinya. TER:shake also heart:3P 'When she went back into her village... her heart trembled.' (SrS:S029) (224)

Srintil keluar. Srintil come:out Merah red

bibirnya lip:3P

karena Srintil makan because Srintil eat

sirih. betel

'Srintil came out. Her lips were red because Srintil was chewing betel nut.' (Rong:R081) (225)

Sri tiba-tiba merasa terang pikirannya. Sri suddenly MENG:feel clear thought:3P 'Sri suddenly felt her thoughts clear.' (SrS)

V-NP-V: (226)

Dilihatnya DI:see:3P

daripada from

fihak side

magrib west

itu that

segala kaum jin kafir serba hitam pakaiannya all group jinn infidel entirely black clothes:3P 'To the west he saw the infidel jinns, their clothes all black' (AI)

82

Chapter 2

(227)

Syahdan LNK

ada seorang be one:CL

anak raja jin Islam, child king jinn Islam

Nabat Rum Syah namanya, Nabat Rum Syah name:3P seperti merak mengigal like peacock MENG:strut bermainkan BER:play terlalu very

pedang sword

rupanya appearance:3P

di atas kuda, at on horse

PERKASA lakunya. valiant conduct:3P

Ά son of the king of the Islamic jinns was there, his name was Nabat Rum Syah, he looked like (lit. his appearance was like) a strutting peacock as he fenced on horseback, his conduct was very valiant-' (MI) (228)

Maka Raja Suran segera memanah Raja Culan, LNK Raja Suran immediately MENG:shoot Raja Culan, kena dadanya be:hit breast:3P

terus ke belakang straight to back

'Raja Suran shot Raja Culan, his breast was pierced clear through' (SM:1237.5)

In each of these examples, as in the earlier possessor left-dislocation examples, we are being told something further about an argument of the primary clause. This person is coded only by a possessor clitic in the secondary clause, in which the actual trigger is the attribute.

2.9. Summary In this section I will briefly summarize those points raised in this chapter which will be most crucial to the remaining chapters, which are concerned primarily with the factors which determine the relative order of trigger and predicate in Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian. The following chart presents a brief summary of the identifying characteristics of the three main clause types in Malay:

Chapter 2 Class

Prefix

Arguments

Order

AT

meng(ber-, 0 )

A, Ρ

AV Ρ

PT

di-, proclitic

(A), Ρ

Ρ V A, V A Ρ, V Ρ A, etc.

ST

0 , ber-, ter-, nonverbal

S

V S, S V

83

Figure 3. Summary of clause types The asymmetry of this chart reflects the fact that each of these clause types has rather different properties. AT clauses are notable for their fixed constituent order, while PT clauses are notable for their variety of orders and of ways in which the A constituent may be expressed, i.e. omitted, cliticized to the verb (before or after the stem), or marked with the preposition oleh. In Classical Malay, the Ρ in a PT clause may also be marked with the preposition akan. There is some evidence that the actor/undergoer distinction represented by the AT/PT distinction in transitive clauses may also be relevant to intransitive clauses; however, the realization of this distinction in intransitives is morphological and semantic but not syntactic. Triggers and possessors function as pivots under clause-combining: an argument shared between two clauses (in clausal arguments, relative clauses, equi clauses, raising clauses, and simple verb serialization) must be trigger or possessor in the secondary (embedded, subordinate or subsequent) clause. Thus, the trigger type (ST, AT, or PT) of secondary clauses is determined by the role of the shared argument. In primary clauses, the AT/PT distinction is determined by discourse factors. In verb serialization with argument sharing, the shared argument may precede both clauses (in which case it is the trigger of both) or come between them (in which it only needs to be the trigger of the second clause). With these observations as a basis, we are now ready to consider in more detail the way writers of Malay in the past and the present have made these grammatical resources accomplish their communicative goals.

Chapter 3 Classical Malay

3.1. Introduction In this chapter, I will discuss the factors that condition constituent order alternation in the Classical Malay hikayat. These factors can be divided into three groups: those that relate to the discourse status of the trigger, those that relate to the semantic role of the trigger, and those that relate to the aspect of the predicate. Some of these factors are best stated as favoring V > Τ order, while others are best stated as favoring Τ > V order. The factors occasionally compete with each other relative to the ordering of a single clause; this leads to a very high degree of constituent order variation. This variability raises problems for the assignment of Classical Malay to a "basic word order type"; however, I will argue at the end of this chapter that Classical Malay is most plausibly a V > Τ language. In all studies of variable phenomena, the question of which clauses are really 'variants' of each other (and therefore subject to comparison) is critical to the results of this study. In Chapters 1 and 2 I have already given arguments for eliminating from consideration certain classes of clauses which occur in the texts. Among these are equationals, quoted material, and questions. In Classical Malay there is one other rather large class of clauses which I feel should be put aside and considered separately. These are clauses whose trigger is initial and marked by the enclitic particle pun, traditionally described as a "topic marker". I will argue in the first part of this chapter that a pun-marked trigger is external to the clause that follows it; that is, it has a status similar to a left-dislocated NP in a language like English, and the following clause has a status similar to a clause whose trigger is "missing" due to clause-combining. It will be seen that a number of regularities about constituent order emerge if pun clauses are considered separately; these regularities are obscured if pun clauses are taken as ordinary instances of T > V clauses. By way of orientation, it might be useful at this point to give some summary statistics about Classical Malay constituent order, based on a sample of 273 pun-less clauses. Overall, a slight majority (51.28%) are V > T. However, trigger choice and transitivity seem to be crucial determining factors, since the profile is quite different for ST, PT and AT clauses. The majority of transitive clauses are PT, and the majority of PT

Chapter 3

85

clauses are V > T , while all AT clauses are T > V . Intransitives, on the other hand, are more evenly split with respect to order, with a slight preference for Τ > V. The following figure illustrates these observations: 158

160 π 140

-

120

-

r-

ST •

Verb - > Trigger

PT E3 Trigger - > Verb

AT •

Both orders

Figure 4. Clause type and constituent order The remainder of this section will be concerned with the nature of the data used as the basis of this study; I will then go on to discuss the functional basis of a range of grammatical alternations which interact with the constituent order alternation.

3.1.1. Data Although the number of hikayat known in modern times has been estimated at 800 (which have reached us in perhaps 5000 manuscript copies), the number of hikayat available in scholarly editions is not much greater than 20 (Liaw 1975). Of these, only a handful are well-known. I have chosen to work with well-known ones, since more information is available about the source and probable date of origin of the manuscripts. This information is critical for a historical study because of the tendency for Malay scribes to alter the works they were copying. For the purpose of linguistic investigation of Classical Malay materials from a diachronic

86

Chapter 3

perspective, the date of copying probably has more relevance than the date of composition. Another criterion which guided my choice of data was the probable Malay origin of the text; I wished as far as possible to use texts representing the Riau-Johor dialect, since it probably has a more direct link with Modern Indonesian than any other available written variety (see chapter 1). In this connection, I have avoided the following classes of hikayat: Texts which are known to be more or less direct translations of foreign (Indian or Persian) sources, such as the Hikayat Sri Rama, the Hikayat Muhammad Hanafiyyah, and the Hikayat Kalila dan Damina; 22 Texts that come from the essentially Javanese tradition of "Panji tales", such as the Hikayat Andaken Penurat, the Hikayat Misa Taman Jayeng Kusuma, and possibly also the Hikayat Dewa Mandu and the Hikayat Hang Tuah; Texts which show influence from varieties of Malay other than the Riau-Johor dialect, such as the Hikayat Banjar dan Kota Waringin; "Modern" texts of identifiable authorship known to have been composed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some of these are known as hikayat, and have (to varying degrees) certain characteristics of that literary tradition; however, as personal narratives, their composition was almost certainly due to European stimulus (Sweeney 1980a, 1980b; Skinner 1982). This class includes the Hikayat Abdullah, the Hikayat Perintah Negeri Benggala, and the Tarikh Datu' Bentara Luar Johor. With these considerations in mind, I have chosen for relatively in-depth analysis two separate recensions of the Hikayat Indraputra, and the Shellabear version of the Sejarah Melayu; these are described in some detail below. The computer database on which the numerical evidence in this chapter is drawn is from these three documents. In addition, I have confirmed these generalizations by examining several other hikayat (from which additional examples have occasionally been drawn); and I have compared my findings with observations made by other scholars about the hikayat they have studied. Section 3.4 is devoted to a discussion of the extent and significance of variation in the use of constituent order which can be found among these texts. I will simply note here that the range of

Chapter 3

87

variation among hikayat is surprisingly small, and the variation that exists is at a fairly subtle level.

3.1.1.1. The Hikayat Indraputra This story belongs to the group of hikayat classified by Winstedt as "transitional", that is, belonging "in contents and in spirit" between the earlier Hindu epic and the later dominance of Islamic tradition (Winstedt 1961:60). Its pre-Islamic origins are clear, not only from the content, but also from the mention of this story in a Malay Muslim theological work of 1634 (the Sirat al-Mustakim of Nuruddin al-Raniri) as a document whose pages may be used for cleansing the body, since it contains no mention of Allah (the other work mentioned in this connection is the Hikayat Sri Rama, the "Malay Ramayana"). This provides evidence for the antiquity of some written version of the Indraputra story. However, none of the Indraputra manuscripts existing today fit this description; not only are all modern recensions of all the hikayat written in an Arabic script and sprinkled with Arabic loanwords, but all also contain at least passing mention of Allah. Thus, we have to assume subsequent alterations by Muslim scribes. Positive evidence that there existed a pre-Islamic written version exists only in the case of the Hikayat Indraputra and the Hikayat Sri Rama. Unlike the Hikayat Sri Rama, however, the Hikayat Indraputra does not have a single identifiable source among the Indian epics. Thus, it was probably composed in Malay on the basis of Indian models. This makes it a good candidate for linguistic research, since it reduces the chance that the syntax may have been affected by a source language (Winstedt 1961; Mulyadi 1983b). Another piece of evidence supporting the antiquity of the prototype of the Hikayat Indraputra is the existence of versions in Acehnese, Buginese, Makassarese, and even Cham, on the Southeast Asian mainland. The Cham version is pre-Islamic, containing no references to Allah. Only one other hikayat, a thematically similar romance entitled the Hikayat Dewa Mandu, is also known in continental Southeast Asia (Chambert-Loir 1980). The Hikayat Indraputra is the story of a virtuous prince, born to devoted parents amidst signs and portents. Early in life he is seized and carried off by a mechanical peacock, which drops him in the garden of an old lady, a nenek kebayanΡ She takes care of him until the prime min-

88

Chapter 3

ister of that country sees him and adopts him. Later he is sent by the king on a quest for a magic drug to cure the King's childlessness. In searching for the drug he has many adventures, encounters demonic foes and jealous ministers, receives military help and magical items from various friends, marries four princesses, and finally returns to become a great king in his father's country. I have used data from two editions of this hikayat, based on two different manuscripts. This has allowed me to compare the use of word order in passages which have exactly the same content but are expressed differently and come from different periods. The earlier version is that of Mulyadi 1983b, based on a manuscript (preserved in Leiden) dated 1700; this was the earliest completely legible manuscript of the 30 located by Mulyadi. The later edition is that of Ali bin Ahmad 1976, based on an undated manuscript preserved in the Malaysian Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. While Ali bin Ahmad argues that the undated manuscript predates 1719, Mulyadi gives convincing evidence (based on the watermarks found on the paper) that it actually dates from the early nineteenth century, a hundred years later (Mulyadi 1983b: 16). This was the only case where I had an opportunity to compare two editions of the same hikayat. They are very similar in content, often relating the same events sentence by sentence; but they are quite different in detail, to the extent that there are very few cases where an event is expressed in precisely the same wording in both editions. Linguistic differences between the two editions will be discussed further below, in section-3.4.

3.1.1.2. The Sejarah Melayu The Sejarah Melayu, commonly referred to as "the Malay Annals", was called by Winstedt "the most famous, distinctive, and best of all Malay literary works" (1961:129). Due to its fame, it has served as a primary data source for many studies of Classical Malay grammar (Winstedt 1927, 1955; Roolvink 1948; Emeis 1948; Rafferty 1987), and has been considered by modern scholars as the prototype of "Standard Classical Malay" (Brakel 1975:29). It is a history of the ruling family of the Malaccan empire, tracing the genealogy of the Malacca/Johor sultans back to the union of Alexander the Great with a Tamil princess. From Southern India the descendants of this union moved to Sumatra, Singapore, and finally to the Malay peninsula where they founded Malacca. They ruled over Malacca during its golden age until they were

Chapter 3

89

attacked by the Portuguese in 1511, at which time Malacca was captured and the dynasty continued as the sultans of Johor. The Sejarah Melayu is not a history in the Western sense, being full of mythological elements whose purpose is apparently to justify the legitimacy of the Malaccan and hence the Johor sultanate, and secondarily to explain the origins of various place names, laws, customs etc. (de Jong 1964). It contains many supernatural events and clearly draws elements from the Indian tradition (as well as many other sources, including earlier "historical" hikayat); for instance, Raja Suran's sojourn in an underwater kingdom is reminiscent of a similar sequence in the Hikayat Indraputra. Several versions of the Sejarah Melayu exist, which can be dated relative to each other by the date of the last historical event which they report. Since the earliest version ends after the Portuguese capture of Malacca in 1511, independent confirmation for both the historical reality of the closing series of events and even their precise dates can be found in Western historical records. The following summary of the various rescensions of this text is based on Winstedt (1961), Iskandar and Kaeh (1978), and Liaw (1975). The earliest manuscript, found in the collection of Sir Stamford Raffles, ends in 1535 with an account of a Portuguese attack on a Malay stockade in Johor. A later version ends in 1612, after the sultanate has been reestablished in Johor; this is also supposed to be the date of its composition. This is the earliest version to have been published in modern times, having been published (in Jawi) by Raffles' secretary Abdullah bin Abdulkadir Munsyi24 in Singapore in 1831; it is known as the "short version", and it is the version translated in Brown 1970. The first Romanized version was published in Singapore in 1896 by W. G. Shellabear (Shellabear 1915); this version is primarily based on the Abdullah edition, but adds material from a later version which contains a description of a Johor-Aceh conflict which occurred after 1615. It is known as the "long version". Even longer manuscript versions exist, adding episodes from Straits history into the 19th century. I have drawn my data from the Situmorang-Teeuw (Situmorang & Teeuw 1958) romanization of the Abdullah edition, which is the same as the first 34 chapters of the Shellabear edition. Thus, the data for this study has been drawn from three manuscripts: two of the Hikayat Indraputra, and one of the Sejarah Melayu. I will now proceed to a discussion of the syntax of these texts, starting with a discussion of the function of the discourse "particles" pun and lah.

90

Chapter 3

3.2. The discourse particles pun and lah The particles pun and lah play an important role in the hikayat, and are intimately connected to constituent order. Pun is associated with initial triggers: (229)

Maka anak raja itu pun dibawanya LNK child king that PUN DI:take:3P kembali back

ke rumahnya. to house:3P

'They took the princes back to their house.' (SM2:23:109)

Lah is associated with initial predicates: (230)

Maka datanglah ia ke dalam kebunnya itu. LNK come:LAH 3P to in garden:3P that 'She came into the garden.' (MI)

They are also very frequent in my data. In a sample of 250 clauses from my database, 42% of clauses with overt triggers had pun, including fully 63% of T > V clauses. Lah occurs in 17% of these clauses, and in fully 23% of V > T clauses.25 (As we will see, the precise rate of occurrence varies according to both author and content; but this is a typical rate.) While these two particles still exist in Modern Indonesian, their functions have narrowed, and their frequency has diminished considerably. Indeed, pun is found only in a few frozen linkers (e.g. meskipun 'nevertheless') or to mark a high degree of contrast or unexpectedness (in this use, it can usually be glossed as 'even'; see Chapter 4 for examples). Generally speaking, both pun and lah are very rare in Contemporary Indonesian writing; several pages may pass without a single pun or lah occurring. These two particles cooccur fairly frequently with the order Τ pun V lah, in sentences like the following: (231)

Maka baginda LNK 3P

pun naiklah ke atas kendaraan PUN ascend:LAH to on vehicle

lembu putih itu. ox white that 'They got onto their mount, the white cow.' (SM2:23:110)

baginda 3P

Chapter 3

91

Indeed, there is a long tradition of considering them together as belonging to a single construction type. The older grammatical descriptions regard these particles as marking "balance and antithesis" between the subject and the predicate (Winstedt 1927:139). Sarumpaet (1977:189) calls lah in the pun-lah construction a "balance particle" and glosses the construction "inchoative". 26 In his interpretation of a single sentence from the Hikayat Pandawa Lima, Becker (1979) describes the "pun-lah clause" as indicating the "core" of a multi-clausal sentence (containing a series of predicates which share an actor), with pun marking the "topic" and lah the "event". For Becker, pun and lah are markers in "sentence grammar" rather than "clause grammar"; that is, they mark the main topic and the main event respectively over a series of clauses rather than a single clause. Ajamiseba (1983, an analysis of the Hikayat Patani) follows Becker's characterization, and equates it with the familiar "topic/ comment" dichotomy, in which the pun-marked topic (usually) represents "old information" and the lah-maiked comment represents "new information". He further recognizes the lah-\ess pun clause as a subtype of the pun-lah clause in which the predicate "is not considered important by the narrators". The pun-less lah clause, on the other hand, is treated as a separate construction type, not representing a "sentence core", but merely presenting new information. The idea that a pun-marked NP is external to the clause (in Becker's and Ajamiseba's terms, part of sentence rather than clause grammar) suggests that perhaps the pwn-marked argument should not be considered part of the clause whose trigger it is at all. Instead, perhaps the status of the pun-marked NP is similar to the status of a left-dislocated NP in languages like English or Italian. In analyses of conversation (e.g. Keenan & Schieffelin 1976; Duranti & Ochs 1979), the mention of the leftdislocated NP — which (according to the transformational metaphor) has traditionally been considered "part of" the clause from which it has been " m o v e d " — actually constitutes a separate conversational turn, functioning to make the referent a "center of attention" (Keenan & Schieffelin 1976:242). This view favors an analysis in which there is a loose (pragmatic) rather than a tight (syntactic) link between the pun-phrase and the following clause. If this is the case, then there are important consequences for a constituent order study such as the present one: if the pun-maiked argument cannot be counted as a clausal argument, then the clause which follows it does not count as a Τ > V clause; rather, its status is the same as a relative clause or a clause which is missing the overt expression of an argument due to clause-combining.27

92

Chapter 3

There are three observations which support this hypothesis, having to do with properties both of the />«n-phrase and the clause. The first is that pun only occurs in main clauses; it never occurs within embedded clauses (relatives and clausal arguments) or adverbial clauses. In the case of embedded clauses, of course, it is rare (though not impossible, in e.g. bahwa clauses and possessor and adverbial relatives) for any trigger to be overtly present in the clause. But most of the adverbial clauses in the hikayat are time clauses which often have independent triggers. The fact that pun phrases are only associated with main clauses supports the idea that they "really" go with a whole clause complex rather than simply with the immediately following clause; this observation supports Becker's (1979) position. The second observation rests on the fact that a /?w/i-argument, like the head of a relative clause or the shared argument in a verb series, is restricted in the syntactic role it plays in the following clause: it must be the pivot, i.e. either a trigger or a possessor. Thus, the syntactic properties of /?wn-arguments are exactly those which hold for shared arguments in clause-combining. Lastly, there are generalizations about V > T clauses which also apply to some ^««-clauses, suggesting that these clauses should be considered predicate-initial (in the sense of not having a clause-internal prepredicate trigger); conversely, there are generalizations about T > V clauses which are substantially weakened if pun clauses are included in this category. An example of the last type of argument has to do with the distribution of the suffix lah. Generally speaking, /a/i-clauses are predicate-initial; the only time they can occur with a preverbal trigger is when the trigger is marked by pun. (I put forward the following examples in hope of elucidating this argument; obviously, the stars should be read as "this sort of clause doesn't occur in the corpus", not "this clause is judged ungrammatical by native speakers"!) (232)

Syahadan LNK

maka LNK

heranlah hati Raja startled:LAH heart Raja

melihat akan rupa Puteri Shahru MENG:see AKAN looks Puteri Shahru

Iskandar Iskandar

'1-Bariyah itu '1-Bariyah that

'Raja Iskandar was amazed to behold the countenance of Princess Shahru 1 1-Bariyah' (SM) (232')

* Syahadan

maka

hati

Raja

Iskandar

heranlah

melihat...

Chapter 3 (233)

Maka LNK

baginda 3P

93

pun heranlah melihat ikan tertawa PUN startled:LAH MENG:see fish laugh

berpantun dan berseloka BER:verse and BER:poem 'His majesty was amazed to behold the fish laughing and reciting verses and poems' (AI) (233')

*Maka baginda

heranlah

melihat...

AT clauses, which are never verb-initial, also don't occur with lah, even when there is a "preverbal trigger" marked with pun. (234)

Maka tiba-tiba merak itu pun menyambar Indraputra LNK suddenly peacock that PUN MENG:seize Indraputra 'Suddenly the peacock seized Indraputra' (AI)

(234')

* Maka

tiba-tiba

menyambar

(234")

* Maka

tiba-tiba

merak

Indraputra

merak

itu pun menyambarlah

itu Indraputra

If we accept the hypothesis that pun-triggers are clause-external, the generalization that lah is associated with predicate-initial syntax can be maintained, which in turn provides an explanation for the non-occurrence of lah in all AT clauses. While the above-described observations about restrictions on the distribution of pun and lah were what first alerted me to the special status of the pun-trigger, further investigation showed that the functional characteristics of both Τ > V clauses and V > Τ clauses emerged much more clearly if the pun-clauses were put aside. Thus, I will present an analysis of the characteristics of /JW«-marked noun phrases before returning to the characteristics of internal (non-pun) triggers. Finally, I will show that (especially in some texts) certain pre-predicate triggers which are not marked with pun nonetheless have the properties of pun triggers (see section 3.4.1). Lah clauses, on the other hand, are most conveniently treated as a subtype of V > T clauses; my observations agree with Ajamiseba's treatment on this point. These clauses will be discussed further in section 3.3.

3.2.1. Pun, preverbal position, and identifiability Ajamiseba's observation that pun is generally used for "topical", "old", "definite" participants is accurate, so far as it goes: an examination of the referring expressions used in pun-phrases reveals that all of them belong

94

Chapter 3

to types which are associated with various kinds of definite reference. However, this observation is not sufficient to characterize pun, since all pre-predicate triggers have this property. In order to demonstrate this, it is necessary to identify the "definite" NPs in the texts. Since there is no morpheme which is specialized as a definite or indefinite article, "definiteness" is a covert category in Malay; thus, I will consider here the somewhat more "etic" notion of "identifiability", which is largely what definite articles in languages that have them seem to be marking. A referent is treated as "identifiable" if the speaker assumes that the hearer is able to identify the referent on the basis of the mention; in the words of Du Bois (1980), if the hearer has an "open cognitive file" on the referent. Thus, identifiability is a cognitive category. Identifiable status may derive from several sources, among which are prior mention in the discourse, association (through membership in a "frame") with something that has been previously mentioned in the discourse, or uniqueness of the referent relative to a certain universe of discourse ("homophoricity"). These sources, in turn, correlate with certain types of noun phrase "coding choices", as outlined below: Proper names usually refer to entities which are identifiable through being homophoric. As well as given names, I have included in this category some titles and descriptive phrases which are consistently used throughout the text as if they were proper names, i.e. to refer to a single individual. These include perdana menteri 'the prime minister' and nenek kebayan 'grandmother, helper'. (235)

Maka Indraputra pun ghaiblah daripada mata baginda LNK Indraputra PUN vanish:LAH from eye 3P 'Then Indraputra disappeared before his eyes' (AI:0509)

Pronouns usually refer to entities which are identifiable through prior mention. Since I used only third-person data, my counts include only the forms ia and baginda. (236)

maka ia pun jatuh dari atas gajahnya, lalu mati LNK 3P PUN fall from on elephant:3P then die 'Then he fell off his elephant and died' (SM:1238)

(237)

maka baginda pun murca seketika LNK 3P PUN unconscious a:moment 'Then he (his majesty) was unconscious for a moment' (AI:0511)

Chapter 3

95

ltu ('that') in written Malay tends to refer deictically within the text to previously mentioned entities; thus, it marks referents which are identifiable through prior mention. (238)

Maka tiba-tiba merak itu pun menyambar Indraputra L N K suddenly p e a c o c k that PUN M E N G : s e i z e I n d r a p u t r a 'Suddenly the p e a c o c k seized Indraputra' (AI)

Universal quantifiers such as the premodifiers segala 'all', ked.ua 'both', etc. tend to refer to classes of entities which are unique within the discourse world; thus, they mark referents which are identifiable through homophoricity. (239)

(240)

maka segala rakyat pun minta aman LNK all people PUN request peace 'Then all the p e o p l e asked for peace' kedua both

baginda 3P

memakai dengan MENG:wear with

(SM:1119)

selengkap complete

pakaian kerajaan. clothes k i n g s h i p 'Both of t h e m w o r e complete royal (SM2:26:249)

regalia'

Just as identifiability may be marked by one of the above devices, so non-identifiability may also be marked; by using this kind of marking, the speaker tells the hearer to open a new "cognitive file", or in any event not to attempt to identify the referent. Se+classifier. This morpheme, meaning 'one', is associated with first mentions, usually of items which will be of some importance in the following text. (241)

dan melompat seekor kijang. and M E N G : j u m p one:CL deer 'and out jumped a deer.' (AI:0914)

96

Chapter 3

Bare noun. Modification of a noun phrase tends to increase specificity of reference; similarly, the absence of modification (including compounding) is associated with non-referentiality. Thus, a bare noun is likely to refer to a concept which (while it may occasionally refer to a specific individual) is not sufficiently important to be "tracked" or identified by the hearer. (Bare NPs, however, also have other functions, some of which are associated with identifiability; this will be discussed below.) (242)

Maka kedengaran LNK audible

kabar ke benua Cina mengatakan news to country China MENG:say

Raja Suran datang Raja Suran come "Then news was heard in China that Raja Suran was coming' (SM:1311)

The following figures show how these characteristics are distributed over pun triggers, other preverbal triggers (T> V), and postverbal triggers (V>T) of intransitive (ST) clauses.28 Figure 5 gives the "raw" numbers for each NP type listed above.

Chapter 3

name

- a - pun

pronoun

universal quantifier

itu

—β—

compound

V>T

bare

—ι—

97

se-CL

T>V

Figure 5. Trigger position and NP type This figure shows that, while postpredicate NPs have no strong preference for any of the "coding types" (name, pronoun etc.) mentioned here, 29 prepredicate NPs — whether marked with pun or not — have a strong preference for the NP types associated with identifiability: names, pronouns, universally quantified NPs, and i/u-marked NPs. This latter point emerges more clearly if we compare the percentage of NPs of each "coding type" which are coded with pun, are prepredicate without pun, and are postpredicate respectively (see Figure 6).

98

Chapter 3

110 η 100

-

90 80

-

70 60

-

50 40 30 20

-

10

-

0 -

•

V>T

•

T>V

•

pun

Figure 6. % of NP position in each NP type As can be seen, the NP types associated with identifiable reference all prefer preverbal triggers (with or without pun), while NP types associated with non-identifiability (first or non-referential mentions) prefer postpredicate triggers; and, in fact, pun triggers aren't very different from non-pun triggers in their coding type. (The slight preference of pun for names and of Τ > V for universally quantified referents and pronouns will be explained below.) In fact, a more qualitative examination of this data reveals that all of the preverbal phrases can be regarded as identifiable; the bare NPs in this position are not non-referential, but rather generic or homophoric (e.g. permaisuri 'the queen', bumi 'the earth') and thus identifiable. This apparent discrepancy reflects the fact that coding choices in Malay reflect identifiability only indirectly.

3.2.2 Pun and discontinuity If identifiability (a more or less binary category) fails to distinguish pun-triggers from non-pun preverbal triggers, another candidate is topicality (in the sense of Givon 1983a), a scalar category in which the cogni-

Chapter 3

99

tive notion of "topic continuity" is correlated with various other measures. These measures include degree of phonological attenuation (longer forms code less continuous topics) and distance to last mention or "lookback" (longer distances correlate with less continuous topics). And in fact there are some differences between pun and non-pun preverbal triggers according to these measures. According to the phonological attenuation measure, we would expect pronouns to be most topical of the NP types considered here. In fact, there is a tendency for pronouns to prefer non-pun coding, while names prefer pun. This suggests that pun codes LESS "topical" or continuous referents. This suspicion is confirmed by a comparison of their average "lookback" (clauses to last mention): pun triggers have an average lookback of 2.7 clauses, slightly higher than that of 2.24 for other prepredicate triggers. 30 While this difference is not large, nonetheless it seems clear that a characterization of pun as a "topic marker" (at least in the Givönian sense of topic) constitutes something of a misrepresentation. These observations suggest that pun could best be characterized as a resumptive topic marker, i.e., it reintroduces participants which have been topical but which are non-continuous. No great degree of discontinuity is necessary, however, to induce /?w/i-marking; pun is often used to mark a participant which was mentioned as recently as the previous clause, but which nevertheless faces potential competition from other participants, for instance because it was not the only "topic-worthy" participant mentioned in the preceding clause. This is the phenomenon described as "potential interference" in Givön 1983b, another measure which correlates with discontinuity. Taking the hearer's viewpoint, we can characterize referents of this type as "non-expected" (a more neutral term than "unexpected", which has overtones of "counter to expectation"). The association of an explicit marker with non-expectedness is hardly surprising, since it is precisely when the hearer is not sure what is coming that the speaker needs to call extra attention to a referent by the addition of a special "particle". Similar (though not identical) functions have been associated with other initial NP markers in related verb-initial languages, e.g. the particle ay in Tagalog (Fox 1985) and the particle ia in Toba Batak (Cumming 1984). This type of interference is the normal situation in descriptions of exchanges between two or more individuals, such as battles, exchanges of gifts, and conversations, and pun is very frequent in these environments. The following example is taken from a description of a fight between Indraputra and Tamar Jalis, an infidel jinn:

100 (243)

Chapter 3 Tamar Jalis pun marah Tamar Jalis PUN angry serta memanah akan and MENG:shoot at

Indraputra. Indraputra

Maka Indraputra pun menangkis dengan hulu pedangnya. LNK Indraputra PUN MENG:parry with hilt sword:3P Maka pedang LNK sword

Tamar Jalis pun patah Tamar Jalis PUN break

dan Tamar Jalis pun marah yang amat sangat LNK Tamar Jalis PUN angry REL very very serta memarang juga. and MENG:slash also 'Tamar Jalis was angry and shot at Indraputra. Indraputra parried with the hilt of his sword. Then Tamar Jalis's sword broke, and Tamar Jalis was extremely angry and slashed at Indraputra.'(MI)

This type of exchange is precisely the kind of situation which renders the use of pronouns impossible, since there are two animate third-person referents in the discourse environment. This explains the tendency of /wn-phrases to favor the less-attenuated forms of anaphoric reference, such as compounds and names, to pronouns. Pun is also used in the kinds of environments more typically associated with resumptive topics, for instance when an episode boundary (signalled by a change of time or place and usually associated with a pre-predicate adverbial) has intervened since the last mention. In these cases there is no requirement that there be an intervening referent; the discontinuity induced by the episode boundary is enough to induce pw/i-marking. In the following example no reference intervenes between the two mentions of Raja Iskandar; the pun marking the second one is motivated by the episode boundary, which is marked by a preverbal time adverbial. (244)

Maka kabullah Raja Iskandar. LNK consent:LAH Raja Iskandar Kemudian after

daripada from

itu, that

maka Raja Iskandar pun keluarlah ke penghadapan LNK Raja Iskandar PUN go:out:LAH to audience 'Raja Iskandar agreed (to marry Raja Kida Hindi's daughter). After that, Raja Iskandar went out to hold an audience' (SM:0518)

Chapter 3

101

Givön (1983c) has proposed a r e l a t i o n s h i p between nonexpectedness (which he calls "topic ambiguity") on the one hand and switch-reference systems on the other. This might suggest that pun is, or is on its way to becoming, part of a switch-reference marking system. This has been proposed by Rafferty's studies of Malay. Rafferty (1987) describes a rather different kind of Malay than that of the Hikayat, the language of a 19th century historical text, the Tuhfat al-Nafis. In this work, she connects pun to a switch in semantic role: The -pun has a switch reference function returning an NP to S position or placing a highly topical NP that has been in non-A or non-S position into S position. The S with the affixed -pun particle is highly topical and therefore has a low referential distance... Another less common function of -pun is to note surprise or a notion of contrary to expectation where there is no switch in subject referent. (1987:372-3) However, this generalization does not hold for the language of the Hikayat. Figure 7 (which is based on a continuous 413-clause sample of the Sejarah Melayu) illustrates this point. It illustrates the distribution of pun and non-pun triggers in relation to the semantic role of their last mention ("actor" — S/A — or "non-actor" — P/Oblique).

102

Chapter 3 27

28 26 24

22 20

18

16

16 14

12

10

10

10

8 6 4

2

-4J

0 X>S/A

•

-4

S/A>X

pun

S/A>S/A

•

X>X

no pun

Figure 7. Pun and "switch-role" This figure shows that pirn-marking is equally likely to occur when there is no role change as when there is one. Furthermore, pww-marking can occur when there is a change to non-actor from actor (although this is an unusual progression). It can be said that a somewhat lower proportion of triggers are marked with pun when there is no role change than when there is one; but plainly this tendency, if real, is far from absolute. In a later work, Rafferty discusses the Classical Malay of the Sejarah Melayu. She still treats pun as involving a switch, but here she focuses on a change in grammatical rather than semantic role (which is in any case closer to the "classical" definition of switch reference). In Classical Malay the -pun particle is used to mark the reintroduction of a main character of the narrative as trigger... the reintroduction of the character, using the -pun suffix, is required because the item has been replaced as trigger by another p a r t i c i p a n t , (forthcoming:?) However, this interpretation of pun works even less well for my data, as shown in figure 8.

Chapter 3

trigger

•

pun

103

non-trigger

•

no pun

Figure 8. Pun and "switch-trigger" Trigger NPs both with and without pun are equally likely to have been coded as triggers at the last mention; a minority of each type is likely to have been a non-trigger at the last mention. Thus, my data does not support the "switch-reference" analysis for Classical Malay; the generalization may hold for the language of the Tuhfat al-Nafis, in which case we may presume that a reanalysis of the function of /?«/i-marking has taken place, so that the slightly preferred P/Oblique > A/S pattern has been grammaticized as the only possible one. There are one or two environments in which the /wn-marked participant isn't necessarily a resumptive topic; these are the same environments in which pun is still found in Modern Indonesian. One of these environments is in negative clauses, where the use of a negative morpheme suggests that the author expects the reader to expect the contrary of what is stated. This use of pun underlines the contrast between the reader's expectation and the 'reality' reported by the author:

104 (245)

Chapter 3 Hatta pada suatu hari Raja Syahslan pergi LNK on one day Raja Syahsian go

berburu BER:hunt

suatu pun tiada beroleh perburuan one PUN not BER:obtain game dari pagl datang petang from morning come afternoon seekor perburuan one:CL game

pun tiada diperoleh. PUN not DI:obtain

'One day Raja Syahsian went hunting. He didn't obtain a single animal. From morning till afternoon he didn't get even one animal.' (MI:5410)

In this sense pun can be used with other elements besides the trigger, even including the predicate: (246)

Maka tiada Indraputra mau memandang muka LNK not Indraputra want MENG:look face raksyasa demon

itu, ditolehnya pun dia tiada mau. that DI:glance:3P PUN 3P not want

'Indraputra didn't want to look at the face of the demon, he didn't even want to glance at it.' (MI)

Another such environment is that of lists like the following, which involve sets of syntactically parallel clauses in T > V order. The following is the description of a great army on its way to conquer China: (247)

Maka adalah then ADA:LAH

daripada from

segala hutan belantara all forest

kebanyakan quantity

rakyat berjalan troops travel

pun habislah PUN finish:LAH

menjadi padang, MENG:become plain dan bumi pun bergetar seperti and earth PUN BER:shake like dan gunung pun bergerak runtuh and mountain PUN BER:move fall dan segala and all

gempa, earthquake kemuncaknya, peak:3P

tanah yang tinggi-tinggi itu pun land REL high:2 that PUN

menjadi rata, MENG:become flat

itu that

Chapter 3

105

dan batu pun habis berpeiantingan, and stone PUN entirely BER:roll dan segala and all

sungai yang besar-besar river REL large:2

pun PUN

habislah kering, finish:LAH dry jadi seperti become like

lumpur, mud

karena dua bulan perjalanan because two month journey

rakyat itu troops that

tiada berputusan lagi not BER:ending more 'Then because of the quantity of troops travelling, all the forests became plains, and the earth trembled like an earthquake, and the mountains moved and their peaks fell, and all of the high ground was leveled, and the stones rolled away, and all the large rivers dried up, and turned into mud, because for two months the travelling of that army still did not come to an end' (SM)

This is the type of example which Winstedt probably had in mind when he commented that the "particles", and especially pun, are used to mark "balance and antithesis" (Winstedt 1927:139). On the face of it these are not examples of "resumptive topic"; none of the /?«n-phrases has been mentioned before (though it seems reasonable to assume that they are "identifiable", in the sense of "part of a frame", the frame in this case being a long journey). Rather, the example seems most similar to what Chafe (1976) has called "double contrast": each clause in the list has both a new trigger and a new predicate, though the clause frame is given. What this environment has in common with the three preceding environments which I have illustrated is the element of non-expectedness: while the />u/i-marked trigger is not counter to expectation, neither is it implied by the previous context, and thus the cooperative speaker must put extra work (realized in this case by extra phonological material) into expressing it. This is consonant with Haiman's (1980) principle of economic motivation. The characterization of the /?w/i-phrase as "resumptive topic" rather than simply "topic" represents a crucial difference. Mithun (1987) reports on three unrelated polysynthetic languages — Cayuga, Ngandi, and Coos — and shows that while each of these languages normally has "comment-

106

Chapter 3

topic" order, that is, noun phrases containing old information tend to come late in the sentence, noun phrases containing certain types of "old information" will come early, specifically those containing contrastive information and those occurring after a "topic shift" (where the point of view taken in the text changes). Mithun relates this distinction in the treatment of different types of "old information" to a "newsworthiness principle": most newsworthy first. Continuous old information is likely to be less newsworthy than the verb, and therefore to follow it; discontinuous old information is likely to be more newsworthy than the verb, and to precede it. These categories are very similar to the ones identified here for /wn-phrases, although Classical Malay is very different morphologically from the languages Mithun reports on. At this point it seems relevant to wonder why there is such a high rate of occurrence of pun. An assumption common in discourse studies is that continuity of topic is the most frequent case in discourse (or at least narrative); this allows a convincing economic explanation of the tendency for more continuous topics to receive less phonological expression. Thus the pun-clause ought to represent a marked case, and be relatively rare; but, as mentioned above, pun clauses are in fact very frequent, approaching 50% of clauses with triggers. The answer to this problem probably lies in differences among narrative genres. A peculiarity of the hikayat is that the majority of the narrative is taken up by descriptions of activities which involve the alternating participation of two or more human participants, such as battles, the exchange of gifts, and especially dialogue. This in turn appears to stem from the fact that the hikayat limits itself to a description of externals, giving us relatively little direct access to the thoughts, intentions, and motivations of its characters. (This point was first made by a historian, John Bastin (1964), and developed in Errington (1975) in an anthropologically-oriented study of the Hikayat Hang Tuah.) However, readers require some idea of the motivations of the actors in order to attach any significance to a series of events. Therefore, the thoughts, plans, and intentions of the characters in the hikayat are primarily exposed to the reader via reported dialogue.31 Another possible explanation for the frequency of what would normally be considered a highly marked construction in the hikayat is that the social function of the hikayat had little to do with conveying information and thus might be considered exempt from the usual constraints of "economic motivation"; at the same time, other constraints were imposed by the semi-oral nature of the genre, including a heavy use of parallelism and the prevalence of "slot-and-filler" formulas. This is the view which emerges from ethnographically-oriented studies of the hikayat, such as

Chapter 3

107

Errington 1975 and Sweeney 1980c (and, to a lesser extent, Becker 1979). These authors see the Upun/lahn structure, for instance, as a convenient aid to the storyteller in creating sentences, and would explain the absence of this structure in modern literature primarily as reflecting a difference in the social function of the text and its means of consumption, rather than a difference in content. In fact, the two explanations for the prevalence of pun are not in compatible; rather, they can be seen as an instance of "converging motivations", more than one pressure tending towards the same result. I have shown that pun has a discourse function related to information flow which accounts for (at least) a large proportion of its occurrences; and this observation suggests that its use is somewhat more constrained than an explanation couched purely in terms of aesthetics or oral delivery strategies would seem to predict. Similarly, however, the characterization given above accounts better for the cases where pun is present than for those where it is absent; in the latter case we may want to appeal to "style" or aesthetic considerations (see section 3.4.1 for further discussion of this point). This suggests that the term "resumptive topic" describes the environment where pun is possible, but its actual occurrence is further constrained by additional factors, including aesthetics.

3.3. Constituent order in pun-less clauses Having discussed the function of prepredicate /?w/i-triggers, I will now proceed to discuss the function of constituent order in those clauses that do not contain pun. The following factors influencing constituent order can be identified: Individuation: generic and universally quantified participants have a strong tendency to be coded as pre-predicate trigger. Semantic role of trigger: PT clauses and ST clauses with Ss which are undergoers favor V > Τ order, while AT clauses and ST clauses with Ss which are actors tend to T > V order. Participant introduction: Ss which are new tend to follow the verb, especially in clauses whose sole function is to introduce the new participant.

108

Chapter 3 Eventiveness: clauses which denote new, punctual, sequenced events or changes of state tend to be V > T , while ongoing states or repeated events and initial adverbial clauses (associated with old information) tend to be T > V . The quality of being a "punctual, sequenced event" I will call (for convenience) "eventiveness". In transitive clauses, high eventiveness is further associated with PT morphology; in intransitive clauses, with /o/i-marking on the predicate.

If all of these factors are taken into account, we have a very complete picture of precisely why each clause has the constituent order it does. Each of these factors will be discussed individually in sections 3.3.1-3.3.4.

3.3.1. Individuation There is class of NPs which function very much like /?w/*-phrases in the sense that they are frequently preverbal in contexts where we would otherwise expect verb-initial syntax. However, they differ from /jw/i-phrases in that they derive their "special" status not from discourse considerations of referential salience but from their inherent semantics. These are "generic expressions", a term which I will use to cover the following types of noun phrase: a) those which are quantified, with semua, segala, or sekalian (all of which mean "all"); those which are exhaustively quantified, with prenominal kedua 'both', ketiga 'all three' etc.; c) headless relatives and relatives with an "empty" head, translatable into English as "whoever" or "whatever". (248)

Maka sekalian LNK all

harta itu disedekahkan goods that DI:alms

pada segala fakir dan miskin to all beggar and poor 'All those goods were given as alms to all the beggars and poor people' (SM:0629) (249)

segala yang berkuda bergigitkan kudanya all REL BER:horse BER:make:bite horse:3P 'Everyone on horseback made their horses bite' (SM:1208)

Chapter 3 (250)

109

Berapa yang meng amok diamok orang pula how:many REL MENG:attack DI:attack person also 'Whoever attacked fiercely was in turn attacked' (SM:1218)

Universal quantifiers behave in some respects like pun, in that even when a very strong reason for having V > Τ order exists, such as the presence of lah on the predicate, they may precede it: (251)

segala yang ada di dalam dunia ini all REL be at in world this semuanya all:3P

adalah di sana be:LAH at there

'All (the kinds of plants) which exist in the world were there' (SM)

This tendency cuts across transitivity distinctions. While it does not hold 100% of the time, it is quite strong. The following figure breaks down the distribution of all the generic triggers in my corpus: 43

45 q 40 35 30 22

25 20

-

12

15 10

•

5 Η 0 ST

•

V>T

Figure 9. Generic triggers

PT

AT

• τ>ν

Total

110

Chapter 3

A very similar tendency involving initial position for generic triggers has been observed in Toba Batak, a basically predicate-initial Sumatran language related to Malay (Cumming 1984).

3.3.2. Semantic role In Chapter 2 I suggested that the distinction between actor-oriented and undergoer-oriented clauses which is marked in transitive clauses by the AT/PT distinction may also be detectable in intransitive clauses, and correlated with verb prefixation. This would make Malay seem parallel to "split-S" languages like Acehnese as described in Durie (1985, 1987, 1988). Durie describes predicates whose S is an actor as "controlled", and predicates whose S is an undergoer as "non-controlled". In section 3.1, we saw how the AT/PT distinction is statistically correlated with the Τ > V/V > Τ constituent order distinction (as illustrated in figure-4 on page 85). In Acehnese there is also a connection between morpheme order and semantic role: the order (actor)-verb stem-(undergoer) is fixed for cross-referencing clitics, although the constituent order of independent NPs is determined by other factors. This section provides some evidence that the actor-undergoer distinction is reflected in the constituent order of intransitive clauses of Malay as well, with actors tending to precede the predicate and undergoers tending to follow it. One piece of evidence for this assertion comes from the type of prefixes associated with the two word orders. Ber- and unprefixed forms are associated with both orders; but the affixes meng- and ter- strongly favor T > V and V > T order respectively. These are precisely the morphemes which are cognate with the Acehnese controlled/non-controlled distinction, as noted in Chapter 2. Malay ter- has sometimes been analyzed as a PT or "passive" prefix, and its range of meanings (accidental, potential, stative) all have to do with lack of control. Meng-, on the other hand, is strongly associated with the AT transitive clause type, and in its intransitive use is strongly associated with controlled actions. The distribution of prefixesin intransitive clauses in an augmented database (the original database plus 413 clauses of connected Classical Malay text) is as follows:

Chapter 3 120 -ι

111

111

110

100

100 90 80

-

70 60

-

50 40 -

31

30 18 20

-

11

10 -

0 mengV>T

1 ber-

ter•

none

T>V

Figure 10. Prefixes and order The differences illustrated in this figure are in the order predicted: mengfavors T > V , ter- favors V > T , ber- somewhat favors T > V , and 0 is evenly split.32 Due to the rarity of intransitive meng- and ter-, these figures are far from conclusive; however, they nonetheless tend to support the hypothesis that prefixation has some relationship to constituent order in intransitives. Where there is no morphological indicator of the degree of control of the S, assertions about the semantic role of the S in V > T and T > V clauses can only be justified in terms of the meaning of the clause, a type of argument which is inevitably subjective. This is all the more true because while individual verbs tend to favor one order or the other, most processes may be presented as either controlled or uncontrolled. In a clear split-S language like Acehnese this type of alternation is regularly indicated by the addition of derivational morphology; in Malay this is not always the case. Therefore the best I can do is present several examples, and hope the reader is convinced. Among the V > T clauses, several have predicates whose S is so w P-like" (i.e. non-volitional and highly affected) that the best English gloss involves a passive. This is the case, for instance, of kena 'be hit', putus 'be finished, smashed', and alah 'be defeated, lose'. This is the

112

Chapter 3

type of unprefixed "intransitive" verb which may sometimes take an agent marked with oleh. (252)

Kena kijang itu terus ke belakangnya lalu mati. be:hit deer that through to back:3P then die 'The deer was struck (by an arrow) clear through the back, and it died' (MI:5414)

(253)

Putus kepalanya terpelanting ke tanah smashed head:3P TER:roll to ground 'His head was severed and sent rolling on the ground' (SM:1117)

(254)

Maka alahlah Raja Kida Hindi itu oleh Raja Iskandar LNK lose:LAH Raja Kida Hindi that OLEH Raja Iskandar "Raja Kida Hindi was defeated by Raja Iskandar' (SM:0415)

An examination of psychological verbs is instructive in this connection. Verbs describing emotional reaction, such as suka 'like, be delighted', kasih 'love', takjub 'be amazed', heran 'be startled', dengki 'be envious', etc. are always V > T in my sample; verbs describing other kinds of mental processes, such as fikir 'think', ingat 'remember', and mau 'want' are T > V. This reflects a view of emotions as uncontrolled (because of their nature as reactions to external stimuli), while mental processes which originate within the cognizer are controlled. This is the same view as is reflected in the properties of verbs with similar meanings in Acehnese (including some cognates); and in some cases even English seems to take the same view, as indicated by the fact that many of these verbs must be glossed with a past participle. While psychological reaction verbs and other non-controlled verbs never occur in T > V clauses without pun, they do occur in T > V clauses with pun: (255)

Maka LNK

baginda 3P

pun heranlah melihat PUN amazed:LAH MENG:see

ikan tertawa fish laugh

berpantun dan berseloka BER:verse and BER:poem

'He was amazed to see the fish laughing and reciting verses and poems' (MI:5425) (256)

Maka baginda pun terlalu kasih akan Indraputra LNK 3P PUN very love AKAN Indraputra 'He loved Indraputra very much' (AI:0803)

Chapter 3 (257)

113

Maka pintu kota Gongga-Negara pun roboh LNK door fort G o n g g a - N e g a r a PUN collapse 'The gate of the G o n g g a - N e g a r a fort c o l l a p s e d ' (SM:1110)

This observation constitutes further evidence that /?w/t-triggers have a special discourse status, since they appear in prepredicate position in places where we would expect non-pun triggers to be postpredicate. Thus, the status coded by pun once again seems to "override" other discourse considerations relating to position. To summarize, we have seen that the trigger of a verb which is semantically "non-controlled", i.e. a trigger which is an undergoer, tends to follow the verb (other things being equal). The next section details some special types of non-controlled predicates which may have other considerations determining their constituent order.

3.3.2.1. Descriptive predicates and possessed trigger There are two construction types which typically involve descriptive predicates which have been described in Chapter 2; these are the Possessor Dislocation type (involving a possessed S and an external possessor) and the Exclamatory type (involving an intensifying adverb). Both of these clause types favor V > Τ order so strongly as to be almost grammaticized in it. Moreover, although these constructions are independent in principle, in texts there is a considerable overlap between them, so that many clauses could be considered members of both classes: (258)

Adapun bag Inda itu terlalu amat besar kerajaannya. LNK 3P t h a t very very large kingdom:3P 'Now that king, his k i n g d o m w a s very large' (AI:0903)

(259)

terlalu balk parasnya anak raja ketlga itu. very g o o d appearance:3P c h i l d king all:three t h a t 'Those t h r e e p r i n c e s w e r e of excellent a p p e a r a n c e . ' (SM2:32)

(260)

merak itu pun mengigal p e a c o c k that PUN M E N G : s t r u t terlalu very

amat indah-indah very beautiful:2

lagunya song:3P

'The peacock strutted, its song was very b e a u t i f u l ' (AI:0501)

114 (261)

Chapter 3 amat bijaksana budi pekertinya puteri itu very discreet character:3P p r i n c e s s that 'The p r i n c e s s w a s very sensible' (SM:0425)

The V > T order of the predicate and the "attribute" (i.e. the possessed S) is normal even if the possessor does not occur in the same clause as the predicate, as in example 260 or in possessor relativization; in this case, the possessor can be regarded as the shared argument in a verb series. Because of the stative nature of the predicates in this construction, they can easily be assimilated to the class of V > Τ clauses which have that order because the predicate is non-controlled. However, there is some reason to think that other factors may be operating which all converge on V > T order. Many languages, including English, have some form of "inversion" in certain kinds of exclamatories (e.g. "how beautiful she is!", "So beautiful was she that...", etc.; c.f. Green 1980). In the case of possessed S, it seems likely that its position immediately following the predicate is due to its typically low information content; it merely functions to specify a specific attribute of the possessor to which the predicate applies, and is often conventional and predictable. Thus it is not surprising that it should appear in the same spot as incorporated arguments (described further in section 3.3.4.2) and clitics. One significant result of the tendency for possessed S in this construction to have post-predicate position is that -n^a-marked Ss have a tendency to follow their predicates. This tendency holds differentially for different parts of the text; in descriptive portions, which tend to make heavy use of exclamatories, it comes close to 100%, while in narrative portions where possessed Ss have a wider range of functions it is weaker. However, the net result is that we find that in Malay, noun phrases marked with -nya have precisely the opposite distribution from noun phrases marked with itu, as shown in figures 5 and 6 above. This finding is surprising from a cross-linguistic perspective: possessedness is frequently associated with definiteness or-identifiability, especially where the possessor is a pronoun. 33 Further evidence for the independence of the motivation for V > Τ order among clauses involving possessor dislocation, exclamatories, and non-controlled predicates is provided by the apparent survival of the first two, but not the last, with V > T order in Modern Indonesian; this will be discussed further in Chapter 4. Thus, as we have seen in the last two sections, semantic role (i.e. the actor/undergoer distinction) can be said to play a part in determining constituent order in both transitive and intransitive clauses. Intransitive clauses involving descriptive predicates may also be subject to two other

Chapter 3

115

tendencies: the tendency for possessed S and exclamatory S to follow the predicate. We will now proceed to discuss another type of typically intransitive clause which also tends to have V > T order: the presentative clause.

3.3.3. Participant introduction The association of participant introduction with V > T order in intransitives is hardly unique to Malay, but has been discussed widely in the context of other languages under the label of "presentative function". 34 Most basically, a presentative clause is one which introduces a new participant into a discourse in a way which makes it available for subsequent reference. While there are many clause types which can have this function, many languages have one clause type specialized for this purpose which seems to have very similar characteristics cross-linguistically. Some of the characteristics which have been mentioned in the literature (besides intransitivity and subject-final order) are the frequent occurrence of an adverbial (often one of location) preceding the predicate, and a requirement that the participant presented be of some importance in the following discourse — in Hetzron's terms, "cataphoric" (1971:86); in Givön's, "persistent" (1983b:25). The most frequent use of V > Τ order for participant introduction, and in a sense the most stylized, is with the verb ada ('be'; in this use, usually glossed as 'there is/was'; it may also mean 'be present', 'have', etc.). Ada also had a number of other, apparently non-verbal, functions in Classical Malay; the whole range of functions of this morpheme in Classical Malay deserves a study of its own. I mention them here because it is important to distinguish them from presentative ada, and merely note the following cases: I. Clause-initially (apparently as a linker), alone or in combination with pun and lah. Ajamiseba (1983) gives an account of the functions of adapun and adalah, but it is still not clear how they relate to bare clauseinitial ada.

116 (262)

Chapter 3 maka LNK

ada utusan ADA envoy

itu membawa that MENG:bring

utas pandai dua orang craftsman clever two CL 'The envoy brought two clever craftsmen' (263)

Adapun baginda itu terlalu amat besar LNK 3P that very very big 'His kingdom was very big' (AI:0903)

(264)

Maka adalah LNK LNK segala all

daripada from

kebanyakan quantity

hutan belantara forest forest

(MI:5120)

kerajaannya. kingdom:3P

rakyat berjalan itu troops BER:walk that

pun PUN

habislah menjadi padang finish:LAH MENG:become field 'From the quantity of the troops travelling all the woods became plains' (SM:1017)

II. Like an auxiliary, immediately before the main verb. (265)

maka Indraputra ada diriba oleh ayahanda baginda LNK Indraputra ADA DI:lap OLEH father 3P 'Indraputra was held in his father's lap' (AI)

III. Immediately preceding a measure expression. (266)

maka LNK

berhentilah Raja BER:stop:LAH Raja

ada kira-kira ADA about

sepuluh ten

Iskandar Iskandar hari day

'Raja Iskandar stayed for about ten days'

(SM)

More than one of these functions may be combined in a single clause: (267)

Maka adalah LNK LNK

pada ketika itu Raja Kida Hindi pun at moment that Raja Kida Hindi PUN

ada menghadap Raja Iskandar ADA MENG:face Raja Iskandar 'At that moment Raja Kida Hindi was in audience before Raja Iskandar' (SM:0523)

Chapter 3

117

Having pointed out these constructions, I shall return to a discussion of ada in its main verb function. This ada may occur in post-trigger as well as pre-trigger position: (268)

anak cucu Raja Iskandar Dzu Ί-Karnain child grandchild Raja Iskandar Dzu'l-Karnain yang REL

daripada from

bangsa race

turun ke Bukit descend to hill sekarang now

Hindustan Hindustani

Siguntang Mahameru, Siguntang Mahameru

ada di negeri Palembang ADA at country Palembang

'The descendants of Raja Iskandar Dzu'l-Karnain from the Indian race who came down at Bukit Siguntang Mahameru, were now at Palembang' (SM2:280)

However, by far its most frequent use in the hikayat is in a V > Τ clause, introducing a new participant into the narrative. In this use the S is always marked with the marker classifier 'one, a(n)\ The Mulyadi Indraputra begins with an introductory section summarizing the narrative; then the main narrative portion starts as follows: (269)

Bermula first

sekali very

ada seorang ADA one:CL

peristiwa event

raja di Negeri Samantapuri king in Negeri Samantapuri

dan nama raja itu Maharaja Bikrama Bispa and name king that Maharaja Bikrama Bispa O n c e upon a time, there was a king in Negeri Samantapuri, and the name of this king was Maharaja Bikrama Bispa' (MI:5005)

Another fairly common use of ada which is also associated with V > Τ order has an S which is a headless relative clause. These clauses are used to predicate the existence of a particular class of entities. (270)

maka ada pula yang ditikam samanya kawan LNK ADA also REL DI:stab with:3P friend 'There were also (some) who were stabbed by their own friends' (SM)

These can also be thought of as introducing a new participant; while we may have already been introduced to the individual members of the class

118

Chapter 3

(as in the above example, where the reference is to an army we have already heard quite a lot about), the class as such is new for us. Out of 20 uses of ada in my sample, there was only one (that in example 268) which occurred in post-trigger position. It could be argued that the characteristic V > Τ order of clauses with ada is a function of the semantic role of its argument, rather than of its discourse status; it is quite plausible that in the usual case, the S of ada is uncontrolled. However, this argument can be discounted by a consideration of other verbs which are used presentatively. The next most common verb in this function is datang 'come', which functions presentatively in seven clauses in my data. To show that the presentative function of V > Τ order is distinct from its "undergoer-marking" function, it is instructive to compare datang with another motion verb, pergi 'go'. Datang prefers V > T order, while pergi prefers Τ > V order, as shown in the following figure:

pergi •

V>T

datang 13 T > V

Figure 11. Pergi and datang These two verbs are not different in the degree of control exercised by their S; rather, they are distinguished by deictic considerations. Datang refers to motion towards a deictic center, while pergi refers to motion away from the deictic center.35 In narratives the deictic center is usually identified with a "protagonist" located at a previously established "scene". The protagonist is a participant who is the recipient of what Fillmore

Chapter 3

119

(1982) calls "deictic transfer": the association of a third person with deictic properties pro to typically associated with the speaker in a firstperson context. The "scene" is a literary construct, named by analogy to a scene in drama: a physical location where a temporally contiguous narrative sequence takes place.36 A stative presentative like ada introduces a participant merely by asserting its location on the scene, usually at the beginning of a new episode when a new scene is being established. A movement presentative like datang introduces a participant with a predicate which describes how the participant comes onto the scene, usually after it has been established. Datang is the verb typically used for this, since coming onto a scene involves movement towards the deictic center; it is especially suitable since it is very general with respect to manner of locomotion, but very specific with respect to deixis. (271)

maka datang seorang utusan daripada sebuah negeri LNK come one:CL envoy from one:CL country 'An e n v o y c a m e f r o m a c e r t a i n c o u n t r y ' (MI:5119)

(272)

Maka setelah datang segala ahlunujum... LNK after come all astrologer 'After all t h e a s t r o l o g e r s c a m e . . . ' (MI:5024)

However, other motion verbs may also be used if manner is important. (273)

dan melompat seekor kijang and MENG:jump one:CL deer * a n d a d e e r leapt o u t ' ( A I : 0 9 1 4 ) 3 7

While the presentative motion verbs frequently introduce a totally new participant (marked by se+classifier) into the discourse, this is by no means always the case; all that is necessary is that the participant be new to the current scene. For instance, the astrologers in example 272 were introduced in the previous sentence (in which the king summons them). Pergi, on the other hand, is used to indicate motion away from a scene. If the one that moves is not the protagonist, the protagonist remains on the scene and there is no scene change; if the one that moves is the protagonist, the deictic center moves and there is a scene change. These two possibilities are illustrated in the following examples.

120 (274)

Chapter 3 Setelah after

sudah perdana PFV prime

menteri itu pergi, minister that go

maka disuruh Raja Kida Hindi LNK DIsorder Raja Kida Hindi suratkan write

nama Raja Iskandar atas segala name Raja Iskandar on all

derhamnya coins:3P

'After the prime minister had left, Raja Kida Hindi ordered Raja Iskandar's name inscribed on all his coins' (SM:0503) (275)

Bermula first

pada suatu hari nenek kebayan on one day grandmother

perdana prime

menteri berjual bunga dengan minister BER:sell flower with

Maka dihantarkannya LNK DI:bring:3P

pergi go

ke rumah to house

Indraputra. Indraputra

bunga pada bini perdana flower to wife prime

menteri. minister

O n e day the grandmother went with Indraputra to the prime minister's house to sell flowers. She brought the flowers to the prime minister's wife.' (MI:5301)

Thus, pergi is unsuited to the introduction of new participants. In the examples in my data where it occurs with V > T order, the order is not functioning presentatively, but rather aspectually (indicating a sudden event), and the verb is marked with lah. Motion verbs which are deictically "neutral" (to use a term from Kaswanti Purwo 1984), such as sampai 'arrive', masuk 'enter', and the like, may occur in either order (and do so with almost equal frequency) depending on the relation of their S to the deictic center. Malay is not alone in treating place and movement verbs as a single functional class. Payne (1985) shows that a wide variety of languages, both Indo-European and non-Indo-European, show patterns of morphosyntactic marking which refer to this class: frequently, morphology which has been associated with the category "stative" can also occur in an active context if the verb is a motion verb. The explanation for this observation suggested by my data is that these categories have in common a potential for introducing new participants into the discourse, a function often associated with (but not limited to) change of scene. Payne's account (based on a study of oral Yagua narratives) is somewhat different, although there are points of overlap. For Payne, the most striking analogy between state and movement predicates is not the function of participant introduction, but rather that of discontinuity marking. Change of scene and change of state are analogously discontinuous. The difference between stative

Chapter 3

121

marking in Yagua and V > Τ syntax in Malay shows up most clearly when a new character enters a preestablished scene. In Yagua folktales such clauses show active rather than stative morphology, whereas in Malay this kind of event is coded with presentative ( V > T ) syntax. In spite of this difference, his account and mine probably represent converging functional motivations for a single phenomenon, namely the morphosyntactic parallelism between state and motion verbs in many languages. It should be noted that this "presentative" construction, with a new referent being introduced as the trigger of an intransitive predicate, is not the only way new referents may be introduced into a scene. Many referents which are being mentioned for the first time are introduced into the text in other ways. New referents which are not going to be active participants in the discourse (such as times and places) are often first mentioned as obliques. Participants are occasionally introduced in "transitive" clauses, usually as the patient. Here we can recognize two distinct cases. PT clauses with incorporated orang as agent seem to be able to function much like intransitives in participant introduction: (276)

Maka dilihat LNK DI:see seorang one:CL Ά

orang di dalam bueh itu person at in foam that

budak perempuan child woman

girl was seen in the foam'

(SM2:27:263)

It is also possible for a new participant to be introduced as the non-trigger argument, usually as the Ρ in an AT clause, as in the following example: (277)

Maka raja Cina mengutus ke Palembang LNK king China MENG:envoy to Palembang kepada to

Sang Sapurba sepuluh Sang Sapurba ten

buah CL

pilu ship

'The king of China sent as envoys ten ships to Palembang, to Sang Sapurba' (SM2:27:284)

What both of these examples have in common is that the new referent is introduced as a postverbal P. This is by far the most common situation: I have only a small handful of exceptions in my data, strongly supporting Du Bois' proposed "Given A constraint" (Du Bois 1985, 1987) to the effect that new information is rarely introduced in the A role. While it is possible to find examples of As that have never been previously mentioned in the discourse, it can always be argued that they

122

Chapter 3

are not being "presented"; either because they are nonreferential (like orang in example 276), or because they are identifiable due to some cause other than prior mention in the text. This includes frames invoked by previously introduced referents (as in example 278, in which the prime minister has been introduced), and "generic" or universally quantified referents (as in example 279): (278)

maka disambut bunga itu oleh bini perdana menteri. LNK DI:welcome flower that OLEH wife prime minister 'The flowers were welcomed by the prime minister's wife' (MI:5304)

(279)

maka Raja Iskandar pun keluarlah ke penghadapan LNK king Iskandar PUN go:out:LAH to audience dihadap oleh segala raja-raja DI:attend OLEH all king:2

dan ulama and scholar

dan pendeta dan segala orang besar-besar and priest and all person great:2 dan segala pahlawan yang and all champion REL

gagah-gagah brave:2

'Raja Iskandar went out to hold an audience, attended by all the noblemen and scholars and priests and all the great men and all the brave champions' (SM:0519)

This type of first mention is distinguishable from the more "central" presentative clauses discussed above in that the new referent is never marked by se+classifier. However, even if we include these examples as involving "presentativeness", we can observe two (related) constraints on the introduction of referents in the A role: a) they occur in postverbal position, and b) they are non-triggers. Furthermore, unless they are nonreferential, they are marked by oleh. Referents are apparently never first mentioned as the preverbal A of an AT clause. Thus, we have seen that V > T order is associated with presentative function, achieved most commonly by the stative predicate ada and the motion verb datang. Presentative function is distinct from the semantic role function discussed earlier, since the predicates used presentatively include both controlled and non-controlled verbs. In Chapter 4, we will see that the presentative function as associated with V > Τ order has survived and flourished in Modern Indonesian novels, unlike most other functions of V > T order found in Classical Malay. I will now proceed to discuss what is perhaps the most interesting and important determinant of constituent order: the cluster of properties of

Chapter 3

123

predicates which can be classed under the label "eventiveness".

3.3.4. Eventiveness Eventiveness in Classical Malay is primarily reflected not by sequence but by morphology. Highly eventive transitive clauses have verbs marked by the prefix di-, i.e. are of the PT clause type; in eventive intransitive clauses, the verb is marked by the suffix -lah. In both cases, however, the word order is generally V > T . This double marking is motivated: the morphological marking of eventiveness allows speakers to code as eventive intransitive clauses which have no internal trigger (as in verb serialization or a pun clause), and where therefore constituent order is not available as a marker. I use the term "eventiveness", rather than any of the alternatives (aspect, punctuality, foregrounding, and sequencing, to name a few) to refer to a related class of phenomena having to do more with characteristics of an event than with characteristics of its participants. Some of these phenomena are primarily related to the inherent semantics of the event, while others have more to do with the way the event is presented. Because "eventiveness" in Malay is realized differently in transitive and intransitive clauses, I will discuss the two categories separately.

3.3.4.1. Intransitives: the suffix lah In intransitive clauses, high eventiveness is associated with the suffix lah. This suffix has come under some discussion already in connection with pun', however, it is worth expanding on that discussion here. In his study of the Hikayat Abdullah, Hopper (1979b) characterizes lah as a marker of perfective aspect and (hence) foregrounding. Hopper considers PT morphology as the primary indicator of realis perfective events; these functions are marked instead by lah in those cases where PT morphology isn't available, i.e. on intransitive and unprefixed verbs. These observations are borne out in my data as well: among V > T clauses, 48% of ST clauses have lah, while only 13% of PT clauses have lah. The latter category will be discussed further below. With intransitives, lah is commonly used to give an inchoative interpretation to predicates which would ordinarily be interpreted as Stative; i.e. the predicate with lah refers to the onset of the state, which in itself is an event. This is illustrated in the following example from the Ali bin

124

Chapter 3

Ahmad Indraputra, which describes Indraputra's first glimpse of the nenek kebayan after he's been dropped in her garden by the golden peacock. (280)

Maka Indraputra pun setelah LNK Indraputra PUN after

melihat MENG:see

οrang tua perempuan person old female

itu that

datang come

maka ia pun ingat akan dirinya, LNK 3Ρ PUN remember AKAN self:3P dan bercintalah ia akan ayahanda and BER:love:LAH 3P AKAN father

dan bundanya. and mother:3P

'After Indraputra saw this old woman coming, he realized his situation, and he felt love for his father and mother.' (AI:0523)

Here, the lah in the last clause tells us that he has just now begun to feel love for his parents (from whom he has been abruptly snatched), the feeling presumably having been brought on by the sight of the old woman. This same event is also coded with lah in the Mulyadi Indraputra, although otherwise the wording is quite different: (281)

Maka Indraputra pun melihat LNK Indraputra PUN MENG:see seorang one:CL

perempuan woman

tua datang, old come

maka barulah Indraputra ingat akan ayah bundanya LNK new:LAH Indraputra remember AKAN father mother:3P maka dalam hatinya sedihlah LNK in heart:3P sad:LAH 'When Indraputra saw an old woman approaching, only then did he remember his father and mother, and his heart was sad' (AI:0523)

Similar examples abound. From timbun 'heap' we get tertimbun 'be heaped up'; tertimbunlah is used to mean 'become a heap' (of gold and jewels tossed at the feet of the victorious Raja Iskandar). From genap 'complete' comes the conventional expression genaplah bulannya 'her months (of pregnancy) were completed' (i.e. she gave birth, an event not a state). From besar 'big' comes besarlah 'grow up' (or perhaps more accurately, 'have grown up'). In all of these examples, lah is functioning to make an event of a predicate which typically refers to a state. Ex-

Chapter 3

125

amples like these, of stative predicates with lah, constitute more than half of the 60 lah clauses in my data. It is harder to predict the use of lah for those clauses which are inherently eventive, both for intransitive clauses and the minority of PT clauses that have lah. Hopper (1979b) has suggested that the distinction has to do with "foregrounding", or marking the "backbone of the narrative", where the "backbone" is the series of temporally sequenced events that make up the core of the narrative. (This "backbone" property forms an element of the notion of "discourse transitivity", which Hopper connects with foregrounding in later works (e.g. Hopper & Thompson 1980); however, in the case of lah, the only relevant transitivity parameters are those related to the event rather than the participants.) This works well enough in one direction; it is certainly the case that all lah clauses are plausibly on the event line. However, it fails in the other direction: it is certainly not the case that all "backbone" events have lah. The most we can say here is that the writer uses lah to make sure the reader knows that we're on the story line. In this connection, it is relevant to adduce as evidence the strong tendency of lah to cooccur with the linker maka (which is a marker of event-line clauses) and in main (as opposed to adverbial or embedded) clauses. Maka is a very common linker, as the reader will have gathered from its frequent presence in the examples; it is so common that it has been described as a type of segmental punctuation (Winstedt 1927, 1955). In his dictionary definition (Winstedt 1955:206), Winstedt goes so far as to imply that its primary purpose is to indicate clause boundaries in texts written in the Jawi script, which had no standard punctuation marks, and that its "obsolescence" in the modem language is due to romanization. Be that as it may, it does not correspond exactly to a punctuation mark; it is used primarily to indicate sequencing, which may be temporal or logical in nature (Winstedt 1927; Ajamiseba 1983). It still is used in the latter sense in Modern Indonesian, having the force of logical 'then' or 'therefore' (but usually with a preceding clause which is marked as subordinate with a conjunction meaning 'if or 'because'). Adverbial clauses can be identified by the use of a subordinating linker. By far the most common in the hikayat is setelah 'after'. Like maka, this linker explicitly codes temporal sequence, especially when the adverbial clause precedes the main clause, as it usually does in the hikayat; however, the event in the setelah clause is not new information, but rather recapitulates action which has already been mentioned, or at

126

Chapter 3

least is inferable from previous context, and as such does not itself function to advance the event line. (282)

Setelah after kepada to

berapa some

lamanya, long:3P

maka Raja Suran pun sampailah LNK Raja Suran PUN arrive:LAH

sebuah negeri, Gongga-negara namanya, one:CL country Gongga-negara name:3P

Raja Gongga Syah Johan nama rajanya... Raja Gongga Syah Johan name king:3P Setelah after

Raja Gongga Syah Johan mendengar Raja Gongga Syah Johan MENG:hear

kabar Raja Suran datang news Raja Suran come maka baginda LNK 3P

itu, that

pun menyuruh menghimpunkan rakyatnya PUN MENG:order MENG:assemble troops:3P

'After a while, Raja Suran arrived at a country named Gongga-negara, whose king was named Raja Gongga Syah Johan. [This country was on a hill, from the front it looked very high, but from the back low. The fortress is still there, inland from Dinding, towards Pärak.] After Raja Gongga Syah Johan heard the news of Raja Suran's arrival, he ordered his troops assembled.' (SM:1031)

The overwhelming majority of adverbial clauses are of exactly this type: initial time clauses which serve to orient the reader to the information in the following clause by stating its relation to something in the previous context. The temporal sequencing of this type of clause is moot: while Raja Gongga Syah Johan's hearing of Raja Suran's arrival indubitably follows Raja Suran's arrival and precedes Raja Gongga Syah Johan's ordering the assembly of his troops, nonetheless it is plausible that the primary function of the clause setelah raja Gongga Syah Johan mendengar kabar Raja Suran datang itu is not to advance the event line, but rather to link Raja Suran's previous action to Raja Gongga Syah Johan's subsequent ones. (This use of temporally sequenced adverbial clauses is identical to that described in Thompson 1987 for similar clauses in English.) Moreover, lah simply does not occur in relative clauses (marked by yang) or argument clauses (usually marked by bahwa) in my data. Figure 12 shows the distribution of linkers in lah and lah-lcss clauses. Linker types distinguished here are maka, subordinating ("adverbial") linkers, no linker ( " 0 " ) , and other linkers (these include coordinating conjunctions other than maka, such as dan 'and'; I did not have enough examples of each of these to make a study of their individual

Chapter 3

127

functions). Relative clauses and argument clauses are not included. 80

74

70 60

-

50 40

38

35

30 18 20

-

10

-

10

0 maka

8

Μ

lu m •JL·

lah

adverbial

other

[3 no lah

Figure 12. Lah and linkers38 This figure illustrates the fact that the lah-clause tends strongly to be marked with maka, and tends not to be marked with other linkers or 0 ; these other linkers account for proportionally many more of the lah-less clauses. Lah can also be used to mark initial elements other than the predicate, such as auxiliaries, arguments and adverbials. When this occurs, there is a strong contrastive reading (usually best rendered in English with a cleft). We have already seen one example of this, in the second clauses of example 281 above; there, baru is a temporal modal element meaning approximately 'just then (and no earlier)'. Other types of examples include the following: (283)

Apabila Raja Suran hendak bermain, if Raja Suran desire BER:play ke ε analah ia pergi. to there:LAH 3P go 'When Raja Suran wanted to play, that was where he went' (SM)

128 (284)

Chapter 3 maka cunda baginda LNK grandchild 3P

Raja Suranlah kerajaan Raja Suran:LAH reign

menggantikan nenda baginda MENG:replace grandfather 3P 'Then his grandson Raja Suran was the one who reigned, replacing his grandfather' (SM:1001)

Both of these examples are from explicitly contrastive contexts. Example 283 refers to a park; it is in contrast to a forest, described earlier in the same passage, where Raja Suran went if he wanted to hunt. In example 284, Raja Suran is in contrast with his two brothers (whose fates have just been related), who did not replace their grandfather. We have seen in this section how lah is used primarily in intransitive clauses along with V > T order to mark eventiveness. When used with an inherently stative predicate, it marks the onset of that state. In the next section, we will see how the same function is marked on transitive verbs.

3.3.4.2. Transitive clauses: trigger choice Eventiveness must be characterized somewhat differently for transitive clauses than for intransitives. While in the case of intransitives it is primarily associated with being presented as an event rather than e.g. a state, in morphologically transitive clauses (which most typically refer to events) it can be characterized in terms of high discourse transitivity. However, several characteristics of transitive eventive clauses (e.g. sequencing and newness) are the same as for intransitives. In transitive clauses, eventiveness is marked by verb prefixation, i.e. by the choice of meng- or di- affixation which marks the clause as AT or PT. As was discussed in section 3.2.1 above, under certain conditions trigger choice is determined on syntactic grounds; this is the case when there is an "external trigger", in which category I include pun triggers. However, where both arguments of a transitive clause are present within the clause, trigger choice is conditioned by discourse considerations. The traditional use of the terms "active" and "passive" to denote AT and PT clauses respectively suggests that (as in European languages) the choice has to do with the discourse status (e.g. relative topicality or thematicity) of the A and the P. However, it has frequently been noted that this is not the case in Malay. Hopper (1983) has suggested that the distinction has to do with a high degree of discourse transitivity, as defined in Hopper and

Chapter 3

129

Thompson 1980; PT clauses are higher in transitivity than AT clauses, and more likely to occur in "foreground" (sequenced, new) clauses. My observations are consistent with this view.39 High transitivity is associated with telic, punctual actions. It is hard to make a very strong case here, since the large majority of all 2-argument clauses in the hikayat (including AT clauses) refer to punctual events, and it is hard to gauge telicity in the absence of any specifically aspectual morphology. However, the seven clauses in my data which are explicitly non-punctual (i.e. refer to ongoing or repeated actions) are all AT. (285)

Hatta dengan demikian LNK with thus la memalu bende 3Ρ MENG:beat gong

sehari-hari daily

itu that

'In this manner he beat the gong every day' (MI)

Foregrounding is associated with information which advances the event line. In Classical Malay (as I have argued above in section 3.3.4.1), this distinction is correlated with the distinction between main and subordinate clauses. PT clauses (like lah clauses) rarely begin with an adverbial linker, while more than half of AT clauses do. Foregrounding is associated with temporal sequencing. As with the lah/nori-lah distinction, PT clauses prefer maka, while AT clauses prefer not to have it. (Another linker with a specifically sequencing meaning, lalu 'then', only occurs in PT clauses in my data.) These observations are summarized in figure 13, which shows the frequency of various linkers in AT and PT clauses.

130

Chapter 3 39

40 -,

maka

•

no linker

PT

adverbial

other

II AT

Figure 13. Linkers and voice As this figure shows, PT and AT clauses are quite similar to lah and nonlah clauses respectively, particularly in relation to the distribution of maka. This supports the idea that the same discourse function is coded by both di- and lah, and that this function is connected to sequence, as marked by maka. From this it seems safe to conclude that the functional distinction between AT and PT in two-argument clauses is based largely on characteristics of the event. It can be added that measures which have to do only with the informational status, topicality, or "topic-worthiness" of the A and Ρ do not serve to distinguish these.two clause types; what we find instead is that A can be distinguished from Ρ on the basis of these measures, but trigger As cannot be distinguished from non-trigger As, and trigger Ps cannot be distinguished from non-trigger Ps. The following counts show this. Animacy: A is always human in this data, and Ρ is human about half the time in both clause types. Identifiability: the distribution of the deictic determiner itu and the possessive -nya is similar across clause types, though Ρ is con-

Chapter 3

131

sistently more often determined than A. (This is probably related to the fact that As, being human, are usually coded with proper names.) Lookback: A has a higher average lookback in AT clauses than in PT clauses, but average Ρ lookback is almost the same in both clause types. This is presumably because of the association of PT clauses with sequencing; a series of narrative clauses is likely to share the same agent, but have different patients, while discontinuity of both agent and patient can be expected for AT clauses. These observations are illustrated in the following figure: 2.39

• AT

iPT

Figure 14. Participant status and voice The most striking aspect of these figures is the similarity between the AT and the PT columns. 40 However, there is one property of arguments that does sharply distinguish between AT and PT syntax, which is related to referentiality. Certain non-referential arguments (both A and P) seem to be incorporated with the verb, forming what could be considered a single word (c.f. Mithun 1984 for a characterization of incorporation). These

132

Chapter 3

arguments are invariably non-triggers. Instances of this phenomenon can be identified in Malay with the help of the following criteria: As already noted, the incorporated argument is semantically nonreferential. The incorporated argument is morphologically simple, i.e. uncompounded and unaffixed. In the case of incorporated P, the verb/argument combination is often collocationally fixed, i.e. the same combination occurs frequently with a standard meaning; examples are memberi anugerah 'give a l m s ' , naik mempelai 'marry (of men)', lit. 'ascend bridegroom'. Sometimes the combination has an idiomatic meaning which can not be derived from the sum of its parts, e.g. menjunjung duli 'do homage', lit. 'carry-on-head dust-of-feet'; membawa iman 'be converted to Islam', lit. 'carry acceptance-of-God'. If the suffix -lah (normally attached directly to the verb) occurs in these clauses, it follows the incorporated argument. Some examples follow: (286)

maka Raja Kida Hindi membawa imanlah jadi Islam LNK Raja Kida Hindi MENG:convert:LAH become Muslim 'Raja Kida Hindi converted to Islam' (SM:0417)

(287)

Maka Raja Kida Hindi pun menjunjung duli Raja Iskandar LNK Raja Kida Hindi PUN MENG:do:homage Raja Iskandar 'Raja Kida Hindi did homage to Raja Iskandar' (SM:0734)

(288)

Maka pada ma lam itu naik mempelailah LNK on night that ascend bridegroom:LAH Raja Iskandar Raja Iskandar 'That night Raja Iskandar was married

' (SM:0635)

Chapter 3 (289)

Setelah after

133

itu maka dipalu oranglah that LNK DI:beat person:LAH

gende rang berangkat, drum leave

dan ditiup oranglah nafiri, and DI:blow person:LAH trumpet

alamat Raja Iskandar berangkat sign Raja Iskandar leave 'After that people beat the departure drums and blew the trumpets, as a sign that Raja Iskandar was leaving' (SM:0736)

It is harder to compare other aspects of noun phrase coding, since a different range of coding possibilities exists for triggers and non-triggers in AT and PT clauses, but it seems that in general the discourse status of NPs fails to distinguish among AT and PT clauses. This fact confirms Hopper's judgment that trigger choice is determined by characteristics of the event rather than of the participants, and it is very much in line with Rafferty's (1982) treatment of the trigger-system prefixes in Chinese Indonesian as an aspect-marking system. To conclude, then, we have seen that the suffix lah and the prefix di- both code a very similar phenomenon — "eventiveness", manifested in intransitives by punctuality and in transitives by high transitivity, and in both by sequencing and "foregrounding" in the sense of belonging to a main clause. In addition, both affixes favor V > T order very strongly. The details of the interactions between constituent order and the morphological markers will be addressed more thoroughly in the next section.

3.4. The interaction of factors and inter-text differences In this section, I will comment on the way the factors discussed so far as correlated with constituent order interact with each other, and how conflicts are resolved. This discussion also presents an opportunity to point out some of the differences between different texts, since these differences appear most clearly in those cases where principles interact. In this discussion I will rely fairly heavily on a comparison of the two texts of the Hikayat Indraputra, since they allow us to localize and pinpoint with some precision the sources of the differences that can be observed. Up until now, Malay philologists have relied primarily on nonlinguistic evidence in establishing the date and geographical source of the manuscripts they have studied. Where linguistic evidence has been used, it has been almost exclusively at the level of orthography (the representa-

134

Chapter 3

tion of particular words in the Jawi script) and lexicon. Comments which go beyond these areas into morphology and syntax are rare (although some interesting comments occur in e.g. Brakel 1975 and Chambert-Loir 1980, they are still fairly limited and low-level). The remarks found in this section can perhaps improve this situation by providing a basis of comparison for future researchers who wish to go beyond watermarks and spelling as a basis for comparing Malay hikayat.

3.4.1. Pun and trigger choice An attempt to apply the characterization of pun given in section 3.2.1 above to every clause in the hikayat reveals that, while the characterization is accurate for clauses that are marked by pun, there are clauses which fit the characterization which don't have pun. These instances are much more frequent in some hikayat than in others. A cross-hikayat comparison of the frequency of pun is not terribly meaningful, since certain kinds of narrative situations call for pun, while others don't; it is here that the existence of two texts of the same story can provide insight. The Ali bin Ahmad version of Indraputra uses pun considerably more than the Mulyadi version does; it is easy to find examples where the Ali bin Ahmad text has pun and a corresponding clause in Mulyadi doesn't, but the reverse is rarely true. The following passage from the Ali bin Ahmad Indraputra has pun in virtually every clause that contains an overt trigger. The prior context of this passage is the following: Indraputra's father, the Maharaja Bikrama Buspa (Bispa in the Mulyadi text), is holding an audience for the envoys of two of his tributary states; the child Indraputra is sitting in his father's lap. The envoys have brought two artisans, who have just created a marvelous mechanical wooden fish and a golden peacock, both of which move around and recite poetry. The king rewards them by forgiving them their tribute. Then tragedy strikes: (290)

Ali bin Ahmad version:

a) Hatta LNK

dalam berkata-kata in BER:speak:2

dari ribaan from lap

ayahanda father

maka Indraputra pun turun LNK Indraputra PUN descend

baginda 3P

pergi melihat merak emas go MENG:see peacock gold

mengigal di atas talam itu. MENG:strut at on tray that

Chapter 3 b) Maka LNK

tiba-tiba suddenly

seraya while

135

merak itu pun menyambar Indraputra peacock that PUN MENG:seize Indraputra

diterbangkannya. DI:fly:ΚΑΝ:3P

c) Maka Indraputra pun gaiblah daripada LNK Indraputra PUN vanish:LAH from

mata eye

baginda 3P

dan orang sekalian and person all d) dan Maharaja Bikrama Buspa pun melihat LNK Maharaja Bikrama Buspa PUN MENG:see anakanda child

baginda 3P

e) Maka baginda LNK 3P f) Setelah after

hilang. lost

pun murca seketika. PUN unconscious one:instant

sadarlah akan dirinya conscious:LAH AKAN self:3P

dan baginda LNK 3P

pun menangis PUN MENG:weep

g) dan segala isi istana pun LNK all contents palace PUN gemparlah bertangis-tangisan uproar:LAH BER:weep:2 h) dan isi negeri pun dukacita LNK contents country PUN grieve mendengar Indraputra hilang MENG:hear Indraputra lost

itu. that

a) 'As they were talking, Indraputra got down off his father's lap to go see the golden peacock strutting on the tray. b) Suddenly the peacock snatched Indraputra and flew off with him. c) Indraputra vanished from before the eyes of Maharaja Bikrama Bispa and all the people d) and Maharaja Bikrama Bispa saw his child lost, e) He was unconscious for a moment. f) After he came to, he wept g) and everyone in the palace was in an uproar from weeping h) and everyone in the country grieved to hear that Indraputra was lost.' (AI:0507)

The heavy use of pun in this passage fits in with the characterization of pun given in section 3.2.1: at the beginning of the passage there are three alternating volitional participants on the scene, namely Indraputra, his father, and the golden peacock. In (f), two of the participants are gone, thus eliminating the referential "competition"; however, the king's

136

Chapter 3

fainting fit has created a temporal discontinuity (expressed with an "after" clause), (f), (g) and (h) constitute a parallel list, also a typical pun environment. One consequence of the use of pun is the suspension of the possibility of using trigger choice to express eventiveness, since the use of a pun argument forces a verb form which chooses that argument as its trigger. Thus, in the first clause of (b), which is a highly eventive clause (being high in inherent transitivity, main, punctual and sequenced), we nonetheless have an AT verb form. The next clause of (b), however, switches to a PT verb form as we would expect (there is no pun topic here, probably because the content of the previous clause has made it clear which participants fill the A and Ρ roles); this involves a change in trigger. Probably the presence of the adverbial conjunction seraya between these two clauses reflects the iconic distance between the two clauses necessary for this trigger switch to be appropriately interpreted: as noted in Chapter 2, when a shared argument precedes two predicates which are not separated by a linker (or, in modern written language, by punctuation), the shared argument is likely to be interpreted as the trigger of both clauses. Now let us consider the corresponding passage from the Mulyadi Indraputra, so that we can see the difference. The letters correspond to those given above; I have marked with "(0)" the places where the corresponding clauses in the Ali bin Ahmad version have pun. (291)

Mulyadi version:

a) Hatta setelah LNK after berkata-kata BER:speak:2 daripada from

berapa some

lamanya dalam long:3P in

itu maka Indraputra that LNK Indraputra

ribaan lap

ayahanda father

baginda 3P

mellhat merak emas mengigal, MENG:see peacock gold MENG:strut duduk hampir sit near

sisi talam itu, edge tray that

antara between (0) turun descend

itu that

Chapter 3

137

b) maka Indraputra (0) disambar oleh merak itu LNK Indraputra Disseize by peacock that dibawanya terbang. DI:carry:3P fly c) Maka Indraputra pun gaiblah dengan LNK Indraputra PUN vanish:LAH with daripada from

seketika Itu one:instant that

mat a Maharaja Bikrama Bispa eye Maharaja Bikrama Bispa

dan mata orang banyak. and eye person many d) Setelah after

Maharaja Bikrama Bispa (0) melihat Maharaja Bikrama Bispa MENG:see

anakanda child

baginda 3P

e) maka baginda LNK 3P f) Setelah after

g) dengan with

pun murca seketika. PUN unconscious one:instant

baginda 3P

maka baginda LNK 3P

hilang itu lost that

sadar akan dirihya conscious AKAN self:3P

(0) menangis terlalu MENG:weep very

sangat very

segala isi istana (0) gempar menangis. all contents palace uproar MENG:weep

h) Maka segala LNK all dukacita grieve

isi negeri pun semuanya contents country PUN all:3P

mendengar Indraputra hilang MENG:hear Indraputra lost

itu. that

a) 'After a while, as they were talking, Indraputra got down off his father's lap to see the golden peacock strutting, sitting near the edge of the tray. b) Indraputra was snatched by the golden peacock and carried off, flying, c) Indraputra vanished in that instant from before the eyes of Maharaja Bikrama Bispa and the eyes of many people, d) After Maharaja Bikrama Bispa saw his child lost like that e) he was unconscious for a moment, f) After he came to, he wept sorely g) and everyone in the palace was in an uproar from weeping. h) Everyone in the country grieved to hear that Indraputra was lost.' (MI:5147)

This passage has pun in only three out of the eight places where it occurs in the Mulyadi Indraputra. In some instances this kind of difference can be tied to other differences in the way the text is presented.

138

Chapter 3

Clauses (f), (g) and (h) are not presented as a parallel list in this text, as reflected in the use of different linkers in the three clauses. Similarly, (d) is presented as a "background" time clause in Mulyadi (with the adverbial linker setelah 'after'), whereas it is presented as a "foreground" main clause in Ali bin Ahmad (with the sequencing linker maka). In (b), there is a difference in trigger choice; Indraputra rather than the peacock is chosen as the trigger. The relative non-expectedness which is coded by marking the peacock with pun in the Ali bin Ahmad version is here reflected in the use of an oleh phrase rather than a bare agent to code the peacock. This discussion still leaves open two questions: why is Indraputra not marked with pun in (a) (he has not been mentioned since the beginning of the episode, when he was described as sitting on his father's lap); and why is Indraputra preverbal in (b), a PT clause, even though he is not marked with pun? This is particularly surprising, given the high correlation between PT verb form and V > T order already mentioned. Further examples of this phenomenon are not difficult to find in the two Indraputras, e.g.: (292)

Ali bin Ahmad version:

a) Maka keesokan LNK next

harinya day:3P

maka nenek kebayan LNK grandmother

pun pergi PUN go

berjual bunga. BER:sell flower b) Maka Indraputra pun dibawa sertanya LNK Indraputra PUN DI:bring with:3P

berjalan BER:walk

a) 'The next day the old grandmother went out to sell flowers, b) She took Indraputra with her.' (AI:0603)

(293)

Mulyadi version:

a) Setelah after

esok harinya tomorrow day:3P

maka nenek kebayan LNK grandmother

pun pergi PUN go

berjual bunga. BER:sell flower b) Maka Indraputra (0) dibawanya sama-sama LNK Indraputra DI:bring:3P together

berjalan. BER:walk

a) 'The next day the old grandmother went out to sell flowers. b) She took Indraputra with her.' (MI)

Chapter 3

139

One possible explanation for instances like this would be to hypothesize a difference between the use of pun by the authors (or "copyists"!) of the Mulyadi and the Ali bin Ahmad texts of Indraputra. According to this hypothesis, the Mulyadi author distinguishes two degrees of unexpectedness or discontinuity. The lower degree is marked by prepredicate position alone, while the higher degree is marked by prepredicate position plus pun. Both of these degrees are marked by pun in the Ali bin Ahmad Indraputra. Without a precise statement of what this "difference in degree" might mean, however, such a hypothesis is unprovable; and I have not been able to detect any such generalization. In this kind of case, we are thus reduced to invoking "style". Nonetheless, it seems that the class of prepredicate triggers which have pun in the Ali bin Ahmad text but not in the Mulyadi one should be considered "external triggers", just like pun phrases. One piece of evidence for this is that they seem to determine trigger choice, preventing considerations of "eventiveness" from determining verb affixation, just like pun phrases. Consider another passage, cited from both texts; here the only difference (aside from different punctuation choices made by the editors) is the occurrence of pun in part (b) of the Ali bin Ahmad version. (294)

Ali bin Ahmad version:

a) Setelah after

hari malam maka Raja Tahir Johan Syah pun day night LNK Raja Tahir Johan Syah PUN

berangkat masuk ke istana. BER:depart enter to palace b) Maka Nobat Rom Syah pun membawa Indraputra LNK Nobat Rom Syah PUN MENG:take Indraputra masuk ke istana beradu. enter to palace BER:sleep a) 'At nightfall, Raja Tahir Johan Syah left and went into the palace, b) Nobat Rom Syah took Indraputra into the palace to sleep.' (ΆΙ)

140

Chapter 3

(295)

Mulyadi version:

a) Setelah after

hari mal am maka Raja Tahir Johan Syah pun day night LNK Raja Tahir Johan Syah PUN

berangkat masuk ke istana, BER:depart enter to palace b) maka Nobat Rom Syah (0) membawa Indraputra LNK Nobat Rom Syah MENG:take Indraputra masuk ke istana beradu. enter to palace BER:sleep a) 'At nightfall, Raja Tahir Johan Syah left and went into the palace, b) Nobat Rom Syah took Indraputra into the palace to sleep.' (MI)

In (b) of this passage, "eventiveness" considerations would lead us to expect a di- verb, since the clause is sequenced. However, the agent is resumptive, not having been mentioned for several clauses. In both the Ali bin Ahmad text and the Mulyadi text this results in prepredicate position for the agent and an AT verb form; in Ali bin Ahmad the agent is also marked with pun. The Mulyadi text has no pun, but apparently its absence is not enough to obviate the requirement that a prepredicate resumptive argument must be the trigger of the following predicate. In the discussion of lah below (section ), we will see similar examples in which lah predicates may be non-initial under precisely the same circumstances: the Mulyadi Indraputra has a preverbal trigger which seems to be resumptive, but is not marked with pun. Having recognized the fairly widespread occurrence of non-pun initial resumptive arguments in the Mulyadi Indraputra which seem to behave just like pun phrases in the Ali bin Ahmad Indraputra, we can perhaps accept a more limited application of the same account to the handful of otherwise anomalous prepredicate triggers in other texts, as in the following examples: (296)

setelah after

hari pun siang, maka Indraputra berjalanlah day PUN noon LNK Indraputra BER:walk:LAH

melalui past

padang masuk rimba belantara field enter forest forest

'The next day, Indraputra went through fields and into the forest' (AI)

Chapter 3 (297)

Maka Tuan Puteri LNK Princess

141

Cendani Wasis dipinang Cendani Wasis DI:propose

oleh Raja Hiran OLEH Raja Hiran 'Raja Hiran asked for Princess Cendani Wasis' hand in marriage' (SM)

In this section we have seen that pun is used more liberally by some authors than others, and that a prepredicate trigger without pun may at least sometimes (or for some authors) be equivalent to a prepredicate pun phrase, both in terms of the discourse status of the prepredicate trigger and the consequences for the clause of which it is the trigger. In Chapter 4 I will suggest that a reduced use of pun without an accompanying relocation of the arguments which "would have been" marked by pun may play a very important role in the overall shift of word order preference to T > V which can be observed in Modern Indonesian.

3.4.2. Constituent order and trigger choice How strong is the correlation between PT type and V > Τ order? As we have seen in Figure 4 (page 85) above, this correlation (unlike the correlation between AT clauses and Τ > V order) is not absolute for all hikayat; almost 20% of PT clauses were T > V . This, however, is another area where hikayat differ. We have already considered some differences in relation to the presence or absence of pun; let us consider some other "extenuating circumstances". It is typically the case, where a hikayat does contain instances of PT T > V clauses, that the trigger is marked in some other way. While />ttn-marking is the most frequent case, in some hikayat, other markers seem to function somewhat like pun in this respect. In the Sejarah Melayu and the Ali bin Ahmad Indraputra, there were instances of universally quantified phrases occurring preverbally under these circumstances; these have been illustrated in examples 248 and 249 above. Similarly, there are several examples in the Sejarah Melayu of prepredicate ö&a/i-marked triggers in PT clauses:

142 (298)

Chapter 3 Maka oleh Raja Klda Hindi akan cunda baginda LNK OLEH Raja Kida Hindi AKAN grandchild 3P

itu that

dinamai Raja Aristun Syah DI:name Raja Aristun Syah 'Raja Kida Hindi named that grandchild of his Raja Aristun Syah' (SM:0819)

This is the only hikayat I studied which contained such examples, but it is apparently another context that can sanction T > V order in PT clauses. As this is a rare construction even in the Sejarah Melayu (I have only three examples in my database), it would be premature to generalize about its function; however, it is perhaps noteworthy that in all the examples I have the Ρ is marked as identifiable with itu. The following chart summarizes these differences. I have not provided numbers here, because I was interested in the existence (or nonexistence) of examples rather than their frequency; hence I examined a good deal more data from each source than is included in my computer database. (In all texts, however, the number of examples of PT clauses with prepredicate trigger is tiny compared to the total number of PT clauses.) The Xs indicate which hikayat contain prepredicate Ps with each of the markers listed on the right. (The abbreviations are: SM = Sejarah Melayu; AI = Ali bin Ahmad Indraputra; MI = Mulyadi Indraputra.) SM pun universal oleh/akan

X X

AI X X

MI X

—

X — —

Figure 15. Markers of prepredicate Ρ The conclusion we can draw from this section and the previous one is that unless the trigger of a PT clause has one of a small set of special discourse statuses (usually indicated by special marking), it will follow the verb. This in turn confirms that (other things being equal) constituent order in transitive clauses marks eventiveness the same way it does in intransitive clauses.

Chapter 3

143

3.4.3. Constituent order and lah I have argued in section 3.3.4.1 that lah, like PT morphology, is associated with V > T order. This is very generally the case. There is one systematic set of exceptions which has already been discussed at some length: the set of clauses whose triggers are marked by pun. Furthermore, in section 3.4.1 I argued that occasionally (and much more frequently in some hikayat than in others) there are prepredicate triggers which are resumptive in the same way that pun phrases are, but which are not marked with pun. These too might be expected to behave like pun phrases in occurring in a clause whose predicate has lah. In fact, examples like this do occur: (299)

Maka bukit itu selaku-laku bergecaklah rupanya LNK hill that one:manner:2 BER:move:LAH seemingly daripada from

kebanyakan quantity

jin kafir itu jinn infidel that

'The hill seemed to move from the quantity of infidel jinns.' (MI)

In this example (from the Mulyadi Indraputra), the hill has not been mentioned for several clauses, and so qualifies as a "resumptive topic", although it is not marked with pun. Thus, its occurrence with a "normally" initial lah predicate is not surprising. The very few examples I have been able to find of non-predicate-initial, non-pun lah clauses are similar to this one. (I do not give statistics on these clauses, since there were only two in my computer database; a more extensive manual search yielded a small handful of examples in each of the hikayat.) As was the case with pun, the Mulyadi Indraputra shows a significantly lower use of lah than either the Sejarah Melayu or the Ali bin Ahmad Indraputra. If we compare the two Indraputras as we did above, we can see two types of examples: Cases in which both texts have pun, but the Mulyadi version simply omits the lah: (300)

Ali bin Ahmad version: Hatta maka Indraputra pun heranlah melihat LNK LNK Indraputra PUN amazed:LAH MENG:see kelakuan anak raja itu. behavior child king that 'Indraputra was amazed to see the behavior of the king's son' (AI)

144

Chapter 3

(301)

Mulyadi version: Maka LNK

Indraputra pun heran melihat pantas Indraputra PUN amazed MENG:see deft

anak raja itu. child king that 'Indraputra was amazed to see the skill of the king's son' (MI)

Cases in which the Ali bin Ahmad Indraputra has both pun and lah, and the Mulyadi Indraputra has neither. These are somewhat more frequent than the previous case: (302)

Ali bin Ahmad version: Maka Indraputra pun masuklah ke dalam gua itu. LNK Indraputra PUN enter:LAH to inside cave that 'Indraputra entered the cave' (AI)

(303)

Mulyadi version: Maka Indraputra masuk ke dalam gua itu. LNK Indraputra enter to inside cave that 'Indraputra entered the cave' (MI)

In these examples, all we can say is that these predicates are being explicitly presented as eventive in the Ali bin Ahmad version, while they are not being presented as such in the Mulyadi version; contextual factors alone cannot distinguish the two strategies.

3.4.4. Non-trigger arguments In PT clauses, the A (as well as the P) has some freedom of position. The most common position for A is immediately following the verb; this position is categorical for third person clitics and for unmarked As, and is by far the most frequent for As marked with oleh as well (there were only two counterexamples in the database, though a handful more turned up under manual examination). However, oleh As may also occur following the verb after the P, or preceding the verb. It will also be remembered that an oleh A may cooccur with the clitic -nya on the verb. Of the possible orders generated by these variables for two-argument PT clauses (and disregarding the presence or absence of akan marking the P), the following patterns occur in my data:

Chapter 3 Verb-initial:

Preverbal Ρ:

a) b) c) d) e)

f) g) h) i)

di-V-nya Ρ di-VAP di-V oleh A Ρ di-V-nya oleh A di-V Ρ oleh A

Ρ Ρ Ρ Ρ

di-V-nya di-V A di-V oleh A di-V-nya oleh A

145

Preverbal A: j) k) 1) m)

oleh oleh oleh oleh

A A A A

Ρ di-V Ρ di-V-nya di-V-nya Ρ di-V Ρ

Figure 16. Occurring orders A complete account of the functional contrasts embodied in all of these possibilities is beyond the scope of this study. However, it can be noted that the plain A/oleh A distinction seems to be a matter of the referential status of A; immediate postverbal position (without oleh) is associated overwhelmingly with the nonreferential orang (which I have argued to be incorporated), and with highly continuous referents, usually coded by names and pronouns without any further modification. (This suggests that the situation is much like that of modern written Indonesian, as described in Cumming 1986 and Myhill 1988.) The distinction between and order, on the other hand, seems more closely related to the referential status of the P; the examples of (pattern e) in my data all involve a Ρ marked with the deictic determiner itu. (304)

maka disambut bunga itu oleh bini perdana menteri. LNK DIsaccept flower that OLEH wife prime minister 'The prime minister's wife accepted the flowers. (MI:5304)

The fact that this order is far less common than < di-V (oleh) A Ρ > (patterns a-d) doubtless reflects the fact that As are much more likely than Ps to be continuous (see e.g. Du Bois 1985, 1987), and less continuous arguments tend to be final. In this connection it is interesting to compare the A in the pattern with the Ρ in the pattern. Both are anaphoric, but the latter, unlike the former, favors itu for the P, even with proper names. This is presumably related to the observation that an anaphoric Ρ is more "marked" (rarer in discourse) than an anaphoric A, and therefore its anaphoricity has more need of being made explicit. Some of the hikayat do not have all of these patterns, however (or else they are so rare that they have not turned up in the portions I have ex-

146

Chapter 3

amined, either computationally or informally). The only hikayat which does is the Sejarah Melayu. The patterns with preverbal A (j-m) are found only in this hikayat. Other differences seem to be a matter of frequency. For instance, the Ali bin Ahmad Indraputra (unlike both the others) uses very little plain A; As are almost always either coded as clitics or marked with oleh. The Sejarah Melayu has a higher proportion than the others of oleh/-nya clauses, as in (d), (i), (k) and (1). And an account has already been given of the relative frequency of patterns (f-i) — the pun-less PT Τ > V clauses — in the Mulyadi Indraputra.

3.4.5. Summary of differences between hikayat The Sejarah Melayu is the hikayat with by far the greatest range of constituent orders used; it also uses the various options with a relatively equal frequency, so that even in a fairly short passage nearly all of the imaginable possibilities will be exemplified. For instance, in one typical section of connected text, there are 27 two-argument di- clauses, exemplifying nine of the thirteen patterns listed in Figure 16. This very likely reflects a high aesthetic value placed by the author on variety; and this may also have contributed to the high esteem accorded to this hikayat by Western observers such as Winstedt. The variety found in this hikayat contrasts sharply with some others (which I chose not to discuss, partly for this reason) such as the Hikayat Andaken Penurat (Robson 1969), in which there is a relatively small set of patterns which are used over and over again, so that the "same thing" is almost always said the "same way". The reduced role of pun and lah in the Mulyadi Indraputra give it a "modern" flavor relative to the other two hikayat, in spite of the convincing arguments given by its editor that it antedates the Ali bin Ahmad text. This flavor may simply reflect a more colloquial style being employed by an earlier copyist, subsequently "corrected" to the surely more formal particle-heavy version by a later scribe. Much more data, from more hikayat, is necessary before this kind of question can be resolved. Hopefully the discussion and analysis presented in this chapter will provide a framework within which such issues can be fruitfully addressed. However, I hope to have shown on the basis of the texts I have been able to analyze in detail that the basic principles governing constituent order are the same among all the hikayat studied; differences that arise are mostly in terms of frequency or invariance of application of the principles.

Chapter 3

147

Moreover, insofar as it was possible to determine, my findings are in line with the observations reported by scholars who have worked on other Classical Malay texts: Becker's (1979) study of the Hikayat Pandawa Lima, Ajamiseba's (1983) study of the Hikayat Patani, Hopper's (1979a, 1979b, 1983, forthcoming) work on the Hikayat Abdullah, and (to a lesser extent) Rafferty's (1987) remarks on Abdullah and the 19th Century High Malay historical text the Tuhfat Al-Nafis. The degree of concurrence among all these sources supports the validity of the concept of Classical Malay as a relatively coherent linguistic variety.

3.4.6. Summary of interactions: competition and convergence At this point it is appropriate to sum up the principles (or in some cases, loosely related groups of principles) that have been introduced in this chapter as relating to constituent order. This section will show how the existence of competition among principles that predict different orders within a single clause produces variability of constituent order, while convergence of principles that predict the same order within a single clause produces stability or invariance of constituent order. These interactions will be related to the differences in constituent order variability among the clause types AT, PT and ST. External trigger: resumptive and generic triggers and shared triggers (pivots) in previous clauses. Resumptive triggers are associated with pun. Determines trigger role in transitives. Eventiveness: Main clause status, high discourse transitivity, and sequencedness are all associated with high eventiveness. Determines trigger role in transitives (high eventiveness is associated with PT morphology). Associated with lah, especially in intransitives. Trigger role: The semantic role (actor or undergoer) of the trigger. Presentativeness: Clauses primarily functioning to introduce a new participant into the discourse. Associated with se + classifier marking on the trigger. The relationship of these principles to constituent order is summarized in the following figure.

148

Chapter 3 Favors V > T

Favors T > V

Eventiveness Presentativeness Role = Undergoer

External trigger Generic topic Role = Actor

Figure 17. Competing factors This account provides an elegant explanation for the different degrees of constituent order variation found in the three clause types AT, PT, and ST, if taken in conjunction with the accounts proposed in various of the preceding sections concerning the discourse functions of voice and transitivity in Classical Malay. It will be recalled that AT clauses have no variation at all, ST clauses have a very high degree of variation, and PT clauses are somewhere in between. This can be understood in terms of the convergence and competition of principles: to the degree that principles converge, there is invariability, and to the degree that they compete, there is variability. Let us first consider the case of AT clauses. The low eventiveness of these clauses is coded by T > V order and by the AT prefix meng-. This prefix selects the A as trigger. Since the A is also the actor, both the "eventiveness" principle and the "semantic role" principle converge on T > V order. This order is further reinforced by the "external trigger" principle, when it applies; in any case, this principle can never create a conflict. The only potentially conflicting principle, the "presentative" principle. However, there are independent reasons why this principle will never actually apply to the trigger of an AT clause. New arguments tend strongly not to have the A role; in the rare situations in which they do (as in examples 278 and 279 above), they occur in PT clauses. Thus, a conflict can never arise, which correctly predicts the 100% invariable constituent order of the AT clause. In the case of PT clauses, "high eventiveness" is reflected both by V > T order and by the di- prefix. This is the same marker that marks PT status, i.e. the presence of this marker implies that the trigger is the P. But the Ρ is also an undergoer, and so both principles converge on V > Τ order. If the "presentative" principle applies (as it occasionally does, as in example 276), it further reinforces the convergence on V > T order. The only potentially conflicting principle is the "external trigger" principle, which leads to the observed slight variability in the order of the PT clause.

Chapter 3

149

In the case of ST clauses, however, conflict is more usual than convergence. All the principles can potentially apply. Two of them, "semantic role" and "eventiveness", almost always conflict. This is because they give conflicting predictions about the order of trigger and predicate in the two most common types of intransitive clause: eventive clauses with an actor (the prototypical "active" clause type), and noneven tive clauses with an undergoer (the prototypical "stative" clause type). Thus, it is not surprising that ST clauses have the highest variability of any of the three types, to the point of an even (or almost even) split in some texts.

3.4.6.1. Competition and discourse salience Having observed that there must be instances of competition among different principles for the ordering of a single clause, we can ask the following question: Is there a hierarchy among the principles, such that where more than one conflicting principle seems to apply, it is possible to predict the resultant surface order? It seems that the answer to this question is "yes", at least for some of the possible conflicts. These conflicts and their resolutions are illustrated in the following examples. Where there is an external trigger and an undergoer, the external trigger prevails, and the resulting order is T > V: (305)

Maka Indraputra pun gaiblah daripada mat a baginda LNK Indraputra PUN vanish:LAH from eye 3P 'Indraputra vanished from before his eyes' (AI:0509)

(306)

Maka Indraputra pun dibawa sertanya berjalan LNK Indraputra PUN DI:bring with:3P BER:walk 'She took Indraputra with her' (AI:0603)

Where there is an eventive clause with an actor, eventiveness prevails, and the resulting order is V>T: (307)

maka berangkatlah Raja Iskandar LNK BER:leave:LAH Raja Iskandar 'Raja Iskandar left' (SM:0713)

150

Chapter 3

Where there is a presentative clause with an actor, presentativeness prevails, and the resulting order is V > T: (308)

dan melompat seekor kijang and MENG:jump one:CL deer Ά deer leapt out' (AI:0914)

What all these examples show is that the function of constituent order in expressing semantic role is extremely weak; it is overridden if ANY other consideration relevant to word order applies. Another way of expressing this is that the mapping between semantic role and constituent order is relatively low in discourse salience, according to the characterization given in Chapter 1 (repeated here for the convenience of the reader): A mapping between a discourse function and a morpho-syntactic form is salient to the degree that clauses which have that function are associated with that form, and vice versa. Another mapping which we have seen to be overridable is that between V > T order and eventiveness (as coded by lah or di-); these clauses virtually only occur in Τ > V order if there is an external trigger. (309)

Maka ketiga LNK three

anak raja itu pun child king that PUN

naiklah ke atas lembu itu ascend:LAH to on ox that 'The three king's sons mounted the white ox' (SM2:21:57) (310)

Maka anak raja itu pun LNK child king that PUN dibawanya kembali DI:bring:3P back

ke rumahnya. to house:3P

'They brought the princes back to their house.' (SM2:23:109)

Thus, the association between PT form and the functions of "high eventiveness" and "semantic role" will have relatively low salience compared to presentative function or external trigger function, since there are examples of eventive clauses with preverbal triggers, and also examples of prepredicate undergoers, that arise through the "prior" application of other principles. Therefore, we might expect these two functions of con-

Chapter 3

151

stituent marking to be relatively likely to disappear. Furthermore, eventiveness is more discourse-salient than semantic role, for two reasons: (1) eventiveness can override semantic role, as we have seen in example 307, and therefore has fewer "surface exceptions"; (2) eventiveness is marked not only by constituent order, but also by the morphemes di- and -lah. Therefore, we would expect it to be more robust diachronically. As we will see, both of these predictions are borne out in Modern Indonesian.

3.5. Basic order At this point it is appropriate to reconsider the question of the "basic word order" of Classical Malay. As should be clear by now, Classical Malay is one of those languages which bring into question the validity of the constituent order typologies themselves; the most frequent order varies wildly according to clause type, and this variation in itself can be seen as deriving from the functional differences between the orders. Similar observations about other languages have led several linguists working within functional frameworks (e.g. Myhill 1985; Mithun 1987; Payne 1987; Dutra 1987) to consider rejecting these typologies in favor of a purely pragmatically-based approach — either because of problems with the syntactic role labels S and Ο on which the Greenberg typology depends, or because none of the alternative orders is statistically dominant. Both these kinds of objections apply to Classical Malay. For contrastive purposes, however, it is worth emphasizing that the verb-initial clause has a special position in Classical Malay, which is distinct from its status in Modern Indonesian; this difference comes out most clearly if differences in the relative markedness of the various clause patterns are considered. Thus, in this section I will argue that if a good-faith effort is made to determine the place of Classical Malay in a syntactic-role order typology, it must be considered at least "verb-initial" or VS/VO.41 The first challenge is to decide which of the Malay clause types should be taken as a starting point for the determination of the "basic" constituent order. Word order studies in the past have taken into account two related but somewhat different criteria: morpho-syntactic markedness, on the one hand, and frequency, on the other.42 In practice, the way these principles is usually applied is to identify a set of what I will call "candidate clause types", which are morphosyntactically least marked; then the "basic word order" is the order which is most frequent among the candidate clauses, if indeed more than one order is still present. (This distinction between "candidate" and "basic" orders is probably the same

152

Chapter 3

as that intended in Greenberg's (1963) distinction between "dominant" and "alternative" basic orders; however, since much later work has assumed that a language may have only one "basic" order, I will reserve that term for the dominant basic order.) Thus, in English, constituent orders in certain types of morphosyntactically marked constructions such as passives, questions, and clefts are not considered as candidate basic orders, although orders found in less highly marked types of inversion ("at the door stood a little angel") might be. On the basis of this markedness criterion, we can at once discard pun clauses as candidates for basic constituent order, since those clauses are clearly more marked than non-pun clauses on at least the grounds of having an extra morpheme; I have also argued above that they have "marked" discourse properties. This leaves us with those AT, PT, and ST clauses which do not contain pun. Figure 4 suggests that, if we consider all these clause types together, Classical Malay is verb-initial by a narrow margin. However, as we have seen, the constituent order preferences of AT, PT and ST clauses are radically different. Is one of these clause types "least marked"? On the basis both of simplicity and frequency, it would appear that the ST clause type is indeed less marked than either of the other two. However, the paradigm within which we are currently inquiring requires us to order three elements with respect to each other, and thus it seems that intransitive clauses should be eliminated from consideration. This leaves us with AT and PT clauses. Here, frequency clearly points to PT clauses as less marked; but this seems paradoxical, since the PT clause, with its possibility for the "extra" morphemes oleh and akan, is apparently morphosyntactically more marked. However, a deeper consideration of the notion of "markedness" provides a valuable insight. We note that oleh and akan are both optional markers in the PT clause, which may not occur in the AT clause. Thus, we have an instance of a distinction — between the presence of these morphemes and their absence — which is available in the PT clause but not available (i.e. "neutralized") in the AT clause. Thus, the PT clause type is less marked by the principle which Greenberg (following Hjelmslev) calls "defectivation": "the marked category may simply lack certain categories present in the unmarked category" (Greenberg 1966:29). The greater number of constituent order contrasts available in the PT clause provides further support for this argument. If, then, we restrict the "candidate clause" group for Classical Malay to pun-less PT clauses with two arguments, we find that far from being fairly evenly split, a large majority — more than 80% — of Clas-

Chapter 3

153

sical Malay clauses exhibit verb-initial order. Put in Greenberg's terms, Classical Malay has a "dominant" verb-initial order, and an "alternate" verb-medial order. We may then return to the issue of whether the dominant order should be characterized as VSO or VOS; in other words, whether it is the syntactic distinction of trigger/non-trigger that gets mapped on to the S/O distinction, or the semantic distinction of agent/patient. This problem does not arise in the AT clause type, but since I have argued that the basic order must be determined with respect to the PT clause type, the two interpretations of the labels yield opposite results. As I have noted, the most frequent order of the arguments in the PT clause is VAP; this order is obligatory when there is no oleh, i.e. under conditions of least morphological marking. Since the Ρ is the trigger, an interpretation of the terms S and Ο would yield VOS if S = Trigger, but VSO if S = Agent. The problem is thus the same as has been encountered by researchers attempting to assign word-order types to ergative languages. Opposite approaches to this problem have been taken by Mallinson and Blake (1981) and Tomlin (1986). Tomlin adopts the syntactic solution, assigning the S label to the argument with subject properties. In Classical Malay, this tactic has the consequence that the only candidate for Ο is A. This creates a somewhat anomalous situation with respect to the principles which Tomlin appeals to as explaining the distribution of constituent orders. True, one of his principles is borne out: some As in PT clauses in Classical Malay exhibit properties which could be characterized as "verb-object bonding", and thus conform to one of Tomlin's predictions about the behavior of Ο (c.f. the "incorporated agent" construction). However, As rather than Ps still tend to be thematic (i.e. continuous) in PT clauses, thus counterexemplifying Tomlin's claim that S is associated with theme. (While Tomlin also points to the existence of "theme-last" verb-initial languages, it will be remembered that the PT A tends to come between the verb and the P; it is thus not "last" either.) Mallinson and Blake (1981), on the other hand, point out that most researchers who have taken an identifiable position have identified S with A in problematic languages. The adoption of this convention seems to be the most practical solution to the problem, since As are much more easily identified cross-linguistically than are syntactic subjects. Following this practice, we may unenthusiastically settle on the typological label "VSO" for the basic constituent order of Classical Malay. This section has argued that, in traditional typological terms, Classical Malay should be considered a verb-initial language, probably VSO. Modern Indonesian, as we will see, should almost certainly be classed (as

154

Chapter 3

it has been in the past) as SVO. Thus, the shift which occurred to Modern Indonesian was a shift which constituted a change in basic constituent order. However, there are some features of Modern Indonesian which are uncharacteristic of an SVO language, and which hark back to the VSO type of Classical Malay. These will be discussed in the next chapter.

3.6. Conclusions In this chapter we have seen how Classical Malay, a dominantly "verbinitial" (V>T) language, uses the alternative orders available to it. As I have shown, there are several more or less distinct functions for the alternation. Where do the associations between these functions and T > V or V > Τ order come from? Two of these associations — the external trigger function and the presentativeness function — are familiar from many of the world's languages, and may be seen as special cases of the "old information first, new information last" constituent order principle of the Prague school. Because of their very general nature, it is not surprising that these principles "override" the others in case of joint application. The other two — "eventiveness" and "semantic role" — have a more specifically Austronesian (or perhaps Western Austronesian) character. The "eventiveness" criterion is strongly reminiscent of my earlier findings about Toba Batak constituent order (Cumming 1984), while the "semantic role" criterion is, as I have pointed out, reminiscent of Durie's account of the syntactic categories of Acehnese (Durie 1985), reflected not so much in the order of independent arguments as in the order of their cross-referencing clitics. Whether the fact that these two principles have come to be coded by the same device (constituent order) in Malay is a historical accident or due to the interaction of more abstract principles is a question I will leave open; most likely, only the detailed analysis of the functions of constituent order in more of Malay's cousins will be able to suggest a solution. In the next chapter, we will see what has become of these functions in Modern Indonesian written texts, what new functions have been added, and how these changes interact with other morphosyntactic changes on the one hand, and differences in literary style on the other.

Chapter 4 Modern Indonesian

4.1. Introduction In this chapter I will discuss the factors which determine constituent order in contemporary Indonesian novels, relating them as I do so to the Classical Malay situation. A superficial comparison of a hikayat and a Modern Indonesian novel quickly reveals that the proportion of V > Τ to T > V clauses is dramatically lower in Modern Indonesian than in the hikayat, to the point where it was sometimes necessary to comb an entire novel to find a hundred examples of V > Τ clauses (the same number can be found in 10 to 20 pages of a hikayat). While I have argued that Classical Malay is "basically" V > T , Modern Indonesian and Modern Malaysian have a stronger claim to being regarded as "basically" T > V , to the point that in most discussions of the grammar of these languages the V > T order is commonly regarded as a type of "inversion" (e.g. Moeliono & Dardjowidjojo 1988;43 Kaswanti Purwo forthcoming; Emeis 1948). What is the source of this difference? A somewhat deeper investigation reveals that there are several major differences between Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian which are related to this change in constituent order. These are: 1) The loss of pun in its "resumptive topic" function, leading to an overall increase in unmarked T > V clauses. 2) In transitive clauses, a number of changes which reflect or have resulted in a less frequent use of PT morphology and a reduction in the association of that morphology with eventiveness. These changes include the loss of akan as a Ρ marker; a restriction of PT V > Τ syntax to clauses with anaphoric agent; and the development of the agentless PT clause, which frequently functions as a presentative clause. 3) In intransitive clauses, a reduction in the use of lah and V > T order to indicate eventiveness, and a spread in the use of V > T intransitives as presentatives. 4) Overall, a loss of the correlation between semantic role and position. These features help define the difference between Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian. As such, they may be used diagnostically in assigning a text to one or the other variety (whether the differences are taken as reflecting genre or diachronic processes); and as we will see, they apply differentially to different authors.

156

Chapter 4

However, as we will also see, "difference" between Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian isn't the whole story. An examination of constituent order function supports the idea of continuity as well as change. Most of the same themes are apparent in Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian constituent order use, the differences being largely interpretable in terms of the narrowing or expansion of particular functions.

4.1.1. Data As data for this study I chose five contemporary Indonesian novels and one Malaysian one. These novels are all "literary" rather than "pulp" works, written by and intended for educated people. As with the hikayat, I have also made a more cursory examination of other novels, which I will mention from time to time. The works investigated were: Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk 'The dancing girl of Dukuh Paruk', by Ahmad Tohari (Tohari 1982). This story, set in an isolated village in Java, is about the reactions of a boy, Rasus, as his playmate Srintil matures and becomes the village dancing girl. Rasus must struggle with his feelings about Srintil, whom he associates with his mother, who died or disappeared years ago in a food poisoning epidemic brought about by Srintil's parents. While the first of the three parts of this novel is narrated in third person, the second and third parts are narrated by Rasus in first person.44 Sri Sumarah 'Sri Sumarah' (Kayam 1975), Kimono biru buat istri Ά blue kimono for my wife' (Kayam 1972), and Musim gugur kembali di Connecticut 'Fall returns to Connecticut' (Kayam 1972). These are three stories by Umar Kayam. Sri Sumarah (the name of the heroine) deals with the experiences of a long-suffering Central Javanese mother who must cope with changing times while staying true to her traditional values. After her husband dies, her daughter becomes pregnant and marries a political activist, and is eventually arrested, leaving Sri to raise her granddaughter and support her daughter in prison. In order to accomplish this, Sri turns to the massage skills she learned as a girl from her grandmother.

Chapter 4

157

Kimono biru buat istri is about the chance encounter of a businessman in Tokyo with an old friend whom he knew when they were both young idealists. Through a series of flashbacks the story compares the struggles of their youth with their current situations. Musim gugur kembali di Connecticut traces for one day the thoughts, memories and actions of a writer recently released from political prison. At the end of the story he is rearrested. Senja di Jakarta 'Twilight in Jakarta', by Mochtar Lubis (Lubis 1970). This novel concerns a diverse collection of characters in Jakarta, from a poor garbage collector to a powerful businessman/politician, contrasting their experiences so as to present a bitter condemnation of hypocrisy and corruption. It consists of a series of episodes, each primarily concerned with one set of characters and almost as self-contained as a short story, although the characters move in and out of each other's scenes. We follow their progress through eight months of a single year; each month constitutes a chapter. Pergolakan 'Disturbances', by Wildan Yatim (Yatim 1974), relates the struggles of a teacher in West Sumatra as he tries to bring progress to a village community caught in political turmoil. The villagers are caught in political strife that leads first one group, and then another, to power; throughout, the teacher attempts to help them improve their lot through a modern and enlightened Islam. Grotta Azzurra 'Grotta Azzurra', by S. Takdir Alisjahbana (Alisjahbana 1970): the story of a the relationship between an Indonesian expatriate and a lonely Frenchwoman whom he meets in Capri. Hari-hari terakhir seorang seniman 'The last days of an artist', by Anwar Ridhwan (Ridhwan 1980): a storyteller in a Malaysian village on the eve of the Japanese occupation finds himself becoming an anachronism. Since V > Τ order is comparatively much rarer in these texts than it was in the older Malay texts, I have been forced to search much farther to find sufficient examples of V > T clauses. Because of this, I was not able to take the approach taken with the hikayat, of simply including all relevant examples in either order from a particular stretch of text; such a strategy would have yielded only a handful of V > T clauses in a very

158

Chapter 4

large amount of time. Therefore, I used several different strategies. I first collected one hundred V > Τ clauses from each of the first four authors. I then did a comparative analysis to discover the range of variation among the authors in their use of V > T clauses (this analysis is reported in Cumming 1987). This enabled me to identify the authors whose use of V > T was most "modern", those whose use was more "conservative" (i.e. relatively similar to Classical Malay), and those who deviated from ordinary modern usage in idiosyncratic ways. Mochtar Lubis's Senja di Jakarta fell in the "typical" category. Therefore, in addition to the hundred V > Τ clauses, I coded every clause in two sections or episodes of his novel, totalling 159 clauses of completely coded text. These two sections were chosen for their "typically narrative" qualities, i.e. they each related a unified series of concrete events involving a small set of participants with a minimum of flashbacks, introspection, dialogue etc. The first of these passages is the description of an accident in which a horse-drawn carriage driven by a poor sick old man damages a rich man's new red Cadillac; the second is the story of a kind prison overseer who invites a newly released convict to spend the night with him before returning to his village; the convict, confused and terrified by his unaccustomed freedom, brutally murders the overseer and his wife and baby. I also made a more thorough examination of S. Takdir Alisjahbana's Grotta Azzurra, clearly the most conservative of these novels (not surprisingly, since though it was published in the 70s, its author is the oldest of the group). 45 This was because he had a more even ratio of V > T to T > V clauses than the other authors, making it easier to make certain kinds of comparisons. Furthermore, the fact that his writing has some but not all of the features of the hikayat to some degree made it possible to get a clearer view of the degree of in- and inter-dependence of certain aspects of grammar. I took an approximately equal number of V > T and T > V clauses (about 100 o.f each) from the beginning of this novel. I examined approximately 200 clauses of the Malaysian novel by Anwar Ridhwan for basic clause patterns in order to ascertain how similar it was to the Indonesian novels, and found that it was strikingly "modern" in the low frequency of PT morphology and V > T order. In general, however, I was satisfied that it was not significantly different with respect to function from the more modern of the Indonesian authors I examined. In the following sections, I will discuss successively the factors which determine constituent order in Modern Indonesian, with specific reference to the factors that were found in the Classical Malay hikayat.

Chapter 4

159

4.2. The loss of pun As discussed in chapter 3, the role of pun has diminished markedly in Modern Indonesian, aside from its frozen use in a few fixed linkers;46 it may not occur at all in several pages of connected text. It is used only in cases of strong and explicit parallelism, contrast or counter-expectation, and often on constituents other than the trigger. (311)

Melihat Janet tersenyum itu, Ahmad pun tersenyum pula MENG:see Janet smile that Ahmad PUN smile also 'Seeing Janet smile like that, Ahmad smiled too' (GA)

(312)

Memikirkan jawab pertanyaan MENG:think answer question

itu pun that PUN

tak mungkin baginya. not possible for:3P "Even thinking about an answer to that question was impossible for him.' (GA) (313)

aku pun tak tahu apa yang harus kuperbuat. IP PUN NEG know what REL must IP:do 'I myself didn't know what I should do.' (Rong:R119.2)

(314)

Dalam keadaan in state

tidur sediklt pun sleep a:little PUN

tak tampak keperkasaan NEG appear bravery

seorang one:CL

tentara. army

'While he slept, the courage of a soldier wasn't in the slightest apparent.' (Rong:R155.1)

It is still strongly associated with initial position; in example 312, where it marks a subject clause, the strong tendency for clausal arguments to be final is overridden by the contrastive pun. Due to the loss of pun as a marker of initial resumptive topics, the formal distinction between ordinary non-eventive AT clauses and resumptive-A AT clauses has been neutralized in the form A meng-V P; thus, there is a possibility for eventive clauses to be AT. A similar blurring of distinctions has occurred in intransitives, between resumptive-S clauses and non-eventive "controlled" clauses (i.e. those in which the S is an actor rather than an undergoer), which have been neutralized as S > V . In Chapter 3, we saw in the Mulyadi Indraputra a situation which may

160

Chapter 4

have represented the beginnings of this blurring; in that hikayat, generalizations about the function of e.g. trigger choice and V > T order were weaker than in the others, because of the loss of the distinction between pun and non-pun preverbal triggers. One might object that even after the loss of pun the resumptive topic clause would still have been distinguished from other Τ > V clauses in the spoken language, by means of intonation. However, there is some evidence that the unmarked intonation pattern of the Modern Indonesian Τ > V clause is derived from the resumptive topic clause. Kaswanti Purwo, forthcoming, points out that in Modern Indonesian, the unmarked intonation pattern for a simple T > V clause has two prominences, with a fall-rise on the last two syllables of the trigger and a rise-fall on the stressed syllable of the predicate. A simple V > T clause, on the other hand, has only one prominence, the rise-fall on the stressed syllable of the predicate.47 While we have no information about the intonation patterns of spoken Classical Malay, we can compare another "basically" V > T , patient-prominent Western Austronesian language, namely Toba Batak. Emmorey (1984) has shown that the basic intonation patterns of Toba Batak are similar to those of Modern Indonesian — with two peaks (on the trigger and the predicate) in a Τ > V clause, and only one (on the predicate) in a V > T clause. This is the case even though the Τ > V order is much rarer (hence more "marked" in one sense) in Toba Batak than in Indonesian. The T > V clauses in Toba Batak had several of the same functions as Τ > V clauses with pun in Classical Malay (Cumming 1984). This suggests that the intonation pattern of Modern Indonesian may well be a retention from the intonation pattern characteristic of resumptive topic clauses at an earlier stage of Malay, the extra peak which originally marked a resumptive topic having been reinterpreted as a marker for any prepredicate trigger. Indeed, the intonation patterns for pun and non-pun prepredicate triggers may never have been distinct. I have put this discussion of the loss of pun first in this chapter, because it seems probable that it is this difference that sets the stage for all the other differences between Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian. This is because this difference effects the markedness reversal by which T > V clauses become (morphosyntactically) unmarked and V > T clauses (by virtue of their relative rarity) become marked. This in turn sets the itage for a much more selective use of V > Τ order in the discourse contexts with which it is associated. This theme will be developed in the following sections.

Chapter 4

161

4.3. The transitive clause In Classical Malay we saw that for transitive clauses without a resumptive topic, both constituent order and trigger choice were determined by a cluster of related properties, which I grouped together under the label "eventiveness". Eventiveness was characterized as high discourse transitivity and "foregrounding", i.e. sequentiality and expression in a main clause. Because most transitive clauses were eventive, most of them were PT and V >T. However, this is no longer the case in Modern Indonesian: in all of my data except that of Alisjahbana, the most conservative among the authors I examined, many more clauses were AT than PT, ranging from proportions of about 67% to about 80%. This is not simply due to reduced eventiveness: as I will show below, even transitive clauses which qualify as eventive by any criterion have AT morphology. At the same time, the use of V > T order has been radically reduced, especially in transitive clauses; the proportion of T > V to V > T ranges from about 75% to about 97%. The following figure gives counts of transitive clauses in connected text from Tohari and Lubis, who were quite similar in their use of syntax. 135

140

135

130 120

-

110

-

100

-

90 -

B0 62

70 60

-

44

50 40 30 20

-

10

-

10

0

0PT

AT

•

V>T

•

T>V

Figure 18. Order and voice in transitive clauses

•

Both orders

162

Chapter 4

In this data, 31% of transitive clauses are PT, compared to 73% in the hikayat. Thus, while Classical Malay can be said to have been "patientprominent", in that the basic transitive clause in a narrative was PT, this is no longer the case in Modern Indonesian. Moreover, among PT clauses, 29% are V > T , as compared to 81% in the hikayat. Thus, while Classical Malay could be said to be "verb-initial", this is no longer the case in Modern Indonesian. These facts suggest that the function of the PT V > Τ clause type has changed or been restricted. And yet, I will argue that eventiveness, i.e. high transitivity and sequentiality, are still associated with PT V > T syntax. (Kaswanti Purwo (forthcoming) has also observed this function for V > T order in Modern Indonesian; he labels it the "continuitive construction".) Why then should these clauses have reduced in frequency? There are probably several contributing factors, all of which have served to reinforce each other and weaken the correlation between PT morphology and narrative sequence, and to lower the frequency of PT clauses overall. The end result of this weakening is a markedness reversal, so that the "prototypical" transitive narrative clause in Modern Indonesian is AT rather than PT. While two-argument PT clauses are still associated with eventiveness, it is a much more restricted kind: it is characterized by a continuous A operating on a series of different (discontinuous) Ps. In a related development, V > Τ constituent order has to a great extent lost its association with eventiveness, both in transitive and in intransitive clauses. Rather, the informational status of the trigger is more important in determining its position, the main consideration being that new triggers follow the predicate and other triggers precede it. In the following sections, I will outline some grammatical changes which have led to the reduction in PT syntax and in V > T constituent order, and then discuss in further detail the function of PT syntax in Modern Indonesian.

4.3.1. Grammatical developments What, then, is "the function of PT morphology in Modern Indonesian? Eventiveness plays a role, as it did in Classical Malay; however, that role has been reduced, to varying degrees in different authors. For most authors, a) many eventive clauses are not PT; and b) many PT clauses are not highly eventive. These developments are both due to the fact that in

Chapter 4

163

Modern Indonesian, the informational status of the arguments plays a much larger role in determining both constituent order and trigger choice. Connected with the loss of akan as a Ρ marker, there are clauses which would have been morphologically transitive but which are now treated as intransitive. This reduces the number of clauses eligible for PT coding. The use of a PT clause with no agent expression in order to "suppress" an obvious or uninteresting agent has become widespread. This is essentially a Modern Indonesian innovation; while the agentless PT clause existed in Classical Malay, it was very rare. The PT V > Τ clause type has become limited to clauses with a maximally anaphoric A. Thus, this clause type is not available for clauses with full NP As. These changes will be discussed in the following three sections.

4.3.1.1. The loss of akan Akan (as a preposition) no longer marks a Ρ which is a recipient or goal. The Ρ in a PT clause can never take a preposition, and other recipients or goals are marked with pada or kepada 'to'. Akan is usually used to mark the complements (usually NP complements, but also clauses) of AT verbs of psychological process, and also of psychological adjectives and nouns. (315)

(316)

Ja teringat akan anaknya 3P T E R : r e m e m b e r A K A N child:3P 'She w a s r e m i n d e d of her child'

(SrS)

la kenal betul akan I tali 3P know true A K A N Italy 'She really knew Italy' (GA:0135)

While some of the arguments marked with akan in Classical Malay can be coded by a direct, unmarked Ρ in Modern Indonesian (especially where the verb is suffixed with -i or -kan), many others must be coded as obliques. Therefore, with akan no longer functioning as a Ρ marker, there should be fewer arguments which are eligible for coding as P, and thus fewer morphologically transitive clauses. Text counts bear this out dramatically: over all my data, 42% of the Classical Malay clauses were transitive (AT or PT), while only 23% of the Modern Indonesian clauses were transitive. Of course, differences in the subject matter of the texts may have something to do with this difference; however, a qualitative evaluation which compares the transitivity of clauses with the same or

164

Chapter 4

similar predicates reveals several examples in which a Classical Malay transitive clause with akan corresponds to an intransitive clause in Modem Indonesian. In the following pair of sentences, for instance, the goal of the verb pandang 'look' is marked with akan in Classical Malay and with pada in Modern Indonesian; however, the Classical Malay clause is treated as transitive, and the verb has the di- prefix, while the Modern Indonesian clause is treated as intransitive, and the verb has the mengprefix. (317)

Maka dipandang oleh perdana menteri akan Indraputra LNK DIrlook by prime minister AKAN Indraputra 'The prime minister looked at Indraputra' (Mul:5316)

(318)

Inspektur itu memandang ρ ad any a. inspector that MENG:look to:3P 'The inspector looked at him' (SDJ)

In Modern Indonesian, it is possible to code the goal of pandang as a direct (P) argument, with or without the suffix -i on the verb; however, if the goal is marked as oblique, the clause must be treated as intransitive, and the prefix must be meng-.4*

4.3.1.2. One-argument patient-trigger clauses In Modern Indonesian, the "agentless" or one-argument PT clause has become much more common than it was in Classical Malay. Of the 49 PT clauses in the Lubis text, 29 (almost 60%) had no expressed agent. Among the hikayat, on the other hand, only 7 PT clauses out of 157 (4%) had no expressed agent. Like two-argument clauses, the one-argument PT clauses of Modern Indonesian can easily occur in either order, as the following figure (based on the Lubis data) shows:

Chapter 4 22

-

20

-

18

-

16

-

165

14 -

1 arg.

• V>T

2 args.

E3 T>V

Figure 19. Order and transitivity There are two kinds of agentless PT clause: (1) ones where the agent is unknown, generic or unimportant, and (2) ones where the agent is known or obvious. These are illustrated by the following two examples respectively: (319)

Di belakang jeriji besi semuanya diatur baginya. at behind grating iron all:3P DI:arrange for:3P 'Behind the iron bars everything was arranged for him-' (SDJ)

(320)

Tony tnengeluarkan rokok Lucky Strike, Tony MENG:take:out cigarette Lucky Strike dimasukkan DI:put:in

sebatang one:CL

ke mulutnya. to mouth:3P

'Tony took out a pack of Lucky Strikes, put one in his mouth.' (SDJ:L036)

The first type, those with unimportant agents, are often used in a stative sense; in this use they are very similar to stative ter- verbs. There is a slight difference in meaning: the di- verb makes it more explicit that

166

Chapter 4

the state is the result of an event of which the Ρ was an undergoer than the ter- verb does. However, the choice of prefix is often lexically determined. (321)

Di daerah at area

itu kini... that now

ditempatkan DI:place

pasukan troops

Diponegoro. Diponegoro

Di Tanjung terdapat sepeleton, at Tanjung TER:obtain one:platoon di Air Bayang sekompi, dan di Sasak sebatalyon. at Air Bayang one:company and at Sasak one:battalion 'In that area there were stationed Diponegoro troops. At Tanjung could be found a platoon, at Air Bayang a company, and at Sasak a battalion.' (Perg:P082.1)

None of the agentless PT forms is very transitive in the discourse sense, since they have only one argument. The Stative agentless PT clauses in particular often have V > Τ order and function like other intransitive presentatives. Therefore, the function of the agentless PT form will be discussed further below, in the section on intransitives. The prevalence of agentless PT clauses seems to reflect a change in the function of PT morphology: it seems that in Modem Indonesian the di- prefix may be selected in order to "suppress" the A. This brings the PT construction more into line with the "prototypical passive" as described in e.g. Langacker and Munro (1975), which is characterized primarily by the omissibility of the A. At the same time, it represents a radical change from Classical Malay, in which di- prefixation is strongly associated with high discourse transitivity, which in turn is associated with "two or more participants" and a "potent A". The question naturally arises, how were these "agentless" clauses expressed in Classical Malay, if not by the use of PT morphology? It is difficult to be exact here, in the absence of truly parallel texts; however, my impression is that the "incorporated agent" with orang was used for the generic or unknown A in Classical Malay. Compare the following examples: (322)

Maka hidangan nasi pun diangkat oranglah LNK serving rice PUN DI:carry person:LAH Ά serving of rice was brought' (MI)

(323)

Dia dibawa ke sebuah kamar di kantor polisi itu 3P DI:bring to one:CL room at office police that 'He was brought into a room in the police station' (SD J)

Chapter 4

167

In the case of statives, "non-controlled" intransitive predicates, monomorphemic or prefixed with ter-, may have been preferred to agentless PT clauses in Classical Malay.

4.3.1.3. The clitic-agent restriction As I mentioned in Chapter 3, there is a tendency for As of transitive clauses to be continuous; this is the "given A constraint" of Du Bois (1985). In Modern Indonesian this has been grammaticized, so that the only coding possibility for the A of an eventive PT clause is as a clitic pronoun. This restriction, however, only holds for eventive PT clauses. I will discuss the criteria for identifying these clauses further below. For the moment it is sufficient to note that of Modern Indonesian PT clauses, all the V > Τ ones but only some of the Τ > V ones are eventive. Therefore I will restrict my discussion in this section to PT V > T clauses, and generalize later. An examination of the V > T PT clauses in Modern Indonesian reveals a homogeneity of form which is almost startling by comparison to Classical Malay. As I showed in Chapter 3, there were 6 possible ways of coding V > Τ PT clauses with two arguments, if different orders and coding possibilities for the A were taken into account. Only one of these possibilities has survived into Modern Indonesian, and that is the pattern with a clitic A: di-V-nya Ρ or clitic-V P. Thus, there are no full-NP As in these clauses in Modern Indonesian.49 The following passage illustrates a typical use of these PT V > T clauses. (The A is underlined in these examples.) (324)

Setelah after

rambut hair

Hasnah disusunnya, Hasnah DI:arrange:3P

diambilnya cat bibir DI:take:3P paint lip

dari tasnya, from bag:3P

dan digincuriva. bibir and DI:lipstick:3P lip

Hasnah. Hasnah

'After she had arranged Hasnah's hair, she took lipstick from her bag and applied it to Hasnah's lips.' (SDJ)

168

Chapter 4

A similar pattern is also found with a proclitic rather than an enclitic A, although this is less common: as mentioned in Chapter 2, it is normal for a first or second person pronoun to be procliticized to a PT verb, replacing the di- prefix, while that pattern occurs much less frequently with third person pronouns. Thus, since most of my data consists of third person narrative, proclitic examples are relatively rare. When they do occur, however, they apparently function much like the di-V-nya Ρ clauses. (325)

Kupandangi IP:look:at

wajahnya face:3P

Kupandangi matanya IP:look:at eye:3P Kupandangi pucuk IP:look:at tip

yang merona merah. REL MENG:color red

yang REL

berkilat-kilat. BER:flash:2

hidungnya nose:3P

dengan bintik-bintik with speck:2

keringat sweat

di pucuknya. at tip:3P

'I gazed at her reddish face. I gazed at her flashing eyes. I gazed at the point of her nose with the droplets of sweat at the tip.' (Rong:R100.1) (326)

dan dalam pikirannya dia bayangkan LNK in thoughts:3P 3P imagine . Ies not BER:clothes 'In his thoughts he imagined Ies undressed'

(SDJ:L053)

As the examples illustrate, this clause type tends to occur when there is a temporally sequenced series of actions with the same agent: the continuity of the A is reflected in its coding as a clitic. This interesting restriction has not received much notice in the literature. Of the standard works on Indonesian and Malay grammar I have been able to consult, only MacDonald and Dardjowidjojo (1967) notice it. They characterize it as a "tendency", and state that the other possibilities (e.g. di-V A Ρ and di-V oleh A P) are grammatical; however, they give no text examples (which is significant since other constructions described in their book are thoroughly exemplified from texts). Rather, they put the non-occurrence of these forms down to the "ambiguity" that might arise if two full NPs are directly adjacent: the second NP might be parsed as a postmodifier (e.g. a possessor) of the first. Of course, there are many ways in which a writer could rule out such a reading in the few cases in

Chapter 4

169

which it would really be plausible; and in any case, as we have seen, Classical Malay contained many such clauses without giving rise to any real ambiguity. Kaswanti Purwo (forthcoming) relates this phenomenon to a more general restriction that in Indonesian only one-place predicates may occur in V > T order. If the cliticized agent is considered as part of the verb, these can be seen as single-argument constructions. While this is a very interesting observation, it still falls short of explanation. Why, for instance, can an AT clause with a clitic Ρ (also coded with -nya if third person) never occur in V > Τ order? To me, it seems most likely that the explanation for the restriction lies elsewhere, i.e. in a grammaticization of a discourse tendency: the "given A constraint" of Du Bois 1985, which suggests that As tend to be highly continuous. The fact that this grammaticization did not occur in Classical Malay is due to certain competing factors operating in the hikayat which led to the occasional use of other orders. In Classical Malay, the V > T PT clause can only occur when neither argument is resumptive. Thus, highly continuous As are the norm for this clause type too (91 % had been mentioned in the immediately preceding clause). They are often coded with the anaphoric agent clitic -nya (in fact, exactly 50% in my data are coded this way), but they are coded in other ways as well. This is not because a pronominal reference wouldn't be clear, but rather because the use of a name or a free pronoun gives the author a chance to use an honorific term or a title. Thus, baginda is preferred to -nya for royalty, and other titles or descriptive terms (e.g. Tuan Puteri Shahru 7Bariyah, Maharaja Bikrama Bispa etc.) are preferred for high-ranking individuals whether or not they are royal. This preference is inoperative in the modern Indonesian novel, and thus the number of cases in which there is any motivation to use a non-clitic agent expression where the agent is highly continuous is drastically reduced. Another factor leading to the use of non-clitic A expressions in Classical Malay is the use of non-referential orang 'person' to refer to an unimportant or nonspecific agent. This usage has been replaced by the simple omission of the A in similar contexts in Modern Indonesian (this will be discussed further below). Thus, the restriction of the A in PT V > T clauses to the clitic form can be seen as a natural consequence of the disappearance of two tendencies operating in the hikayat: for important personages to be coded with free forms, and for non-specific, unimportant As to be coded with orang instead of simply omitted. The disappearance of these competing factors has allowed the "given-A constraint" to be grammaticized in V > T

170

Chapter 4

clauses. It is not grammaticized in all PT clauses, however; there are T > V clauses with non-continuous (and hence non-clitic) A, such as the following: (327)

isteri Mandur Kasir selesai memanaskan wife Mandur Kasir finish MENG:heat

sayuran vegetables

di dapur, dan datang menyediakan makanan at kitchen and come MENG:prepare food Martil dan kotak paku diletakkan hammer and box nail DI:place

ke meja. to table

Abu dekat dinding Abu near wall

'Mandur Kasir's wife finished heating the vegetables in the kitchen, and came to lay out the food on the table. Abu placed the hammer and box of nails by the wall' (SDJ)

This kind of example shows that the clitic-A constraint holds only for V > T clauses. Two different (but not necessarily incompatible) explanations suggest themselves for this fact: a) the given A constraint holds most reliably in highly eventive contexts, so it applies most consistently in V > T clauses; and perhaps b) the resulting disappearance of two-place clauses with V > T order paved the way for reanalysis as Kaswanti Purwo's "one-place predicate constraint" on V > T clauses. Evaluation of the validity of Kaswanti Purwo's proposal is difficult in the absence of further evidence, because under my interpretation the patterns observed in the corpus can be explained without reference to any such generalization, although of course they are not incompatible with it.50 In this section I have shown that one aspect of the reduction of V > T syntax in PT clauses is the restriction of that order from eventive clauses in general to the narrower class of eventive clauses with a clitic A.

4.3.2. Eventiveness and patient-trigger syntax At this point, we can return to the question of the degree to which PT morphology is still associated with "eventiveness" in Modern Indonesian, and the related question of the degree to which constituent order and PT morphology interact. It seems that a range of phenomena similar to those classed as "eventiveness" in Classical Malay still plays an important role in selecting PT morphology for some authors, but, as we will see, the correlation isn't nearly as consistent and reliable as it was.

Chapter 4

171

To evaluate the claim that PT clauses are eventive, we can examine other linguistic characteristics of these clauses which are associated with eventiveness. We will see that unlike AT clauses, PT clauses tend to state an event (with its participants) and nothing else, circumstantial details such as manner, evaluation, and temporal setting having been established in a previous section of the episode. Thus, the two-argument PT clauses tend to be shorter than other two-argument clauses, with a minimum of prepredicate material aside from the frequent use of a sequencing linker. The following are some of the ways in which this difference is manifested (counts are given below, in Figure 20): Sequencing: In Classical Malay, we found that a high proportion of PT clauses were marked by the sequencing linker maka. This particular correlation no longer exists, since the meaning of media has narrowed from a more general one of temporal sequence to a more specific one of logical consequence.51 However, the use of other linkers such as dan and lalu to connect temporally sequenced clauses has become more widespread, and has partially replaced maka. And in fact, PT clauses prefer this type of linker. Adverbial material: The occurrence of prepredicate time adverbials is associated with non-sequenced clauses, because it expresses a change or discontinuity in reference time. Sequenced events are continuous, and as such typically take their reference time from a previous event. PT clauses have fewer time adverbials than do AT clauses.52 Temporal mode: For similar reasons, PT clauses tend not to contain temporal modal elements such as sudah or telah '(have) already', masih 'still', akan 'will, would', pernah 'ever', terus 'continue, keep on', sedang 'progressive'; these function to mark a clause as being either nonpunctual or off the event line in one way or another. Reality: Realis mode is associated with high transitivity. PT clauses typically do not contain negation or other epistemic modal elements such as mungkin 'possible', dapat or bisa 'can, be able', harus or mesti 'must', boleh 'may'. The following figure compares the occurrence of prepredicate nonargument material for the two-argument clauses (PT and AT) from the connected text data in Senja di Jakarta. "Modality" includes both temporal and epistemic modals.

172

Chapter 4

29

20

14

linker

time

• PT (%) Figure 20. Linkers and voice

modality

other adv.

nothing

Β AT (%)

4.3.2.1. Stylistic considerations Overall, the event-line clause as characterized above, with its concomitant brevity, is much rarer in Modern Indonesian novels than in the hikayat. Most clauses in the hikayat fall on the event line of the narrative; relatively little attention is paid to the "evaluative" component, that is, descriptions of persons and places, statements of the habitual or usual state of affairs (by which the narrated events may stand out by contrast), and "flashbacks" and "flashes forward" which temporarily derail the narrative sequence. While descriptive passages do exist, they are relatively few and far between, and they are also separate and distinct from the surrounding eventive passages. While modern novelists engage in description and evaluation to varying degrees, virtually all of them present quite a lot more evaluative material than do any of the hikayat; and the description and evaluation tends to be woven in with the narrative to a great degree. For instance, we can compare two passages, one from the Hikayat Indraputra describing a feast, and one from Senja di Jakarta describing two men drinking tea together.

Chapter 4 (328)

173

Maka hidangan nasi pun diangkat oranglah. Maka Raja Tahir Johan Syah pun santaplah. Maka Nobat Rom Syah pun santap dua orang sehidangan. Maka segala menteri dan hulubalang bentara sekalian pun makanlah pada hidangannya. Setelah sudah makan maka minuman pula diangkat orang. Maka piala yang bertatahkan ratna mutu maknikam itu pun diperedarkan oranglah. Setelah bunga selasih mabuknya maka biduan yang baik suaranya itu pun bernyanyilah berbagai lagu, masing-masing melakukan kesukaannya. Ά banquet was brought. Raja Tahir Johan Syah ate. Nobat Rom Syah ate from the same dish. All the ministers and courtiers ate from the dish. After they had eaten drinks were brought too. A goblet which was studded with jewels of all kinds was passed around. After everyone was drunk singers with beautiful voices sang various songs, and everyone enjoyed themselves.' (MI)

(329)

Dia duduk ke meja bersama Mandur Kasir yang menuangkan teh panas ke daleuit cangkir, menyendokkan gula pasir hati-hati dari kaleng bekas mentega ke cangkir. Dan kemudian mereka berdua menghirup teh tidak berkatakata. Dia sudah hendak memulai percakapan, dan duduk saja diam-diam, kedua tangannya memegang cangkir teh yang panas. 'He sat down at the table with Mandur Kasir who poured hot tea into the cups, carefully spooning sugar from an old butter can into the cups. Then they both sipped tea without talking. He wanted to begin a conversation, but just sat silently, his two hands holding the cup of hot tea.' (SDJ)

The passage from the hikayat is presented as a series of events. While there is some description (of the goblet and the voices of the singers), it is in relative clauses; the main clauses carry the sequence of events. In the passage from the novel, on the other hand, the sequence of events is subordinated to the creation of an impression of awkwardness and constraint. In fact, most of the sequence of events (sitting, pouring tea, adding sugar, drinking) is expressed in a relative clause, while the main clauses mostly convey evaluative material, expressed by irrealis mode (hendak memulai percakapan 'wanted to begin a conversation', tidak berkata-kata 'not speaking'): one expects people to talk over tea, but these two men aren't talking, from which we infer that there is some awkwardness. This subordination of narration to evaluation is typical of modern novels; thus, there are relatively few passages that are purely eventive in the way most of a hikayat is.

174

Chapter 4

Even in passages in novels which are primarily eventive, the degree to which eventiveness evokes PT morphology varies widely between authors. The conservative author Alisjahbana, for instance, still has more PT transitive clauses than AT ones, and uses very few agentless PT clauses; thus, high transitivity is -still very strongly correlated with PT morphology for him. He also very regularly uses V > T order in these clauses, unless the trigger has just been mentioned in the previous clause, in which case it precedes the verb and is usually marked with the determiner itu. At the other end of the range is Wildan Yatim, who had only three two-argument V > T PT clauses in approximately 100 pages. This author makes frequent use of one-argument V > T PT clauses in the presentative function, and in fact even the two-argument V > T PT clauses he uses have a presentative flavor, the Ρ being in all cases new: (330)

Kepada Mukti dia ulurkan sebuah nangka kecil. to Mukti 3P pass one:CL jackfruit small 'He passed Mukti a small jackfruit' (Perg)

The other authors all fall in the middle. The tendency for them is to use two-argument PT clauses only when there is a series of actions performed by the same agent on different patients. However, even this environment may not always elicit PT morphology, and it seems that there is an additional stylistic association between the PT V > Τ clause type and episodic peak or climax, the feeling being of vividness or immediacy. For instance, the passage from Mochtar Lubis's Senja di Jakarta given above in example 324 is part of a longer passage consisting almost entirely of a temporally sequenced set of actions performed by one agent on a series of different patients. However, only the middle section has PT morphology. (Since I have not provided interlinear glosses in the following passage, I have underlined the triggers in both languages.) (331)

Dahlia memegang rambut Hasnah, mengambil sisir, dan asyik mengerjakan rambut Hasnah. Mula-mula Hasnah membantah, akan tetapi tidak diperdulikan Dahlia. Setelah rambut Hasnah disusunnya, diambilnya cat bibir dari tasnya, dan digincunya bibir Hasnah. Pia mengambil kaca dari dinding, memegang kaca di depan Hasnah, dan berkata, "Nah, lihat, kan cantik?" 'Dahlia grasped Hasnah's hair, took a comb, and zealously did Hasnah's hair. At first Hasnah rebelled, but (she) was ignored by Dahlia. After she had arranged Hasnah's hair, she took lipstick from her bag and painted Hasnah's lips. She took a mirror from the wall, held the mirror before Hasnah, and said, "Now, look, aren't you pretty?"' (SDJ:L048)

Chapter 4

175

The PT clauses can be characterized as the climactic portion of this episode, while both the beginning and the conclusion are AT. In the following passage, the use of PT morphology is typical of the writings of Umar Kayam. It conveys a sense of urgency, and often, in other passages, of passion. PT morphology is used here even though several of the events are not punctual, and one (dibiarkannya, 'allow') is not even realis. (332)

Tetapi semakin sore semakin mulai merasa gelisah d i a . ... Dan pada waktu mandi itu dia menyikat giginya lama sekall hingga diulangnya berkali-kali. Badannya digosok berkali-kali dengan sabun dan air panas itu. Diciumnya kulit tubuhnva berkali-kali. Pada waktu selesai mandi dia buru-buru pergi ke dal am kamar mau berganti baju. 'The later it got, the more she felt nervous... While she was washing she brushed her teeth for a very long time, even repeating (it) several times. She rubbed her body over and over with soap and hot water. She sniffed her skin over and over. When finished bathing she hurriedly went into her bedroom to change clothes.' (SrS)

In this kind of passage, we can see how the "stripped-down" V > T PT clause, with its minimal use of prepredicate elements, may be iconically related to a series of events performed in quick succession by a single agent; the brevity of the clause allows the reader to move more quickly from one clause to the next. In conclusion, then, we can state that a parameter very similar to what was characterized as "eventiveness" for Classical Malay is still relevant to the selection of PT morphology in Modern Indonesian; however, in modern novels the use of PT morphology in these environments is less automatic than it was in the hikayat, that is, more a matter of presentation than of simple response to a discourse environment.

4.3.2.2. Information status of the patient In Classical Malay, V > T constituent order in transitive clauses was associated with the di- prefix. As we have already seen, this is no longer the case in Modern Indonesian. If we only consider two-argument PT clauses, for instance, the Lubis data has 9 V > T PT clauses to 11 T > V PT clauses. What then determines the difference in constituent order?

176

Chapter 4

The answer seems to be that this clause type is elicited by a marked distribution of information between the A and the P. The normal situation in a transitive clause is for the A to be human, topical and referential, while the Ρ is inanimate, discontinuous and possibly non-referential. This distribution gives rise to the frequent patterns: A meng-V P, or if the clause is being treated as especially eventive, di-V-nya P. However, occasionally there are disturbances to this pattern, and we get non-referential A, or topical Ρ (I will explain below what I mean by "topical" here). These discourse environments give rise to a preverbal P, which then forces the clause to have PT morphology much the way a pun Ρ forced PT morphology on a Classical Malay clause. Thus, although some of these clauses may be eventive, they may not all be; the eventiveness is not what leads to PT morphology. The clauses with topical Ρ are reminiscent of PT pun clauses in Classical Malay. Indeed, the discourse environment which gives rise to preverbal Ρ is similar to the pun environment of "resumptive topic", but it is not quite the same. It seems rather to be best characterized in two distinct cases: a) the Ρ has just been mentioned in the immediately previous clause, or b) the Ρ has been mentioned several clauses back and needs recalling. Both of these cases, like most pun environments, refer to types of continuity; but neither refers to the crucial factor for pun, namely the presence of referential competition or unexpectedness. These two cases are illustrated in the following two examples: (333)

Dia berlari ke pintu. 3P BER:run to door 'He ran to the door. open.' (SDJ)

(334)

Mandur Kasir memandang padanya Mandur Kasir MENG:look to:3P dan kemudian and then

Pintu didorongnya dan terbuka door DI:push:3P and open He pushed the door and it came

menyerahkan martil dan kotak MENG:surrender hammer and box

Martil dan kotak paku diletakkan hammer and box nail DI:place di sebelah at side

sebentar, a:moment paku... nail

Abu dekat dinding, Abu near wall

lemari. cupboard

'Mandur Kasir looked at him a moment, and then surrendered the hammer and box of nails. [Abu set to work to repair the unsteady chair. But when he was done, he went on to repair the three other chairs, so that when he was finished hammering the fourth chair Mandur Kasir's wife had finished heating up the vege-

Chapter 4

177

tables in the kitchen, and came to lay out the food on the table.] Abu put the hammer and box of nails near the wall, next to the cupboard.' (SDJ)

Unlike V > T PT clauses, which only occur with clitic A, the T > V PT clause may have any kind of A expression. The two examples just given illustrate the clitic A and the bare A respectively. An oleh A may also occur if the A is new or fairly discontinuous. (335)

Hilangnya loss:3P

cahaya light

matahari sun

telah PFV

dinanti DIsawait

oleh kelelawar. OLEH bat 'The loss of the daylight was awaited by the bats.' (Rong)

The Ρ di-V A clause type is fairly rare among transitive clauses (especially if compared, for instance, to the A meng-V Ρ clause type) because Ps (since they tend to be inanimate) are rarely as continuous as As. Moreover, Ps which may in fact be fairly continuous are not always coded that way, because frequently they aren't particularly important; even though they may refer to specific objects, the speaker does not expect the hearer to be keeping track of them. They are "conflated objects" in the sense of Du Bois (1980). Thus, the mat in the following example is a postpredicate Ρ twice in a row, even though in both cases it has been referred to in the immediately preceding clause.53 (336)

Mandur Kasir keluar memhawa gulungan Mandur Kasir come:out MENG:bring roll

tikar, mat

dan kain, dan Mandur Kasir berkata padanya, and cloth and Mandur Kasir BER:say to:3P "Kalau saudara if Mr. Ini tikar this mat

Abu audah Abu PFV

dan kain." and cloth

dan membentang tikar and MENG:spread mat

letih, tired

tidurlah dahulu. sleep:LAH first

Dia menerima tikar 3P MENG:accept mat

dan kain, and cloth

dekat lemari. near cupboard

'Mandur Kasir came out carrying a rolled-up mat and a sarong, and said to him, "If you're tired, go ahead and sleep. Here's a mat and cloth." He accepted the mat and cloth, and spread out the mat near the cupboard. ' (SDJ)

178

Chapter 4

The treatment of the mat and cloth in this passage is very different from the treatment of the hammer in example 334 above, which is taken from the same episode. This is because the hammer becomes quite significant later, when Abu (who is a recently released convict) uses it to kill Mandur Kasir and his wife and child. Thus, this hammer is tracked with more attention than is usually accorded an inanimate object; in fact, it is coded as a prepredicate Ρ three times. The care with which it is coded and tracked leads the reader to feel (with good justification) that it will have some significance later, somewhat like the effect in a film when the camera dwells a little too long on some apparently insignificant object. The other kind of environment mentioned at the beginning of this section as giving rise to PT T > V clauses was the non-referential A. These examples are very like the incorporated-A examples with orang of Classical Malay, and indeed have some similarity to the agentless PT clauses of Modern Indonesian. (337)

(338)

ketika desa mereka diserbu gerombolan when village 3P1 DI:invade bandits 'when their village was attacked by bandits'

(SDJ)

seakan orang sakit sedang diserang malaria as:if person sick PROG DI:attack malaria 'as if a sick person were being attacked by malaria' (SDJ)

Due to the comparative rarity of the predicate suffix lah in modern novels it is not as easy to make the case for V-A combinations such as those illustrated above as a single "word" as it was in Classical Malay. However, it should be noted that there is a collocational relationship between verb and agent; that is, 'invasion of bandits' and 'attack of malaria' are typical ways of expressing what are very likely unitary concepts. This type of mention (as a bare postverbal agent) does not license "tracking" — further mentions cannot be achieved anaphorically — and thus such nouns can be treated as not involving "reference" at all (c.f. Du Bois 1980).

4.3.3. Summary: trigger choice and constituent order There are several distinct factors which have been claimed in the above sections to determine trigger choice and constituent order in Modern Indonesian. These are summed up below. Since for most writers AT morphology and T > V order are very much more frequent than any other

Chapter 4

179

transitive clause type, I will express these generalizations in terms of factors that give rise to the "marked" cases, i.e. V > T order and PT morphology. Some of these factors are "optional" or stylistically governed. External trigger clauses. The reader will recall from Chapter 2 that an external argument must be trigger; thus a clause will have PT morphology if the Ρ is either the pivot (shared with the previous clause) or marked with pun. Due to the loss of pun, the class of external triggers in Modern Indonesian includes only secondary clauses in clause combinations involving argument sharing; this includes relative clauses and serial verb constructions. Since the trigger does not occur within the clause, the question of trigger/predicate order is not relevant for these clauses. Agentless and generic agent PT clauses. These have PT morphology. When they are statives functioning presentatively (with a new P; this case will be discussed below in the section on presentatives), they may have V > T order; otherwise they have T > V order. In other words, they are never classed with eventives, presumably because they have inherently low transitivity. Topical Ρ clauses. These are clauses whose Ρ has been mentioned in the immediately previous clause, or several clauses back, and is of some importance. They have T > V order and PT morphology. Eventive clauses. These are transitive clauses with a continuous A coded as a clitic and non-topical P, associated stylistically with episodic climax or narrative tension. They are always PT and V > T , in the third person usually found in the pattern di-V-nya P. We will now turn our attention to constituent order in intransitive clauses.

4.4. Intransitive clauses In Classical Malay, there were three factors which elicited V > T order in intransitive clauses. These were high eventiveness, presentative function and semantically uncontrolled predicate. In this section, I shall show that in Modern Indonesian, eventiveness plays a reduced role (just as we saw in the case of transitives), while control plays no role at all. Therefore, the large majority of intransitive V > T clauses are presentative in function. The class of presentatives, on the other hand, is more diverse in

180

Chapter 4

Modern Indonesian novels than it was in Classical Malay hikayat, admitting of a wider range of predicates in the same function. Finally, there is a new class of V > Τ clauses which has emerged in Modern Indonesian, having formerly been a subtype of the "uncontrolled" clause type. This is the class of adjectivals or descriptive predicates, which (especially in exclamations) have retained their tendency to precede their argument.

4.4.1. Constituent order and eventiveness In intransitive clauses, the use of lah and V > T order to mark eventive predicates is still in evidence, but it has diminished considerably. For instance, in the sample of connected text taken from Senja di Jakarta, there were 152 ST clauses. Of these, 18 had V > T order; but only one of these had lah. Among the 323 V > T ST clauses in my entire database, 39 (or 12%) were marked with lah, as compared to 48% of ST V > T clauses in Classical Malay. I will argue that this reduction does not simply signify the "dropping" of lah in eventive predicates, but rather that eventiveness (which, I will claim, is still marked by lah) has diminished in importance relative to other functions of V > Τ order in intransitives. Lah clauses share with V > Τ PT clauses a preference for a minimal amount of prepredicate material. Of the 39 lah clauses in my database, 23 (or 59%) were predicate-initial. Among the others, there were 14 sequencing linkers, 10 time expressions, 2 place expressions, 1 adverbial linker and 1 temporal auxiliary preceding the predicate (some clauses had prepredicate material in more than one category). There were no negatives, modals, or manner adverbials. These facts provide support for the claim that like PT V > Τ clauses, lah clauses are "eventive" in the sense of being realis and sequenced. However, as with transitive clauses, not all intransitive clauses which meet these criteria are coded with lah and V > Τ order; there are other stylistic and semantic considerations as well. For most modern authors, lah occurs primarily in the function of marking a change of state. Thus, it almost always occurs with predicates which would otherwise have a stative interpretation: (339)

Dan terlrislah hati Saimun tiada kepalang LNK TER:slice:LAH heart Saimun extraordinarily mendengar ini MENG:hear this 'Saimun's heart was cut to the quick to hear this'

(SDJ:L208)

Chapter 4 (340)

181

Tahulah dia bahwa semalam ada orang tidur know:LAH he that yesterday be person sleep dan masak di situ. and cook at there 'He knew that yesterday someone had slept and cooked there' (Perg:P085)

(341)

Kemudian then

duduklah mereka di satu korsi rotan sit:LAH 3P1 at one chair rattan

yang sudah setengah reyot. REL PFV one:half decrepit 'Then they sat down in a broken-down rattan chair' (MG:S169)

When lah occurs with an inherently eventive predicate, there is usually a connotation of suddenness or abruptness. Eventive predicates with lah are often motion verbs which also serve as presentatives. This provides a double motivation for the V > Τ order in these clauses. (342)

Beberapa several

menit kemudian, minute after

muncullah Sutan Parlindungan. appear:LAH Sutan Parlindungan 'Several minutes later, Sutan Parlindungan appeared' (Perg:P020.1) (343)

Kemudian then datanglah come:LAH

beberapa several

bulan sesudah month after

itu that

waktu yang selalu ditakutkan time REL always DI:fear

Sri Sri

'Then, several months later, came the time that Sri had always been afraid of' (SrS:S018)

Lah occurs with a transitive predicate even more rarely in Modern Indonesian than in Classical Malay. The only example I have from the four more modern authors involves an agentless PT clause, which in any case is not highly transitive:

182 (344)

Chapter 4 dan pada kesempatan pertama LNK at opportunity first

dikirimkanlah DI:send:LAH

dia 3P

ke luar negeri bekerja. to outside country BER:work 'and at the first opportunity, he was sent abroad to work' (SDJ)

Only the most conservative of the authors I looked at, S. Takdir Alisjahbana, ever uses lah in a PT clause which has an overt agent, as in the following example; the more modern authors do not use lah in this kind of context. (345)

Pada waktu itu ditariknyalah tali yang at time that DI:pull:3P:LAH rope REL

menuju MENG:aim

ke dal am gua itu to inside cave that 'Then he pulled the rope that led into the cave' (GA)

Thus, we see that for modern authors lah only occurs in fairly marked situations. The usual order for intransitive eventive clauses is Τ > V . If we compare a highly eventive passage from the Sejarah Melayu with a highly eventive passage from Senja di Jakarta, the difference is clear. The hikayat passage is characterized by V > T order and the use of lah, while the contemporary novel has only T > V order and no lah. (346)

Maka setelah LNK after

bertemulah antara kedua pihak BER:meet:LAH between both side

maka segala rakyat lalu berperanglah LNK all troops then BER:war:LAH

terlalu very

itu, that ramai... lively

Maka alahlah Raja Kida Hindi itu oleh Raja Iskandar LNK lose:LAH Raja Kida Hindi that OLEH Raja Iskandar 'After the two sides met, all the troops fought very energetically.·. Then Raja Kida Hindi was beaten by Raja Iskandar.' (SM:0415)

Chapter 4 (347)

Perempuan woman

itu mendorongnya, that MENG:push:3P

bayi itu MEHAHGIS... baby that MENG:cry jatuh ke lantai. fall to floor

dan mereka and they

183

bergulat, BER:wrestle

Isteri Mandur Kasir tersentak wife Mandur Kasir TER:jerk

Bayi lepas dari pelukannya, baby free from embrace:3P

menangis di lantai. MENG:cry at floor 'The woman pushed him, and they wrestled, the baby cried... Mandur Kasir's wife jerked to the floor. The baby, freed from her embrace, cried on the floor.' (SDJ)

This reduction in the use of V > Τ order and lah to mark eventiveness in intransitives is presumably connected with the erosion of the association between V > Τ order and eventiveness, which is also manifested in transitive clauses. However, "eventiveness" necessarily has a different connotation in transitive and intransitive clauses in Modern Indonesian, since in the case of transitive clauses it is connected with continuity of the A, which is not relevant in intransitive clauses; while in the case of intransitive clauses it is connected with distinguishing state from change of state, which is not relevant in transitive clauses. Thus, while "high eventiveness" was a fairly uniform category in Classical Malay, it has "come apart" in Modern Indonesian, so that it has a different characterization depending on the verb.

4.4.2. Presentativeness The large majority of one-argument Τ > V clauses in Modern Indonesian have a presentative function. While this function also existed in Classical Malay, it was of relatively minor importance; in Modern Indonesian it is more important relative to other functions of V > T clauses, and more diverse in form. Not only does a wider range of verb roots occur in this construction, but some morphologically "transitive" forms (the agentless PT clauses, and even perhaps some two-argument PT clauses) are used presentatively. I have already discussed the cross-linguistic characteristics of presentative clauses in Chapter 3. To review: the predicate tends to be intransitive, and to precede its argument; an adverbial (often one of location) tends to precede the predicate; the construction may be limited to the

184

Chapter 4

narrow range of predicates which are semantically suited to the introduction of a new participant; and the participant presented must be of some importance in the following discourse, i.e. "cataphoric" or "persistent". The set of clauses I will be discussing in this section is defined by satisfying the first two criteria (intransitive VS clauses); I will provide evidence that all the other criteria except for the persistence criterion, also apply to these clauses. This criterion did apply to presentatives in Classical Malay, and I will argue that its non-application in Modern Indonesian is due to genre differences rather than functional difference or change. Semantically, Modern Indonesian presentatives tend to fall into three classes, which can be described as "place", "movement", and "perception" presentatives. The first two classes have already been discussed in relation to the hikayat; the third has more importance in modern novels. These classes can be distinguished by their relationship to the "scene" of Payne (1985). Place presentatives introduce a participant with a predicate which describes its position with respect to the scene, or simply its presence on the scene; thus, they are associated with semantically stative predicates. Movement presentatives introduce a participant with a predicate which describes how the participant comes onto the scene; thus, they are associated with translative motion verbs and with verbs of coming into being. Perception presentatives introduce a participant via the senses of a protagonist; they are associated with verbs of potential perception and verbs of sound, appearance etc.

4.4.2.1. Place presentatives While, as suggested above, place and movement presentatives have certain similarities, they are clearly semantically distinct; and because of this distinction, they can be shown to have a different relation to texi structure. Place presentatives are associated with points in the text when the reader's perspective moves into a new scene (often accomplished by the movement of a protagonist); at these points, the scene is usually described, and the things that are already present there are introduced. Thus, these presentatives tend to cluster at scene boundaries, or at "episode boundaries" if episode is locationally characterized. Predicates typical with this construction are predicates of posture or position: ada 'exist, be present', duduk 'sit', dipasang 'be fastened', tumbuh 'grow'.

Chapter 4

185

(348)

Di atas kubah ada ukiran bulan sabit dan bintang at above cupola ADA carving moon crescent and star 'Above the cupola there was a carved crescent moon and stars' (Perg)

(349)

Sepanjang along

dinding wall

duduk sit

bersila cross-legged

kaum bapak dan pemuda group father and youth sedang dekat pintu ke dapur duduk while near door to kitchen sit atau menganjurkan or stick:out

rukuk lean:forward

kaki kaum ibu dan gadis. feet group mother and girl

'Along the wall the men and boys sat cross-legged while near the kitchen door the women and girls sat leaning forward or sticking out their feet.' (Perg:P042)

Because place presentatives are frequently used to introduce inanimate objects in descriptions of scenes, and inanimates are rarely viewed as actors, semantically non-controlled verbs are strongly favored in this context. Both di- and ter- (in its stative sense, as in e.g. terletak 'be located' or tergantung 'hang, be hanging') frequently turn up in place presentatives. (350)

Di dinding at wall

di hadapannya at facing:3P

sebuah portret one:CL photo

tergantung TER:hang

keluarga. family

'On the wall in front of him hung a family portrait.' (SDJ:L093) (351)

Di samping at beside

pintu rumah merekapun door house 3Pl:PUN

tanda palang sign bar

hitam, black

dipasang DI:fasten

dan nama bapak serta nama anak and name father and name son

di bawahnya. at under:3Ρ 'Beside the door of their house was fastened the sign of the black bar, and the name of the father and his son under it.' (Perg:P089)

It is with the place presentatives that the tendency for a sentenceinitial place adverbial is strongest; usually, the presented participants are

186

Chapter 4

spatially located with respect to the scene. This can be thought of as a way of "anchoring" the presented participant with respect to what the reader knows about, or, in Chafe's terms, providing a "guidepost" (Chafe 1984).54 Sometimes the predicate itself is a place prepositional phrase, which serves simultaneously as an anchor and as a locative predicate: (352)

Di sebelah hilir lapangan at side downstream field

barisan line

pegawai negeri, official country

termasuk guru. including teacher 'At the bottom of the field was the line of civil servants, including the teacher.' (Perg:P099.1)

4.4.2.2. Movement presentatives In the case of movement presentatives, the reader's perspective is stationary, as new items move into the scene and are introduced. Movement presentatives are much less distinct in their formal characteristics from ordinary intransitive predicates than are place presentatives. They are not associated with any particular text-structural break, and there is often no need for locational anchoring: the scene has already been set. Thus, they may be eventive as well as presentative, and be marked with lah, as we have already seen in examples 342 and 343 above.55 Their triggers are usually humans and actors. The verbs most commonly used in this type of presentative are the unprefixed motion verbs; these include datang 'come', tiba and sampai 'arrive', masuk 'enter', and muncul 'appear'. (353)

Kemudian datang tiga orang perempuan. then come three CL woman x Then three women came.' (Rong:R054)

As the following example shows, the "movement" referred to here is not always literal movement. Changes which can be metaphorically viewed as involving movement, such as the passage of time, can take presentative syntax too:

Chapter 4 (354)

Kalau when kepala head

tiba waktu makan mereka pergi arrive time eat 3P1 go kampung atau yang sedang village or REL PROG

dan menerima pembagian and MENG:receive share

187

ke rumah to house

kosong, empty

nasi bungkus. rice package

'When mealtime arrived, they would go to the village head's house or one which was empty at the moment, and receive a box lunch.' (Perg:P085.1)

Similarly, clauses which describe the coming into being of a new situation (usually with the verb terjadi, 'happen') also frequently occur with presentative-type syntax in Modern Indonesian. These clauses can be thought of as metaphorically involving the introduction of a new participant. (355)

Tapi menjelang babak ketiga terjadi kegaduhan. but towards number third TER:happen commotion 'But towards the end of the third number a commotion occurred.' (Rong:R071)

Another very common class of presentative clauses involves the emergence of an emotion, typically with the verb timbul 'arise'. In Indonesian novels, this seems to be a standard way to talk about many psychological processes. This can be thought of as kind of "coming into being" clause, often anchored to an individual with the preverbal phrase dalam hatinya 'in his/her heart (lit. liver)' or dalam pikirannya 'in his/her thoughts'. 56 (356)

Dalam hatinya timbul cemooh terhadap Halim. in heart:3P arise scorn towards Halim 'And in his heart arose scorn for Halim.' (SDJ:L145)

4.4.2.3. Verbs of perception There is another set of verbs which very frequently occur in V > T clauses, but which seem to be ambivalent between the one-argument class of V > T verbs (which I have been referring to as "presentatives") and the two-argument class (which have the "sequencing" function). These are the verbs of perception. Indonesian verbs of perception can be divided into classes according to two semantic features. The first distinction is between active and inactive, according to whether the experiencer is voli-

188

Chapter 4

tionally involved in the act of perception, as in the contrast between "look at" and "see" in English. The second distinction is between actual and potential, according to whether there is an actual experiencer involved, as in the contrast between "be seen" and "be visible" in English. Out of the four possible combinations of these two features, three actually occur in my data: active/actual, inactive/actual, and inactive/potential. Of these, only the last category fits naturally into the class of presentative verbs. While the "actual" perception verbs often occur with V > T order, they are invariably transitive in the sense of having two participants — although they have low discourse transitivity in the sense of Hopper and Thompson (1980), since the A (in this case, an experiencer) is usually not volitional and the Ρ (the phenomenon) is never affected; and they frequently have the di-nya morphology (patient trigger with anaphoric agent) which is strongly associated with the "sequencing" function of V > T order. The inactive potential perception verbs, on the other hand, have a close resemblance to the semantic classes of presentatives discussed in the previous sections. They are intransitive; while they are patient-trigger, usually being associated with the ter- prefix (in its sense of "abilitative"; thus terdengar, from 'hear', means 'be audible', and terlihat, from 'see', means 'be visible'), there is no expressed agent. Like the place presentatives, they are stative, and like the movement presentatives, they are often used to bring a new participant into an already established scene. They make the reader aware of a new entity via the encroachment of that entity into what could be called the "perceptual space" of the scene; this can be thought of as another kind of metaphorical movement onto the scene. (357)

Di belakangnya terdengar gemersik daun para. at b e h i n d : 3 P TERrhear rustle leaf rubber 'Behind h i m could be h e a r d the rustle of rubber t r e e leaves.' (Perg:P025.1)

(358)

Pada at bibir lip

leher neck

Tono kemudian Tono t h e n

istrinya wife:3P

terasa basah-basah T E R : f e e l wet:2

mengusap-usap caress

dengan with

enaknya. ease:3P

O n T o n o ' s neck could be felt the w e t n e s s of his w i f e ' s lips caressing him languorously.' (MG:S156)

Chapter 4 (359)

Beberapa several

hari sebelum day before

telah terlihat PFV TER:see

terjadi malapetaka happen disaster

berbagai various

189

itu that

pertanda. sign

'Several days before the disaster occurred, various signs could already be seen.' (Rong:R045.1) (360)

Namun ketika but when

tercium bau bunga kenanga, TER:smell smell flower cananga

serta kuraba kulit tangan yang and lP:touchskin hand REL

halus, smooth

aku segera memastikan Srintil-lah orangnya. IP immediately MENG:determine Srintil:LAH person:3P 'But when I smelled (lit. was smellable) the scent of cananga and felt the smooth skin of the hand, I immediately ascertained that the person was Srintil.' (Rong:R062)

The inactive potential perception verbs are closely related to another set of verbs which commonly occurs in V > Τ clauses. These verbs appeal to the reader's vicarious perception by describing the appearance of an entity or the sound, smell, or feeling it produces, without making explicit reference to sense perception the way the verbs discussed above do. (361)

Di kebun para yang gelap berseru-seru mural senj'a. at garden rubber REL dark BER:call:2 magpie dusk 'In the dark rubber plantation the twilight magpies called repeatedly.' (Perg:P009.3)

(362)

kemilau cahayanya. glitter radiance:3P 'Its radiance shone' (of a gold coin placed on a table) (Rong:R113)

(363)

Nampaklah mega memerah di balik bukit appear:LAH cloud reddish at back hill 'Reddish clouds appeared behind the hills'

(364)

(Perg:P074)

Malam itu juga di telinga Mus masih terngiang night that also at ear Mus still TER:buzz penutup lagu cabul mereka. closing song obscene 3P1 'That night the end of their obscene song was still echoing in Mus' ears.' (KB:S289)

190

Chapter 4

The metaphorical relationship of these verbs to the entrance of a participant into the scene can be made explicit: (365)

Sebentar masih menerobos rengek a:moment still MENG:penetrate whine dan bisik ibu and whisper mother

bayi baby

menyabarkan. MENG:calm

'For a m o m e n t t h e w h i n e of a b a b y a n d t h e w h i s p e r of m o t h e r c o m f o r t i n g it s t i l l p e n e t r a t e d ' (the r o o m ) .

a

Thus, we have seen that the inactive potential perception verbs function presentatively in much the same way as verbs of place or motion.

4.4.2.4. Persistence and participant introduction The only crosslinguistic characteristic of presentative clauses which I found did not hold for the clauses I have been calling "presentative" in Modern Indonesian was the tendency for participants introduced in presentative clauses to be persistent, that is, recurrent in the ensuing narrative. Rather, intransitive V > T clauses in Indonesian novels often occur in descriptive passages in which atmospheric details of little or no importance to plot development are described, as in the following passage, which occurs near the beginning of the novel Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk: (366)

Pucuk-pucuk top:2

pohon tree

Daun kuning serta leaf y e l l o w and Gemersik rustle

rumpun clump

di pedukuhan at village ranting twig

bergoyang. BER:sway

jatuh. fall

bambu. bamboo

Berderit baling-baling BER:creak weathervane:2 yang REL

kering dry

sempit itu narrow that

bambu bamboo

dipasang anak gembala di t e p i a n Dukuh DI:fasten child shepherdat edge village

Paruk. Paruk

'The t o p s of t h e t r e e s in t h a t n a r r o w v i l l a g e s w a y e d . Yellow leaves and dry twigs fell. C l u s t e r s of b a m b o o rustled. The bamboo weathervanes that the shepherd c h i l d r e n h a d p l a c e d at t h e e d g e of D u k u h P a r u k creaked.' (Rong:R006)

Chapter 4

191

Neither the clusters of bamboo nor the bamboo weathervanes, both of which are introduced as postpredicate triggers, are ever mentioned again throughout the novel; in this respect they are identical to the trees and twigs of the first two sentences in this passage which are introduced in prepredicate position. How, then, are important or persistent participants introduced? In the stories and novels I studied, virtually all of the main protagonists are introduced as preverbal triggers in the first sentence of the novel. This is clearly a reflection of the familiar novelistic device (possibly copied from European models) of introducing the reader in medias res, in order to convey a sense of involvement. For instance, in Pergolakan, the central character of which is the schoolteacher Abdul Salam, the first sentence is: (367)

Abdul Salam pergi ke tepian. A b d u l S a l a m go to shallows 'Abdul S a l a m w e n t to t h e s h a l l o w s . '

(Perg)

The first mention of a protagonist may even be made by means of a pronoun; for instance, the title character of the short novel Sri Sumarah is introduced in the first sentence as follows: (368)

Di kampungnya, dia dipanggil Bu Guru Pijit. at village:3P 3P D I : c a l l Mrs. teacher massage x In her village, she was called Mother M a s s a g e t e a c h e r . ' (SrS)

The characters who are introduced in this casual way must be "protagonists" in the sense of carrying the reader's viewpoint for some portion of the narrative; it is precisely because we see the imagined world via their consciousness that they need no introduction, while other participants do. Other characters who may also be important and highly persistent may be introduced in various ways. In Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk, the title character is the ronggeng (dancing girl) Srintil; however, she is not a protagonist in the above sense. It is a boy named Rasus who carries the reader's viewpoint throughout the novel, and the doings of Srintil are portrayed only through Rasus's eyes. Thus, as we might expect, Srintil's first mention is in the complement of a perception verb.

192 (369)

Chapter 4 Di bawah pohon nangka itu mereka melihat Srintil at under tree jackfruit that 3P1 MENG:see Srintil sedang asyik bermain seorang PROG busy BER:play one:CL

diri. self

'Under that jackfruit tree they [Rasue and his two friends] saw Srintil absorbed in playing by herself.' (Rong)

In general, non-protagonist participants are introduced in a much wider variety of ways; their importance or persistence does not determine the grammatical role in which they first appear. They may be introduced as preverbal Ts like protagonists; as postverbal obliques or non-trigger As or Ps; and, of course, as postverbal Ts in a presentative construction. In the following short passage, all the participants are new. The Arab and his friend (who are in fact mentioned again, though they are highly peripheral to the story as a whole) are preverbal triggers; the book, umbrella, and fried bananas are postverbal non-trigger patients; and the tree is in a locative prepositional phrase. The role in which each participant is introduced here is the typical role for its semantic class: actor for animates, patient for inanimates, and oblique for locations. (370)

Seorang one:CL

Arab yang membawa buku tulis biru, Arab REL MENG:carry book write blue

sebuah payung, dan seorang one:CL umbrellaand one:CL duduk-duduk sit:2

sambil makan while eat

yang REL

tegap badannya sturdy body:3P

goreng pisang di bawah pohon. fry banana at under tree

'An Arab carrying a blue notebook and an umbrella and a well-built individual were sitting eating fried bananas under a tree.' (SDJ)

This result seems to contradict the claims made in Hetzron (1971) and Givön (1983) about the persistence of arguments introduced in presentative constructions. Those claims are supported fairly well by narratives such as the hikayat; but in modern novels, the majority of arguments introduced in this way will have no persistence at all, and the majority of really persistent arguments — the protagonists — are introduced using grammatical resources usually reserved for the most continuous (in the sense of already topical) of participants.57 This observation suggests that the "usual" method of introducing a protagonist has more to do with the norms associated with the genre under investigation, which are of course culturally defined, than with character-

Chapter 4

193

istics of the language; in which case, it is possible that the correlation suggested by Hetzron and Givön between persistence and presentative introduction is simply an artifact of the genres they studied. Aside from such obviously "stylistic" or "literary" interfering factors as the possibility of using pronouns for the first mention in novels, there may be many more subtle effects which can strongly skew quantitative studies. For instance, the sheer number of ephemeral participants in a novel can be expected to create a very different "continuity profile" than, say, a folkloric narrative that traces the adventures of a fairly small number of important characters without introducing very many "irrelevant" or purely atmospheric participants. Support for this argument can be found in a study of written English (also based on novelistic writing) in Brown (11983). Brown's text counts show that the use of presentative "there is/are" and inversion with a place adverbial ("By the hat rack stood John") is very similar to the use of the clauses I have characterized as presentative in written Indonesian. In particular, the English presentatives (which she labels as "Existential/Presentative") occur with highly discontinuous subjects (that is, they tend to be new) and have average or low persistence.58 This study, like mine, seems to be in direct contradiction to Givön's claims.

4.4.2.5. Participant introduction: summary I would conclude, then, that the intransitive V > T clauses discussed in this section are in fact presentative in function, even though the participants which they introduce may not usually be persistent. This is because, at least in written language, genre and even style can have a strong effect on the way the syntactic resources of a language are exploited, and these differences will be reflected in statistical measures which are designed to quantify function. The apparent increase in V > T presentatives in Modern Indonesian as compared to Classical Malay is probably due to the difference in genre between the hikayat, which is closer to the classical form of a folkloric narrative, and the modern novel.

194

Chapter 4

4.4.3. Exclamatories and possessed trigger In Classical Malay, we saw that there was a tendency for argument position to be determined by "semantic role", i.e. the categories actor and undergoer, in both transitive and intransitive clauses. In transitive clauses this was realized by a tendency for Ρ to follow the predicate whether or not it was trigger, and for A to precede (at least in AT clauses). In intransitive predicates it was realized by a tendency for semantically uncontrolled predicates to precede the S, and for semantically controlled ones to follow. Thus, other things being equal, actors preceded and undergoers followed the intransitive predicate as well. This tendency is not nearly as noticeable in Modern Indonesian, if indeed it operates at all. We have already seen that a much larger percentage of Ps are prepredicate, in fact the majority in PT clauses. The generalization is much weaker for intransitives as well. For instance, many of the most inherently non-controlled verb stems I could find occurred in Τ > V order. In the following passage, which describes the collision of a carriage with a car, most of the verbs are non-controlled, some of them inherently so (e.g. rusak 'damaged', hancur 'shattered'); but all of the clauses are in T > V order. (371)

Boom delman sebelah shaft carriage side

kiri... left

mobil car

di pinggir at side

"Cadillac" Cadillac

merah red

menikam pinggir MENG:stab side jalan, street

hingga peot dan catnya rusak, so:that dented and paint:3P damaged dan ketika and when

delman itu terbanting ke mobil, carriage that TER:strike to car

besi atapnya beradu dengan kaca pintu iron roof:3P BER:collide with glass door

mobil, car

hingga kaca itu hancur. so:that glass that shatter 'The left-hand shaft of the carriage, [the tip of which was covered in copper that was already black,] speared the side of the red Cadillac at the side of the street, so that it was dented and the paint was scratched, and when the carriage hit the car, the metal of its roof hit the car's side window, so that the glass was shattered.' (SDJ)

Chapter 4

195

The verbs of psychological reaction, which were reliably pre-trigger in Classical Malay, also frequently occur in post-trigger position in Modern Indonesian: (372)

dia terkejut dan mundur selangkah. 3P T E R : s t a r t l e d and retreat o n e : s t e p 'He w a s startled, and retreated a step.'

(SDJ)

However, the matter is not quite as clear as that, since there are certain categories of non-controlled verbs which still typically occur with V > T order. Among these are the potential perception verbs and other statives used presentatively, which have already been discussed. In addition to these, however, the class of descriptive predicates, which frequently participate in exclamatory and possessor dislocation constructions (and often both simultaneously) is still usually pre-trigger.59 These classes have already been discussed fairly extensively in Chapters 2 and 3; examples from Modern Indonesian are: Exclamatory: (373)

Alangkah kukuh kaki orang ini. how sturdy leg p e r s o n this 'How sturdy this m a n ' s legs w e r e . '

(SrS:S033)

Possessor dislocation: (374)

Pak I jo pucat mukanya. Pak Ijo pale face:3P 'Pak Ijo w a s pale.' (SDJ)

Both: (375)

Bukan main senang hatinya not play happy heart:3P 'She w a s extremely happy' (SrS)

As I have argued in chapter 3, there are several factors which may contribute to the tendency for these clause types to have V > T order, without an appeal to semantic role. These factors include a crosslinguistic tendency for exclamatories to be inverted, and a tendency for possessed S to have low information content, since it functions merely to specify an attribute of the possessor relative to which the predicate holds. The fact that these clauses still usually have V > Τ order suggests that per-

196

Chapter 4

haps even in Classical Malay the motivation for V > T order in these clause types was independent of their status as non-controlled clauses. To sum up, while some clause types involving non-controlled predicates still prefer V > T order, there is always an independent motivation: presentative function, possessor dislocation, or exclamativity. If control plays a role in determining constituent order independently of these factors, it is considerably weaker in Modern Indonesian than it was in Classical Malay.

4.5. Differences between authors As I have already suggested several times during the course of this chapter, variation among writers in the use of constituent order is considerably wider in Indonesian novels than it was in Malay hikayat. This is hardly surprising, since (as was pointed out in Chapter 1) Indonesian is an old language with a new sociolinguistic status as the standard language of a developing country. The vast majority of its speakers learn the language in school, as native speakers of a non-Malay "local language". Even authors who are native speakers of an Indonesian dialect of Malay have inherited one of many regional varieties of the spoken language. This diversity in mother tongue is naturally reflected in dialectal diversity within standard Indonesian. While this diversity is widely recognized at the phonological, lexical and morphological levels, it is usually ignored at the syntactic/functional level. Earlier studies have addressed the issue of the function of constituent order alternation in various varieties of Malay and Indonesian, including "standard written" Indonesian, but none as far as I know has addressed the issue of variation within a single dialect at the level of comparing individual texts or authors. These studies have either looked at only one text (for instance, Hopper's work on the Hikayat Abdullah, reported in e.g. Hopper 1983) or have studied a collection of texts without considering whether these texts might exhibit internal differences (e.g. the study reported in Kaswanti Purwo forthcoming). Rafferty (1983) comes closest to the goal I have mentioned here: she compares oral narratives from two dialects of Malay/Indonesian, one from a speaker of Serdang (a dialect of Malay found in Sumatra, which, judging from her data, is syntactically very conservative) and one from a Javanese speaker of standard Indonesian. However, her study did not address differences which occur within a single dialect.

Chapter 4

197

A comparison of the authors represented in my data suggests that the differences between the ways in which different writers use constituent order alternation are sufficiently great that examination of a single author's work might easily give a very misleading impression of the resources of "standard Indonesian", while the examination of undifferentiated data from several authors would obscure the fact that different authors use these resources in very different ways. When choosing the Indonesian authors I looked at in this study, I selected authors from both Javanese and Sumatran backgrounds. Of the authors whose work I examined, Ridhwan is Malaysian, Lubis, Yatim, and Alisjahbana are Sumatran, and Kayam and Tohari are Javanese. I expected that Malaysian and Sumatran authors would have a greater tendency to use V > T order than Javanese authors. It was Sumatran authors who were most influential in the creation of a new Indonesian literature in the twenties and thirties (Freidus 1977); they were mostly native speakers of one of the conservative Malay dialects of Sumatra or of Minangkabau (which is very closely related to Malay (Dyen 1965), and is sometimes even treated as a dialect), or else of one of the Batak languages (which are basically verb-initial). Contemporary Malaysian literature developed rather later than Indonesian literature, and therefore Malaysian literature (like all other aspects of national language planning) was heavily influenced by Indonesian, but particularly by the aforementioned Sumatran authors (Li 1975). The Javanese, on the other hand, might be expected to use more T > V syntax, since they are native speakers of a T > V language who did not inherit the Classical Malay literary tradition, and moreover they might have been expected to be exposed to more European influence than the Sumatrans. Rafferty (1985) found a greater use of "VS" (V>T) order among Nationalist and Chinese authors from Java in the 1920s than among the Sumatrans who were published by the Dutchcontrolled Balai Pustaka. However, these predications are not borne out by my data. The Sumatran Yatim and the Malay Ridhwan had the lowest rates of use of V > T order. Alisjahbana, another Sumatran, had the highest, but this can probably attributed to a generational rather than a geographical effect. Kayam, a Javanese, had the next highest density, with the Sumatran Lubis and the Javanese Tohari in the middle. What then conditions the variation reported here? That is still far from clear, and in fact may be impossible to establish in the absence of studies involving dozens of authors. While the linguistic background of the author undoubtedly plays a role, it is not at all obvious how to interpret it. More straightforward is the issue of age or generation, and of

198

Chapter 4

what one could call "external" stylistic considerations: the identification of one's work with a particular group of authors representing either a traditional or a modern school. And then there is the issue of "internal" style: the degree of involvement or detachment elicited from the reader, the slowness or speed of the narrative pace, and so on. While I have not been able to address any of these interesting issues more than perfunctorily in this study, I hope at least to have suggested some syntactic parameters that future studies can apply to questions of scope and source of variation in modern standard Indonesian.

4.6. Basic order I suggested in Chapter 3 that, although Modern Malaysian/Indonesian is probably a SVO language (as indeed is stated in several typological studies, including Greenberg 1963; Mallinson & Blake 1981), nonetheless there are some aspects of the language which show traces of an earlier, basic V > Τ order. If we review the arguments that Classical Malay is VSO which were presented in Chapter 3, we can note that several of them still hold for Modern Indonesian, even though the frequency criterion makes a different prediction. First, we can ask ourselves whether PT is still the basic clause type relative to AT. It is no longer the most frequent, but on the basis of other criteria, it still seems to have a claim. While the loss of akan and the restrictions on agent coding in V > Τ clauses have reduced the syntactic variety found in the PT clause, it nonetheless still has more possibilities — both in terms of order and in terms of the morphological realization of the participants — than does the AT clause (the latter is limited to AVP order and does not have contrasts analogous to e.g. that between coding an agent NP with oleh or not). Therefore, by the "defectivation" criterion, the PT clause type should perhaps still be considered as unmarked, its lower frequency notwithstanding. Even for the PT clause type, however, for most modern authors the most frequent constituent order is T > V . However, we can note that the discourse context which continues to favor V > Τ order (for those authors who use it in transitive clauses) — the highly sequenced, transitive, vivid clause — might be argued to be in fact the most unmarked discourse context, at least in narratives. There is also some morphosyntactic evidence for this in the reduced amount of prepredicate material in this clause type. Thus, the PT V > T clause can still be seen to have a privileged place in the system, even if its overall frequency has been diminished.

Chapter 4

199

One further argument for the "unmarked" status of the V > T clause (as I have already suggested) can be found in the intonation system; prepredicate triggers are likely to have a "marked topic" type of intonation contour, not unlike that found in the basically verb-initial language Toba Batak. In all these ways, then, we can see that the "basically SVO" nature of Modern Indonesian, which has been taken for granted in past typological studies, is not quite so clear as has been suggested: different criteria for determining basic order have different results. These problems can be interpreted as pointing to Malay's recent past as a member of the VSO type. However, they are clearly not unique to Malay; similar problems can be expected to obtain for any language that has undergone a constituent order shift without having erased all the traces of the shift ~ probably the normal condition for any language, rather than an exceptional situation.

4.7. Conclusions Overall, an examination of the use of constituent order variation in Modern Indonesian has revealed many of the same themes that were operative in Classical Malay. However, the domain of application of these themes has in many cases narrowed (in some cases and for some authors, to the point of extinction), with the result that the balance between V > T and T > V order has been lost, and Modern Indonesian must be classified as a Τ > V language with certain well-defined exceptions, much as one might describe English. Modern Indonesian shares with Classical Malay the property that constituent order alternation is only possible in transitive clauses when the verb is PT. Thus, trigger choice interacts intimately with constituent order choice. The change to a "basic" T > V order has been accompanied by a change to a "basic" AT type for transitive clauses. This represents not just the tilting of a balance, but a reversal. All of the factors which I have been able to discover as relevant to constituent order are reviewed below: A kind of "eventiveness" is still expressed by PT and V > T syntax, correlated with high transitivity as reflected by agency, temporal sequence and realis mode. However, this clause type is now restricted to highly continuous agents (which can be coded as clitics), and generally speaking

200

Chapter 4

clauses are presented as "eventive" much more selectively than they were in Classical Malay. Indeed, some authors don't use this type of syntax at all. The T > V AT clause has taken over in those instances where V > T PT clauses are no longer used. Agentless clauses are coded with PT morphology. Constituent order in this clause type is determined in much the same way as in intransitive clauses: V > T order usually signals presentative function. In clauses in which the Ρ is more "topical" than the A, the Ρ is prepredicate and the morphology is PT. A Ρ has prepredicate position when it is continuous, the referent is one which the author has some interest in tracking, and it has been mentioned in the immediately previous clause or not been mentioned for several clauses (in which case it qualifies as resumptive). In intransitive clauses, V > T order and lah sometimes are used to express "eventiveness", particularly when a normally Stative predicate is used to express an event. V > T order is also used for participant introduction, which is achieved by a broad range of predicate types including statives of position, motion verbs, and verbs of perception or perceptibility. The influence of semantic role in determining constituent order in Modern Indonesian is much less clearly felt than in Classical Malay; however, certain classes of clauses containing descriptive predicates (which are semantically non-controlled) do typically occur in V > Τ order. These are clauses with possessed S and exclamatory or intensive descriptive clauses. All other intransitive clauses have Τ > V order. The differences which I have identified in constituent order function between Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian fall into two classes. In one class are the differences which can be related to genre differences, i.e. the differences between a hikayat and a novel. In the other class are the differences which can be related to apparently more widespread differences in the linguistic system as a whole. An example of the former type of difference is the reversal in the proportion of presentative to eventive clauses; an example of the latter type of difference is the loss of pun and akan. Sometimes it is not possible to conclusively show that a difference

Chapter 4

201

belongs to one or the other type; the heavy use of pun, for instance, may have been a feature of the genre hikayat rather than of Classical Malay as a whole. A discussion of how — and why — these changes came about, together with a discussion of the significance of these findings for the theories of constituent order function, typology and change, will be offered in the next chapter.

Chapter 5 Conclusions

5.1. Introduction In the previous two chapters, I have outlined the functions of constituent order alternation in two varieties of Malay. In this chapter, I will briefly summarize the findings of those two chapters, and add some observations I have been able to make on three other varieties of Malay from the past and the present. I will then address some more general issues: What aspects of the observed differences count as instances of language change? What path did the change take? What types of internal pressures came into play? What was the role of external pressures, i.e. language contact (and with what languages)? Finally, I will discuss the significance of these conclusions for some of the theoretical issues raised in Chapter 1.

5.2. Other varieties In this section, I will discuss the use of constituent order in several varieties of Malay. I will first recapitulate my findings for classical Malay hikayat and modern Indonesian novels; then I will briefly discuss the use of constituent order in some other varieties for which I have had access to texts, comparing them to Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian. A thorough statistical investigation of these texts is beyond the scope of this study (and in some cases the texts were too short to support such an analysis); I will present here an "eyeball" account, concentrating on the presence or absence of the features I have observed in the varieties I have studied more closely. The purpose of these observations is to provide evidence for the covariation of particular linguistic features; this evidence will be used to support my hypotheses concerning the paths and causes of the shift from V > T to T > V. Moreover, these observations will provide an example of how the parameters of constituent order use set forth in this dissertation can provide a basis for assessments of the similarities and differences between Malay varieties — going beyond the mere noting of the presence, absence or frequency of lexical items and clause types which have typified past studies in this area.

Chapter 5

203

5.2.1. Classical Malay In Classical Malay, the unmarked, eventive, transitive narrative clause with continuous (expected) participants was V > T and PT. AT clauses were used only under conditions of control (argument sharing) or as "background" adverbial clauses. Intransitive clauses were V > Τ if they were explicitly being presented as eventive; in this case the verb was suffixed with lah. An unexpected (but already mentioned) participant would be mentioned clause-initially, and usually marked with pun\ it would then be the trigger of the following clause. A new participant could be introduced into the discourse by placing it after the predicate, which was usually intransitive. Other things being equal (that is, when none of the above considerations apply), constituent order could be used in intransitive clauses to indicate the degree of control the trigger exercises over the verb: actors precede, undergoers follow.

5.2.2. Modern Indonesian In Modern Indonesian novels, the "basic" narrative clause type is now T > V and AT. V > T PT clauses are still found in eventive clauses, but this seems to be stylistically marked: not all authors use this order, and those that do use it only at climactic points in the story. Moreover, this use of V > Τ order in two-argument clauses is now restricted to clauses with highly continuous (pronominal) agents. For many authors, the principal use of V > T order is to signal the presentative function. Pun has largely disappeared in its "resumptive" use, and the V > T lah clause has very limited distribution. T > V PT syntax is used only when the Ρ is highly "topical", in one of two ways: 1) it is highly continuous, having been mentioned in the immediately preceding clause; or 2) it is resumptive, having been mentioned before but several clauses back. This use is restricted to participants which are also "thematic", that is, of continuing importance to the discourse. There has been a rise in the use of agentless PT clauses, that is, in a relatively intransitive use of PT morphology. This clause type is used

204

Chapter 5

when the agent is either obvious or unimportant; moreover, like ST intransitives, it is often used presentatively.

5.2.3. A transitional peninsular Malay text Is there a form of written Malay which is intermediate between the hikayat and the modern literary language? For this we must look to the period when the classical hikayat were no longer being composed and written language was taking on new functions, but no standard literary language had yet emerged. An accessible example of such a text is Sweeney's edition of the Tarikh Datu' Bentara Luar Johor, transliterated, annotated and translated by Amin Sweeney (1980a, 1980b). This is a collection of biographical writings by a Malay statesman, Mohamed Salleh bin Perang, from the latter part of the 19th century. He lived and worked in Johor, which (as mentioned in Chapter 1) had been for a while the seat of the banished Malacca empire, and was presumably the place of composition of the Sejarah Melayu. By the time of Salleh's writing the remains of the Malacca empire were languishing offshore in the Riau Archipelago, but (at least from a geographical point of view) the language he spoke might be expected to represent the direct descendent of the language spoken by the composers and copyists of the hikayat. The language of this text is several respects transitional. It has a few distinctively classical touches, particularly in the use of linkers: maka, arakian, hatta, adapun, and adalah are all sprinkled liberally through the text.60 The use of pun, similarly, is close to the Classical Malay usage: it occurs when a participant has been mentioned recently, but has referential competition from other intervening arguments, frequently in "turn-taking" contexts such as conversations and battles. However, it is still not as widely used as in e.g. the Sejarah Melayu; in particular, it would seem to be restricted to highly thematic agents (those important throughout the text; as this text is autobiographical, this is almost always a first person pronoun). Akan is very occasionally used to mark a P. In the matter of constituent order and trigger choice, however, Salleh's text appears much more modern. There is very little use of the eventive two-argument PT V > T clause which typifies the hikayat; twoargument clauses are almost always Τ > V and AT. The exceptions to this generalization are primarily verbs of creation with first-person proclitic agents (quite common in one portion of the text, which describes Salleh's surveying work, the building of roads, drawing of maps and so on).

Chapter 5

205

These are arguably instances of presentative function, since the patients are new (and often marked by the indefinite se+classifier): (375)

Fakir jadikan sebuah rumah atap tempat duduk IP make one:CL house thatched place live 'I built a thatched-roofed house where I lived'

fakir IP

Otherwise, PT clauses are used principally in agentless contexts, and V > T clauses are used principally in presentative contexts. In the case of intransitives, there is some use of V > T which is reminiscent of the hikayat: there is a relatively heavy use of the eventive intransitive lah clause, and there is at least some support for the idea that in ΖαΛ-less intransitives semantic role may play a role in determining constituent order — the examples I found of V > Τ ST clauses without lah were uncontrolled verbs, e.g. mati 'die', teratur 'be arranged'. What we have here, then, is a system in which the association of constituent order with eventiveness has become largely restricted to intransitives, while constituent order in transitive clauses is determined by other considerations.

5.2.4. A modern oral Sumatran Malay text Rafferty (1983) gives a short oral narrative text (116 clauses) collected from a speaker of Serdang Malay. In several critical senses, this text is much more similar to Classical Malay than to Modern Indonesian. It is patient-prominent (3 AT clauses compared to 31 PT clauses), and dominantly V > Τ (26 to 5 among the PT clauses, 67 to 32 among ST clauses). PT clauses tend strongly to have two arguments. While pun is not found at all, and lah is rare (2 instances), it seems that the constituent orders which in Classical Malay were associated with these markers are carrying the same functions, or closely related ones: the pre-predicate triggers that occur seem to have similar properties to the pun-maiked triggers of the hikayat (and in fact the three AT clauses may well be motivated by the presence of resumptive As which force Τ > V order and AT morphology), while among intransitives the T > V order seems to be associated with eventiveness. It is also plausible that constituent order is related to semantic role in this text as well: the intransitive predicates which occur with T > V order are all controlled in nature, all of them being verbs of motion or mau 'want' (one of the psychological verbs which was also treated as controlled in the hikayat). It is hard to judge from this text whether AT main clauses are associated with backgrounding in the same way they are in the hikayat, since there are no transitive adverbial clauses;

206

Chapter 5

as I have stated, the AT clauses that exist seem to be motivated by the discourse properties of the A. However, this text lacks some of the other features which distinguish Classical Malay from Modern Indonesian: akan does not occur as a P-marker, and there is no use of maka or the other linkers so prevalent in the hikayat. Furthermore, it has some distinctive properties of its own, which occur in neither my Classical Malay nor my Modern Indonesian data: for instance, an S is sometimes encliticized to its predicate (e.g. tengoknya occurs instead of tengok dia for 'he looked'), and there are occasional instances of apparently AT clauses with variant orders (e.g. tandanya mau dia 'gift-the want he' for 'he wanted the gift').

5.2.5. An oral Javanese Indonesian text The other text published in Rafferty (1983) is a short (85 clauses) oral autobiographical narrative collected from an educated Javanese man. Not surprisingly, it shows close affinities with the Indonesian of the novels I examined, being if anything more extreme in its differences from Classical Malay than the novels. It is dominantly T > V (22 to 7 among PT clauses, 41 to 5 among ST clauses) and AT (11 to 5 among two-argument clauses). It has no two-argument V > T PT clauses at all; that is, it doesn't have the di-V-nya Ρ clause type used in literary writing to signal climax. The PT syntax that occurs in two-argument clauses is clearly conditioned largely by topicality; the large majority of PT clauses have as Ρ saya T , which (this being an autobiographical text) is by far the most continuous and the most important participant. There is also a heavy use of agentless PT clauses, often in presentatives. Almost all the V > T clauses have the presentative function.

5.2.6. Conclusions This catalogue reveals some of the extent of the variation found among varieties of Malay, but furthermore it provides evidence for covariation — that is, support for'the idea that some of the parameters we have investigated are in an implicational relationship to each other. These points are the following: 1) There seems to be a strong correlation between preference for PT syntax ("patient-prominence") and V > T order. Besides the varieties described above, other varieties that have been mentioned in earlier chapters

Chapter 5

207

may be adduced in support of this: the early Minangkabau Indonesian novel, as exemplified by the work of Alisjahbana, has both more V > T and PT than the more contemporary authors, while the modern Malaysian novel I examined, and the writings of Javanese authors from the 20s reported in Rafferty (1983) (and described in Chapter 1), had less of both V > T and PT. 2) Basic constituent order is independent of the presence of the morpheme pun. We already saw in the Mulyadi Indraputra the optionality of pun with apparently resumptive prepredicate triggers; stronger evidence for this independence is provided by the absence of pun in the Serdang Malay text. As I have suggested in Chapter 4, this factor is most probably linked to channel, with intonation able to provide information in spoken language that is indicated segmentally in written language. In the modern standard spoken language, a special intonational pattern (a fallrise on the last two syllables of the last word of the topic) is the primary marker of the non-expected topic. Judging from Rafferty (1983) (whose transcripts contain intonational notation), there is a similar pattern in Serdang Malay: a preverbal trigger can also receive a special prominence (she labels this prominence "secondary focus", and characterizes its function as "contrast"). Similarly, special intonational treatment of "marked topics" or "themes" has been widely reported in the languages of the world. On the basis of this evidence, we can extrapolate backwards, and hypothesize that some such prominence also occurred in the spoken Malay of the classical period. By adding an extra syllable at the very end of the preverbal constituent — precisely where the prominence goes — the original role of pun may have been to help carry or make more prominent this special intonation contour. If this is the case, the pun merely reinforces the prominence which is already there, rather than being the primary marker; thus, in the spoken language one would expect it to be optional, as are similar markers in related languages (cf. the topic-marking kalau in Modem Indonesian, or ia in Toba Batak ~ Cumming 1984). The non-occurrence of pun in the Serdang Malay text is no doubt linked to its spoken nature, while the apparent optionality of pun in the Mulyadi Indraputra can be explained if we assume that this text reflects the spoken language more directly than do the other hikayat examined here. 3) The use of constituent order, especially in the function of the signalling of eventiveness, may vary independently in transitive and intransitive clauses. We have seen this most prominently in the Salleh text, which has intransitive but not transitive eventive V > T clauses, but even some modern Indonesian authors (e.g. Yatim) have eventive intransitive V > T clauses without eventive transitives.

208

Chapter 5

5.3. The path of change We can now address the issue of how these changes might have come about. In this section I will describe a hypothetical set of continuous developments within a single variety of Malay, bringing it from a stage resembling what I have described for the hikayat (basically patientprominent and V > T) to a stage which is consistently actor-prominent and T > V. In this section I will rely heavily on the principle of discourse salience, recapitulated here from chapter 1: A mapping between a discourse function and a morpho-syntactic form is salient to the degree that clauses which have that function are associated with that form, and vice versa. A change which leads to a reduction of the salience of a mapping may lead to the loss of that mapping. In this event, either the function will cease to be marked, or it will come to be marked by some other morphosyntactic form. This principle will be illustrated by several different aspects of the complex of changes that relate Modern Indonesian to Classical Malay.

5.3.1. The earlier state At the first stage, constituent order primarily marks eventiveness (eventive clauses are verb-initial); in non-eventive clauses, constituent order is determined by semantic role. Secondarily, constituent order may be conditioned by the information status of the trigger noun phrase: certain types of "non-expected" arguments prefer first or last position. A brand-new participant in a presentative construction (a clause whose primary purpose is to introduce this participant into the discourse) is last, with the intonation peak on the presented participant. An argument which is known but non-expected (resumptive, contrastive, or counter to expectation) is mentioned first, and it is usually marked by pun. It is treated like an external argument, in that it must be the trigger of the ensuing clause, and the remainder of the clause can be coded as eventive morphologically with dior lah, just as can a clause that is missing its trigger under argument sharing.

Chapters

209

5.3.2. Narrowing of pun The next step is the narrowing of the function of the marker pun, until it requires a fairly strong type of counter-expectation to be present. This implies a functional divergence between the /w/i-marked prepredicate trigger and the pun-less prepredicate trigger: the stronger αcounter-toexpectation" function (with pun) is marked differently from the weaker "resumptive" function (withoutpun). This divergence sets the stage for a widening of the function of the pun-less preverbal external trigger. This is a natural shift: without pun, the AT and ST clauses with resumptive topics are not segmentally distinguished from non-eventive AT and ST clauses. This results in throwing "non-eventive" As and "active" Ss (i.e. Ss which are actors rather than undergoers) together with resumptive As and Ss (previously marked by pun), except for the intonational contrast.61 As a consequence of this, the discourse salience of the association between non-eventiveness and Τ > V order in AT and ST clauses is reduced, as is the discourse salience of the association between initial position for the trigger and resumptive topic function; this reduction in discourse salience leads naturally to reanalysis. It is natural to reanalyze the preverbal triggers of these pun-less AT and ST clauses as simple "topics" (with the requirement "counter-toexpectation" lost), since the class of all As and active Ss represents the category of actors — precisely the participants which are most likely to be topical in the sense of continuous, since they are volitional (typically, human), and therefore more likely to be of some importance in a narrative. Once these inherently topical arguments cease to be distinguished from resumptive topics, initial position could easily be reassociated with the function of continuous topic. This development has two simultaneous consequences: "unmarked" (pun-less) AT clauses are much more common; and many fewer "unmarked" clauses are V > T . This double development explains the typological correlation noted in the previous section between patientprominence and preference for V > Τ order across several varieties of Malay.

210

Chapter 5

5.3.2.1. Consequences for the PT clause In the case of PT clauses, the loss of pun does not cause a "collapsing" of previously distinct categories (as with AT clauses), since the only T > V PT clauses in the earlier stage were those with external triggers. However, this change does increase the ratio of unmarked (pun-less) Τ > V to V > Τ order in PT clauses. Moreover, since the pattern Τ > V has become much more frequent in AT and ST clauses (in which it is associated with topicality of T), the overall discourse salience of the association between V > T order and eventiveness has been reduced, while a new association between T > V order and topicality has been created. Thus, the stage is set for the widening of the function of initial position to spread by analogy from AT and ST to PT, leading to a situation in which T > V order with topical Τ is the norm in all clause types. These changes have the further consequence that in the usual case trigger choice will be determined by the role of the topical argument; and therefore the discourse salience of the association between the PT prefix di- and eventiveness is weakened, leading to the eventual loss of this association. Since eventiveness in two-argument clauses is correlated with high discourse transitivity, the loss of the association between PT morphology and eventiveness entails a weakening of the association between PT morphology and high transitivity. This may in turn have set the stage for the sharp increase in agentless PT clauses, which are inherently low in transitivity by virtue of having only one participant. The agentless (and also the incorporated-agent) PT clauses which did exist in Classical Malay were generally somewhat transitive, in the sense that they were active and often punctual; but agentless PT clauses in Modern Indonesian are frequently stative, and therefore low in discourse transitivity by two criteria: "participants" and "kinesis" (degree of activity).

5.3.2.2. Consequences for the ST clause Something further must be said about developments in ST clauses, since (as mentioned above) these clauses seem to retain the use of V > Τ order to mark eventiveness in varieties where it has already been lost in the PT clause. The reason for this difference probably lies in the fact that the morphological marker of eventiveness in the PT clause — the di- prefix — always had a range of other functions: in addition to marking eventiveness, PT syntax could reflect (1) an external trigger under clause-

Chapter 5

211

combining (in e.g. a relative clause); (2) a resumptive trigger (with pun); or (3) an incorporated agent. Thus, the association between eventiveness and di- was always relatively low in discourse salience. The eventive ST clause, on the other hand, contains a morphological marker (the lah suffix) which always functioned only to mark eventiveness, and was therefore highly salient. Therefore, this association was slower to erode under the pressure of the dominant Τ > V order.

5.3.3. Loss of semantic role marking The loss of the association between semantic role and constituent order (with actors tending to precede the predicate, and undergoers tending to follow it) probably has several motivations. Even in Classical Malay, semantic role was the least salient of the factors affecting constituent order, only getting a chance to apply if none of the other factors had already determined the constituent order of a clause. Thus, there was already a relatively small number of clauses in which semantic role effects showed up. This tenuousness may reflect the relative antiquity of the association between semantic role and constituent order, though this clain) would be hard to support without extensive comparative data. When the distinction between controlled ST clauses and resumptivetopic ST clauses was lost due to the changes described above, the effect of semantic role must have become even less salient: semantic undergoers which would previously have been marked by pun started turning up in prepredicate position in unmarked clauses. This situation would have provided a number of surface counterexamples to the association between "undergoerhood" and post-predicate position in intransitive clauses. In Classical Malay, the association between undergoerhood and post-predicate position held in transitive as well as intransitive clauses, since both V > Τ PT clauses and Τ > V AT clauses had the undergoer (in this case, the P) after the predicate. But after initial position became associated with ordinary continuous topics, the undergoer in a PT clause was more frequently preverbal. Thus, in transitive clauses too the association between postverbal position and undergoerhood lost its salience and apparently disappeared. There is one set of V > Τ ST clauses in Modern Indonesian which may represent a modern relic of the semantic role distinction: these are the clauses which involve descriptive intransitive predicates, chiefly those in possessor-dislocation and exclamatory clauses. In these clauses the "described" argument, which prefers postpredicate position, can be

212

Chapters

thought of as an undergoer. However, as I have suggested in section 4.3 of Chapter 4, it is possible that there are other motivations for V > Τ order inherent in the semantics of exclamatory clauses and possessor dislocation.

5.3.4. External triggers A crucial consequence of the complex of functional reanalyses outlined above is that initial position ceases to be "external" in any meaningful sense. As I argued in Chapter 3, clauses with pun triggers in Classical Malay had some of the properties of verb-initial clauses (e.g., the possibility of /oA-marking on the verb). However, there no longer seems to be any such generalization: there is no longer any reason to treat prepredicate arguments as external.

5.3.5. The outcome The result of all these changes is of course a system which looks quite similar to European languages, the "trigger" having acquired many of the properties of the prototypical "subject": in most clauses, it is semantically an actor, functionally a topic, and syntactically it occupies initial position — while, of course, it retains its privileged grammatical properties with respect to clause combining phenomena. These grammatical properties are precisely those characterized in Schachter (1976) as "referencerelated", tied to topic continuity: the trigger is the element that can be omitted in a secondary clause precisely because it is old information. Thus, the interpretation of the trigger role as continuous topic in a nonclause combining context is consistent with its grammatical properties. In spite of all these changes, modern literary Indonesian has retained "pockets" of quite un-European V > T syntax in particular constructions, e.g. the PT agent-clitic clause, the ST lah clause, and the possessordislocation descriptive clause. These pockets clearly derive from the earlier "patient-prominent, verb-initial" stage of the language. Why haven't they been entirely erased in favor of a more consistent "prototypical subject" system? Is this an inevitable outcome? While it is of course not possible to answer this type of question definitively, it may be revealing to consider the factors (both social and linguistic) which have borne on the past development of the language and might be expected to operate into the future. To do this, we must consider the origins and social position of the variety of Malay I have been calling Modern Indonesian. I will un-

Chapter 5

213

dertake this in the next section, with a discussion of the way language contact, separate development, dialect contact, and dialect mixture may have interacted with the simple linear development outlined above to bring about the degree of complexity which we observe in the Malay varieties today. 5.4. The role of contact There are two possible interpretations of the coexistence of archaic V > Τ elements with the prevalent Τ > V pattern in the Modern Indonesian novels that I have looked at. The simpler view is that these elements are just "retentions" from Classical Malay; that is, the tendency for triggers to acquire prototypical subject properties did not (or has not yet) run its course. However, this scenario ignores the complexity of the historical and social relationships of the two varieties. We must also take into account such evidence from other varieties as is available; for instance, the fact that the narrative from the modern Javanese man described in Rafferty (1983) has no such retentions, nor (more significantly) did the Malay written by Javanese writers in the 20s, as described in Rafferty (1983). These facts suggest that the remaining pockets of V > T syntax are not simply retentions from an earlier stage into a later stage, but are rather perhaps the result of dialect contact. I will first discuss the circumstances surrounding the development of Malay in areas where it was not spoken natively by a majority of the population, and then return to the question of the source of the various elements of the modern literary language.

5.4.1. Malay in Java The evidence of Rafferty (1985) suggests that the Malay used by speakers on Java had already largely lost the eventive V > T clause type by the beginning of this century. This may have been the result of a continuous development, such as that outlined in the previous section; it is also possible that some element of discontinuous development, such as koineization or even pidginization and subsequent creolization, played the more important role, and Malay grammar in Java (as well, of course, as many other areas of Indonesia) was reinvented rather than inherited. It is difficult to distinguish these two hypotheses empirically in the present case, since if the process was one of creolization there was continuous contact with the superstrate (in the form of the Sumatran and

214

Chapter 5

peninsular spoken "dialects" on the one hand, and the colonial "school Malay" and postcolonial school Indonesian on the other hand), such that decreolization must have been occurring from the earliest period; and if the process was one of continuous change, we must reckon with the fact that the language learners who were implementing the reanalyses involved in the change for the most part already had a first language. We plainly are dealing neither with a "pure" Creole nor with a "pure" case of internal change, but something in between; and, moreover, the precise conditions of the transmission of Malay outside the areas where it is spoken as a first language are not uniform even within a particular community, but rather differ widely according to the patterns of language use dictated by the varying social networks of each individual. However, on the basis of the analysis presented above, we can see that there is a plausible path for the observed changes to have followed without positing any abrupt discontinuity such as would be implied by the creolization hypothesis. Moreover, the existence of intermediate varieties used by native speakers from Malay-speaking regions, such as the variety of Malay in Salleh's writings, argues for the continuous nature of the change. I would suggest that the role of language contact was merely to favor reanalyses in the direction of the SVO language type, if the synchronic state of the language was such that such a reanalysis was plausible. Thus, language contact is seen as promoting rather than providing changes in a certain direction. It is worth adding here that this is probably not a recent phenomenon: all varieties of Malay except for the most isolated have been in contact with non-predicate-initial languages from earliest times. Although we know little about the conditions of the linguistic contact that occurred between the Malay-speaking populations and, for instance, Buddhist missionaries from India or Chinese emissaries, it would be rash to dismiss their influence. We do know that Javanese apparently changed from being predominantly V > T at the time when the Kawi (Classical Javanese) writings were produced, to being predominantly T > V in modern times; it thus underwent the same change somewhat earlier than Malay, but under similar external pressures.

5.4.2. Modern Literary Indonesian We are now in a position to return to the question of the source of the language used in the contemporary novels I examined. None of these novels (like most Indonesian novels) were by native Malay speakers; however, as

Chapter 5

215

I showed at the end of Chapter 4, for these novels at least geographical origin of the author were not a reliable predictor of the type of language used. It seems likely that authors, when engaged in writing, use a variety of the language which may be quite distinct from the one they speak. (This would of course hardly be a surprising outcome; writers in every culture where there is any kind of a literary tradition do the same thing.) In particular, it seems that writers nowadays tend to use a variety of Malay which has undergone all of the changes described in the previous section, with a sprinkling, for stylistic effect, of an older kind of language. The amount and type of this sprinkling varies widely from author to author, as does the type of stylistic effect produced; but the fact that the distribution of, for instance, the udi-V-nya P" or the uV-lah S" clause type cannot be predicted nearly as successfully in Modern Indonesian as it can in the hikayat on the basis of discourse considerations alone, suggests that we are indeed dealing with a type of "special" rather than "everyday" grammar. We can still ask ourselves what the source is of this type of "special" grammar. While the relevant variety could conceivably be the "Riau Malay" which is the official standard, it is more likely that it is the conservative "Balai Pustaka" Malay of the writings of the "twenties generation". As I argued in Chapter 1, this variety seems to have been derived most directly from the "school Malay" propagated by the colonial educational system, which in turn was probably modelled at least in part on the language of the hikayat. Because of the influence of the novels produced by the Twenties Generation, Balai Pustaka Malay has acquired a certain literary cachet, while (as far as I know) the native Malay speakers of the Riau Province have produced little or no literature of national significance.

5.5. Conclusions In this dissertation I have gone deeply into the workings of what at first might seem to be a commonplace and uninteresting case of VSO > SVO shift, easily written off as a matter of increased use of topicalization. I hope to have shown that the apparent simplicity of this shift conceals considerable internal complexity, with ramifications and implications far beyond a single discourse parameter. The true nature of the change cannot be clearly stated or correctly understood without considering changes in a wide range of mappings between functional and semantic features and surface forms, throughout the grammar of the language.

216

Chapter 5

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the change as it occurred in Malay was any less simple than parallel changes that have occurred in many of the world's languages. This suggests that the attention of diachronic syntax has been misdirected, in focussing so much on so-called "word order change". The important change is not the change in order (from one point of view, no such change has occurred, since both stages had both orders), but the change in the distribution of functions over forms. Of more profound typological importance than the change in the type of topicality associated with initial position is the loss of any way of marking the controlled/noncontrolled distinction, the decline of eventiveness marking, and the rise of the agentless passive, all of which relate to a profound change in the way the language treats transitivity distinctions. But these changes are invisible to any typological approach that takes a language as a collection of forms, rather than as a network of forms and functions. Explaining differences in form without attention to function, as so much work in this field has done, is like trying to explain a spiderweb without mentioning flies. As a basis for future work, then, I would propose that the concept of "syntactic change" be jettisoned in favor of a notion of "functional change", with concomitant changes in the observable syntactic patterns of a language treated as side effects rather than as the primary object of inquiry. Only then will we be able to appreciate the real nature of the phenomenon, which in turn will allow us to make predictive generalizations, propose constraints, and lay claim to an explanatory theory. Not until many more studies have been done in the paradigm suggested here, however, will this be possible; for a while we must turn our attention back to close functional studies based on varied types of data. In the meantime, while we are still engaged in compiling the amount of data necessary for the most general theory of functional change, we can ask whether the kind of account provided in this dissertation constitutes an "explanation" of the observed constituent order shift. Perhaps it does, at least in the narrow sense implied in Greenberg (1968:178): The concept of scientific explanation, like so many others, is only a refinement of "common-sense" notions of everyday life. In the latter context, we often ask questions; sometimes, at least, we receive answers that we accept as explanations, in that they induce a kind of satisfaction, which shows itself in our refraining thereafter from asking the same thing.

Chapter 5

217

I like to imagine that the readers of this study will be satisfied to the extent that in the future they will refrain from asking why Malay become

svo.

Appendix Glossing Conventions

For the sake of uniformity, I have normalized the spelling of all the examples to the current Malaysian/Indonesian standard. The hikayat were originally written in Arabic script without capitalization or punctuation; I have reproduced the capitalization and punctuation of the romanized editions from which I drew my data, but it should be noted that these features represent the judgment of the editors of those editions. Where a stretch of text within an example is lengthy and irrelevant to the point being made, I have indicated its position by three dots (...) in the example, and included a gloss of it within square brackets in the free gloss. Names and titles are self-glossed. Many "grammatical" morphemes (e.g. MENG:, DI:, PUN) are self-glossed in upper case; these morphemes are explained elsewhere in the text (they may be found in the index). Affixes are mostly discussed in Chapter 2, while "discourse particles" such as lah, pun and maka (whose use varies widely between Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian) are discussed in chapters 3 and 4. There are a few derivational affixes which I have not segmented or glossed individually where they occur in the examples, since they are not germane to my topic, and since the meaning of the derived form is often only partially inferrable from the meaning of the component morphemes. The most common are -i and -kan (discussed in Chapter 2 and elsewhere), and the nominalizing affixes peng- 'actor nominalization', -an 'patient or product nominalization', peng-\-an 'process nominalization', and ke-\-an 'state nominalization' (most commonly used to derive abstract nouns from adjectival verbs). The following abbreviations are-used in glosses: IP IIP 12P 2P 3P 3P1

first person singular pronoun first person exclusive pronoun first person plural inclusive pronoun second person pronoun third person neutral pronoun third person plural pronoun (mereka)

Appendix CL LNK PFV Q REL 2

219

numeral classifier an untranslatable linker such as maka, hatta etc. the perfective auxiliaries sudah and telah the "question markers" -kah, apa(kah) the relative clause marker yang reduplication (plural or generalized)

Examples are followed by an index which indicates the source of the example; examples that come from my database additionally have a reference number following the colon. The following abbreviations are used for the sources: Classical Malay HAP AI

Hikayat Andaken Penurat (Robson 1969) Ali bin Ahmad edition of Indraputra (Ali bin Ahmad 1976) MI Mulyadi edition of Indraputra (Mulyadi 1983b) SM, SM2 Sejarah Melayu (Shellabear 1915, 1967) Modern Indonesian GA KB MG Perg Rong SDJ, SDJ2 SrS

Grotta Azzurra (Alisjahbana 1970) Kimono biru buat isteri (in Kayam 1972) Musim gugur kembali di Connecticut (in Kayam 1972) Pergolakan (Yatim 1974) Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk (Tohari 1982) Senja di Jakarta (Lubis 1970) Sri Sumarah (in Kayam 1975)

Notes

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

I have here followed Comrie's (1981:80) suggestion in adopting the more accurate term "constituent order" in place of the usual term "word order" to refer to typologies in the tradition of Greenberg 1963; c.f. Greenberg's original term "the order of meaningful elements". In the context of phonological change, Kiparsky has used the term "transparency" (as the antonym of "opacity") in a manner which parallels my use of the term "salience" here. What is meant by "dominant" and "alternative" orders, if they are not equivalent to "basic" and "non-basic" orders, is not clear; this point will be discussed further in Chapter 3. Myhill's explanation for the VS>SV shift does not apply to the Malay of the period covered by my data, since morphologically deverbal forms are extremely rare at all stages — unless mengforms are considered to be deverbal (as they are in e.g. Van Ophuijsen 1910, but this is not the usual analysis today). This point will be discussed further in Chapter 3. I will argue below that while some functions remain constant, others are closely tied to particular culturally-defined genres, which may disappear, change, or be replaced over time. The precise relationship of the language of these inscriptions to Classical Malay is problematical; they contain affixes which are familiar from the related languages of Batak and Old Javanese, but are no longer found in the oldest manuscripts of Classical Malay, which date from the seventeenth century. These affixes may have been lost in the intervening millenium, or it may be the case that the language of the inscriptions is a close cousin rather than an ancestor of Classical Malay; see Teeuw 1959 for a discussion of these issues. He concludes conservatively that "it [the language of the inscriptions] is not related to any other present-day language so closely as to Malay" (Teeuw 1959:146). Many examples of this attitude may be found cited in Teeuw 1959.

Notes 8.

221

Prior to 1963, Standard Malay was also known as Bahasa Kebangsaan 'the national language'.

Chapter 2. Grammatical preliminaries 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

I use the term "identifiability" rather than "definiteness" or "specificity" here, because the demonstratives combine freely with such inherently specific expressions as proper names, unique items, etc. However, a detailed analysis of the function of these morphemes in discourse has yet to be carried out. This example from the Malay Annals explains the source of two of the polite terms used in Malay courts for the king and the speaker respectively. The royal title "Yang Dipertuan" is in itself a headless relative; it literally means "(he) who has been made lord" (per = causative, tuan = lord). An exception to this distinction is the modern "democratic" second person pronoun anda, which was invented in 1957 to avoid the social distinctions inextricably connected with older forms; while it is a new pronoun, it can only be used for second person reference. The English/Dutch second person pronoun 4you' (yw) has also been borrowed for the same purpose. I accept the possibility of a diachronic link between these two cases. But as regards the synchronic situation, it must be borne in mind that some version of the trigger restriction on non-main clauses is very widespread in the language family, while the factors conditioning main clause trigger choice seem to vary widely, as even the contrast between Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian demonstrates. Briefly, the rule governing this alternation is that the final nasal of the prefix drops before sonorants and assimilates in place before obstruents; root-initial voiceless obstruents (except for the palatal Id) then drop. Meng- is the form found before vowels and /h/. AT verbs which are not prefixed with meng- usually do not have a PT form which corresponds directly to the AT form (the exceptions are makan 'eat' and minum 'drink', which have PT forms dimakan and diminum respectively). Psychological predicates which typically take clausal objects are typically unprefixed in the AT form; however, most have a PT form which involves additional affixation. For instance, the verb pikir 'think' has the related PT form dipikirkan\ the verb sadar 'be conscious' has the related PT form disadari.

222

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

(376)

21.

Notes These have corresponding actives (memikirkan, menyadari) but there tends to be a difference in meaning between the affixed and the unaffixed form of the active. E.M.F. Payne (cited in Lewis 1969) gives this as a grammatical construction in Modern (Malaysian) Malay. Although there were no examples in the data Lewis analyzed, perhaps it survives in some variety of the spoken language. A few reservations must be remarked here. In both Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian, oleh can mark A not only of the canonical PT clause with a ^/'-prefixed verb, but also of other clauses (with ter- or prefixless verbs) whose trigger is semantically an undergoer. In Classical Malay it could apparently even mark the A of an AT clause (though this must be very rare, Roolvink 1948 gives examples). There are also non-prepositional uses of oleh: it can also function as a verb stem meaning 'obtain' and as an adverbial conjunction meaning 'because'. Furthermore, the preposition akan should not be confused with the temporal modal signifying future reference (see the discussion of modals). In this respect trigger morphology differs from voice morphology in e.g. English, which does not allow most kinds of clausal "objects" to become subjects through passivization. In some contemporary dialects of Malay yang may be used in the same way as bahwa, as a complementizer with a finite clause (Karim 1978). I have also noticed the word bahasa (which in Standard Indonesian means 'language') in this function. Ellen Rafferty has pointed out to me that in some Malay dialects affixation which is required in the standard languages is not required, and there is a much heavier use of the "bare stem" form. This form may combine with clitic arguments. The text in Serdang Malay (a dialect from North Sumatra) published in Rafferty 1983 contains several examples of non-quotative verbs in this stem+nya form: tengok-nye tige warne di langit see 3P three color in sky He saw three colors in the sky (Rafferty 1983:18)

Per-isteri, the verb used here for "marry", means literally "cause (per-) to be a wife (isteri)". Thus, the agent must be the King of China, and the patient (trigger) must be Sang Sapurba's daughter.

Notes

223

Chapter 3. Classical Malay 22.

23.

24. 25.

26.

27.

A representative comment on the degree of linguistic interference in hikayat of this type is Brakel's observation on the Hikayat Muhammad Hanafiyyah (Brakel 1975:43): "The H[ikayat] M[uhammad] Hfanafiyyah] uses two different types of style. By far the greater part is written in a fluent, idiomatic narrative style which only rarely betrays the foreign origin of the text, and which is usually associated with the genre hikayat... Here I shall only refer to the phenomenon of this hikayat-style being sometimes replaced by an un-idiomatic translationese." The nenek kebayan (literally 'grandmother village-messenger') is described by Winstedt as "the fairy godmother of Malay romance" (Winstedt 1955). The origin and significance of the term is apparently obscure. I have merely glossed it as 'grandmother' in the examples. Mulyadi (1983) describes the role of the nenek kebayan in this and other hikayat. This is the same individual as the author of the Hikayat Abdullah mentioned above. These percentages are based on slightly different data samples. The figures for lah are based on the entire database (that of figure 4), while the figures for pun are from a subset of 250 clauses. This is because I only included clauses with pun triggers in a portion of my database, for reasons which will become clear later. The data sample that includes both pun and non-pun clauses consists of 80 clauses from the beginning of the Indraputra edited by Ali bin . Ahmad, and 170 clauses from the beginning of the Sejarah Melayu. A later clause-combining sample of 413 consecutive clauses of all types (including triggerless clauses) from a different part the Sejarah Melayu yielded similar proportions: 18% of all clauses had pun, including 36% of clauses with overt triggers. While Sarumpaet is describing "Standard (contemporary) Indonesian", the variety he recognizes as standard is very conservative in a number of respects. As we will see, however, "inchoative" is a good characterization of some of the functions of lah (if not of pun), in both Classical Malay and Modern Indonesian writing. In some respects /?w«-marked triggers do bear some functional resemblance to other clause-initial elements, and thus plainly bear some relationship to the following clause. This perspective will be developed more fully in the section on pun.

224 28.

29.

30.

31.

(377)

Notes Some noun phrases may belong to more than one of the categories described here (for instance, names may be marked with itu), while a few types of NPs aren't represented at all (for instance, those modified with just a prepositional phrase or a relative clause). Therefore, there is no direct correspondence between the sum of the numbers in this figure and the total number of triggers. This is related to the fact that the primary determinant of verb-initial order is not related to properties of the trigger, but of the predication, as we will see below. Totally new NPs (first mentions) were omitted from these averages; the averages reflect only NPs which have been previously mentioned in the text. It is not quite the case that we have no access to the psychological states of the protagonists. Psychological reactions such as amazement, joy, and grief are frequently reported, and thoughts, motivations and intentions may be reported via internal dialogue. Thus, Raja Suran's rather sudden formulation of a plan to descend into the ocean is preceded by the following justification: Maka Raja Suran pun fikir dalam hatinya, "Bahwa isi darat telah sudah aku ketahuilah dan segala isi laut bagaimana pula gerangan rupanya? Jikalau demikian, baiklah aku masuk ke dalam laut, supaya aku ketahui betapa halnya. " 'Raja Suran thought in his heart, "I already know what is on the land; what perchance is the appearance of what is in the sea? Since it is like this, I had better go into the sea, so that I may know how the matter stands."'

32.

33. 34.

The difference between ber- and 0 verbs is probably related to the participant introduction function of V > Τ order, which is most typically associated with the 0 verbs ada and datang (see the section on presentatives). In English, the fact that the definite article is in complementary distribution with prenominal possessor reflects this generalization. The term "presentative" as I use it here is first introduced in Hetzron 1971, who focuses on the correlation of sentence-final position and availability for further reference. The other observations have been made in a variety of places, including Givön 1978.

Notes 35.

36. 37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

225

The term "deictic center" is due to Fillmore (1971). Kaswanti Purwo (1984) applies Fillmore's analysis of deixis to Indonesian, including a discussion of the semantics of pergi and datang. I use the term "scene" as it is used in T. Payne's 1985 discussion of Yagua presentatives. This is the only example I have of the meng- prefix (normally associated with semantically controlled verbs) in the V > T order. This is further evidence that the presentative function of V > Τ order is distinct from its control-marking function. Because the presence of lah is independent of the presence of pun, this figure (unlike the other figures in this section) includes both pun and non-pun. Note that I have only tested a few of the relevant transitivity parameters. Partly because of the nature of the narratives, and partly because this section is only concerned with two-argument clauses, I had no data relevant to several parameters, such as "affirmation", "mode", and "kinesis". Another approach to these figures would be to compute the degree to which each of the discussed features "selects" AT or PT; e.g. compute the percentage of all two-argument clauses with definite Ρ which are PT. A brief examination of table 5 will reveal that by this criterion all the characteristics in this table favor PT syntax. This is because PT syntax is more common in the texts. However, my point is that most of them aren't any more frequent in PT clauses than in AT clauses, which is illustrated by the percentages given. To my knowledge, this is a novel result; while Classical Malay per se has not been discussed in the typological literature, "Malay" is included in several databases, and always listed as SVO. However, there is some evidence that some varieties of Modern Malay are like Classical Malay in their use of constituent order; these varieties will be discussed more fully in Chapter 5. As Greenberg (1966:14) points out, the pairing of these two concepts is not arbitrary; Zipf s "principle of least effort" predicts that the least marked variant should be the most frequent.

226

Notes

Chapter 4. Modern Indonesian 43.

44. 45.

(378)

In fact, Moeliono & Dardjowidjojo (eds.) suggests that except for in a few limited sentence types (e.g. ada presentatives, exclamatories), "inversion" should be avoided in standard written language because it can cause c o n f u s i o n (Moeliono & D a r d j o w i d j o j o (eds.) 1988:295). The first person portion of this narrative yielded the examples of proclitic As of PT clauses found in this chapter. This is pointed up by a quotation from the novelist Idrus on the back cover of the edition I consulted (the 2nd edition, published in 1978): ...disini berlainan dari dalam romannya yang terdahulu, Takdir menggunakan bahasa Indonesia yang moderen sungguhpun kadang-kadang mengherankan kita karena keluarnya dan Takdir. 'Here, in contrast to his earlier novels, Takdir uses modern Indonesian, which occasionally startles us coming from Takdir.' (Indonesia Raya, March 17, 1971)

46.

47.

48. (379)

My conclusions suggest that the "modernisms" that Idrus was responding to reside more in the content and perhaps in the lexicon than in the grammar. E.g. bagaimanapun, ataupun, meskipun, walaupun, adapun. In current orthographic practice, these linkers are prescriptively written as one word with pun, while the contrastive pun is written separately; c.f. Badadu 1984. This is not the only intonation pattern possible in Modern Indonesian. A preverbal trigger may have no peak, and conversely a postverbal trigger may have a peak; the latter pattern is probably restricted to presentative clauses. A discourse study of the functions of these intonational contrasts has yet to be carried out, but Halim (1984) gives a catalogue of types. A hypothesis concerning the role of intonation in the constituent order change under investigation here will be presented in Chapter 5. All three alternatives are fairly common in my texts, e.g. Inspektur itu memandang padanya. inspector that MENG:look to:him 'The i n s p e c t o r l o o k e d a t h i m ' (SDJ)

Notes

227

(380)

Dipandangnya orang-orang yang mengelilingnya DI:look:NYA person:2 REL MENG:surround:him 'He looked at the people around him' (Rong:R074.2)

(381)

Kupandangi matanya yang berkilat-kilat. I:look:at eye:her REL BER:flash:2 'I looked at her flashing eyes' (Rong:R104.1)

49.

(382)

The functional differences between these alternatives have yet to be examined. However, my point is that in Classical Malay you could have your cake and eat it too, that is, code the goal with a directional preposition and still use a PT verb form; but in Modern Indonesian, the first choice precludes the second. I have noticed one counterexample to this generalization; it retains the di-V-nya pattern but adds a full noun phrase with oleh before the verb: Ketika when

isteri Mandur Kasir keluar menggendong wife Mandur Kasir come:out MENG:carry

bayi berumur setahun lebih, dan oleh Mandur Kasir baby BER:age one:year more LNK by Mandur Kasir diperkenalkannya isterinya DI:introduce:NYA wife:his

pada orang itu. to person that

'When Mandur Kasir's wife came out carrying a baby more than a year old, Mandur Kasir introduced his wife to that person (i.e. Mandur Kasir's guest)' (SDJ)

50.

51.

(383)

Kaswanti Purwo appeals to the "preferred argument structure" of Du Bois 1985 as the motivation for his proposed constraint. However, it is not immediately apparent why "preferred argument structure" should apply in V > T clauses but not T > V clauses. Maka is now often used to mark the "main" clause in the context of an adverbial clause of condition, reason, purpose, time, etc. Αtau jika polisi lalu lintas menahan mobil or if police traffic MENG:restrain car

lewat, pass

maka kuda tua itu ikut pula berhenti LNK horse old that follow also BER:stop dengan patuhnya di sebelah with obedience:3P at side l

mobil car

atau truk. or truck

Or if the traffic police stopped the cars from crossing, that old horse would obediently stop as well, beside the cars or trucks.' (SDJ)

228 (384)

Notes Sejak dia menjadi importir, since he MENG:become importer maka banyak LNK many

pengalaman serupa ini yang experience like this REL

didapatnya. DI:get:NYA

'Since he became an importer, he had had many experiences like this.' (SDJ)

52.

53.

54.

55.

56. 57.

Moreover, several of the other (less common) linkers which occur in Classical Malay, such as hatta, arakian, and syahadan, have disappeared altogether in Modern Indonesian. I did not report on this or the next two factors (auxiliaries and mode) in my discussion of eventiveness in Classical Malay, because all three of these phenomena are so rare in the Hikayat that a meaningful comparison would have been impossible. Since pronouns are reserved almost exclusively for humans in Malay, the mat and cloth must be referred to with full NPs every time they occur in this passage. I prefer the term "anchoring" for the introduction of new participants, since it suggests that the function of the adverbial is not merely to orient the reader to the presented argument but to actually attach it to the scene. In Green (1980), a similar function is attributed to "inversion" (VS syntax) in written English. She uses the term "connective function" to describe what I am calling "anchoring". In spoken Indonesian, as I have already mentioned, a V > T eventive clause should be intonationally distinct from a V > Τ presentative clause: the former should have its intonation peak on the predicate, the latter on the trigger. If this is true, it suggests that a clause should not be able to be both presentative and eventive. Since my information on the correspondence between intontation patterns and discourse functions is still anecdotal in nature, and therefore tentative, I have not been able to explore the implications of this hypothesis here. The functional overlap between "coming into being" and "locomotion" is also discussed in Payne (1985). Givön's claim to the effect that VS order is limited to the introduction of persistent topics is limited to "rigid word-order languages". In "pragmatic word-order languages", he claims that the presentative word-order is SV. Perhaps this means that Indonesian should be considered a "pragmatic word-order language", in which case the

Notes

58.

59.

229

VS (or V > T ) clauses we have been considering shouldn't be thought of as the "presentative" clauses at all. However, if Indonesian falls into Givön's class of pragmatic word-order langauges, then another of his predictions should apply: in such languages, VS order should be more continuous than SV order (and similarly for VO and OV). This is clearly not the case: although triggers in Indonesian intransitive V > Τ clauses are not very persistent, they are usually new. Thus it seems that Givön's predictions can't be reconciled with my data. In fact, Brown breaks down her counts for human and non-human participants. The persistence of human participants in presentative constructions is very slightly lower than the norm, but that of nonhuman participants is much lower than the norm. This order, while common, is not entirely general; thus there are examples of both types of descriptive predicate in Τ > V order, and for some authors, the T > V order is still more common even for these clause types.

(385)

Tubuhnya amat kurus b o d y : h i s very t h i n 'He w a s very t h i n ' (SDJ)

(386)

Matanya merah pudar di dalam cekungan pipinya eyes:his red p a l e at in hollow cheeks:his 'His eyes were p a l e red in his hollow cheeks' (SDJ)

However, examples of this type are still few and far between.

Chapter 5. Conclusions 60.

Although this text, like the Hikayat, was originally written in Jawi (the adapted Arabic script), unlike the Hikayat it contained punctuation marks. This would seem to go against Winstedt's view (mentioned in section 3.4.1 of Chapter 3) that maka and the other linkers are used primarily to mark sentence boundaries. Salleh's use of archaic linkers may simply represent an easy way to give the text a literary flavor. The borrowing of linkers is a common phenomenon: many of the Classical Malay linkers had themselves been borrowed into Indonesian from Sanskrit and Arabic in the first place, and even nowadays Indonesian linking words are frequently imported into the "regional languages" to give a discourse a more formal feel.

230 61.

Notes This contrast actually still exists in Modern Indonesian: prepredicate triggers, like other prepredicate elements, may "optionally" receive the fall-rise prominence usually described as the "anticipatory" or "topic" contour (Halim 1984, Wolff 1980). A good study has yet to be done on what the function of this distinction is in natural discourse, but a good bet is that it indicates degree of expectedness.

References

Abas, Husen 1987 Indonesian as a unifying language of wider communication: a historical and sociolinguistic perspective. (Pacific Linguistics Series D — No. 73; Materials in Languages of Indonesia, No. 37.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Adelaar, Karl Alexander 1985 Proto-Malayic: the reconstruction of its phonology and parts of its lexicon and morphology. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden.] Ajamiseba, Danielo 1983 A Classical Malay text grammar: insights into a nonWestern text tradition. (Pacific Linguistics Series D — No. 56; Materials in Languages of Indonesia, No. 21.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Ali bin Ahmad (ed.) 1976 Hikayat Inderaputera. (Siri pengetahuan bahasa dan sastra 18.) Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Alisjahbana, S. Takdir 1970 Grotta Azzurra: kisah cinta dan cita. Jakarta: Penerbit Dian Rakyat. 1972 "Writing a normative grammar for Indonesian", Language Sciences 19. Anderson, Benedict 1983 Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Anderson, J.M. & C. Jones (eds.) 1974 Historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Badadu, J.S. 1984 Inilah Bahasa Indonesia yang benar. Jakarta: PT Gramedia. Bastin, John, and R. Roolvink, eds. 1964 Malayan and Indonesian studies: essays presented to Sir Richard Winstedt on his eighty-fifth birthday. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

232

References

Bastin, John 1964

"Problems of personality in the reinterpretation of modern Malayan history", in: John Bastin & R. Roolvink (eds.), 141-155.

Becker, A. L. 1979 "The figure a sentence makes: an interpretation of a Classical Malay sentence", in: Talmy Givön (ed.), 243-260. Becker, A. L. & Umar Wirasno 1980 "On the nature of syntactic change in Bahasa Indonesia", in: Paz Naylor (ed.), 95-102. Bickerton, Derek & Talmy Givön 1976 "Pidginization and syntactic change: from SXV and VSX to SVX", in: Papers from the parasessioti on diachronic syntax, 9-39. Chicago: CLS. Brakel, L.F. 1975 The Hikayat Muhammad Hanafiyyah. (Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde; Bibliotheca Indonesica 12.) The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Brown, C.C. 1970 Sejarah Melayu, or Malay annals: an annotated translation, with a new introduction by R. Roolvink. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Brown, Cheryl 1983 "Topic continuity in written English narrative", in: Talmy Givön (ed.), 313-331. Brown, R. & A. Gilman 1960 "The pronouns of power and solidarity", in: T.A. Sebeok (ed.), 253-76. Cartier, Alice 1976 "Une langue a double construction objective et ergative: l'indonesien", La Linguistique 12:1, 99-130. 1979 "De-voiced transitive verb sentences in Formal Indonesian", in: F. Plank (ed.), 161-183. Chafe, Wallace 1976 "Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view", in: Charles N. Li (ed.), 27-55. 1984 "How people use adverbial clauses", Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 437-449. Berkeley: BLS.

References

233

Chafe, Wallace (ed.) 1980 The pear stories: cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chambert-Loir, Henri 1980 Hikayat Dewa Mandu, ipopie Malaise, vol. I: Texte et Presentation. Publications de l'Ecole Francaise d'ExtremeOrient, vol. CXXI. Chen, Ping 1986 "Discourse and particle movement in English", Studies in Language 10:1, 79-95. Chung, Sandra 1976 "On the subject of two passives in Indonesian", in: Charles N. Li (ed.), 59-98. Coedfcs, G. 1964 "A possible interpretation of the inscription at Kedukan Bukit (Palembang)", in: John Bastin & R. Roolvink (eds.), 24-32. Collins, James T. (ed.) 1983 Studies in Malay Dialects, Part I. Nusa 16. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri Nusa. Comrie, Bernard 1981 Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cumming, Susanna 1984 "The syntax and pragmatics of prepredicate word order in Toba Batak", in: Paul Schachter (ed.), 17-36. 1986 "The function of oleh*, Proceedings of the first annual Pacific Linguistics Conference, 69-84. 1987 "Variation and function in contemporary Indonesian", Proceedings of the second annual Pacific Linguistics Conference, 71-88. Cumming, Susanna & Fay Wouk 1987 "Is there 'discourse ergativity' in Austronesian languages?", in: R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), 271-297. Dixon, R.M.W. 1979 "Ergativity", Language 55:1, 59-138. Dixon, R.M.W. (ed.) 1987 Studies in Ergativity. Amsterdam: North Holland.

234

References

Du Bois, John W. 1980 "Beyond defmiteness: the trace of identity in discourse", in: Wallace Chafe (ed.), 203-275. 1985 "Competing motivations", in: John Haimain (ed.), 343365. 1987 "The dicourse basis of ergativity", Language 63:4, 805856. Duranti, Alessandro & Elinor Ochs 1979 "Left-dislocation in Italian conversation", in: Talmy Givdn (ed.), 377-416. Durie, Mark 1985 A grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. (Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 112.) Dordrecht: Foris. 1987 "Grammatical relations in Acehnese", Studies in Language 11:2, 365-399. 1988 "Preferred argument structure in an active language: arguments against the category 'intransitive subject'", Lingua 74:1-25. Dutra, Rosalia 1987 "The hybrid S-category in Brazilian Portuguese", Studies in Language 11:1, 163-180. Dyen, Isidore 1965 A lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages. Baltimore: Waverly Press. Emeis, M.G. 1948 "De inversie in het moderne Maleis", Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 104, 605-619. Emmorey, Karen 1984 "The intonation system of Toba Batak", in: Paul Schachter (ed.), 37-58. Errington, Shelley 1975 A study of genre: meaning and form in the Malay Hikayat Hang Tuah. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Fillmore, Charles J. 1982 "Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis", in: R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds.), 31-59. Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin 1984 Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38.) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. #

References

235

Fox, Barbara A. 1982 "The focus systems in Old Javanese, Tagalog, Chamorro and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian". [Unpublished mss.] 1985 "Word order inversion and continuity in Tagalog", Text 5:1/2, 39-54. Freidus, Alberta Joy 1977 Sumatran contributions to the development of Indonesian literature, 1920-1942. (Asian Studies at Hawaii, No. 19.) Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Givön, Talmy 1978 "Definiteness and referentiality", in Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 291-330. 1983b "Topic continuity in discourse: an introduction", in: Talmy Givön (ed.), 1-42. 1983c "Switch reference and topic continuity", in: John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), 51-82. Givön, Talmy (ed.) 1979 Discourse and syntax. (Syntax and Semantics 12). NY: Academic Press. 1983a Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Green, Georgia 1980 "Some wherefores of English inversions", Language 56:3, 582-601. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements", in: Joseph Greenberg (ed.), 73-113. 1966 Language universals. The Hague: Mouton. 1968 Anthropological linguistics. New York: Random House. Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) 1963 Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1978 Universals of Human Language: Volume 4, Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Haiman, John (ed.) 1985 Iconicity in syntax. (Typological studies in language 6.) Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haiman, John & Pamela Munro (eds.) 1983 Switch reference and universal grammar. (Typological Studies in Language 2.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.

236

References

Halim, Am ran 1984 Intonasi dalam hubungannya dengan sintaksis Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Penerbit Jambatan. Halim, Amran, Lois Carrington & S.A. Wurm (eds.) 1983 Papers from the third international conference on Austronesian linguistics. Volume 4: Thematic variation (Pacific Linguistics Series C — No. 77). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Heath, Jeffrey 1975 "Some functional relationships in grammar", Language 51:1, 89-104. Hawkins, John 1984 Word order universals. NY: Academic Press. Hetzron, Robert 1971 "Presentative function and presentative movement", Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 2, 79:105. Hopper, Paul J. 1979a "Some discourse sources of ergativity", Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 137-153. 1979b "Aspect and foregrounding in discourse", in: T. Givdn (ed.), 213-224. 1983 "Ergative, passive and active in Malay narrative", in: Flora Klein-Andreu (ed.), 67-88. 1988 "How ergative is Malay?", in: Richard McGinn (ed.), 441454. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson 1980 "Transitivity in grammar and discourse", Language 56:2, 251-299. Iskandar, Yusoff & Abdul Rahman Kaeh 1978 Sejarah Melayu (edisi Shellabear): satu pembicaraan kritis dari pelbagai bidang. Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. de Jong, P.E. de Josselin 1964 "The character of the Malay Annals", in: J. Bastin and R. Roolvink (eds.), 235-241. Jarvella, R.J. & W. Klein (eds.) 1982 Speech, place, and action. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

References

237

Karim, Nik Safiah 1978 Bahasa Malaysia syntax: some aspects of its standardization. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 1981 Beberapa persoalan sosiolinguistik Bahasa Melayu. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Kartomihardjo, Soeseno 1981 Ethnography of communicative codes in East Java. (Pacific Linguistics Series D — No. 39; Materials in Languages of Indonesia, No. 8.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang 1984 Deiksis dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: PN Balai Pustaka. 1988 "Voice in Indonesian: a discourse study", in: Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 195-241. in press "Inversion in Indonesian narratives: syntax and discourse", Proceedings of the fourth eastern conference on Austronesian languages. Kayam, Umar 1972 Seribu kunang-kunang di Manhattan. Jakarta: PT Gramedia. 1975 Sri Sumarah dan Bawuk. Jakarta: PT Gramedia. Keenan, Edward L. 1976 "Towards a universal definition of 'subject'", in: Charles N. Li (ed.), 303-334. Keenan, Elinor Ochs & Bambi Schieffelin 1976 "Foregrounding referents: a reconsideration of leftdislocation in discourse", Proceedings of the second annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 240-257. Flora Klein-Andreu (ed.) 1983 Discourse perspectives on syntax. New York: Academic Press. Langacker, Ronald W. & Pamela Munro 1975 "Passives and their meaning", Language 51:4, 789-830. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1978a "The great underlying ground-plans", in: Lehmann (ed.), 3-55. Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.) 1978b Syntactic typology (Studies in the phenomenology of language). Sussex: The Harvester Press.

238

References

Lewis, Μ. Blanche 1969 Sentence analysis in Modern Malay. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Li Chuan Siu 1975 An introduction to the promotion and development of modern Malay literature, 1942-1962. Yogyakarta: Pernerbitan Yayasan Kanisius. Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1975 Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1976 Subject and Topic. NY: Academic Press. 1977 Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson 1981 Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Liaw, Yock Fang 1975 Sejarah kesusastraan Melayu Klassik. Singapore: Pustaka Nasional. Lightfoot, David W. 1979 Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lubis, Mochtar 1970 Senja di Jakarta. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya. MacDonald, R. Ross & Soenjono Dardjowidjodjo 1967 A student's reference grammar of Modern Formal Indonesian. London: Georgetown University Press. Mallinson, Graham & Barry J. Blake 1981 Language typology. Amsterdam: North-Holland. McGinn, Richard (ed.) 1988 Studies in Austronesian, linguistics. (Monographs in International Studies Southeast Asia Series, No. 76.) Athens: Ohio University Center for International studies. Mithun, Marianne 1984 "The evolution of noun incorporation", Language 60:4, 847-894. 1987 "Is basic word order universal?", in: Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), 280-328. Moeliono, Anton M. 1985 Pengembangan dan pembinaan bahasa: ancangan alternatif di dalam perencanaan bahasa. Jakarta: Djambatan.

References

239

Moeliono, Anton M. & Soenjono Dardjowidjojo, eds. 1988 Tata bahasa baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Perum Balai Pustaka. Mulyadi, Sri Wulan Rujiati 1983a "Personal pronouns in 17th century Malay manuscripts and Bahasa Indonesia", in: Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & S.A. Wurm (eds.), 291-302. 1983b Hikayat Indraputra: a Malay romance. (Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Bibliotheca Indonesica no. 23.) Holland: Foris Publications. My hill, John 1985 "Pragmatic and categorial correlates of VS word order", Lingua 66, 177-200. 1988 "Nominal agent incorporation in Indonesian", Journal of Linguistics 24, 111-136. in press "Categoriality and clustering". [To appear in Studies in Language.] Nay lor, Paz (ed.) 1980 Austronesian Studies: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages. (Michigan papers on South and Southeast Asia No. 15.) Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, van Ophuijsen, Ch. A. 1910 Maleische Spraakkunst. Leiden. Payne, Doris L. 1987 "Information structuring in Papago narrative discourse", Language 63:4, 783-804. Payne, Thomas E. 1985 "Stativity and locomotion". [Unpublished mss.] Plank, Frans (ed.) 1979 Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. Poedjosoedarmo, Soepomo 1982 Javanese Influence on Indonesian. (Pacific Linguistics Series D — No. 38; Materials in Languages of Indonesia, No. 7.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

240

References

Rafferty, Ellen 1982 Discourse structures of the Chinese Indonesian of Malang. Nusa 12. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Sen Nusa. 1983 "Contrasts in the syntax of a Malay and an Indonesian oral narrative", in: James T. Collins (ed.). 1984 "Languages of the Chinese of Java — an historical review", Journal of Asian Studies 43:2, 247-72. 1987 "Word order in High and Low Malay of the late 19th century", in: Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), 361-382. in press "Changing discourse strategies in Malay texts of the 1920s", Proceedings of the fourth eastern conference on Austronesian languages. Ridhwan, Anwar 1980 Hari-hari terakhir seorang seniman. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Robson 1969 Hikayat Andaken Penurat. (Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde.) Holland: Foris Publications. Roolvink, Roelof 1948 De voorzetsels in Klassik en Modern Maleis. Dokkum: Firma Kamminga. Sarumpaet, J.P. 1977 The structure of Bahasa Indonesia (third edition). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. 1980 Modern usage in Bahasa Indonesia. Melbourne: Pitman. Schachter, Paul 1976 "The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actortopic, or none of the above?", in: Charles N. Li (ed.), 493518. 1984b "Semantic role based syntax in Toba Batak", in: Paul Schachter (ed.), 122-150. Schachter, Paul (ed.) 1984a Studies in the Structure of Toba Batak. (UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Number 5.) Los Angeles: UCLA. Schachter, Paul & Fe Otanes 1972 A Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.) 1960 Style in language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

References

241

Shellabear, W.G. (ed.) 1915 Sejarah Malayu, or, The Malay annals. (Malay Literature Series 9.) Singapore: the Methodist Publishing House. [1967] [reprinted as: Sejarah Melayu: diusahakan oleh W.G. Shellabear. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.] 1917 Hikayat Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir, Munshi (second edition). (Malay Literature Series 4.) Singapore: the Methodist Publishing House. Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) 1988 Passive and voice. (Typological Studies in Language 16.) Amsterdam: Benjamins. Siewerska, Anna. 1984 The passive: a comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm. Situmorang, T.D. & A. Teeuw, eds. 1958 Sedjarah Melaju menurut terbitan Abdullah. Penerbit Jambatan. Skinner, C. 1982 Ahmad Rijaluddin's Hikayat perintah Negeri Benggala. (Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde; Bibliotheca Indonesica 22.) The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Sweeney, Amin 1980a Reputations live on: an early Malay autobiography. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1980c Authors and audiences in traditional Malay literature. Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies. Sweeney, Amin (ed.) 1980b The Tarikh Datu' Bentara Luar Johor. Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies. Tchekhoff, C. 1978 Aux fondements de la syntaxe: I'ergatif. Paris: Presses Universitäres du France. 1980 "The economy of a voice-neutral verb: an example from Indonesian", in: Paz Naylor (ed.), 71-81. Teeuw, A. 1959 "The history of the Malay language: a preliminary survey", Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volken-kunde 115, 138156. Thompson, Sandra A. 1987 "'Subordination' and narrative event structure", in: Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), 435-454.

242

References

Tohari, Ahmad 1982 Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk. Jakarta: PT Gramedia. Tomlin, Russell S. 1986 Basic word order: functional principles. London: Croom Helm. Tomlin, Russell S. (ed.) 1987 Coherence and grounding in discourse. (Typological Studies in Language 11). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Vennemann, Theo. 1974 "Topics, subjects, and word order: from SXV to SVX via TVX", in: J.M. Anderson and C. Jones (eds.), 339-376. 1975 "An explanation of drift", in: Charles N. Li (ed.), 271305. Verhaar, John W.M. 1983 "Ergativity, accusativity, and hierarchy", Sophia Linguistica 11, 1-23. 1984 Towards a description of contemporary Indonesian: preliminary studies, part I. Nusa 18. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri Nusa. 1988 "Syntactic ergativity in Contemporary Indonesian", in: Richard McGinn (ed.), 347-384. Winstedt, Richard O. 1927 Malay grammar, second edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1955 An unabridged Malay-English dictionary. Singapore: Kelly & Walsh Limited. 1961 A history of Classical Malay literature (Revised Edition). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Malayan Branch 31, part 3, No. 183. (Monongraphs on Malay Subjects, No. 5.) Wolff, John U. 1980 Formal Indonesian. Ithaca: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program. Wolters, Ο. W. 1970 The fall of Srivijaya in Malay history. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Woollams, Geoff 1988 "Passive in Karo Batak". [Unpublished mss.]

References Wouk, Fay 1980

243

"The ter- prefix in Indonesian: a semantic analysis", in: Paz Naylor (ed.), 81-88. 1989 "The use of verb morphology in spoken Jakarta Indonesian". [Unpublished mss.] in press "Verbal morphology and the discourse structure of Indonesian", Proceedings of the fourth Eastern conference on Austronesian languages. Yatim, Wildan 1974 Pergolakan. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Index

A (role) 3, 27, 30, 121-122, 136, 147, 148 Abdullah bin Abdulkadir Munsyi 88 (see also Hikayat Abdullah) ability 69 Acehnese 49, 50, 87, 108, 109, 110, 150 active verb 187-188, 209-210 "active" voice 33, 126 (see also AT, ST) actor 29, 30, 101, 102, 107, 110, 114, 148, 150, 159, 185, 186, 192, 194, 203, 209, 211, 212 actor-prominence 208 ada 111, 115-118, 119, 122, 184 adalah 45, 115, 204 adapun 115, 204 Adelaar 7 adjectives 21, 24, 46, 63, 113, 163, 180 adverbs 24, 113 adverbials 100, 115, 127, 171, 183, 185, 193 adverbial clauses 57, 62, 78, 92, 108, 125-126, 129, 203, 205 adverbial linkers 136, 138, 180 adverbial relatives 59, 92 (see also relative clauses) afterthought 5 agentless PT clauses 37, 155, 163, 164-167, 174, 178, 179, 181, 183, 200, 203, 205, 206, 210, 216 Ajamiseba 91, 93, 115, 125, 147

akan (preposition) 28, 31, 42-44, 62, 69, 83, 141, 142, 144, 152, 155, 163-164, 198, 200, 204, 206 akan (modal) 171 aku 26, 37 alah 111 alangkah 53 Ali bin Ahmad 87, 131 (see also Hikayat Indraputra) Alisjahbana 14, 157, 158, 161, 174, 182, 197, 207 -an 218 Anderson 13 animacy 130 apa 51 apakah 51 arakian 204 arguments 16, 164 (see also direct, oblique arguments) argument clauses 61-66, 91, 92, 159 (see also clausal arguments) argument sharing 16, 72-75, 92, 114, 179, 203, 208 aspect 84, 120, 123, 129, 133 AT (agent trigger) clauses 31, 33, 34, 36-37, 49-50, 53, 58, 74, 84, 93, 107, 110, 121-122, 128-133, 136, 141, 147-148, 152-153, 159, 161-163, 175, 178, 194, 198-200, 203-206, 209, 211 atas 28

Index attribute 55, 81, 114, 195 audiences 6, 10 auxiliaries 17, 68, 180 baginda 26, 93 Bahasa Indonesia 11, 15 (,see also Indonesian, Malay) Bahasa Malaysia 15 (see also Malaysian, Malay) Bahasa Melayu 15 (see also Malay) bahwa 59, 92, 126 Balai Pustaka 13, 197, 213, 215 bare agent 40, 138, 177, 178 bare nouns 96-98 barn 127 basic constituent order 1, 84, 151154, 155, 198-199, 207, 208 Bastin 106 Batak 197 (see also Toba, Karo Batak) batang 22, 98 Becker 59, 91, 92, 106, 147 beliau 26 belum 70 benefactive 34 ber- 35, 47, 49, 110-111 Bickerton 3 bisa 69, 171 boleh 69, 171 Brakel 86, 88, 134 Brown & Gilman 26 Brown, C.C. 89, 193 buah 22 Buginese 87 bukan main 53, 70, 195 Cartier 33, 41 causation 76 causative 34 Chafe 105, 186

245

Cham 87, 131 Chambert-Loir 87, 134 channel 10, 106 Chinese Indonesians 13 Chung 33 Classical Malay: 84-149, 203 definition 2, 9 (see also Malay, Malaysian) classifiers (CL) 22, 95, 117, 119, 122, 148 clausal arguments 61-66, 91-92, 159 clause 16, 17, 56, 59 clause combining 17, 32, 34, 5782, 179, 211, 212 clause type 84-85, 202, 203, 206, 210, 213, 215 clefts 50 clitic agent 37-40, 53, 83, 144, 146, 167-170, 177, 179, 204, 212 clitic pronouns 23, 26, 36-40, 52, 67, 114 (see also pronouns) Coedfcs 9 cognition verbs 75 (see also psychological verbs) collocation 129, 178 complementizers 59, 163 Comrie 29 contact 213-215 controlled verbs 49, 110-113, 159, 167, 194, 203, 205, 211, 216 Cumming 33, 39, 99, 109, 145, 154, 158, 160, 207 dalam 28 dapat 69, 70, 171 Dardjowidjojo 33, 35, 39, 53, 155, 168 dari 28

246

Index

database 16, 46, 52, 54, 57, 68, 85-89, 90, 110, 142, 156-159 datang 79, 118-119, 122, 186 de Jong 89 definiteness 23, 93-94, 114, 205 deixis 95, 118-119 demonstratives 21, 23 dengan 28 depan 28 di 28, 41 dl· 36, 42, 128, 133, 16-166, 168, 175-179, 185, 188, 208, 210211 dia 25, 26, 42 direct argument 30, 79, 163, 164 directional verbs 80 discontinuity 98-107 discourse categories 3 discourse salience 1, 3, 5, 6, 149151, 208-211 ditransitive verbs 34 Dixon 29, 31, 34, 71 Du Bois 94, 121, 145, 167, 169, 177, 178 Duranti 91 Durie 49, 110, 154 Dutch 11, 14, 197 Dutra 151 Dyen 197 Early Modern Malay 204-205 Emeis 88, 155 Emmorey 160 enclitic pronouns 23, 26, 36, 3940, 168, 206 (see also pronouns) engkau 26, 37 English 5, 11, 14, 84, 91, 112, 114, 126, 152, 188, 193, 199 epistemic modals 69, 171

equationals 45, 84 (see also noun phrase predicates) equi 67, 75 ergativity 33 Errington 106, 107 eventiveness 52, 108, 123-133, 136, 139-140, 142, 144, 147151, 155, 159, 161-162, 167, 170-175, 176, 179, 180-183, 186, 199-200, 203-205, 207211, 213, 216 exclamatories 54-55, 113-115, 180, 194-196, 200, 211-212 external trigger 84, 91, 93, 128, 139, 147-151, 154, 179, 208, 210-212 Fillmore 118 Foley & Van Valin 29, 31, 34 foregrounding 123, 125, 129, 133, 138, 161 Fox 32, 99 Freidus 13, 197 future 68 genre 6, 7, 106, 155, 184, 192193, 200-201 given A constraint 119, 167, 169170 Givön 3, 5, 98, 99, 101, 115, 192-193 glossing conventions 218 Green 5, 114 Greenberg 2, 46, 151-153, 198, 216 Grotta Azzurra (GA) 157, 158 habis 68 Haiman 105 Halim 160

Index hamba 26 Hari-hari terakhir seorang seniman 157 harus 69, 171 hatta 204 Hawkins 2 headless relatives 24, 45, 61, 108, 117 {see also relative clauses) Heath 31, 34 Hetzron 115, 192-193 hikayat (genre) 2, 10, 85-87, 90, 105, 121, 131-137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 155-158, 162, 164, 169, 172-175, 180. 182, 184, 192, 193, 196, 200, 201, 204206 Hikayat Abdullah 86, 120, 142, 196 Hikayat Andaken Penurat (HAP) 86, 142 Hikayat Banjar dan Kota Waringin 86 Hikayat Dewa Mandu 86, 87 Hikayat Hang Tuah 86, 106 Hikayat Indraputra 86, 130, 172 Ali bin Ahmad version (AI) 131-140 Mulyadi version (MI) 132-140, 159, 207 Hikayat Kaiila dan Damina 86 Hikayat Misa Taman Jayeng Kusuma 86 Hikayat Muhammad Hanafiyyah 86 Hikayat Pandawa Lima 90, 142 Hikayat Patani 90, 142 Hikayat Perintah Negeri Benggala 86 Hikayat Sri Rama 86 Hjelmslev 152

247

homophoricity 94-95, 98 Hopper 31, 33, 43, 123, 125, 128, 129, 133, 147, 188, 196 -/ 34, 43, 163-164 ia 94 ialah 45 Iban 7 iconicity 1, 136, 175 identifiability 23, 93-98, 105, 114, 122, 130, 142 imperatives 53-54 incorporation 114, 121, 131-132, 145, 153, 166, 178, 210-211 individuation 107, 108-110 Indonesia 11, 14, 15 Indonesian: 12, 155-201, 203-204 definition 2 , 1 1 information status 98-107, 108110, 115-123, 175-178, 183193 {see also topicality, presentatives) ini 23 inscriptions 9, 10 intensifiers 24, 53, 113 intonation 160, 199, 207-209 intransitive clauses 45-51, 85, 96, 108, 110-126, 140, 145, 147, 150, 203-205, 207, 211 {see also ST clauses) inversion 5, 114, 152 Iskandar 88 itu 23, 61, 95-97, 114, 130, 142, 145-146, 174 Jambi 9 jangan 52 Java 9, 10, 14, 206 Javanese 14, 86, 196-197 Jawi 10, 89, 125, 134, 204

248

Index

Johor 9, 10, 12, 88-89 Kaeh 89 -kah 50, 53 kalau 207 kami 26 kamu 26 -kan 34, 35, 43, 163, 218 Karim 14, 39, 47, 60 Karo Batak 44 Kartomihardjo 47 Kaswanti Purwo 39, 65, 118, 120, 155, 160, 162, 169, 170, 196 kau- 26, 37 Kawi 10, 214 Kayam 156, 175, 197 ke 28, 47, 218 kedua 95, 108 Keenan 91 kena 111 kepada 28, 163 Kerinci 7 Kimono biru buat istri (KB) 156157 kinship terms 25 kita 26 -ku 23, 26, 36, 38, 40, 66-67 ku- 26, 37 lagi 68 -lah 52, 90-93, 107, 108, 123-128, 133, 143, 155, 180-183, 186, 200, 203, 208, 211, 212, 215 lalu 129, 171 Langacker 166 language planning 12, 14, 212 left-dislocation 84, 91 Lehmann 2 Lewis 33, 53

115, 178, 205,

197,

Li 197 Liaw 85, 89 Lightfoot 2, 3 linkers (LNK) 17, 90, 115, 125130, 136, 138, 159, 171-172, 180, 204, 206 location 28, 115, 119, 183, 184, 186, 192 lookback 16, 99, 131 luar 28 Lubis 157, 158, 161, 164, 174, 175, 197 MacDonald 33, 39, 168 macro-roles 30 maka 10, 87, 125-130, 138, 171, 204, 206 Malacca 9, 10, 11, 12, 88-89 Malay 2, 7, 9, 15 (see also Old Malay, Classical Malay, Early Modern Malay, Malaysian, Indonesian) sociolinguistic status 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 Malay dialects 7, 8, 12, 196, 197, 202, 214 High Malay 13 Javanese Indonesian 206 Low Malay 13 Riau-Johor 12, 86, 215 School Malay 214, 215 Serdang 12, 196, 205-206, 207 Malay annals 9, 88-89 (see also Sejarah Melayu) Malay homeland 9 Malaya 14 (see also Malaysia, Malay peninsula) Malayic 7 Malaysia 11, 14 Malaysian 14, 15

Index definition 2, 7, 15 Malayu 9 Mallinson & Blake 3, 153, 198 mau 70, 112, 205 Melayu 9 also M a l a y u , M a l a y , Malaysian) meng- 35, 36, 49, 110, 128, 148, 164, 176, 177 merupakan 45 mereka 27, 38 mert/ 69, 171 methodology 18-20 meu- 49 micro-roles 30 Minangkabau 7, 13, 197, 207 Mithun 105, 106, 131, 151 modals 38, 68, 127, 171, 180 Moeliono 14, 33, 35, 39, 53, 155 motion verbs 79, 118-122, 181, 184, 186, 200, 205 -mu 23, 26, 37, 40, 66 Mulyadi 87, 131 (see also Hikayat Indraputra) Munro 166 Musim gugur kembali di Connecticut (MG) 157 Myhill 4, 39, 142, 147 narrative 6, 86, 106, 114, 117, 119-120, 131, 158, 162, 172, 179, 192-193, 198, 209 -nda 26 negatives 38, 70, 103, 171, 180 nenekkebayan 87, 94, 124 newsworthiness 106 nominalizations 60 non-trigger arguments 103, 121122, 130, 144-146, 192 noun phrase 21-28, 94, 106, 108, 114, 133

249

noun phrase predicates 45-46 (see also equationals) -nya 23-24, 25, 26, 37, 39-40, 41, 42, 55, 66, 114, 130, 145, 168169, 176, 179, 188, 206, 215 (see also enclitic pronouns) Ο (role) 3, 30, 151 obliques 30, 101, 103, 121, 163164, 192 Ochs 91 Old Malay 9 oleh 28, 31, 40-42, 48-50, 53, 74, 83, 112, 122, 138, 142, 145146, 152-153, 177, 198 Ophuijsen 41 orang 22, 121-122, 145, 166, 169, 178 orthography 9, 10, 13, 133, 218 Ρ (role) 3, 27, 30, 136, 147 pada 163-164 Palembang 9 parallelism 104, 106, 136, 138, 159 participant introduction 115-123, 183-196 (see also presentatives) "passive" voice 33, 110, 111, 128, 152, 166 (see also PT) patient prominence 205, 206, 208, 209, 212 patik 26 Payne, T. 119-120, 151, 184 peng- 218 perception verbs 75, 184, 187190, 191, 195, 200 perfective aspect 68 Pergolakan 157 pergi!9, 118-120, 157, 219

250

Index

persistence 115, 184, 190-193 phonological change 4 pivot 31-34, 57, 68, 71, 80, 83, 92, 147, 179 Poedjosoedarmo 47 Portuguese 10, 11, 89 possessors 21, 23, 27, 34, 59, 67, 72, 83, 168 (see also pronouns) possessor dislocation 55-57, 59, 66, 69, 79, 113-115, 194-196, 200, 211-212 possessor relativization 59, 60, 92 possessor serialization 80-82 prepositional phrases 21, 23, 24, 27, 28-29, 80, 186, 192 prepositional phrase predicates 46 prepositional triggers 44, 163 prepositions 30, 31, 40, 42, 43, 44, 62, 63, 69 presentatives 107, 115-123, 148151, 154, 155, 166, 174, 179, 181, 183-193, 195, 196, 200, 203-206, 208 primary clause 57 proclitic pronouns 26, 37-39, 52, 168, 204 (see also pronouns) progressive aspect 68, 171 pronouns 22, 25-28, 37, 38, 94, 97-98, 99-100, 145, 167, 169, 191, 193, 204 enclitics 23, 26, 36, 39-40, 41, 42 possessive 23, 37, 55, 59, 6667, 82, 130 proclitics 26, 37-39, 41, 42, 52, 83, 168 proper names 89, 94, 97-100, 131, 145, 146, 169 protagonist 118-119, 184, 191-192

psychological verbs 75, 112, 163, 187, 195, 205 PT (patient trigger) clauses 31, 3334, 37-45, 48, 49, 50, 53-54, 58, 67, 71, 74, 84, 107-108, 110, 121, 123, 128-133, 136, 138, 141-142, 144-146, 147153, 186, 155, 158, 161-179, 198-200, 210 pun 84, 90-107, 108, 109, 112113, 115, 123, 128, 134-141, 143, 147, 152, 155, 159-160, 176, 179, 200, 203-205, 207, 208-210, 211, 212 pun-lah construction 91, 107 punctuality 108, 123, 129, 133, 136, 171, 175, 201 punctuation 125, 136, 139 putus 111 quantifiers 22, 94 questions 51-53, 84, 152 question-word questions 51-52 yes-no questions 52-53 quotation 66-68, 84 Rafferty 12, 13, 66, 88, 101, 102, 133, 147, 196, 197, 205, 206, 207, 213 raising 67, 75 ,referentiality 96, 98, 122, 131132, 145, 169, 176, 178 relative clauses 21, 23, 24, 32-33, 45, 58-61, 91, 92, 126, 210, 173, 179, 211 adverbial relatives 59, 92 possessor relatives 34, 57, 5961, 91 headless relatives 24, 45, 61, 108, 117

Index resumptive topic 99, 100, 105, 107, 140, 143, 147, 155, 159160, 161, 169, 176, 200, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 211 Riau 9, 10, 12, 204. 215 Riau-Johor Malay 12, 86, 215 (see also Malay Dialects) Ridhwan 157, 158, 197 Robson 146 role 30-34, 44, 49-51, 61, 72-75, 80-81, 83, 102, 121, 147, 144, 192, 203, 205, 208 (see also syntactic, semantic role; A, P, S role) Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk (Rong) 156, 190-191 Roolvink 42, 88 S (role) 3, 30, 49, 151 Salleh 204, 207, 214 Sarumpaet 47, 53, 59, 91 satu 22 soya 26, 206 sahaya 26 scene 118-121, 135, 184-188 Schachter 212 Schieffelin 9 scribal tradition 10, 85, 87, 139, 146, 204 je- 22, 95, 115, 117, 119, 122, 148, 205 secondary clause 57, 179, 212 sedang 68, 171 segala 95, 108, 141 Sejarah Melayu (SM) 86, 88-89, 102, 141-143, 146, 182 sekitar 28 semantic class 16, 29, 108, 123, 184-188, 192

251

semantic roles 29, 30-31, 32, 34, 44, 50, 57, 58, 84, 101-102, 107, 110-113, 114, 118, 122, 147-149, 150-151, 153-154, 155, 194-195, 200 (see also role) Senja di Jakarta (SDJ) 157, 158, 171, 172, 174, 180, 182 sequencing 108, 123, 125, 126, 128-133, 136, 140, 147, 162, 168, 171-174, 180, 187, 188, 198, 199 seraya 136 Serdang Malay 12, 196 (see also Malay Dialects) serial verbs 16, 31, 68-82, 114, 123, 179 setelah 125, 138 shared arguments 57-82 (see also argument sharing, serial verbs, clause combining) Shellabear 13, 86, 89 Sirat al-Mustakim 87 Situmorang 89 Skinner 86 specificity 23, 96, 169, 177 speech verbs 77 split-S languages 49, 110-111 Sri Sumarah (SrS) 156, 191 Srivijaya 9 ST (S trigger) clauses 45-51, 53, 83, 84, 96, 107, 123-128, 147149, 152, 180, 204-206, 210211 (see also intransitive clauses) style 172-175, 196-198 suatu 22 subject 4, 33, 91, 101, 153-154, 193, 212, 213 (see also trigger) sudah 68, 171

252

Index

Sumatra 7, 9, 12, 14, 196-197, 205, 213 supaya 59, 60 Sweeney 10, 86, 107, 204 syair 10 syntactic categories 3, 152 syntactic change 2, 3, 29, 208, 216 syntactic roles 30-31, 92, 151-155, 212 (see also role) Τ 3, 33 (see also "trigger") Τ > V (trigger before predicate order) 33 Tagalog 32, 99 Tarikh Datu' Bentara Luar Johor 86, 204-205 Tchekhoff 33 Teeuw 10, 88 telah 68, 171 telicity 129 tempat 59, 68 ter- 48, 49, 110, 165-167, 185, 188 teu- 49 theme 3, 128, 153, 207 Thompson 31, 43, 125, 126, 129, 188 tiada 70 tidak 70 titles 25 Toba Batak 99, 109, 154, 160, 199, 207 Tohari 156, 161, 197 Tomlin 3, 153 topic 84, 91, 136, 148, 155, 159161, 199, 207, 209, 210, 212 (see also resumptive topic)

topicality 3, 4, 93, 98-101, 105, 128, 130, 176, 179, 192, 200, 203, 206, 209, 210, 216 topicalization 5, 215 transitive clauses 34-45, 84, 108, 121, 123, 128-133, 142, 147, 152, 155, 161-162, 203, 205, 211 transitivity 31, 84, 115, 125, 128129, 133, 136, 147-148, 163167, 175-179, 181, 188, 194, 198-200, 210, 216 trigger (definition) 31-34 trigger choice 84, 128-133, 134142, 160, 161, 163, 178-179, 199 (see also voice) trigger morphology 34, 203, 205, 210 (see also meng-, di-) trigger system 3, 17, 29-34, 46, 49-51 (see also AT, PT, ST) tuan 26 Tuhfat al-Nafis 101, 103, 143 Twenties Generation 13, 15, 197, 215 two-argument clauses 203, 204206, 210 uncontrolled verbs 48, 11, 112, 118, 179-180, 194, 205 undergoer 29, 30, 107, 110-113, 114, 118, 147-150, 159, 166, 194, 203, 209, 211-212 unprefixed verbs 35, 46, 52, 66, 68, 110-112, 123, 186 untuk 28, 59, 60 V > T (predicate before trigger order) 33, 52, 56, 65

Index Van Ophuijsen 4, 29, 31, 33 variation 4, 87, 133-149, 158, 196-198, 202, 206 Vennemann 2 Verhaar 33, 35, 41, 71 voice 29, 128, 130, 131, 148, 161, 172 (see also trigger system) Winstedt 43, 46, 49, 87-89, 91, 105, 125, 146 Wirasno 59 Wolff 33, 35 Wolters 9 Wool lams 44 Wouk 33, 47 Yagua 120 yang 24, 59, 61, 126 Yatim 157, 174, 197, 207 yes-no questions 52-53 (see also questions) Youth Oath (sumpah pemuda) 11

253

m

Ellen Contini-Morava

m Discourse Pragmatics and m Semantic Categorization m m

m m m

m m

m m m m m

The Case of Negation and Tense-Aspect with Special Reference to Swahili 1989. 15.5 X 23 cm. ΧΠ, 205 pages. With 2 illustrations. Cloth. ISBN 3110115611 (Discourse Perspectives on Grammar 1) This research monograph deals with a widespread but neglected phenomenon, the affirmative-negative tenseaspect asymmetry. This neglect may stem from the assumption that negative sentences, like negative logical propositions, merely assert that the corresponding affirmatives are false. A semantic analysis of discourse shows that several factors, including general pragmatic differences between affirmative and negative utterances in discourse, differences of value, or number and type of oppositions within a particular semantic domain, and differences of substance, or choice of semantic domain, all affect the relationship between affirmative and negative in natural languages. The phenomenon of affirmative-negative asymmetry is characteristic of the Niger-Congo languages of sub-Saharan Africa, with Swahili an "extreme case" in that it has distinct verbal paradigms for affirmative and negative. Thus it provides the major portion of the material upon which the methodology of this investigation is developed, though the results have far-reaching applications.

m m m

mouton de gruyter Berlin · New York

m

Doris L. Payne

mi The Pragmatics of Word Order m

m m m m m m m m

Typological Dimensions of Verb Initial Change

1990. XIV, 298 pages. With 1 illustration. Cloth. ISBN 311012207 3 (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 7) This monograph focusses on features that are said to correlate with a consistent verb-initial type and the pragmatic factors motivating variation in the basic order of verb, subject and object. The analysis contributes to a theoretical understanding of the allowable orders of meaningful elements, pressures toward historical change, the pragmatic basis for "headship" in syntactic constructions, and aspects of morphological theory. The evidence comes primarily from Yagua, the only extant Peba-Yaguan language, which is spoken in lowland Peru in South America. Yagua is shown to be an inconsistent language with regard to traditional typologies of word order.

m m m m m m m

mouton de gruyter Berlin · New York