Partial Experimental Findings on the Construal Base vs. Affixed Lexical Forms  in Indonesian Measured through Drawing Duration

Thafhan Muwaffaq; Lusi Lian Piantari

doi:10.26499/li.v44i1.917

Authors

Thafhan Muwaffaq Universitas Al-azhar Indonesia
Lusi Lian Piantari

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v44i1.917

Keywords:

experimental research, Indonesian grammar, construal, cognitive semantics

Abstract

Our study investigated whether Indonesian affixations affect speakers’ construal of base lexical forms. The participants in this study completed a drawing task with duration serving as an indirect index of construal. We hypothesized that affixed forms would require longer drawing durations due to the schematic meaning embedded by grammatical morphemes. Experiment 1 tested noun-based form batas, Experiment 2 tested verb-based form tumbuh, and Experiment 3 tested adjective-based form cepat, each with their respective affixed forms. Experiment 1 yielded partial significant results: three affixed forms (batasan, pembatasan, and membatas) required significantly longer drawing durations than the base form. Experiment 2 showed no significant effects, while Experiment 3 suggested overall significance although post-hoc tests failed to validate specific pairwise differences. Despite mixed results, this study provides preliminary evidence that Indonesian derivational affixation influences construal, thus providing preliminary experimental evidence for construal effects of derivational morphology in Indonesian cognitive semantics.

References

Aryawibawa, I. N., & Ambridge, B. (2018). Is Syntax Semantically Constrained? Evidence from a Grammaticality Judgment Study of Indonesian. Cognitive Science, 42(8), 3135–3148. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12697

Athanasopoulos, P. & Bylund, E. (2012). Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross-linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science 37(2): 286–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12006

Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems and emotion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4): 612–613. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99252144.

Casasanto, D., Boroditsky, L., Phillips, W., Greene, J., Goswami, S., Bocanegra-Thiel, S., Santiago-Diaz, I., Fotokopoulu, O., Pita, R., & Gil, D. (2005). How deep are effects of language on thought? Time estimation in speakers of English, Indonesian, Greek, and Spanish. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 186–191.

Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1163

Dabrowska, E. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics’ Seven Deadly Sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0059

Divjak, D., Levshina, N., & Klavan, J. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0095.

Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (eds.). A Companion to Cognitive Science. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164535.ch37

Flecken, M. (2011). Event conceptualization by early Dutch-German bilinguals: Insights from linguistic and eye-tracking data. Bilingualism 14(1): 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000027

Geeraerts, D. (2016). The Sociosemiotic Commitment. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0058

Gonzales-Marques, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M.J. (2007). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (Vol. 18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.13val

Huette, S., Winter, B., Matlock, T., Ardell, D.H., & Spivey, M. (2014). Eye movements during listening reveal spontaneous grammatical processing. Frontiers in Psychology 5 (May): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00410

Janda, L. A., & Lyashevskaya, O. (2013). Semantic Profiles of Five Russian Prefixes: po- , s- , za-, na-, pro-. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 21(2), 211–258. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.2013.0012

Kaschak, M.P., Zwaan, R.A., Aveyard, M., & Yaxley, R.H. (2006). Perception of auditory motion affects language processing. Cognitive Science 30(4): 733–744. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_54

Mardiah, Z. (2021). Preposisi ‘di’ dalam perspektif semantik kognitif. Jurnal Pesona 7(2): 148–161. https://doi.org/10.52657/JP.V7I2.1506

Montero-Melis, G. & Bylund, E. (2017). Getting the ball rolling: The cross-linguistic conceptualization of caused motion. Language and Cognition 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.22

Muwaffaq, T., Piantari, L.L., Hidayah, N.D., & Kohar, S.S. (2021). Conceptual restrictions in Indonesian grammar. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211226.027

Muwaffaq, T. & Visiaty, A. (2023). Sifat alami gramatika Indonesia: Sistem partikel linguistik, fungsi penataan konseptual, dan representasi kognitif. Ranah: Jurnal Kajian Bahasa 12(1): 1. https://doi.org/10.26499/rnh.v12i1.3039

Nasrullah, R. & Budiman, A. (2022). Kajian linguistik kognitif pada imbuhan ber- dalam bahasa Indonesia. Ranah: Jurnal Kajian Bahasa 11(2): 478–488. https://doi.org/10.26499/rnh.v11i2.3937

Noguchi, H. (2011). Talmy’s dichotomous typology and Japanese lexicalization patterns of motion events. TESOL & Applied Linguistics 11(1): 29–47.

Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition 108(1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.007

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

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. (2016). Why Cognitive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0048

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Vol. 1, Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zakiyah, M., Fiaji, N.A., & Zulvarina, P. (2018). Semantik prototipe korupsi: Kajian linguistik kognitif. Retorika: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya 11(2): 164. https://doi.org/10.26858/retorika.v11i2.5137

Zlatev, J. (2018). From cognitive to integral linguistics and back again. Intellectica. Revue de l’Association pour la Recherche Cognitive 56(2): 125–147. https://doi.org/10.3406/intel.2011.1150

Zulkarnen & Muwaffaq, T. (2018). Dictionary meaning vs. encyclopaedic meaning of halal: Comparing meaning in dictionaries with frame semantics for the sake of conceptual understanding. 2nd International Symposium of Islamic Epistemology: 95–104.

Zwaan, R.A., Madden, C.J., Yaxley, R.H. & Aveyard, M.E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science 28(4): 611–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.03.004