• Gufran Ali Ibrahim Universitas Khairun, Ternate




ergative, absolutive, syntactical relation


There are four basic clause types in Tae’, namely (1) intransitive ma-V and zero intransitive (ZI) clauses; (2) passive di- (di- PASS) clauses; (3) inherently transitive ma’- V, maN-V, mi-V, and nasal transitive (NT) clauses; and (4) zero transitive (ZT) clauses. Types (1), (2) and (3) are called absolutive constructions, while type (4) is an ergative construction. The Tae’ basic constituent order is VS/VAO. In the four basic clause types Tae’ shows a morphological ergative system. Within this system Tae’ uses the same set of absolutive person markers on verbs with S intransitive and O transitive, while a distinct set of ergative person markers is applied to verbs with A transitive. The pattern of introducing and maintaining participants in Tae’ discourse also reflects an ergative system. Participants in discourse tend to be introduced and maintained in S or O function. Participants are maintained in A function when a participant is made the topic. Discourse that introduces and maintains participants in this way is called ergative.


Barr, Donald. F. 1988. “Focus and Mood in Da’a Discourseâ€. Dalam Papers in Western Austronesian Linguistics No. 4, 77-129. Pacific Linguistics.

Bodgan, Robert. dan Steven J. Taylor. 1973. Introduction to Qualitative Recearch: A Phenomenological Approach to the Social Sciences. New York: John Willey & Sons.

Cooreman, Ann, Barbara Fox, dan Talmy Givón, 1988. “The Discourse Definition of Ergativity: A Study in Chamorro and Tagalog Textâ€. Dalam Richard McGinn (Ed). Studies in

Austronesian Linguistics. Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies, Center for Southeast Asia Studies, Monograph in International Studies, Southeast Series, Number 76.

Dixon, Robert. M. W. 1979. “Ergativityâ€. Language 55, 59-138.

Dixon, Robert. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Friberg, Timothy dan Barbara Friberg. 1991. “Notes on Konjo Phonologyâ€. Dalam James N. Sneddon (Ed). 1991. Studies in Sulawesi Linguistics Part II, Vol 33, 71-115. Nusa: Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan Penyelengara Seri NUSA Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya.

Friberg, Barbara. 1996. “Konjo’s Peripatetic Person Markersâ€. Papers in Austronesian Linguistics No. 3, 137-171.

Grimes, Barbara F. 2001. Ethnologue: Languages of the Word. Edisi ke-13. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.

Hopper, Paul J. 1979. “Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourseâ€. Dalam T. Givón, ed.,

Discourse and Syntax (Syntax and Semantics 12). New York: Academic Press, 213-241.

Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang. 1988. “Voice in Indonesian: a Discourse Studyâ€. Dalam Masayoshi Shibatani, ed., Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 195-239.

Longacre, Robert E. 1983. The Grammar of Discourse. New York and London: Plenum Press.

Martens, Michael P. 1988a. “Notes on Uma Verbsâ€. Papers in Western Austronesian Linguistics No. 4, 167-237. Pacific Linguistics.

Martens, Michael P. 1988b. “Focus or Ergativity? Pronoun Sets in Umaâ€. Papers in Western Austronesian Linguistics No. 4, 167-237. Pacific Linguistics.

Payne, Thomas. 1979. “Ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimoâ€. SIL Publications. http://www.ethnologue.com




How to Cite

Ali Ibrahim, G. (2013). TIGA TATARAN ERGATIVITAS DALAM BAHASA TAE’. Linguistik Indonesia, 31(1), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v31i1.2