Maria Ulfa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1 (2020) Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | JURNAL ARBITRER SubmiSSion Track A B S T R A C T Recieved: January 24, 2020 Final Revision: April 11, 2020 Available Online: April 26, 2020 The article deals with the interrogative construction in Aceh language. This study used a qualitative approach. The study aims to find out; (1) kinds of interrogative words in Aceh language (2) interrogative construction in Aceh language by using X Bar Theory. The data in this study are Acehnese sentences that contain Interrogative words. The data sources in this study are (1) Acehnese dictionaries, (2) Acehnese Book, and (3) Acehnese speakers. The data collection process by an interview with the Acehnese speaker in Langsa and data analysis used X Bar Theory. The results of the study show that;1) there are eight kinds of interrogative words in Aceh language especially in East Aceh dialect in Langsa such as: a) Pue. peue, b) Soe, c) Hoe, d) pat, dipat, e) pajan, f) pakon, g) padum, h) pane, i) pakiban. There are three categories of interrogative construction;(a) Open Interrogative, (b) Close Interrogative, (c) Rhetoric Interrogative. The Structure of the sentence in Aceh language constructs by using of the specifier, complement, and Verb. Specifiers put by NP and Complement put by Auxiliary, PP, or NP and Adverb can be preposition by PP or NP. keyword Interrogative Construction, Aceh Language, East Aceh Dialect correSpondence Phone: 08126315231 E-mail: mulyadi.usu@gmail.com Article Interrogative Construction in Aceh Language Maria Ulfa1, Mulyadi2 1,2University of Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia Under Liscense of Creative Commons Attributioni-NonCommercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.7.1.45-50.2020 I. INTRODUCTION Aceh Language is one of language in Sumatra, this language is a vernacular language that functions as a language connector, which is divided into several dialects; in the north area: Aceh Besar dialect, Pidie dialect, Peusangan dialect, and Pasai dialect (Budiman, et al., 1977). Even though there are several dialects, Aceh people support each other and maintain good communication with one another. To maintain good communication among the speaker of each dialect, the people use interrogative sentences. Each language has specific rules and patterns (Denafri, et al., 2019; Hammarström, 2016; Campbell, 2008; Comrie, et al., 2005). The sentence formation processes are also a difference, including interrogative sentences. The interrogative sentence has an important function in the conversation because the conversation itself is asking and answering questions (Liu, 2016; Cuza, 2016; Haddican, et al., 2014; Déprez, et al, 2013). Furthermore, interrogative sentences also function to affirm, ridicule, shrink, or maintain relationship (Bolden, 2016; Hintikka, 2002; Fava, 1996; Maynard, 1994). Interrogative is a sentence that contains interrogative intonation and means to ask (. In the written variety, it usually ends question mark (?), In Indonesian marked by “whether” and so on (Kridalaksana, 2008:148). Crystal (1997: 201) also explains that interrogative is a term used in the grammatical classification of sentence types and usually looks different from declarative, ie sentences that refer to verb tenses or types of sentences/clauses that are usually used in question expression. Furthermore, Siemund (2001: 2) stated that “Interrogative construction can be divided into three, there are so-called polar interrogatives (polar questions), interrogative content (content questions), and interrogative alternatives”. Sadock & Swicky (1996) and Aarts (1997) divided interrogative into three types; 1) close 45 Maria Ulfa/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1 (2020) interrogative, 2) open interrogative, and 3) Rhetoric interrogative. The first is open interrogative: What, Wo, Why, When, How, Where, which consists of new information. It can be a word constituent and phrase constituent. The word constituent has a free formula in a sentence which is combining which syntactical categories such as word, phrase, and clause. The question word can occupy one of syntactical function: Subject, Verb, Object, Adverb, and Complement. The second is close interrogative: What, What is, and How which can be found in the initial, middle, and final position. The question word does not replace the syntactical function. It also can be replaced by intonations to indicate interogative sentence without changing the structure of the sentence. It consists of old information. The last is Rhetoric Interrogative: Rhetoric Construction In syntactical has the same structure with open interrogative construction and close interrogative construction. The question word in this type not function as the question word. In semantic types of rhetoric, interrogative can be in a different meaning (Hintikka, 2002). The characteristics of informants are (I) people in his village are known as active bearers, (2) native speakers of the Acehnese language, (3) native Acehnese tribes, and (4) aged up to 40 years. The instruments used in this study were observation and interviews to identify the data. The data were analyzed using the distributional method by focusing on the syntactic analysis of the interrogative construction. III.RESULT Kinds of Interrogative Word in Aceh language (East Aceh dialect) According to Sulaiman (1977) in his book of “ Bahasa Aceh Jilid 1” mention that there are five types of Interrogative words in Aceh language, such as : Table 1. Kinds of Interrogative Words by Sulaiman No AL IL Eng 1 Pa/peue Apa What 2 Toh Mana Which 3 Pat Dimana Where(asking place) 4 Ho kemana Where (asking direction) 5 Soe Siapa Who The question words have a similarity found in Langsa region based on East Aceh area. In interview result of Acehnese speaker found that the question words are: Table 2. Kinds of Interrogative Words in Langsa Region No AL Eng Meaning 1. Pue, Peue What Asking about noun 2 Soe Who Asking about person 3 Ho Where Asking about Place or location 4 Pat,dipat Where Asking about direction 5 Pajan When Asking about time 6 Pakon, Why Asking about reason 7 Padum How much Asking about amount 8 pane Where/How Asking about direction and condition 9 Pakiban How Asking about condition Note AL : Aceh Language IL : Indonesia Language Eng : English Fig. 1. Types of interrogative by Sadock & Swicky Several researchers had done research about interrogative construction in several languages (Rodiyah and Mulyadi, 2018; Hafrianto, 2018; Harahap and Mulyadi, 2018; Fitriyani, 2017; Tarmini, 2009; Chung, 2008; Sulaiman, 1997; Durie, 1985). However, the researches of interrogative construction in Aceh Language, especially the dialect, are very limited. Then current research focuses on the analysis of interrogative contraction of East Aceh dialect. II.METHODS This study uses a qualitative descriptive research design. The data were collected from the children’s fable book in Acehnese (Wildan, 2001). To verify the data, the research also included the interview with the Aceh people as informants. 46 Maria Ulfa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1 (2020) Interrogative Construction in Aceh Language (Langsa as the basis of East Aceh dialect) Several experts provide about the types of interrogative construction. Sudock & Swicky and Art(1996) and Aarts (1997) divided interrogative into three types; 1) close interrogative, 2) open interrogative, and 3) Rhetoric interrogative. Siemund (2001) divided Interrogative construction into three kinds such as; 1) Polar interrogative,2) Interrogative Constituent,3) Alternative Interrogative. Durie (1985) found that there are three types of interrogative construction in the dialect of north Aceh Such as;1) Yes/no Question,2) Other questions,3) Rhetorical doubting question. Interrogative construction in Aceh language in Langsa ( East Aceh region) not yet discovered by the previous research above. On this occasion, the researcher used the theory of Sadock and Swicky (1996). Interrogative construction in Aceh language can be divided into ; (1) Open Interrogative, (2) Yes/No Question (Close Interrogative) (3) Rhetoric Interrogative. In this study, the Interrogative construction took from Acehnese Speaker in Langsa ( East Aceh region). W/h Question (Open Interrogative Construction) In Open Interrogative words in Aceh language consist of word ;Pue/peue ‘what’ , Soe ‘Who’, Pakon ‘Why’, Pakiban ‘How’,Padum ‘How much’, pat,dipat ‘Where’.Those question words can become word constituents and phrase constituents. Question words as constituents of words have a sequence pattern that is not bound in a sentence. Question words can join syntactic categories of words, phrases, and clauses; question words can fill one of the syntactic functions, Subject, Verb, Object, Complement, and Adverb. In Open Interrogative, construction can be formed by NP combining with I ( IP). Then Interrogative construction also can be formed by the use of complement as the internal structure with a verb. 1a. Yahwa heui aneuh geuh bak lampoh NP V NP PP [ active sentence] ‘Yahwa calls his son in the field’ The sentence above as a declarative sentence, which one of the sentences can be changed into an interrogative sentence: 1b. Yahwa, hei soe bak lampoh? NP V NP PP ‘ Yahwa ,Who did you called in the field?’ The Interrogative construction of (1b) can be categories as open interrogative construction because the question needs informative answers. Figure 2 shows the X Bar of Interrogative Construction 1(b) The sentence above (1b) showed that the question words come after verb the function of interrogative words as NP. 1c has a similar structure of sentence 1a. The word“Aneuk geuh” Change into “soe” which is the meaning “who” because the word “Aneuk geuh” is a noun. The position of NP “soe” move at the beginning of the sentence and have Fig.1. Declarative sentence In (1a), NP “aneuk geuh” joining with V and become V` first and the complement of VP. PP joining with V’ and form the second of V and then form become VP because of PP is adverb from VP. VP is complement IP joining with I become I’ and NP “Yahwa” is joining with I’ and become IP, and it is a specifier. 47 Maria Ulfa/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1 (2020) The sentence structure of 1b and 1c has a function as a specifier and complement. The function of the specifier because of question word joining with C’ and become CP. If the question word put in the last sentence, the function of the word becomes complement because the question word joining with V and form V’. It can be concluded that the structure of the interrogative sentence in Aceh language the question word of; What (Pue) ‘Who’( Soe) ‘When (pajan), Why (Pakon), Where (Pat/ dipat), How (pakiban) have the same function and the lexical function as a noun. The example of an open interrogative sentence that analyzes by using X- Bar is shown that NP is a complement from VP because of NP join with V and become V’( first V Bar). VP is a complement of IP because of joining with I become I’ and IP joining with C and forming C’ that will form CP. The interrogative sentence above omit the use of the second singular person “gata” that functions as NP in that sentence. Yes/No Question (Closed Interrogative Construction Closed interrogative construction, only three question words were found, namely, the words, what, what, and how. These interrogative forms are frequently found in the initial position or at the beginning of the sentence. The question word in closed interrogative construction does not fill or replace the syntactic function. Therefore, punishing questions with certain intonations can be done without changing the information in question. An example of an analysis of the use of question words in closed interrogative constructions can be seen in the following explanation. 2a. Gobnyan jak u blang singoh NP V PP NP He goes to the rice field tomorrow Declarative sentence can be seen from Figure 4 above and close interrogative can be seen from the Figure 5. X-Bar showed that PP is a compliment because combining with V and become V‟. NP “singoh” is adverb from VP because of combining with V‟ become V‟ and then, become VP. VP comes from IP and combining with I become I‟. and “Kak “ as NP is specifier because combining with I‟ and become IP, and then IP` combining with C becomes C` and then C` become CP.Fig.3. Construction of the movement of interrogative Fig.2. Construction of W/H Question /open interogative the function as a specifier. Below showed the movement of Interrogative sentence: 1.c Soe nyang Yahwa heui bak lampoh? NP C NP V PP (Open Interrogative Sentence) 48 Maria Ulfa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1 (2020) 3. a.*gobnyan jak puekeuh u blang singoh? b.* gobnyan jak puekeuh u blang singoh puekeuh In interrogative construction auxiliary,PP or NP can be put the position as a complement, as shown below : 4.a Pat neu temeng nyan Adv P Aux V NP 4b. Gobnyan jak u blang singoh NP V PP NP Rhetorical interrogative Rhetorical Interrogative construction has similarities with open interrogative construction and closed interrogative construction. In certain cases, syntactically, the rhetorical interrogative construction also has the same structure as the open interrogative construction and closed interrogative construction. Semantically, in the rhetorical interrogative type, there are various meanings, including imperative, declarative, and exclamative. Question markers in the interrogative type are not used to ask questions. The information submitted is entirely old information. The meanings are different depending on the context of the sentence in question. In rhetorical question, the interrogative form is used to indicate a negative meaning (Durie :1985) 5. Keneuk keruja mangat na peng pue na masalah? VP I would like to work to get money, that’s your problem? The question word above ‘pue’ is joining with VP, in syntactical, the use of what in interrogative rhetoric almost have the same construction with close interrogative. Which is can be joining with syntactical categories as word, phrase, and clause? IV. CONCLUSION The result of data analysis concludes that Interrogative construction in Aceh language can be divided into three categories; (1) open interrogative, (2) close interrogative, (3) Rhetoric interrogative. The Structure of the sentence in Aceh language constructs by using of specifier, complement, and Verb. Specifiers put by NP and Complement put by Auxilary, PP, or NP and Adverb can be reposition by PP or NP. Most of the interrogative sentences in Aceh language do not use the personal pronoun. They omit the use of the pronoun in the sentencing event. The meaning of the sentences is acceptable. Fig.4. Construction of a declarative sentence Fig.5. The movement of a declarative sentence become interrogative 2b. Peue keuh gobnyan geu jak u blang singoh? (Close interrogative) “Peue keuh” as interrogative word can be found in the position in the first sentence the other word that used “pue” for example : “pue=nyoe” [will he/she], “pue=nyoe[what’s that] , “pue=nyan” [ what’s this] . “Pue=keuh” that function as complement can’t be found at the end of the sentence. 49 Maria Ulfa/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1 (2020) REFERENCE Bolden, Galina B. (2016). “A simple da?: Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 100, Pages 40-58. Budiman, et al. (1977). Bahasa Aceh. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Banda Aceh. Campbell, L. Poser W. J. ( 2008 ). Language Classification: History and Method . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Chung, Sandra. (2008). “Indonesian clause structure from an Austronesian perspective”. Lingua, Vol. 118, Issue 10. Comrie, Bernard, Dryer Matthew S. Gil David Haspelmath Martin (eds.) World Atlas of Language Structures , pp. 522 – 5 . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Culicover, P. W. (1997). Principles and Parameters: An Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press Crystal, David. (1997). A dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics 4th Edition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Cuza, Alejandro. (2016). “The status of interrogative subject–verb inversion in Spanish-English bilingual children”. Lingua, Volume 180, Pages 124-138. Déprez, Viviane, Kristen Syrett, and Shigeto Kawahara. (2013). “The interaction of syntax, prosody, and discourse in licensing French wh-in-situ questions”. Lingua, Volume 124,, Pages 4-19. Durie, Mark. (1985). A Grammar of Acehnese on the Basis of dialect of North Aceh. The Netherland. Foris Publication Holland. Denafri, D, et al. (2019). Affixation Process in Sudannese. Jurnal Arbitrer. Vol 6 N.02 Fava, Elisabetta. (1996). “Questioning interrogative interpretation in some Indo-European languages”. Language Sciences, Volume 18, Issues 1–2, Pages 87-110. Fitriyani, D Z. (2018). Interrgative Sentence in Minangkabau Language: X-bar Theory. Jurnal Retorika Ilmu Bahasa, 3 (1): 188-200. Haddican, Bill, Anders Holmberg, Hidekazu Tanaka, George Tsoulas. (2014). “Interrogative slifting in English”. Lingua, Volume 138, Pages 86-106. Hafrianto, J. (2018). Kalimat Tanya dalam Bahasa Melayu Dialek Tamiang. Litera Jurnal Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 17(2): 186-201 Hammarström, Harald. (2016). “Linguistic diversity and language evolution”, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 1, Issue 1, January, Pages 19–29 Harahap, & Mulyadi. (2018). Kata Tanya Dalam Konstruksi Interogatif Bahasa Mandailing. School Education Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1 Juni 2018. Universitas Sumatra Utara Hintikka, Jaakko, Ilpo Halonen, Arto Mutanen. (2002). “Interrogative logic as a general theory of reasoning”, in Dov M. Gabbay, Ralph H. Johnson, Hans Jürgen Ohlbach, John Woods (Eds), Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, Elsevier, Volume 1, 2002, Pages 295-337. Maynard, Senko K. (1994). “Thematic suspension and speech act qualification: Rhetorical effects of stray interrogative clauses in Japanese text”. Poetics, Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 473-496, Mulyadi. (2010). Frasa Preposisi Bahasa Indonesia : Analisis X-bar. Jurnal Kajian Sastra, 34 (1): 1– 12. Ramlan. 1981. Sintaksis. Yogyakarta: Karyono. Siemund, Peter. (2001). Interrogative Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Tarmini, Wini (2009). Kata tanya dalam Kontruksi Interogatif Bahasa Indonesia: Kajian iIntaksis dan Semantik”.Doctoral Dissertation Prpgram Pascasarjana Universitas Pajajaran Bandung Wildan, et al. (2001). Dongeng anak anak dalam Bahasa Aceh: Analisis Struktur. Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Jakarta 50