DOUBLE-OBJECT CONSTRUCTIONS IN INDONESIAN: A SYNTACTIC STUDY
Keywords:
construction, double object, Indonesian, syntaxAbstract
This paper explores the different types of double-object sentences in Indonesian. This study aims to identify the types of double object constructions based on syntactic behavior, word categories of verb-accompanying constituents, and the verb's form at the construction center. Double object constructions in Indonesian can be divided into two types: double object constructions with double FN constituents (type 1) and double object constructions with combined FN constituents (type 2). The difference between the two types is seen in verb form, syntactic behavior, and the category of verb-accompanying constituents. In terms of verb form, type 1 constructions have verbs ending in -kan and -i, while type 2 does not. In terms of syntactic behavior, type 1 constructions come from single sentences. They can be fixed into other forms by changing the verb and using prepositions "for" and "to" as adverbial function markers in the last constituent. In contrast, type 2 constructions come from broader sentences, so their verb-accompanying constituents form a construction. In terms of the verb-accompanying constituent filler category, type 1 double object constructions only involve nouns as the second filler of the verb-accompanying constituent. In contrast, in type 2 double object constructions, the categories can be nouns, nouns with verbs, adjectives with adjectives, and prepositional phrases.
References
Ramlan, M. (2005). Ilmu Bahasa Indonesia: Sintaksis. CV. Karyono.
Sudaryanto. (2015). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Sanata Dharma University Press.
Adagale, A. (2022). Syntactic Model for the Analysis of Moral Stories. Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities, 2(5), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.55544/ijrah.2.5.7
Cassani, G., & Limacher, N. (2022). Not just form, not just meaning: Words with consistent form-meaning mappings are learned earlier. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(8), 1464–1482. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211053472
Clarke, A. T., Soto, G. E., Cook, J., Iloanusi, C., Akwarandu, A., & Still Parris, V. (2022). Adaptation of the Coping With Stress Course for Black Adolescents in Low-Income Communities: Examples of Surface Structure and Deep Structure Cultural Adaptations. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 29(4), 738–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2021.04.005
Dotan, D., Breslavskiy, I., Copty-Diab, H., & Yousefi, V. (2021). Syntactic priming reveals an explicit syntactic representation of multi-digit verbal numbers. Cognition, 215, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104821
Hübler, N. (2022). Phylogenetic signal and rate of evolutionary change in language structures. Royal Society Open Science, 9(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211252
Mollica, F., Bacon, G., Zaslavsky, N., Xu, Y., Regier, T., & Kemp, C. (2021). The forms and meanings of grammatical markers support efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(49), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025993118
Niharika, M. K., & Prema Rao, K. S. (2020). Processing syntax: perspectives on language specificity. In International Journal of Neuroscience (Vol. 130, Issue 8, pp. 841–851). Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207454.2019.1707818
Sinnemäki, K., & Di Garbo, F. (2018). Language structures may adapt to the sociolinguistic environment, but it matters what and how you count: A typological study of verbal and nominal complexity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(8), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01141
Sun, X., Zhang, K., Marks, R. A., Nickerson, N., Eggleston, R. L., Yu, C. L., Chou, T. L., Tardif, T., & Kovelman, I. (2021). What’s in a word? Cross-linguistic influences on Spanish–English and Chinese–English bilingual children’s word reading development. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/CDEV.13666
Tong, X., Deng, Q., & Tong, S. X. (2022). Syntactic awareness matters: uncovering reading comprehension difficulties in Hong Kong Chinese-English bilingual children. Annals of Dyslexia, 72(3), 532–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-022-00268-y
Urban, M., & Moran, S. (2021). Altitude and the distributional typology of language structure: Ejectives and beyond. PLoS ONE, 16(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245522
Wang, J., Rice, M. L., & Booth, J. R. (2019). Syntactic and semantic specialization and integration in 5-to 6-year-old children during auditory sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01477
Zane, E., Arunachalam, S., & Luyster, R. (2021). Personal pronoun errors in form versus meaning produced by children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 5(3), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-021-00087-4
Zekaj, M. (2015). Synonymy Relationships between the Subjunctive and the New Infinitive in the Syntactic Aspect. European Journal of Language and Literature, 3(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejls.v3i1.p91-95
Zhang, C., & Kang, S. (2022). A comparative study on lexical and syntactic features of ESL versus EFL learners’ writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002090
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Riki Nasrullah, Arip Budiman, Abdul Kosim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.