PENONJOLAN PERAN SEMANTIS DAN KONSTRUKSI GRAMATIKAL PASANGAN VERBA -I DAN -KAN: KAJIAN GRAMATIKA KONSTRUKSIONAL BERBASIS KORPUS ATAS MENAWARI/MENAWARKAN

Gede Primahadi Wijaya Rajeg

doi:10.26499/li.v41i2.482

Authors

Gede Primahadi Wijaya Rajeg SINTA ID: 5979275, SCOPUS ID: 57445132700, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2047-8621, Universitas Udayana, Bali, Indonesia & University of Oxford, UK http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2047-8621

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v41i2.482

Keywords:

Construction Grammar, Quantitative Corpus Linguistics, Frame Semantics, semantic role, Indonesian

Abstract

This paper presents quantitative corpus analyses of the profiled participant/semantic roles and the preferred grammatical constructions of semantically similar Indonesian verb-pair suffixed with -i and -kan. Menawari/menawarkan ‘to offer’ pair is chosen as a case study. Couched within the Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics theories, the analyses revealed that each verb differs regarding the profiled semantic roles within the preferred grammatical constructions the verb occurs in. Menawari strongly profiles Offerer, Potential_recipient and Theme in Double-Object Construction, while menawarkan only profiles Offerer and Theme in Monotransitive Construction. Although the quantitative findings confirm the theoretical hypothesis of the constructional behaviours for menawari/menawarkan, the study also discovers previously unpredicted constructional variation for menawari. Such variation (i) has a typological implication concerning the grammatical alignments of trivalent verbs and (ii) raises an intriguing question regarding constructional contamination by the constructional profile of the more frequent form (i.e., menawarkan) that is paradigmatically related to menawari.

Author Biography

Gede Primahadi Wijaya Rajeg, SINTA ID: 5979275, SCOPUS ID: 57445132700, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2047-8621, Universitas Udayana, Bali, Indonesia & University of Oxford, UK

Google Scholar:https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ucWpoVEAAAAJ&hl=en
SINTA:https://sinta.kemdikbud.go.id/authors/detail?id=5979275&view=overview
SCOPUS: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57445132700
Linkedin: https://id.linkedin.com/in/gede-primahadi-wijaya-rajeg-4aa37ba4
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2047-8621
GitHub: https://github.com/gederajeg
Institutional Webpage: https://udayananetworking.unud.ac.id/lecturer/880-gede-primahadi-wijaya-rajeg
Publons: https://publons.com/researcher/2342888/gede-primahadi-wijaya-rajeg/
Semantics Scholar: https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Gede-Primahadi-Wijaya-Rajeg/107927548
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gede-Rajeg

References

Arka, I. W., Dalrymple, M., Mistica, M., Mofu, S., Andrews, A. D., & Simpson, J. (2009). A linguistic and computational morphosyntactic analysis for the applicative -i in Indonesian. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference. CSLI.

Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296.

Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. CSLI.

Biemann, C., Heyer, G., Quasthoff, U., & Richter, M. (2007). The Leipzig Corpora Collection: Monolingual corpora of standard size. In M. Davies, P. Rayson, S. Hunston, & P. Danielsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference.

Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford University Press.

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.

Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R. M. W. (2006). Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–48). Oxford University Press.

Dux, R. (2011). A frame-semantic analysis of five English verbs evoking the Theft frame [Master’s thesis]. University of Texas.

Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137.

Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.

Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Valency and semantic roles: The concept of deep structure case. In V. Ágel, L. M. Eichinger, H. W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. J. Heringer, & H. Lobin (Eds.), Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 457–475). Walter de Gruyter.

Fillmore, C. J. (2014). Frames, constructions, and FrameNet. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions Collocations Patterns (pp. 121–166). De Gruyter Mouton.

Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar. CSLI.

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501.

Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1-2), 113–135.

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356.

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press.

Gries, S. Th. (2009a). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Mouton de Gruyter.

Gries, S. Th. (2009b). What is corpus linguistics? Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1–17.

Gries, S. Th. (2013). Data in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 93–108). Oxford University Press.

Haspelmath, M. (2013). Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ’Give’. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/105

Hilpert, M. (2020). Constructional approaches. In B. Aarts, J. Bowie, & G. Popova (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of English grammar (First edition, pp. 106–123). Oxford University Press.

Kaswanti Purwo, B. (1997). The direct object in Bi-transitive clauses in Indonesian. In T. Givón (Ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective (pp. 233–252). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Klamer, M., & Schapper, A. (2012). ‘Give’constructions in the Papuan languages of Timor-Alor-Pantar. Linguistic Discovery, 10(3), 174–207.

Kroeger, P. (2007). Morphosyntactic vs. Morphosemantic functions of Indonesian -kan. In A. Zaenen (Ed.), Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan (pp. 229–251). CSLI.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Woman, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites (Nachdr.). Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application (Nachdr.). Stanford University Press.

Malchukov, A. L., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B. (2010). Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In A. L. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath, & B. Comrie (Eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook (pp. 1–66). De Gruyter Mouton.

Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.

Quasthoff, U., & Goldhahn, D. (2013). Indonesian corpora (No. 7). Abteilung Automatische Sprachverarbeitung, Institut für Informatik, Universität Leipzig.

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Manual]. https://www.R-project.org/

Rajeg, G. P. W. (2021). Corplingr: Tidy concordances, collocates, and wordlist. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X8CW4

Rajeg, G. P. W. (2023a). Meninjau kembali pandangan klasik terkait perilaku konstruksional Memberi vs. Memberikan: Suatu kajian dari perspektif linguistik korpus kuantitatif dan Gramatika Konstruksional. In I. N. Sudipa (Ed.), Budi Bahasa (pp. 149–172). Udayana University Press. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q763g

Rajeg, G. P. W. (2023b). Data dan R Markdown Notebook untuk "PENONJOLAN PERAN SEMANTIS DAN KONSTRUKSI GRAMATIKAL PASANGAN VERBA -I DAN -KAN: KAJIAN GRAMATIKA KONSTRUKSIONAL BERBASIS KORPUS ATAS MENAWARI/MENAWARKAN". figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23614947

Rajeg, G. P. W., & Arka, I W. (akan terbit). Usage-based perspective on argument realisation: A corpus study of Indonesian BUY verbs in applicative construction with -kan. NUSA: Linguistic studies of languages in and around Indonesia

Rajeg, G. P. W., & Rajeg, I. M. (2017). Mempertemukan morfologi dan linguistik korpus: Kajian konstruksi pembentukan kata kerja [per-+Ajektiva] dalam Bahasa Indonesia. In I. N. Sudipa & M. S. Satyawati (Eds.), Rona Bahasa: Buku persembahan kepada Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete memasuki masa purnatugas (pp. 288–327). Swasta Nulus. https://doi.org/10.4225/03/5a0627de02453

Rajeg, G. P. W., & Rajeg, I. M. (2022). A corpus linguistic study of constructional equivalence for the Indonesian translation of ROB and STEAL based on the OpenSubtitles Parallel Corpus. PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 28–48. https://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/parole/article/view/43717

Rajeg, G. P. W., Rajeg, I. M., & Arka, I. W. (2020). Corpus-based approach meets LFG: The puzzling case of voice alternations of kena-verbs in Indonesian. In M. Butt & I. Toivonen (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG’20 conference, on-line (pp. 307–327). CSLI Publications. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12423788

Rajeg, I. M., Rajeg, G. P. W., & Arka, I. W. (2022). Corpus linguistic and experimental studies on the meaning-preserving hypothesis in Indonesian voice alternations. Linguistics Vanguard, 8(1), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0104

Sneddon, J. N. (1996). Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.

Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77.

Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Cognitive linguistics meets the corpus. In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries, & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion (pp. 257–289). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.