https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/linguistika/

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24843/ling.2021.v28.i01.p10

LINGUISTIKA, MARET 2021

p-ISSN: 0854-9613 e-ISSN: 2656-6419

Vol. 28 No.1

Analysis on the Syntax and Semantics of Get and Dapatkan

Putu Sandra Putri Astariani1, I Nyoman Udayana2

[12]Linguistics, Master Program, Faculty of Humanities, Udayana University, Indonesia 1[[email protected]] 2[[email protected]]

Abstract – This study aims at contrasting get and dapatkan covering the structure, syntactic valence, and semantic parameters. Get is analysed along with its synonym make, find, become, and understand as well as dapatkan, represented by mendapatkan, and its synonyms mencapai, menerima, menemukan, and mengambil. Dapatkan needs to transform into mendapatkan to express formality and is more frequently used than dapatkan. By using distributional and identity methods and applying the theory of verbs and their satellites and semantic parameter, this study reveals that the structures only influence the differences of the verbs’ syntactic valence whereas the meanings contribute to the similarities and differences of the verbs semantic parameters. In terms of valence get can be monovalent (S+v+AD), make is trivalent (S+v+AD+PO), find is bivalent (S+v+O), become is bivalent (S+v+ND), and understand is monovalent (S+v). Indonesian verbs, mendapatkan, mencapai, menerima, menemukan, and mengambil are all bivalent with the basic construction S+v+O. The semantic aspects are analysed by applying transitivity parameters and this is affected by the meaning and status of the verb, either state or action. Get and its synonyms show lower transitivity than dapatkan, which is represented by mendapatkan, with its synonym. The verbs presenting low degree of transitivity are get, make, find, become, understand, menerima, and menemukan, whereas the high transitivity is shown by the verbs mendapatkan, mencapai, and mengambil.

Keywords— Verb, syntactic valence, semantic parameters

Abstrak – Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mencari persamaan dan perbedaan get dan dapatkan meliputi struktur, valensi sintaksis, dan parameter semantik. Get dianalisis dengan sinonimnya make, find, become, dan understand, begitu pula mendapatkan, yang merupakan representasi dari dapatkan, dengan mencapai, menerima, menemukan, dan mengambil. Mendapatkan mengungkapkan formalitas dan lebih sering digunakan daripada dapatkan. Dengan menggunakan metode agih dan padan serta penerapan teori verbs’ and their satellites dan semantic parameter, terungkap bahwa struktur hanya berpengaruh pada perbedaan valensi sintaksis verba; sedangkan makna dapat memengaruhi persamaan dan perbedaan parameter semantik verba. Get berkatagori monovalen (S+v+AD), make berkatagori trivalen (S+v+AD+PO), find termasuk dalam bivalen (S+v+O), become adalah bivalen (S+v+ND), dan understand adalah monovalen (S+v), Verba bahasa Indonesian, mendapatkan, mencapai, menerima, menemukan, dan mengambil semuanya bivalen dengan pola dasar S+v+O. Aspek semantik dianalisis dengan transitivity parameters dan ini dipengaruhi oleh makna dan status verba, state atau action. Get dan sinonimnya menunjukkan derajat transitivitas daripada dapatkan, yang ditunjukkan oleh mendapatkan, dan sinonimnya. Verba yang memiliki derajat transitivitas rendah ditunjukkan oleh get, make, find, become, understand, menerima, dan menemukan, sementara derajat transitivitas tinggi ditunjukkan oleh mendapatkan, mencapai, and mengambil.

Kata Kunci— Verba, valensi sintaksis, parameter semantik

Vol. 28 No.1

  • 1.    Introduction

English and Indonesian are two languages with different characteristics. However, both of the languages share similar perception and features when it comes to certain verbs. The word get, for instance, corresponds to dapatkan in Indonesian language. These words basically mean to obtain something and share similar syntactic category as well as grammatical relation, i.e. verb and predicate.

Syntactically get and dapatkan show different behaviour after being constructed in a clause. Get can be the head of a clause, be treated as a copula or an auxiliary verb. Different behaviour is shown by dapatkan since it involves morphological process to be in different syntactic category. Dapatkan can function as a main verb but cannot be treated as an auxiliary verb. However, another form of dapatkan, i.e. dapat, can become a modal and it has similar meaning to can. In informal situation dapat can have the same meaning as get. Nevertheless, dapatkan tends to change into mendapatkan or mendapat, as the main verb of the clause, to fit the formal situation.

This study aims at finding and discussing the similarities and differences found in get, dapatkan, and theis synonyms in terms of structure, valence, and meaning. Both of these verbs are chosen due to their unique syntactic behavior, i.e. each of them can function not only as verbs or heads of a clause, but also other roles such as auxiliary verb and modal. The title may be slightly different by using get and dapatkan, although the discussion will be about the verbs get, mendapatkan, and their synonyms. This is to present the same basic form which can represent the analysis of the verbs in the title. Dapatkan becomes the root of mendapatkan instead of dapat since the word dapat is more similar to can.

Each verb is analyzed along with the synonyms. Make, find, become, and understand are the synonyms of get, whereas mencapai, menerima, menemukan, and mengambil are synonymous to mendapatkan, the inflectional form of dapatkan. The theory of Verbs and Their

Satellites by Allerton is used as the main theory for analyzing the syntactic structure and syntactic valence, thus the comparison between elements bound by the verb can be obtained. Furthermore, the meaning can be revealed by focusing on the verbs and the other elements involved in the clauses by applying the theory of Transitivity Parameters by Hopper and Thompson to support the main theory.

Based on the background, there are two problems which can be formulated as follows:

  • 1.    How do the structures affect the similarities and differences of the syntactic valence of get, dapatkan, and their synonyms?

  • 2.    How do the meanings affect the similarities and differences of semantic parameters of get, dapatkan, and their synonyms?

  • 2.    Research Methods

Two theories are used as tools to investigate the data. The first theory, as well as the main theory, is verbs and their satellites proposed by Allerton (2006) and the second one is proposed by Hopper and Thompson (1980), i.e. transitivity parameters. The first theory mainly discusses the new terms to categorize the syntactic category of a word or phrase, i.e. Ӧ (objoid), ND (nominal descriptor), AD (adjectival descriptor), PD (prepositional descriptor), PO (prepositional object), PӦ (prepositional objoid), AE (adverbial elaborator), and L (limiter adverb). The second theory, proposed by Hopper and Thompson (1980), discusses the transitivity parameters to analyse the meaning components of verbs with similar meaning. The parameters are presented in the following table.

Vol. 28 No.1

This study uses two different corpora as the data source, i.e. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and Leipzig. Written data are used in this study since it provides a clearer structure required for analyzing the syntactic structure of the clauses. Moreover, since the theory of semantic is applied in this study, it is possible to limit the analysis and interpretation on semantic level.

The analysis focuses on clause level since it seems to be more intact and has clearer border than sentence. Sentence, which is commonly constructed by clauses, does not need to appear as a complete construction to express a meaning; even one word can be categorized as a sentence, e.g. run! Different case is shown by clause, which is at least composed by a subject and a predicate.

COCA and Leipzig are used respectively to collect English and Indonesian data, and this is due to the status of the corpus. Leipzig also provides various data in English, however, it provides less complete information than COCA. As an English corpus, COCA has been annotated, in other words, it provides us additional information such as word class, synonyms, antonyms, concordance, frequency, and genres to support the analysis. Leipzig is not annotated, however, this corpus is accurate and relevant for generating and collecting Indonesian data. Besides, Leipzig provides some information about the words covering the frequency, collocation, and word rank.

The method used is documentation along with note-taking techniques. Ten clauses are presented in data analysis which is divided into five clauses from COCA and five from Leipzig. The ones analyzed are the clauses with get, dapatkan, and their synonyms as main verb, auxiliary verb, or modal which places the position as a predicate. To support the method, the notetaking technique is applied along with the documentation guidance.

All data in this study are analyzed by using the distributional and identity method. Distributional method is a scientific way of

analyzing data where the determinant is part of the language. This method were used to analyze the structure and the syntactic valence of the clauses along with segmenting immediate constituent technique. Another method, the identity method, is also used. According to Sudaryanto (2015:15), identity method has its determinant detached and not becoming the part of the language (langue). The differentiating technique (Hubung Banding Memperbedakan/HBB) is applied to support this method. These method and technique are considered suitable to investigate and comprehend meaning as the element outside the language. As the result, the similarities and differences of meaning of get, dapatkan, and their synonyms can be obtained.

The data are informally presented and are supported by inductive technique. The inductive technique allows the data to be displayed first followed by the analysis and explanation.

  • 3.    Results and Discussions

This section describes and explains the structure, syntactic valence, and the meanings of get, dapatkan, as well as their synonyms. The description is done sequentially from English verb, get, make, find, become, and understand and continues to the Indonesian verbs, mendapatkan, mencapai, menerima, menemukan, and mengambil.

  • 3.1    The Structure, Syntactic Valence, and Semantic Meaning of Get and Its Synonyms

  • 1.    Then we can’t get involved.

The clause is constructed by a conjunction (then), subject (we), and verb (can’t get involved). Get is treated as an auxiliary verb. Syntactically, get and auxiliary are interchangeable and are not necessarily followed by an object to complete the clause’s meaning. Instead of an object, a past participle is used. Get takes an important role as a “connector” between the modal and the past participle; therefore, get does not carry its literal meaning. This structure categorizes the verb as monovalent because there is only one

Vol. 28 No.1

argument, i.e. the subject, required by the verb.

By referring to Hopper and Thompson’s parameters, get construction is low in transitivity since it has more low-transitivity features. It fulfills the participants parameter, particularly the one participant feature because only one participant is involved, we. It gets the effect from the situation and become the experiencer (Frawley, 1992) instead of an agent. The next parameter fulfilled is kinesis with the feature of nonaction since there is no action that can be transferred from one participant to another.

Besides being low in kinesis, get is also low in aspect parameters, shown by the atelic feature. Hopper and Thompson (1980:252) point out that aspect is related to the endpoint and the completion of an activity. In this case the situation occurs in present tense, thus the endpoint is still unclear. It is still unknown when the subject still can eventually get involved in the situation. The imperceptibility of the verb, then, results in the incompletion of the verb can’t get involved. Proceeding to the next parameter, punctuality, particularly the non-punctual feature. The inception and completion of the activity are still unknown since it occurs in present tense. Moreover, as a non-action verb, the event tends to be stable and occurs for long period which means the beginning and the end are unpredictable. This action is unvolitionaly done by we since it is not the subject’s will to be uninvolved. It is indicated by the use of the word can’t (cannot) to indicate permission given from someone to another. It can be assumed that the subject probably did something wrong or anything leading to the uninvolvement. As the result, the parameter of volition along and the non-volitional feature are fulfilled. There is a negation found within the clause, thus fulfilling the parameter of affirmation with the feature of negative. Proceeding to the next parameter, mode, with the sub parameter,

realis indicate that the situation happens in the real world and corresponds to real event. The subject, we, is the one affected by the uninvolvement. As the result, it fulfils the parameter of agency, particularly the A low in potency feature.

  • 2.    I’ll make sure of that.

This clause is constructed by a subject (I), a verb (will make), an adjectival descriptor (sure), and a prepositional object (of that). The verb is followed by an adjectival descriptor and a prepositional object and omitting either sure or of that might leave some information unanswered. Thus make is classified into trivalent.

This clause is low in transitivity and involves two participants, I and that. In spite of having two participants, there is very slight of chance of action transferral from agent to patient since it will happen in the future. Therefore, it fulfills the parameter of kinesis, particularly the feature of non-action.

Since the situation occurs in simple future, the endpoint of this situation is still unclear. This condition makes the transferral from the agent to object become less effective. This statement is supported by Hopper and Thompson (1980:252) who point out that the activity with clear endpoint provides better transferral than one not provided with such endpoint. As the result it fulfils the aspect parameters, particularly the atelic feature. This condition also leads to the fulfillment of punctuality parameter with the feature of non-punctual. The action is still in the form plan or promise. Thus the beginning and the end of the action is imperceptible.

Therefore, by looking at the clause I’ll make sure of that, the parameter of volitionality is fulfilled along with the feature of volition. The agent intentionally does the action. In spite of the high degree of volitionality, nevertheless, the effect to the patient is not apparent. No negation is found

Vol. 28 No.1

within the clause, thus fulfilling the parameter of affirmation with the feature of affirmative. Proceeding to the next parameter, mode, with the sub parameter, irrealis indicate that the situation has not happened yet, thus it cannot be associated with real events. The agent is low in potency since it does not give any effect to the object, that. Due to the low potency of agent, the object (O) does not get affected by the agent, hence fulfilling the feature of O not-affected. The last parameter is the individuation of O. According to Hopper and Thompson (1980:253), a non-referential and abstract object is less individuated than the concrete and referential one, therefore it fulfills the parameter individuation of O and the feature of non-individuated.

  • 3.    i find it ironic

The clause is constructed by a subject (I), a verb (find), an object (it), and an adjectival descriptor (ironic), yet the arguments required by the verb are only I and it. The occurrence of ironic as an adjectival descriptor gives additional information on the word it.

Find contributes to the low transitivity degree by having more low-transitive features. The first parameter fulfilled is participants, i.e. two or more participants. The clause involves two participants, we and the murderer. Find functions as a state verb since it shows a situation showing the result of an action. There is no action transferred from the agent to the object. Based on this condition, find fulfils the parameter of kinesis with the feature of non-action.

Hopper and Thompson (1980:252) points out that aspect parameter is related to the endpoint and the completion of an activity that is divided into telic and atelic. In relation to this, therefore, find is atelic since the action of finding the murderer is still unknown. The beginning and the endpoint of

this situation is still unclear since it has not been done. It is still in the form of plan without execution, hence fulfilling the next parameter, punctuality, particularly the non-punctual feature. This action is volitionaly done by the agent, we, since planning of finding a murderer in certain place involves thinking process and this is purposefully done by we. The verb occurs without negation, thus it fulfills the parameter of affirmation with the feature of affirmative. The tense of the clause influence the next parameter, mode, with its feature, irrealis. It indicates the situation that has not occurred. In spite of having two participants, the agent does not give any specific effect on the object since it has not happened and the verb is a state verb. Consequently, the agent (A/we) has low impact on the object (O/the murderer) and fulfills the parameter of agency, particularly the A low in potency feature.

The ability of agent to give impact on an object leads to the next parameter, the affectedness of O. In this case, the agent we has not executed the plan, thus there is no transfer of effect to the object, the murderer. The last parameter is the individuation of O and according to Hopper and Thompson (1980:253), a singular noun is individuated. Consequently, the murderer is categorized into the feature of non-individuated.

  • 4.    they become public sites

The clause is constructed by a subject (they), a verb (become), and a nominal descriptor (public sites). There are two arguments bound by the verb, i.e. they and public sites, thus the verb is classified as bivalent.

The become construction is also low in transitivity. It fulfills the participants parameter with the feature two or more participants, i.e. they and public sites. Become belongs to the parameter of kinesis with the feature of non-action since there is

Vol. 28 No.1

no action transferal from the agent to the object. This categorization is supported by the verb’s status as a state verb for expressing a condition that lasts for long period and hardly involves change (Comrie, 1976). The endpoint of this situation is still unclear therefore the verb is atelic, one of the features of aspect parameter. In this case the verb occurs in present tense to present a state and a fact (Eastwood, 2008:56), and due to this reason the time when they does not become public sites is still unknown. This condition also influences the next parameter, punctuality. The inception and the completion of the situation cannot be identified. The present tense leads to the feature of non-punctual (lower punctuality). This situation is considered volitional since they is planned to be a public site. They is inanimate therefore no actions can be performed. Instead of they, other people behind this situation are probably the one planning and making they into public sites. Based on this description, the parameter of agency is also fulfilled, particularly the feature of A low in potency. The low degree of potency occurs since they is not an agent, yet an experiencer that gets an impact. As the result any actions cannot be transferred. Proceeding to the next parameter, mode, with the feature, realis indicate that the situation happens in the real world and corresponds to real event. This is also related to the clause’s tense and aspect, simple present which expresses a fact. This clause appears in affirmative, thus fulfilling the affirmation parameter with the feature of affirmative.

The object (O) does not get any influence from the situation, thus fulfilling the parameter of affectedness of O along with the feature of O not-affected. Instead of the object, the agent is the one who get the effect of the condition. As the object of the clause, public sites is plural and inanimate. According to Hopper and Thompson

(1980:253), the features suit the criteria of being non-individuated.

  • 5.    you would understand

This clause is constructed by a subject (you) and a verb that is preceded by a modal (would understand). Since there is only one argument bound by the verb, understand is classified into monovalent.

Based on the theory from Hopper and Thompson, this clause is low in transitivity for having more low transitivity features. The feature of one participant is fulfilled. Since understand tends to express a situation instead of an action, no action can be transferred from you. Moreover, no object is found within the clause. This condition leads to the second parameter, kinesis with its feature non-action. The next two parameters concerns about similar aspects, i.e. the completion of an action and the transition between the action’s inception and completion. There is no clear explanation on when the person will have the comprehension about something which contributes on making the verb atelic. Since the inception and completion of the situation is unknown, the feature of non-punctual suits the verb. Understand is generally non-volitional since it comprehending something is not a situation that one can do or plan purposefully. This process, instead, happens automatically.

The understand clause is affirmative since no negation is used. Furthermore, in terms of mode this situation is irrealis since it has not occurred yet. The word would indicates that the situation may happen in certain period in the future. The last parameter is agency which is about the ability of the agent to give effect on the object, it is divided into A high in agency and A low in agency (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:252). The agent in the clause you would understand is low in agency since it cannot transfer any action.

Vol. 28 No.1

  • 3.2 . The Structure, Syntactic Valence, and Semantic Meaning of Dapatkan and Its Synonyms

  • 1.    Bupati Langkat H. Ngogesa Sitepu kembali mendapatkan penghargaan Tingkat Nasional

The clause is constructed by a verb (Bupati Langkat H. Ngogesa Sitepu), an avl (kembali), a verb (mendapatkan), and an object   (penghargaan   Tingkat

Nasional). Among three elements, only two are functioned as arguments and required by the verbs, i.e. Bupati Langkat H. Ngogesa Sitepu and penghargaan Tingkat Nasional, hence making the verb to bivalent.

Based on Hopper and Thompson’s parameters,      The     mendapatkan

construction shows high transitivity by fulfilling eight high transitivity features and two low transitivity features. Mendapatkan is categorized as an action verb since it presents an activity that involves change and last for certain period. This clause involves two participants, i.e. Bupati Langkat H. Ngogesa Sitepu and penghargaan Tingkat Nasional. This feature fulfills the first feature, i.e. two participants or more. Additionaly, there is an action transferred from one participant to another which is influenced by the status of the verb as an action verb. The transferral of action leads to the fulfilment of the second parameter, kinesis, with the feature of action.

In terms of aspect and punctuality, mendapatkan is telic and punctual. The verb shows a situation that has clear endpoint because the action of getting something is short in time, whereas the one being atelic is the ownership of the award. Since the situation happens and

ends immediately, the inception and the completion of the event are clear. When someone gets something, the action begins with the knowledge of the situation by the achiever, continues with the transfer of the award to the achiever, and ends with the acceptance of the award. Based on this description, the parameter and feature of punctuality and punctual is fulfilled.

The action of getting the award is done volitionaly that is indicated by the word kembali. The subject purposefully puts some efforts to re-achieve the award. By doing the action purposefully, the action transferal becomes more effective (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:252). The clause is affirmative since no negation, such as no and not is used. The mode of the clause is realis because it happens and can be associated to real events. Additionally, the main source of this clause is corpus which is a compilation of real life language use, thus the feature of realis is fulfilled.

Since the subject of the clause is not an agent, but experiencer, its agency is low. This also influences the low affectedness of O. The verb mendapatkan does not give any effect to the award as the object of the clause. The last parameter is the individuation of O to reveal whether or not the object is individuated. In this clause, the object penghargaan tingkat nasional appears as a proper and singular noun, therefore fulfilling the feature of O highly individuated

  • 2.    Saga transfer Robin van Persie akhirnya mencapai titik akhir.

The second clause consists of a subject (Saga transfer Robin van Persie), an avl (akhirnya), a verb (mencapai), and an object (titik akhir). Mencapai requires an

Vol. 28 No.1

object since it gives the information needed in the clause either for the subject or the verb. By looking at the elements, mencapai is categorized into bivalent.

Semantically mencapai shows high transitivity since it fulfils six high transitivity features (two or more participants, telic, volitional, affirmative, realis, and O highly individuated) and four low transitivity features (non-action, punctuality, O not affected, and A low in potency) proposed by Hopper and Thompson (1980). Similar to mendapatkan, mencapai presents a condition that lasts for a short time. Mencapai involves two participants that are inanimate, i.e. Saga transfer Robin van Persie and titik akhir. In terms of kinesis, this verb expresses an experience that can be felt by the subject. Therefore, no action can be transferred from one participant to another. This condition leads to the feature of non-action. Mencapai is an action verb which presents a quickly finished situation. Moreover, this verb expresses an action that progress into another phase and involves change.

Being an action verb, mencapai is telic and punctual and it expresses high feature respectively. There is no transferal of action because the subject of the clause (Saga transfer Robin van Persie) tends to be an experiencer than an agent. Its categorization into telic is underlied by the status of the verb as an action verb by presenting an action that involves change and progressing to another stage or phase. Due to the change and progress implied by the verb, the inception and the endpoint of the verb will be more inceptible than the state verb. This condition also leads to the fulfilment of the next parameter, punctuality, particularly the punctual feature because

there is an obvious transitional phase from the inception and completion of the situation. Mencapai is considered ephemeral and temporary; it depicts a situation of someone or something starting from not being at a certain position or point until being at the targeted position or point.

The next parameters are volitionality and affirmation. Volitionality is really affected by context. Mencapai is volitional since there are people who work for the saga for reaching the endpoint and it is not accidental. It requires effort and planning to be in such stage, thus supporting the volitionality. The affirmation parameter can be obviously determined by identifying whether or not the clause uses a negation. As for this clause, there is no negation found, therefore the clause is affirmative.

The mode of this clause is realis since the event happens in real world, thus it corresponds directly with real events (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:252). It is proven by the source where the clause belongs to, i.e. www.bolanews.com, a news platform for football. The next three parameters, agency, affectedness of O, and the individuation of O focus on the participants of the clause. Previously, it is stated that the participants of the clause are all inanimate, namely Saga transfer Robin van Persie and titik akhir, therefore no action can be performed and affects. This situation leads to the feature of A low in potency. Since no action can be transferred from the subject to the object, there is no effect obtained by the object (O), hence fulfilling the feature of O not affected. The last parameter is the individuation of O and in this clause the object is highly individuated since it has the features of singular and definite.

Vol. 28 No.1

  • 3.    Boateng menerima perlakuan rasisme.

It is constructed by a subject (Boateng), a verb (menerima), and an object (perlakuan rasisme). The verb is bivalent since it requires two arguments, the subject and the object.

Menerima fulfils six low transitivity features and four high transitivity features and is low in transitivity, similar to the previous verb, mencapai. Menerima presents a condition where two participants are involved with it, i.e. Boateng and perlakuan rasisme. This verb expresses an experience that can be felt by the subject. This condition leads to the feature of non-action since there is no action that can be transferred from one participant to another. It is unclear whether Boateng keeps getting the racism for a long period or only at certain moment. Despite this, menerima still belongs to a state verb for presenting a situation as the result of an action and a result of something usually lasts for a long time. Being a state verb, menerima presents a low degree of aspect and punctuality. According to Hopper and Thompson (1980), a telic action will transfer action more effectively from one participant to another. However, in this context, there is no transferral of action because the subject of the clause (Boateng) is the experiencer of the event. Its categorization into atelic is underlied by the status of the verb as a state verb by presenting an action that does not involve change. The absence of change implied by the verb makes the inception and the endpoint will be less perceptible. This condition, then, leads to the fulfilment of the next parameter, punctuality, particularly the non-punctual feature because there is no transitional phase from the inception and completion of the

situation. Menerima is considered permanent; the subject gets the racism which results in an unpleasant experience for him/her.

The next parameters are volitionality and affirmation. Mencapai is non-volitional because the subject unwillingly accepts the action. The affirmation parameter can be obviously determined by identifying the negation used. As for this clause, there is no negation found, therefore the clause is affirmative.

The mode of this clause is realis since the event happens in real world, thus it corresponds directly with real events (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:252). Being taken from the same source, i.e. Leipzig corpus, yet different websites us.m.bola.viva.co.id, this information is news that is accurate based on real event. The next three parameters, agency, affectedness of O, and the individuation of O focus on the participants. The participants of the clause are animate, Boateng and inanimate, perlakuan rasisme. Nevertheless, the transferral of action does not occur due to the role of Boateng as an experiencer, not an agent. This situation leads to the feature of A low in potency. Since no action can be transferred from the subject to the object, there is no effect obtained by the object (O), hence fulfilling the feature of O not affected. The last parameter is the individuation of O. In this clause the object is highly individuated since it has the features of singular and definite (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:253).

  • 4.    Adriano malah

kembali menemukan performa emasnya.

The fourth clause is constructed by a subject (Adriano), an adverb (malah), an avl (kembali), a verb (menemukan), and

Vol. 28 No.1

an object (performa emasnya). There are four elements occurred with the verb, however, only two of them has an argument function, i.e. Adriano and performa emasnya. As the result, menemukan belongs to a bivalent verb.

Menemukan fulfills six low features (kinesis, aspect, punctuality, volitionality, agency, and affectedness) and four high features (participants, affirmation, mode, and individuation of O), making it low in transitivity. The first parameter is participants with the two or more participants feature. In spite of having two participants, there is no action transferred from Adriano to performa emasnya. Menemukan tends to show a condition and experience when the subject gets his/her best performance back. It is stable and does not necessarily involve change (Comrie, 1976:46). A state verb cannot transfer actions from one participant to another (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:252), therefore the verb fulfills the feature of non-action.

As a state verb, menemukan presents a low degree of aspect and punctuality for being atelic and non-punctual. Menemukan, in this clause, is related to discovering something abstract, instead of a concrete thing. When Adriano finds his best performance back, it is unknown when this condition may end since it affects the whole situation where Adriano belongs to. As previously stated, menemukan is a state verb, therefore there is no action transferal occurred in the clause which leads to the atelicity of the verb. The status of the verb also leads to the non-punctuality of the verb because the inception and completion of the situation is imperceptible.

The next parameters are volitionality, affirmation, and mode with their respective features non-volitionality,

affirmative, and realis. Menerima is considered nonvolitional for getting the influence of the word malah to express something that is unpredictable. The verb fulfils the feature of non-volitionality since it is unpredictable for Adriano as well as the people who watch him to get his best performance. The clause is affirmative since it justifies and validates the truth within the statement. Moreover, no negation is found in the statement. Based on the source where the statement was taken, i.e. news, the mode of this clause is realis since the event happens in real world, thus it corresponds directly with real events (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:252).

The next three parameters, agency, affectedness of O, and the individuation of O focus on the participants. The participants of the clause are animate, Adriano and inanimate, performa emasnya. Nevertheless, the transferral of action does not occur due to the status of Adriano as an experiencer, not an agent. This situation leads to the feature of A low in potency. Since no action can be transferred from the subject to the object, there is no effect obtained by the object (O), hence fulfilling the feature of O not affected. Instead of the object, Adriano becomes the one who gets the experience and probably the result of getting his best performance. The last parameter is the individuation of O that is divided into two, highly individuated and nonindividuated by Hopper and Thompson. Performa emasnya presents some features for being highly individuated, proper, and referential. Therefore, it suits the highly-individuated feature.

  • 5.    Ia mengambil ilustrasi delivery order Pizza melalui telepon.

Vol. 28 No.1

Within the clause, there are a subject (Ia), a verb (mengambil), an object (ilustrasi delivery order Pizza), and an avl (melalui telepon). The verb is bivalent since the object is obligatory.

Mengambil may have the least identical meaning to mendapatkan, nevertheless, it shows the highest degree of transitivity by fulfilling ten high transitivity features, namely two or more participants, action, telic, punctual, volitional, affirmative, realis, A high in potency, O totally affected, O highly affected. There are two participants involved, i.e. Ia and ilustrasi delivery order Pizza. Ia places the role as agent for doing or performing the action, whereas ilustrasi delivery order Pizza functions as patient for achieving the effect of the action. Mengambil is an action verb since it presents an action that can be physically seen and done by the subject. By applying the test performed by Quirk and Greenbaum (1976), mengambil can be transformed into a progressive form, i.e. Ia sedang mengambil ilustrasi delivery order Pizza melalui telepon. As the result, there is an action transferral from one participant to another and fulfils the parameter and feature of kinesis-action. The status of mengambil as an action verb influences its aspect and punctuality parameters. The verb is telic and punctual since it presents a clear transititon between the beginning and end. Furthermore, there is an action transferral from Ia to ilustrasi delivery order Pizza, which makes something happens to the object (being taken and become the agent’s belonging). As the result, the verb is telic. The action of taking an order ilustration by telephone begins with answering the phone call or dialing a phone number, taking notes on the order ilustration, and ends with hanging up the

phone. By having a clear transition and stage between the inception and completion, the verb is punctual.

The next parameters are volitionality, affirmation, and mode with their respective features volitional, affirmative, and realis. The subject purposefully and willingly does the action, thus fulfilling the volitional feature. Some efforts are also required for getting the illustration. There may be two possibilities; either he/she needs to contact someone and dialing the numbers or reaches the telephone to answer it. Whatever the possibility is, this action does require some efforts. In terms of affirmation, the clause is affirmative since no negation is found. Furthermore, it validates the truth that the agent indeed takes the order illustration. Similar to the previous clauses, mengambil also belongs to a realis mode-clause based on the source where it was taken, i.e. news, particularly from the website www.republika.co.id. The website provides information about technology that corresponds directly with real events.

By having both agent and object, the clause presents high degree in agency, affectedness of O, and the individuation of O. The participants of the clause are animate, Ia and inanimate, ilustrasi delivery order Pizza. Transferral of action occurs due to the status of Ia as an agent who transfer the action to the object. This situation leads to the feature of A high in potency. The action transferral gives effect to the object, thus something happens to it (the object becomes the belonging of the subject). This condition fulfils the feature of O totally affected. The last parameter is the individuation of O that is divided into two, highly individuated and non-individuated (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:252).

Vol. 28 No.1

Ilustrasi delivery order Pizza presents some features for being highly individuated, i.e. singular (Ilustrasi delivery order Pizza does not occur in plural form or uses any plural word) and proper (specifically describe the type of illustration, i.e. delivery order Pizza). Therefore, it suits the O highly individuated feature.

4. Conclusion

Based on the analysis, the syntactic structures of get, dapatkan, and their synonyms contribute only to the differences of the valences. This is also affected by the verbs’ function. Get can function as an auxiliary verb. In contrast dapatkan, which involves morphological process to be mendapatkan can only function as a main verb by constructing clauses with similar elements, i.e. subject and object. In terms of valence get can be monovalent (S+v+AD), make is bivalent (S+v+AD+PO), find is bivalent (S+v+O), become is bivalent (S+v+ND), and understand is monovalent (S+v), whereas Indonesian verbs, mendapatkan, mencapai, menerima, menemukan, and mengambil are all bivalent with the basic construction S+v+O.

Get, dapatkan, and their synonyms express various meanings. Difference in meanings really depend on the arguments occurred in the clause. This condition finally causes the transitivity variations and reveal the transitivity’s similarities and differences between get and dapatkan. The analysis reveals that get along with its synonyms as well as dapatkan, represented by mendapatkan, with its synonym are similar in low transitivity features of kinesis, aspect, and punctuality parameters. The features contribute to the low transitivity of the clause. The verb get, make, find, become, understand, menerima, and menemukan are low in transitivity and this is caused by the same low-transitivity features of kinesis (non-action), aspect (atelic), and punctuality (non-punctual). These features belong to state verb which shows a situation


instead of action. The meaning also influences the transititvity difference. The English verbs, get, make, find, become, and understand show lower transitivity than the Indonesian verbs, mendapatkan, mencapai, menerima, menemukan, and mengambil. Get and its synonyms are mostly state verbs thus it shows a situation. Different case is shown by Indonesian verbs, mendapatkan, mencapai, menerima, menemukan, and mengambil. Among these verbs, mendapatkan, mencapai, and mengambil are action verb presenting a temporary action, moreover they occur together with objects that also contribute to the high transitivity of the clause. Based on this explanation, the verbs presenting low degree of transitivity are get, make, find, become, understand, menerima, and menemukan, whereas the high transitivity is shown by the verbs mendapatkan, mencapai, and mengambil.


Vol. 28 No.1

References

Allerton, D.J. 2006. Verbs and Their Satellites. Bas Aarts & April McMahon (Eds.). The Handbook of English Linguistics, pp. 145-176. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Corpus of Contemporary American English (Retrieved on August 1st 2020 from https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/)

Corpora Collection Leipzig University (Retrieved on August 1st 2020 from https://corpora.uni-leipzig.de/en?corpusId=ind_mixed_2013)

Creswell, J.W. 2012. Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson Education.

Dixon, R.M.W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hopper, P.J. and Thompson, S.A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. JSTOR, 56(2), pp. 251-299.

Jensen, P.A. 2013. Verb Valence, Grammatical Functions and Semantic Roles. (Retrieved on August 1st 2020 from

https://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/8673/Per%20Anker%20Jensen_Lecture%20Notes%20 01.pdf?sequence=1).

Kridalaksana, H. 2008. Kamus Linguistik (Edisi Keempat). Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Mahsun. 2005. Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategi, Metode, dan Tekniknya. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Macaulay, M. I. 2011. Processing Varieties in English: An Examination of Oral and Written Speech. Canada: University of British Columbia.

Miller, J. 2002. An Introduction to English Syntax. United Kingdom: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Sudaryanto. 2015. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Sanatana Dharma University Press.

Tesarus Tematis Bahasa Indonesia Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan        (Retrieved        on        August         1st        2020         from

http://tesaurus.kemdikbud.go.id/tematis/lema/mendapatkan/verba)

117