Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 280
International Seminar On Recent Language, Literature, And Local Culture Studies (BASA 2018)
Semantic Aspect of Deletion Argument in Javanese
Subordinative Conjoining Clause
F.X. Sawardi
Indonesian Language and Letters Department
Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Sebelas Maret
Surakarta, Indonesia
[email protected] Hesti Widyastuti
Indonesian Language and Letters Department
Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Sebelas Maret
Surakarta, Indonesia
[email protected]
Abstract— The same constituent in conjoining clauses is deleted in the second clause. These deletions are determined by
two conditions: syntactic condition and semantic condition. The syntactic conditions are that both constituent occupy the same
syntactic functions. While semantic conditions are the same elements occupying certain roles in the main clause. This article
discusses the deleted constituent in conjoining subordinate clauses. The addressed problems are among others: (i) in which
clause, semantic conditions are apploicable to? (ii) what kind of semantic roles, the deleted argument reffer to? (iii) what are
the differences between semantic conditions and syntactic conditions in conjoining clause?.
Keywords—deletion, argument, basic linguistic theory
I. INTRODUCTION
Syntax generally refers to sort of rules in constituting a single clause. In determining syntactic behavior, the conjoining clauses
can be used as a measuring means. In conjoining between clauses, the same constituent clause is deleted following certain rules.
The constituent clauses observed in this article are the those of which typically in arguments form. The argument is identified
with S (subject to intransitive clause), A (transitive clause agent argument) and O (transitive clause object argument). Dixon
(1994, 2010, 2012) bearing in such deletion, it is solely controlled by syntactic rules, thus it sees the relations between the set up
deletion consituent and formulated constituent through syntactic functions, S, A, and O. The three allignment types of arguments
establish language type: accusative and ergative language types. The deletion was then applied to determine one another
allignment, i.e. S with A, or S with O.
Not all of the deletion in arguments of the Javanese language, as will be described in section IV, are syntactically determined.
In case the syntactic rule is tested with the passivation, some Javanese sentences unfollow the accusative or ergative language
rules. Therefore, this article will show that the deletion of arguments shall take a role as determinant as the accusative language
only in a language with coordinative clauses in unmarked conditions.
The problems being addressed in this article among others: (i) in what clauses the deletion argument is conditioned by
semantic factors?; (ii) What semantic roles become the references to the deleted argument?; (iii) In what clauses both the semantic
and syntactic conditions can be applied to?.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Basic Linguistic Theory
Dixon (1994) was the first who termed the arguments S, A, O (Subject, Agent, and Object) in clause analysis. The three types
allignments of arguments establish the type of language known as accusative and ergative languages. The term O is replaced by P
(Patient) by Comrie (1989), followed by Artawa (1998a, 1998b, 1998c), Jufrizal (2007, 2012) and others. One of the basis in
determining the allignments for S, A, and O is the deletion of arguments in aligned clause or what further known as pivot. Pivot is
used in determining language types syntactically. According to Arka (1998), pivot is used as a subject feature ([+ core] [+ pivot]).
Copyright © 2018, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). 216
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 280
B. Argument
Arguments are the verb participants, which are widely used in syntactic analysis of various syntactic theories. The
boundary between arguments and the non becomes a subject matter raised as the underlying issue. Linguistics Discovery Journal
No. 12 of 2014 discuss issues of how to distinguish between an argument and adjunct (non-arguments) or boundary of argument
and non-argument. In his introduction, Whichman (2014) emphasizes that the differentiation of arguments and non-argument
actually are rooted in the theory of Contemporary Grammar. The arising question pertains the distinction between the two
concepts among others: (i) whether the differentiation of arguments and the non is typologically beneficial; (ii) whether the
distinction applicable universally; and (iii) whether the differentiation is needed in describing a language. The question of how to
distinguish argument from the non-argument has been around since the 1970s and has always been a difficult matter to resolve. If
a universal solution can never be obtained, it is difficult clearly argue that the differentiation of arguments and the non is relevant.
The following statement is the differentiation of arguments and the non are relevantly found across languages, however, the
determining criteria are in each individual language. The Linguistics Discovery No 12 of 2014 published five related articles
written by Haspelmath (2014), Schaefer & Egbokhare (2014), Forker (2014), and Arka (2014). These articles concern the typical
classifications between argument and the non. The deleted arguments in case being commonly understood between speaker and
the interlocutor, is used as a marker of the core argument. Although this type relates to argument, however, it does not refer to
typology. Arka (2017) notes on differentiating the core and oblique arguments. These articles are related to sort of ways
distinguishing arguments from the non-argument.
III. METHOD
This article is the result of linguistic phenomena in setting up arguments form in the Javanese conjoined sentences. The data
were the sentences used in the Jagad Jawa rubrics of the daily newspaper of Solo Pos and Mekar Sari a section of the Kedulatan
Rakyat daily newspaper. The data were collected through using computer-assisted records, scanned and further classified as data
which line with objectives of the study.
This study is about syntax especially from the perspective of languistic typology. Song (2001: 4) explains that there are four
stages in typological analysis. First, identification of the observed phenomena; second, typological classification on the observed
phenomena; third, formulating generalization towards the classification; and fourth, explanation of the generalization. In this case,
stage one is realized into a phenomenon that will be observed in this study is the deleted argument. The second stage, the
typological classification applied to determine the type of accusative or ergative languages. Therefore, identifying arguments by
referring to S, A, and O remains important. The third stage is its realization by determining the language of deletion
argumentation following the accusative language pattern S = A, or ergative language pattern of S = O. The third stage explains
whether all arguments follow the rules.
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. Results of the Study
There are two things governing the deleted arguments in Javanese language. The first, deletion is syntactically governed, and
the second, deletion is also semantically governed. Syntactically, arguments can be deleted if they share the same syntactic
functions. Semantically, the deleted argument will refer to a particular thematic role. Both of these rules will be described in the
following sections, beginning with deletion of the coordinative conjoining followed by deletion on the subordinate conjoining.
1) The Deleted Argumentation in the Coordinative clause
In the deletion setting which is syntactically regulated, the relationship between the referred noun and the deleted noun is
based on the same syntactic functions. The term function in this article refers to Dixon (1994, 2010a, 2010b, and 2012): S
(intransitive subject), A (transitive verb agent) and O (transitive verb object). In the same function, one of the arguments can be
deleted. Such deletion according to Dixon is formulated as S = S, A = A, O = O, as shown in below sample of sentences (1).
(1) a. Soleman klambèn lan metu saka omah.
Soleman wear and go out of house
‘Soleman wears clothes and leaves the house’
b. Rara Mendut meruhi kahanan banjur nubruk keris
Rara Mendut look around then hit keris
‘Rara Mendut looked around and then hit the keris’
c. Ibuné marani lan nyedhaki Angga
mother his/her come and approached Angga
‘Her mother came and approached Angga’
217
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 280
Sentences (1a), (1b), and (1c) are a combination of two coordiantive clauses, which reflect shared-arguments and these shared-
arguments occupy similar functions. The sentence (1a) reflects a shared-argument, Soleman, serves function as the S, and in the
second clause, Soleman is deleted. The sentence (1b) reflects a shared-argument, Rara Mendut, serves function as the A in both
clauses, whereas in the second clause, Rara Mendut is deleted. The shared-argument in sentence (1c) is ibuné ‘her mother’ and
Angga. Ibuné serves function as A in the first and second clauses, Angga serves function as O in the first and second clauses.
Angga is deleted in the first clause, and ibuné is deleted in the second clause. The conjoining between two clauses in the sentences
of (1a) and (1b) and (1c) is the conjoined active clauses. From deleted arguments on the conjoining clauses (1a), (1b), and (1c)
show that similar syntactic function is a condition which should be fulfilled for argumentation: the function S with S in the
intransitive clause, A with A and O with O in the verb transitive.
If only the conjoining clause is joined between intransitive and transitive clauses, the ocurring possibility will be the argument
S is paired with A, or paired with O. Both possibilities are sought in relation to the language typology. Will it either be included
into the accusative or ergative language types in the Javanese language?
From the conjoined coordinative clause data, it can be seen that the conjoined Javanese language clause tends to S with A
compared to O. The following conjoined clauses exemplified in below samples.
(2) a. Sumantri banjur perang lan Ø n-telukaké
Sumantri then fought and Ø ACT-beat
ratu-ratu kang ng-lamar Dèwi Citrawati mau.
The Kings who ACT-proposed Dewi Citrawati.
‘Sumantri then fought and defeated the kings who proposed Dewi Citrawati.’
b. *Sumantri banjur perang lan Ø ratu-ratu kang nglamar Dèwi Citrawati mau
Sumantri then fought and Ø the kings who proposed Dewi Citrawati the
di-telukaké.
PAS-defeat
The shared-argument in conjoined clause (2a) is Sumantri. In the first clause Sumantri serves function as S from predicate
perang ' to wage a war', and serves function as A of the transitive predicate nelukaké 'beat'. In the second clause, argument A,
Sumantri, is deleted. That the syntactic condition is a condition for conjoining clauses, indicated by the non-acceptance of the
transitive passivation of nelukaké into ditelukaké 'defeated' in the sentence (2b).
If the transitive clause before the condition is valid. The following contrast sentence (3a) with (3b) show the syntactic
behaviour of deleted argumentation (2a) and (2b) remains valid.
(3) a. Bocah mau n-jawil Tari terus m-layu
child the ACT-pinche Tari then ACT-berlari
‘The child pinches Tari then runs’
b. * Tari di-jawil déning bocah mau terus mlayu.
The passivation of transitive clause in the first clause of the sentence leads the clause unacceptable. The sentence (3b) shows
that the deleted argument in the clause (3a) is determined by the syntactic condition of S = A. Sentence (3b) is acceptable in a
different sense. The deleted argument in the second clause refers to Tari, the O argument that has been shifted to a function like S
due to the passivation process. The deletion reference became different.
Sentences (1b) and (1c) show that. In case the passive clause is conjoined with another passive clause there will be two
ocurring possibilities: (i) passivation is used to adjust the same O condition as A; and (ii) change the reference from A to O. The
following sample of sentences (4) show that.
(4) a. Herman lan Sari n-terusaké lakun-é tanpa Ø di-jaluki dhuwit.
Herman and Sari ACT-continue journey-their tanpa Ø PAS-ask money
‘Herman and Sari continue the journey without being asked for money
b. Selfi n-jupuk banyu putih, Ø di-ulungké Baskoro
Selfi ACT-take water , Ø PAS-give Baskoro
‘Selfi took water, given them to Baskoro’
218
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 280
The sentence (4a) conjoined active clause with passive clause. The shared-argument in conjoining between the clauses is Herman
lan Sari. On the first clause Herman lan Sari serves a function as A of the predicate n-teruskan ‘continue’, and in the second
clause the noun occupies the passive S function of the predicate di-jaluki ‘being asked’. The passivation in the second clause
serves to change O, thus it serves function like S, in that case it can be deleted. Different condition may occur, especially on the
conjoining between clauses in (4b). The sentences(4b) is the conjoined form of the two active and passive clauses. The shared-
argument in conjoining clause (4b) is banyu putih ‘pure water’. In the first noun clause banyu putih occupies the O function of the
active predicate n-jupuk ‘take/took’, and in the second clause the noun occupies the passive S function of the passive predicate di-
ulungké ‘given’. The deleted arguments on the sentence (4a) is syntactically governed and the deletion on sentence (4b)
semantically governed. This can be proved by changing the active clause in sentences (4a) and (4b) to be passive. The active
clause (4a) if in case it is shifted to passivity will last unacceptable, however, passivation of the sentence (4b) is acceptable. The
sentence (5a) is a change from sentence (4a) and sentence (5b) is a change from sentence (4b)
(5) a. *lakuné di-terusaké déning Herman lan Sari banjur tanpa Ø di-jaluki dhuwit.
Journey PAS-continue by Herman dan Sari then tanpa Ø PAS-aske money
‘The journey was continued by Herman and Sari without being asked for money’
b. Banyu putihé di-jupuk déning Selfi ,Ø di-ulungké Baskoro
pure water PAS-take by Selfi ,Ø PAS-give Baskoro
‘The pure water was taken by Selfi, given to Baskoro’
Even though there is a change from active to passive, the sentence (5b) remains acceptable. The deleted arguments in the second
clause is not affected by passive-active syntactic processes. In the passivassion, syntactic function changes, the O argument
becomes a passive S argument, however, the semantic role remains stable. The deleted arguments in sentence (4a) is semantically
governed.
In conclusion, in conjoining between clauses in a coordinatively, the deleted argument is determined both syntactically and
semantically. The deletion argument rules syntactically occur in conjoined basic / active clauses, and the deleted argument
semantically occurs in the conjoined passive subordiative clause only.
2) The Deleted Argumentation in the Subordinate Clause
As the observation in conjoining the coordinative clause, observation in the subordinate clause is focused on alignment of the
relations of S with A or S with O. The following example shows especially the conjoining between intransitive and transitive
clauses. The relationship was tested by passivation. In the ellpsis of subordinative relationship, it is also seen the relationship of S
= A as seen in the sentences (6a) and (6b), and (7a) and (7b).
(6) a. Dhèwèké mèh waé semaput nalika m-buka lawang ngarepan.
She/he almost faint when AKT-open door front
‘He almost fainted at the time opening the front door’
b. *Dhèwèké mèh waé semaput nalika lawang ngarepan di-buka .
‘he (she) almost fainted at the time the front door PAS-opened
(7) a. Sawisé m-pati-ni buta pirang-pirang, dumadakan Radèn Permadi ambruk (….)
Setelah ACT-kill-CAUS giant many sudently Raden Permadi fell
‘After killing many giants, Raden Permadi suddenly fell’
b. *Sawisé buta pirang-pirang di-pati-ni , dumadakan Radèn Permadi ambruk
After giants many PAS- kill-CAUS suddenly Raden Permadi fell
The shared-argument in sentence (6a) is Dhèwèké ‘She/he’. In the first clause Dhèwèké occupies the S function of a predicate
semaput ‘fainted’ and occupies function A in the second clause of the active predicate m-buka ‘opening’. n the second clause the
argument is deleted. If the second clause is passived, the conjoined clause is unacceptable. The sentence (6b) is a change in the
passivation of the sentence (6a), and becomes an unacceptable sentence. Sentences (7a) and (7b) are examples parallel to
sentences (6a) and (6b). The difference is, the transitive clause in sentence (6a) is located behind, while the transitive clause in
(7a) is located at the beginning. The shared-argument in sentence (7a) is Radèn Permadi. In the first clause the noun is deleted
and occupies the A function of the active transitive predicate m-patin-ni ‘killing’. In the second clause occupies the S function of
the intransitive predicate ambruk ‘fell’. If the active clause in (7a) is passived, the conjoining becomes unacceptable as shown in
the sentence (7b). From evidence of the sentences (6a) is changed (into 6b) and (7a) changed to (7b), it is concluded that the
219
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 280
deletion in the conjoining clause is governed by syntactic factors. If S = A, one of the arguments can be deleted. Changing to
passivity is an obstacle to conjoining.
On the other hand, if the shared-argument occupies the S and O functions, the passivation should be realized in order that O
becomes S. The following sentences (8a) and (8b) are proof of the deletion rule, which is controlled by syntactic factors.
(8) a. Nalika nyebrang dalan ngarep kampus, Ningsih di-tabrak mobil (….)
When cross street front campus kampus Ningsih PAS-tabrak mobil
‘On crossing the front street of the campus, Ningsih was hit by a car’
b. Masarakat seneng nalika di-gatèk-ké .
people happy when PAS-attention-CAUS’
‘People are happy, when being paid attention’
The shared argument in conjoining the sentence clause (8a) is Ningsih . In the first clause the noun occupies the S function of the
intransitive predicate nyebrang ‘accrossing’. In the second clause, the noun is deleted and occupies the passive S function from
the passive predicate ‘hit’The passivation is undertaken to establish the shared-arguments which situates S = O one of which can
be deleted. The sentence (8b) shows similar case. The shared argument in sentence (8b) is masarakat ‘people/society’. In the first
clause the noun occupies the S function of the intransitive predicate seneng ‘happy’, and in the second clause the noun is deleted
and occupies the passive S function of the passive predicate di-gatèkké ‘is paid attention’. In reinforcing sentence (8a), passivation
in the sentence (8b) is undertaken to establish a shared-argument which the initial condition S = O can be deleted. On the
sentences (6a) (7a), (8a), and (8b), the syntactic conditions required for the deleted argumentation on the conjoined clause is S =
A; an argument which initial condition S = O is passived into, for that reason it can be deleted.
Such conditions may not always be acceptable. There is a conjoining clause governed by semantic rules. As in the samples of
sentences (9a) (9b) and (9c), the following are the semantic prescription rules. In this case certain semantic roles become
references to the deleted arguments.
(9) a. Minah ny-suntak rasa anyelé marang Kusno karo Ø mbengok-mbengok
Minah AKT-express feel anger to Kusno by shout
‘Minah expressed her anger on Kusno by shouting '
b. Prabu Banaputra m-pasrahaké Dèwi Ragu marang Begawan Rawatmaja supaya di-ningkah
Prabu Banaputra AKT-entrust Dewi Ragu to Begawan Rawatmaja for PAS-marriage
‘Prabu Banaputra entrusted Dewi Ragu to Begawan Rawatmaja for marriage’
c. Saka keparengé Prabu Basuparicara, bayi di-paringaké marang Sang Dasabala, kapurih nggulawenthah.
at request Prabu Basuparicara, baby PAS-give to sang Dasabala, so that take care
‘At the request of King Basuparicara, the baby was given to Sang Dasabala, so that (Dasabala) would take care’
The deleted arguments in sentences (9a), (9b), and (9c) are governed by semantic factors, thefore, that passive-active changes in
the main clause have no effect on the deleted argument reference. The shared-argument in sentence (9a) is Minah. In the first
clause Minah occupies the A function of the predicate ny-suntak ‘expressed’, and in the second noun clause is deleted and is the S
argument of the predicate bengok-bengok ‘shouting’. The reference argument is deleted from the predicate bengok-bengok always
refers to the agent of the predicate ny-suntak ‘expressed. The deleted argument in sentence (9b) is also semantically governed.
The shared-argument in (9b) is Dewi Ragu. In the first clause occupies the O function of the active predicate m-pasrahaké
'entrusted', and the second clause is deleted, and occupies the passive function of S. The reference deletion is determined
semantically, namely as a patient of the predicate masrahaké ‘entrusted’. The deleted arguments in sentence (9c) is s syntactically
governed. The shared-argument in sentence (9c) is Sang Dasabala. In the first clause the noun does not occupy the core argument
of a passive predicate di-paringi ‘was given’, however, it becomes a reference of the deleted argument in the second clause. In the
first noun clause Sang Dasabala serves a role as beneficiary. In the second clause the noun occupies argument A, from the
transitive predicate ng-gulawenthah ‘take care’. That the deletion and reference relations are determined by semantic roles, this
can be proved by passivation or otherwise returning to active from passive clauses. The sentences (10a), (10b) and (10c) are
changes of sentences (9a), (9b), and (9c).
(10) a. Rasa anyelé di-suntak Minah marang Kusno karo Ø mbengok-mbengok
feel anger PAS-express Minah to Kusno while shout
‘Her annoyance was expressed by Minah to Kusno while screaming’
220
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 280
b. Dèwi Ragu di-pasrahaké Prabu Banaputra marang Begawan Rawatmaja supaya di-ningkah
Dewi Ragu PAS-submitt Prabu Banaputra to Begawan Rawatmaja for PAS-marriage
‘Dewi Ragu was submitted by Prabu Banaputra to Begawan Rawatmaja for marriage’
c. Saka keparengé Prabu Basuparicara, Sang Dasabala di-paringi bayi, kapurih ng-gulawenthah.
At request Prabu Basuparicara, Sang Dasabala PAS-give baby , so that ACT- take care
‘At the request of King Basuparicara, the Dasabala was given a baby, so that (Sang Dasabala) would take care’
Changes in the functioning position of those arguments can never change the deleted reference. Due to this fact, the relationship
between deletion and reference is not determined by syntactic factors, however, by semantic factors. In sentences of (9a) and
(10a) the deletion of argument always refers to the agent, Minah; in sentences (9b) and (10b) the deleted argument always refers
to predicate to the patient, Dèwi Ragu; and in sentences (9c) and (10c) the deletion always refers to the beneficiary, Sang
Dasabala. The semantic factor only occurs in the matrix clause. The deleted argument always occupies the subject function of the
subordinate clause.
B. Discussion
Typologically it is important to distinguish between coordinative and subordinate clauses. Dixon (1994) suggests this but
explains more about the difference between coordinative and subordinative relationships. Based on the coordinative data shows
that the deletion / deletion in the coordinative relationship is in unmarked conditions, the deleted Javanese language argument as
well as accusative language. The deletion occurs in language if S = A. That is, the syntactic condition is an absolute requirement
for an deleted argument. In marked conditions, passivation is not always the same as Dixon's statement. The argument O is
changed to the same as S intransitive. The sentence (4b) shows that.
In subordinate relationships, syntactic and semantic requirements occur in various conditions. In unmarked conditions, setting
is determined syntactically as in sentence (6a), (7a). On the contrary, sentences (9a), (9b), and (9c) the relationship between the
condition of both marked and unmarked matrix sentences determined nothing. What determines precisely the role of semantics, in
which the deletion refers to agent, the deletion refers to patient, or the deletion refers to ‘benficiery’.
Only in the deleted arguments on unmarked conditions is the strong evidence of the Javanese language as an accusative
language. The unmarked conditions can never be used as evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
Javanese is an accusative language in terms of the deleted arguments of coordinative sentence in unmarked conditions. In
subordinate sentences, some deletions are determined semantically, especially in matrix clauses. Therefore, the deletion in the
subordinative clause can never be used as evidence and syntactic behavior.
Acknowledgment
This paper is part of an academic dissertation on ‘the Establishment of Compound Sentence Arguments in Javanese: A Reason
for Syntactic Typology’. I wish to express my gratitude to the promoter, Prof. Dr. Sumarlam, M.Sc, and co-promoter Dr. Dwi
Purnanto, M.Hum.
References
Arka, I. W. (1998). From Morphosyntax to Pragmatic in Balinese: A lexical-Funtional Approach (Disertation). Sedney:
University of Sedney.
Artawa, I. K. (1998). Ergativity and Balinese syntax part I. Nusa , 42, 1-63.
Artawa, I. K. (1998). Ergativity and Balinese syntax part II. Nusa , 65-111.
Artawa, I. K. (1998). Ergativity and Balinese syntax part III. Nusa , 113-169.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universal and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Creissels, D. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation in the treatment of beneficiaries . Linguistic Discovery , 41-55.
Dixon, R. (2010). Basic linguistic theory 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
221
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 280
Dixon, R. (2010). Basic linguistic theory 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R. (2012). Basic linguistic theory 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forker, D. (2014). A canonical approach to the argument/adjunct distinction. Linguistic Discovery , 27-40.
Haspelmath, M. (2014). Argumen and adjunct as language-particular syntactic categories and as comparative concepts. Linguistic
Discovery , 3-11.
Haspelmath, M. (2011). On S, A, P, T and R as Comparative concept for allignment typology. Linguistic Typology , 535-567.
Jufrizal. (2007). Minangkabunese as S/A pivot language: the evidence based on typological study on interogative construction.
Kolita 5 (pp. 63-74). Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya.
Jufrizal. (2012). Tata bahasa Minangkabau: deskriptif dan telaah tipologi linguistik. Padang : Universitas Negeri Padang.
Ronald P. Schaefer, Francis O. Egbokhare . (2014). Emai’s Variable Coding of Adjuncts . Linguistic Discovery , 12-26.
Song, J. J. (2001). Linguistic typology: morphology and syntax. England: Pearson Education Limited.
222