PODI AND ODI IN CLAUSE CONSTRUCTION OF KEMAK
on
e-journal of linguistics
PODI AND ODI IN CLAUSE CONSTRUCTION OF KEMAK
I Wayan Budiarta [email protected] Foreign Language College of Mentari Kupang
Prof. Dr. Ketut Artawa, M.A., Ph.D. [email protected]
Study Program of Linguistics, School of Postgraduate Studies, Udayana University
Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete [email protected]
Study Program of Linguistics, School of Postgraduate Studies, Udayana University
Dr. Made Sri Satyawati, S.S., M.Hum. [email protected]
Study Program of Linguistics, School of Postgraduate Studies, Udayana University
Abstract
This article reveals podi and odi in clause construction of Kemak. Specifically, this article is aimed at finding out in what construction podi and odi appear. Moreover, this article is also aimed at finding out the function of podi and odi in the clause construction of Kemak. Before exploring podi and odi in clause construction, the first discussion will examine the morphology of the verb of Kemak to find out how the verbs are formed in Kemak as they have the main role to fill the predicate. The discussion continues to examine the clause with nonverbal (verbless) and verbal predicate. Clause with nonvebral (verbless) predicate will begin the discussion on clause construction in Kemak. Then, the discussion goes to clause with verbal predicate. The clause with verbal predicate includes intransitive and transtive. The disscussion of transitive clause covers monotransitive and ditransitive clause. The study on transitive clause is related to the presence of podi and odi in the construction.The result shows that all verbs are basic verbs. Verbs in Kemak are morphologically unmarked (no affixes) and there is no agreement between the verb and its arguments. The clause with nonverbal predicate in Kemak is filled by noun, adjective, numeral, and prepositional phrase. Clause with nonverbal predicate requires one argument functioning as grammatical subject. As cluase with nonverbal predicate, intransitive clause in Kemak also requires one argument functioning as grammatical subject. Meanwhile, monotransitive clause requires two arguments, preverbal and postverbal argument. Ditranstive clause requires three arguments, one preverbal
and two postverbal argument. Moreover, it was found that podi appears in ditransitive clause (applicative/benefactive construction). Podi has the function to increase the verb valence from monotransitive into ditransitive. Meanwhile, odi appears in monotransitive clause The presence of odi in monotrasitive is as the alternation result from ditransitive clause into monotransitive clause. Moreover, odi has the function to decrease the number of core argument, from three core arguments to two core arguments.
Keywords: podi, odi, clause construction, monotransitive, ditransitive, Kemak
It is well known that in Eastern Indonesia there are a large number of local languages. Grimmes et al (1997) stated that there are 61 languages spoken in the province of East Nusa Tenggara. One of those languages is Kemak. This language is the native language of the Kemak tribe in Umaklaran and Sadi villages, Tasifeto Timur Sub-District, Belu Regency, East Nusa Tenggara Province. According to Head of Tasifeto Timur Sub-District (2012), there are about 3000 speakers of the language, though the number of the people speaking this language has decreased over time.
Kemak is used as a medium of every day communication among the Kemak tribe. In addition to as a means of communication, this language is also used for local cultural activities, like marriage ceremonies, funerals and in other ceremonies. Indonesian is the language of instruction at school, but sometimes teachers use Kemak to deliver the lessons to the students. But in general, instead of using Kemak, the teacher uses Kupang Malay or Indonesian due to the presence of the other tribes who speak other languages, like Dawan, Tetun, and Bunak.
Previous research on the Kemak language was undertaken by Stevens (1976), Sadnyana, et al (1996), and Mandaru, et al. (1998). The research by Stevens has just provided with 200 words (swadesh list) of Kemak. Sadnyana et al (1996) explained the structure of Kemak. Meanwhile, Mandaru, at al. (1998) discussed the morphology and syntax of Kemak. Those studies have a very important role in providing the foundation and reference for future research. This also gives a firm basis for other researchers to conduct their research on the Kemak language.
Based on the data of the prevoius studies, it was found that there were podi and osi in clause construction of Kemak. The previous studies do not give further explaination about the presence of podi and odi in clause construction of Kemak. They have just explained the word order of Kemak and found that Kemak has SVO word order. This explanation of Kemak word order does not explain the presence of podi and odi in the construction. The word order can be seen from the examples below.
|
(1) Au ala |
baru | |
|
1Sg buy ‘I buy shirt’ |
shirt | |
|
(2) Au ala |
baru odi |
ua |
|
1Pl buy |
shirt for |
3Sg |
|
‘I buy shirt for him/her’ | ||
|
(3) Au ala |
podi ua |
baru |
|
1Sg buy |
for 3Sg |
shirt |
|
‘I buy him/her a shirt’ |
(Mandaru, et al. 1998) | |
The examples above show that there is no further explanation on the presence of podi and odi in the construction. Furthermore, there is no explanation on what construction podi and odi appear and their function in the construction. Based on that phenomenon, the aim of this article was to reveal podi and odi in clause construction of Kemak. Specifically, this articlewas aimed at finding out in what construction podi and odi appear. Moreover, this article also was aimed at finding out the function of podi and odi in the clause construction of Kemak.
As I have explained above, the Kemak language is a minority language which is spoken by the Kemak tribe. Compared to Dawan, Tetun, and Bunak languages, the Kemak language is highly in danger. The use of the Kemak language is limited to the native speakers. The limited use of Kemak language threatens the language and it is likely that the language will soon become extinct. Maryanto (1984) wrote that the number of Kemak speakers is 5000. The current number of speakers of the Kemak language is only 3000 (data were taken from Head of
Tasifeto Timur Sub-District, 2012). This situation shows that the language is really in danger.
Though this study only analyses one aspect of Kemak, it is one of the important efforts to save the Kemak language. The study will become one of the documentation of the Kemak language. This documentation will significantly benefit Indonesia in terms of primary education. This documentation is also in line and supports the government program in documenting and revitalizing the minority languages in Indonesia.
The study on podi and odi in clause construction of Kemak applied the theory which derived from Basic Linguistic Theory taken from Dixon (2010). This theory is suitable to be applied in analyzing the clause construction of Kemak which covers the discussion of monotranstive and ditransitive where podi and odi appear in the construction.
Before we go further to observe the basic construction of Kemak, we will first examine the morphological verb of Kemak as the verb is the main category which functions as predicate. The fact shows that nearly all verbs in Kemak appear in bare, un-affixed form. So far, neither derivational nor inflectional morphology on the verb has been found. Consider the following examples.
-
(4) a. Au la de Atambua
1Sg go Prep Atambua
‘I go to Atambua’
|
b. Ua mnahu dase |
ai | ||
|
3Sg fall Prep |
tree | ||
|
‘She/he falls from the tree’ | |||
|
(5) a. Au-ng ama-ng ala |
ika |
de |
basar |
|
1Sg-Poss father-Poss buy |
fish |
Prep |
market |
‘My father buys fish at the market’
-
b. Hine koet senua mela au
Woman beautiful ART call me
‘The beautiful woman calls me’
Clauses (4) and (5) clearly show that the sentence predicates can be filled with intransitive and transitive verb. In clause (4), the sentence predicates are filled by intranstive verbs la ‘go’ and mnahu ‘fall’ that require S as the only argument, whether S (intransitive subject) has grammatical function as agent (A) or patient (P). Both the sentences show that the verbs are morphologically unmarked and there is also no agreement between verb and its argument. In clause (5), the sentence predicates are filled with transtitive verbs ala ’buy’ and mela ‘call’ that require two arguments, a preverbal argument which has grammatical function as A and postverbal argument which has grammatical function as P. The transitive sentences in Kemak also show that the verbs are morphologically unmarked and no agreement is found between the verb and its arguments.
-
4.2 Nonverbal (Verbless) Clause
The study of nonverbal (verbless) clauses in Kemak includes the clause with the predicate of a noun, adjective, numeral, and prepositional phrase. Let us have a look first at the clause with noun predicate from following examples.
-
(6) a. Au-ng ama-ng guru
1Sg-Poss father-Poss teacher
‘My father is a teacher’
-
b. Ita isikola ana
1Pl school children
‘We are students’
-
c. Mane senua bali
Man ART thief
‘The man is a thief’
Clauses (6a-6c) show that the predicate guru ‘teacher’, isikola ana ‘student’, and bali ‘thief’ are nouns. Those nouns fill the head of predicate as secondary function. The primary function of a noun is as the argument of a predicate. To identify the predicate above as a noun, we see that they can be modified by
adjective, verb, possessive, numeral, and demonstrative to form an NP as shown
by the following examples.
-
(7) a. Guru heung senua
Teacher Adj/new ART
‘The new teacher’
-
b. Sele nunu-ng
Corn grill-suf
‘Grilled corn’
-
c. Au-ng osa
1Sg-Poss money
‘My money’
-
d. Ahi hrua senua
Pig Num/two ART
‘The two pigs’
-
e. Uma senogo
House ART
This house’
The NPs above consist of a noun and adjective as in clause (7a), noun and verb as in clause (7b), noun and possession marker as in clause (7c), noun and numeral as in clause(7d), and noun and demontrative as in clause (7e). The following examples illustrate the clause with adjective predicate.
(8) a. Hine
Woman
senua koet
ART beautiful
‘The woman is beautiful’
-
b. Au-ng lima-ng mlarung
1Sg-Poss hand-Poss long
‘My hand is long’
-
c. Baru heung senua buti
Shirt Adj DEF white
‘The new shirt is white’
The same as noun, adjective can also fill the predicate in clause construction of Kemak. The predicates koet ‘beautiful’, mlarang ‘long’, and buti ‘white’ are categorised as adjectives due to the grammatical properties that they have. Apart from the ability of adjectives to modify nouns, the common way to differentiate
adjectives in Kemak from other word classes is that adjective is the only word class that can take the comparative and superlative form as illustrated by the following examples.
(9) a.
Au-ng he-ng koet lau dase hine senua 1Sg-Poss wife-Poss beautiful COMP than woman ART ‘My wife is more beautiful than the woman’
b. Hine senua koet
los de isikola
Woman ART beautiful SUP Prep isikola ‘The woman is the most beautiful at school’
The ability to take comparative and superlative form is the common way to differentiate adjectives from other word classes. The adjective in Kemak can appear with TAM just as the verb can. Consider the following examples (10) a. Au-ng ina-ng tumang kasai
1Sg-Poss mother-Poss old PERF
‘My mother is already old’
-
b. Roma soleng mloing
3Pl sad DM
‘They can be sad’
The following examples will also illustrate the clause with prepositional phrase predicate.
-
(11) Mane senua dase Kupang
Man ART Prep Kupang
‘The man is from Kupang’
-
(12) Au hei de iskola
1Sg Mod Prep school
‘I am still at school’
-
(13) Au-ng bibu hlima
1Sg kambing five
‘My goat are five’
-
(14) Ita-ng uma telu 1Pl-Poss house three ‘Our house are three’
Clauses (11) - (14) above show the clauses with a numeral and prepositional phrase (PP) predicate. The predicates of clauses (11) and (12) are prepositional
phrases. Meanwhile, the predicates of clauses (13) and (14) are numerals. The predicates of clauses (11) and (12) are obviously a PP as they are marked by the presence of prepositional dase ‘from’ and de ‘at’. The predicates of clauses (13) and (14) are clearly numerals as they carry the meaning of quantity. All the examples above show that the clause with non-verbal (verbless) predicate requires the S as the only argument. The S argument appears before the predicate. Moreover, unlike English that has copula verb in clause with nonverbal predicate, the clause with nonverbal (verbless) predicate in Kemak does not have a copula verb.
The study on verbal clause of Kemak is started with the discussion on the
intranstive clause. The following examples illustrate the intransitive clause in
Kemak.
-
(15) a. Au huri
1Sg dance
‘I dance’
-
b. Au-ng ana-ng mnahu
1Sg-Poss children-Poss fall
‘My children falls’
-
(16) a. Roma hali dase iskola
3Pl return Prep school
‘They return from school’
-
b Atmas senua mai de au-ng uma
People ART come Prep 1Sg-Poss house
‘The people come to my house’
Examples (15) and (16) illustrate sentences whose predicates are intransitive verbs. The predicates huri ‘dance’ mnahu ‘fall’, hali ‘return’, and mai ‘come’ are labelled as verbs as they fill the slot of predicate head as primary function. Furthermore, the verb in Kemak can also be recognised from the ability to take TAM. Consider the following examples.
|
(17) |
a. |
Roma la kasai de 3Pl go PERF Prep ‘They have gone to school’ |
iskola school | ||
|
b. |
Atmas senua mai kasai de People ART come PERF Prep ‘The people have come to my house’ |
au-ng 1Sg-Poss |
uma house | ||
|
(18) |
a. |
Roma los la de 3Pl DM go Prep ‘They must go to school’ |
isikola school | ||
|
b. |
Atmas senua los mai de People ART DM come Prep ‘The people must come to my house’ |
au-ng 1Sg-Poss |
uma house | ||
Clauses (17) and (18) show that the the predicates which are filled with the verb can take the TAM. The other way of differentiating the verb from other word classes is that the verb in Kemak can participate in the serial verb construction. Consider the examples below.
-
(19) a. Au la rusi de holang
1Sg go bath Prep river
‘I go bathing at the river’
-
b. Hine senua mai ele au-ng ama-ng
Woman ART come look for 1Sg-Poss father-Poss
‘The woman come looking for my father’
Like the clause with non-verbal predicate, the intransitive clause also requires the S (intransitive subject) as the only argument in the construction which occurs before the verbal predicate. Both non-verbal predicate and intransitive clause require an S argument which occurs before the predicate. Clauses (6-19) indicate that the clauses in Kemak can be filled with non-verbal predicates as in clauses. (6-14) and with verbal predicates as in clauses. (15-19). Moreover, those examples above clearly show that the verbs in Kemak are morphologically unmarked. There is also no agreement found between the verbs and S (as the sole argument) in clause with nonverbal (verbless) predicate and the intranstive clause.
Monotranstive clause is a clause whose predicate requires two arguments. Consider the following examples of transitive clauses in Kemak.
-
(20) a. Au-ng ina-ng ala baru sia
1Sg-Poss mother-Poss buy shirt Num
‘My mother bought one shirt’
-
b. Ama ne buku senua na’arua
Father give book ART yesterday
‘Father gave the book yesterday’
-
c. Ina mela roma de isikola
Mother call 3Pl Prep school
“Mother calls them at school’
-
d. Ita enu kopi de uma
1Pl drink coffee Prep house
‘We drink coffee at home’
Example (20) illustrates monotranstive clauses in Kemak. There are two arguments appearing in that construction, the preverbal argument, aung inang ‘my mother’ (ex. 20a), ama ‘father’ (ex. 20b), ina ‘mother’ (ex. 20c), and ita ‘we’ (ex. 20d) and postverbal argument, baru sia ‘one shirt’ (ex. 20a), buku senua ‘the book’ (ex. 20b), roma ‘they’ (ex. 20c), and kopi ‘coffee’ (ex. 20d). The preverbal arguments have the function as subject (SUBJ). Meanwhile, the postverbal argument has the function as object (OBJ). Semantically, the preverbal arguments have the function as agent (A) and patient (P) for the postverbal argument.
As stated above, the transitive clause requires two or more arguments. The examples above have presented the monotransitive clause with two arguments. The following examples will exhibit the ditransitive clause (extended transitive clause) in Kemak.
-
(21) a. Mane senua ala podi au baru sia
Man DEF buy APPL 1Sg shirt Num
‘The man bought me one shirt’
-
b. Ua ne podi roma buku na’arua
3Sg give APPL 3Pl book yesterday
‘She/He gave them a book yesterday’
-
c. Ina lodi podi ama kopi
Mother bring APPL father coffee
‘Mother brings father coffee’
-
d. Ama tau podi ita uma heung
Father make APPL 1Pl house new
‘Father makes us a new house’
Example (21) illustrates ditranstive clauses. There are three arguments in the construction. The preverbal argument of the clauses above are mane senua ‘the man’ (ex.21a), ua ‘she/he’ (ex. 21b), ina ‘mother’ (ex.21c), and ama ‘father’ (ex.21d). Those preverbal arguements have the function of subject (SUBJ). The two postverbal arguments are au ‘I’ and baru sia ‘one shirt’ (ex.21a), roma ‘them’ and buku ‘book’ (ex. 21b), ama ‘father’ and kopi ‘coffee’ (ex.21c), and ita ‘us’ and uma heung ‘new house’ (ex.21d). Those two arguments have the function as indirect object (IO) and direct object (DO). Furthermore, those three arguments which build the constructions have different semantic roles. The preverbal argument is always an agent (A) as it is the instigator of the action or conducts the action. The first postverbal argument (IO) is semantically a benefactive as it obtains benefit from the action carried out by the agent. Meanwhile, the second postverbal argument (DO) is semantically a theme. The ditransitive (extended transitive) clauses above also show that the verbs are morphologically unmarked and there is no agreement found between the arguments and the verb. This is the same as what we have found in the intransitive construction.
Further observation of ditransitive clauses in Kemak reveals that to increase the number of arguments (verb valence) in the construction, from two arguments (example. (20)) to three arguments (example (21)), the presence of the applicative marker podi is requires to promote the prepositionally marked oblique to the status of core argument as indirect object in ditransitive construction. Consider the following examples that show the decrease of valence from clause with three arguments into the clause with two arguments.
|
(22) |
a. |
Mane Man ‘The man |
senua ala podi DEF buy APPL bought me one shirt’ |
au 1Sg |
baru sia shirt Num |
|
b. |
Mane Man ‘The man |
senua ala baru sia DEF buy shirt Num bought one shirt for me’ |
odi au Prep 1Sg | ||
|
(23) |
a. |
Ua ne podi roma buku 3Sg give APPL 3Pl book ‘She/He gave them a book yesterday’ |
na’arua yesterday | ||
|
b. |
Ua ne buku odi roma 3Sg give book Prep 3Pl ‘She/He gave book to them yesterday’ |
na’arua yesterday | |||
|
(24) |
a. |
Ina lodi podi ama Mother bring APPL father ‘Mother brings coffee for father’ |
kopi coffe | ||
|
b. |
Ina lodi kopi Mother bring coffee Prep ‘Mother brings coffee for father’ |
odi father |
ama | ||
|
(25) |
a. |
Ama tau podi ita Father make APPL 1Pl ‘Father makes us a new house’ |
uma house |
heung new | |
|
b. |
Ama tau uma heung odi Father make house new Prep ‘Father makes a new house for us’ |
ita 1Pl | |||
Examples (22a) –(25a) are ditransitive (extended transitive) clauses which require three core arguments and ex. (22b-25b) are monotransitive clauses which require two core arguments. The core arguments au ‘I’ (ex 22a), roma ‘they’ (ex 23a), ama ‘father’ 9ex.24a), and ita ‘we’ (ex.25a) become obliques and are marked by odi in ex. (22b-25b). Ex. (22b-25b) also show that the applicative marker podi is omitted and replaced by preposisition odi when ditransitive clause is alternated into monotransitive clause.
Based on those examples above, it can be concluded that applicative marker podi has the function to increase the valence from the clause with two core arguments into the clause with three core arguments. On the contrary, odi is a
preposisiton. Odi appears when the valence is changed, from ditranstitive into monotranstive clause. Odi marks the postverbal argumment which functions as direct object in ditransitive clause and becomes oblique in monotransitive clause.
The analysis of podi and odi in clause construction of Kemak has produced the following findings:
-
(i) Kemak has SVO word order which is typical for Austronesian languages (Klamer in Pieter Muysken 2008: 112-113). The morphological verb system of Kemak shows that verbs in Kemak generally appear in bare (basic verb), un-affixed form. The verbs in Kemak also show no agreement with their arguments.
-
(ii) The clause in Kemak can be filled with verbal or non-verbal predicate. The clause with nonverbal predicate can be filedwith a noun, adjective, numeral and prepositional phrase. The predicate can be recognized as noun due to its main functions is to fill the argument of predicate; it can also be modified by adjective, verb, possession, demonstrative, and numeral. Adjective is the easiest category to be recognized from other word classes due to the ability to form comparative and superlative construction. Meanwhile, the predicate can be recognized as verb due to its grammatical properties the verb has the main function to fill the slot predicate and also the ability to take the TAM.
-
(iii) The intransitive clause in Kemak requires the S argument (intransitive subject) as the only argument. Semantically, the S argument can be A or P. The S argument of intransitive clause occurs before the predicate (pre-verbal). The monotransitive clause requires two arguments, preverbal argument as grammatical subject and also as A for grammatical function and postverbal argument as grammatical object and also as P for grammatical function. The ditransitive cluase requires three arguments, one preverbal argument and two postverbal arguments. The preverbal has the function of grammatical subject and also as A for grammatical function. Meanwhile, the two postverbal
arguments have the function of grammatical object and also as P for grammatical function.
-
(iv) Podi in the clause construction has the function as an applicative marker which appears in ditranstive clause. The function of aplicative marker podi is to promote the prepositionally marked oblique to the status of core argument as indirect object in ditransitive construction. On the contrary, odi is a preposition in monotransitive clause which is derived from ditransitive construction. Odi appears when the valence is changed, from ditranstitive into monotranstive clause. Odi marks the postverbal argument which functions as direct object in ditransitive clause and becomes oblique in monotransitive clause
Aissen, Judith. 1982. Valence and Coreferennce. in Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A Thompson (Ed) Studies In Transitivity: 7 – 35. New York: Axademic Press.
Alsina, A., Joshi, S. 1991. ‘Parameters in Causative Constructions’. Chicago Linguistics Society 27.
Alsina, Alex. 1992. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford. California: CSLI Publishers.
Arka, I Wayan. 1993. “Morpholexical Aspects of the-Kan Causative in Indonesia” (tesis). Sydney: University of Sydney.
Artawa, Ketut 1998. ‘Ergativity and Balinese Syntax’. In NUSA Vol. 42--44. Jakarta : Center of Langauge and Culture Studies.
Comrie, B. 1983, 1989. ‘Linguistic Typology’ in Newmeyer, F. J. (Ed.) Linguistics : The Cambridge Survey. Vol I. Hal : 447--467. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Grammatical Topics, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mandaru, A. Mans. 1998. Morfologi dan Sintaksis Bahasa Kemak. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. ‘Applicative and Benefactives. A Cognitive Acount. in Shibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra A Thompson. (ed.) Grammatical Construcstion: Their Form and Meaning: 157—194. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Discussion and feedback