1 STRUCTURE AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION OF LEO LANGUAGE I KETUT YUDHA Indonesian Department, Faculty of Education of Languages and Arts Teachers’ Training College of Saraswati Tabanan Email: yudhaketut@yahoo co id. Ketut Artawa Study Program of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, Udayana University Aron Meko Mbete Study Program of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, Udayana University Ni Made Sri Satyawati Study Program of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, Udayana University Abstract Lio language is a language spoken in Central Flores. Having limited morphological process in general and affixation process involving verbs (head marking) and nouns (dependent marking) in particular, it is classified into an isolating language. The studies exploring the languages spoken in the eastern part of Indonesia using Lexical Functional Grammar and the theory of typology are highly limited. In addition, Lio language is merely an isolating one and does not have cross referencing. It is this which inspired the writer to conduct research in syntax. This study aims at investigating the canonic structure, the types of verbs used as predicates, the grammatical function, the alternate of clausal structure, the mapping and the pivotance in Lio language. The results of analysis show that the clauses in Lio language can be divided into basic clauses with verbal and nonverbal predicates. The predicates of the verbal clauses are classified into simple, serial, and causative. The serial verbal constructions are distinguished based on the semantic features of the verbal components forming the serial verbal constructions. These types can be observed from the nature of the relationships among the components forming the serial verbal constructions. A serial verbal construction is made up of more than one verbs and behaves as a simple predicate. There is no dependence marker among the components forming the serial verb. The causative structure also forms monoclause and biclause. The functional mapping uses the features [+/-r] and [+/-o], the argument uses the features [-r] and [-o] which are mapped to SUBJ, [-r] and [+o] are mapped to OBJ, [+r] and [+o] are mapped to OBJ2 or OBJƟ and [+r] and [-o] are mapped to OBL (Oblique). Lio language has GF SUBJ and OBJ as the nuclear GF (nuclear grammatical function), and OBL, COMP, and ADJ as the nonnuclear grammatical functions. The SUBJ appears before the verb (preverbal position) and the OBJ appears after the verb (postverbal position). Based on how the constituents are ordered, Lio language is an SVO and VOS language. Typologically, it is classified into an ergative as well as accusative language. It is classified into an ergative language as the argument of the unmarked transitive verbal P is similarly treated to the intransitive simple argument depending on how the constituents are 2 ordered. The limitation of Lio language is that P and S can be relativised and modified by the emphatic marker. The only P and S which function as pivots allow the noun which coreferences in both the coordinate and subordinate clauses to disappear. Keywords: structural alternates, verbal serialization, valence, transitivity, mapping, causative and ergative typology. 1. Introduction One of the regional languages in Indonesia is Lio language ‘Bahasa Lio’, hereinafter referred to as BL. It is one of the regional languages under the regional language sub group of Bima-Sumba (Esser, 1951). It is used by its speakers as a means of communication. Most people who belong to Lio Ende ethnic group still speak their local languages called Sara Lio ‘Lio language’ and Sara Ende ‘Ende language’ in their socio-cultural life (Mbete et.al, 2006: 9). The regions where BL is spoken cover Detusoko District, Maurole District, Ndori District, Kelimutu District, Detukeli District, Kota Baru District, Wewaria District, Maukaro District, Wolojita District, Lio Timor District, and East Ende District, all of which belong to Ende Regency. In addition, BL is also spoken in Paga District and Mego District which are located in Sikka Regency and in the areas adjacent to Ende. From the morphological typology, BL is classified into an isolating monomorphemic language which does not have morpholexical process (Saradi, 2000). The words and morphems in this isolating language are one-to-one correspondence or every word is a morphem or vice versa. The words in this language are monomorphemic (see Comrie, 1981: 39) as structural alternates cannot be measured through affixation. BL is an SVO language (Subject-Verb-Object) and typologically it is an accusative and ergative language. The syntactical ergativeness of a language can be seen from the syntactical rules similarly treating P to S and differently treating P from A. Anderson (1976) states that not all languages are morphologically ergative; there are several which ergative are syntactically. Morphologically, most ergative languages have the syntactical rules which behave as the syntactical rules in the accusative language which similarly treat A to S. This study aims at exploring the canonic structure, the grammatical function, the verbal serialization, the mapping and the structural alternate, the adjunct clause in BL and its ergativeness realized based on pivotance. 3 2. Research Method This research is in field linguistics, and the methods used are (1) direct elicitation, (2) recording, and (3) elicitation checking. It was conducted in Ndori District, Wolowaru District, Kelimutu District, East Ende District, and Paga District. The data were taken from the examples used by the other writers whose fidelity was recognized and the native speakers of BL as the informants. The data collected were analyzed using ‘agih’ method and the technique used was ‘bagi unsur langsung’ (BUL). The linguistic units within the clauses were divided based on their direct elements. 3. Discussion 3.1 Grammatical Category of BL 3.1.1 Basic Clause in BL The grammatical categories in BL can be divided into five; they are (1) verb, (2) noun, (3) adjective, (4) adverb, and (5) function word. BL is an SVO (SUBJ-PRED-OBJ) as well as OSV (OBJ-SUBJ-PRED) language, which can be exemplified as follows (a) Pétrus kéda analo’o ghéa ‘Petrus menendang anak itu’ (Petrus kicked the child) (SVO) and (b) Analo’o ghéa // Pétrus keda’ ‘Petrus menendang anak itu’ (Petrus kicked the child) (OSV). The constituent order in BL is that the verb is the main clausal element, the participant as the role filler and has particular function which may appear in the initial position, central position and final position. In the canonic structure, the SUBJ always appears before the verb, while the OBJ appears both in the right and left position of the verb based on the intonation and juncture. The verbal predicate clause is classified into intransitive clause, monotransitive clause, and bitransitive clause. The nonverbal predicate clause is classified into adjectival clause, prepositional clause and numeral clause. The discussion about the verbal predicate cannot be separated from the discussion about the valence in BL. There are one-valence verb, two-valence verb and three-valence verb. 3.1.2 Grammatical Function of BL The nuclear grammatical function of BL includes SUBJ, OBJ, OBJ1 and OBJ2 (OBJƟ) and the nonnuclear one includes OBL, COMP, and ADJ. The GF-SUBJ is featured by (1) 4 canonic structure which appears before the verb; (2) being relativizable; (3) being controllable; (4) the attached predicate SUBJ can be raised to the position of the matrix verbal SUBJ; and (5) adverb can be inserted. BL is a language which has structural alternates that PJ may appear in the beginning, middle and final positions; therefore, the PJ cannot be absolutely used to refer to GFSBJ. However, PJ also refers to GFOBJ. This means that PJ with its various positions in the clause cannot be used to prove the SUBJ in BL. The properties of GF OBJ are (i) canonic structure, which appears in the right position of the verb (preverbal), (ii) being relativizable, (iii) being controllable, and (iv) being unraisable to the higher position. The bitransitive clause has OBJ1 and OBJ2 which semantically play a role as the theme, and OBJ which semantically plays a role as the goal. The types of OBL in BL are agent OBL, goal OBL, source OBL, instrument OBL and locative OBL which are marked by prepositional phrase. The COMP may appear with so and the ADJ is filled in by adverb. Every grammatical function has value in the form of phrasal structure (str-p) within which there are attribute and value. None of the str-p contrasts with or breaks the rule of acceptability. The str-p is coherent in nature and the GF which is subcategorized by the predicate is obstructed by incompletion. 3.1.3 Constituent Structure The constituent structure (str-c) is highly related to the phrasal structure. Based on the rules of the phrasal structure of BL, both the noun and phrasal phrases have left and right branches. The noun phrase (NP) SUBJ does not always appear in the left position of the verb phrase (VP); it also appears in the right position of the VP. As far as rule of the phrasal structure is concerned, comma (,) is used between the NP and VP. Time, aspect and mood in BL are realized peripherally using particular lexicon. They generally appear before the verb, the noun and the adjective. The prefix dowa appears in the right position of the verb; if its position is after the verb (postverbal), the clause will remain grammatical. BL has negation functioning to negate the constituents in a clause and sentence. The complement phrase of the complex clausal structure in BL has the argument COMP completed with the complement so or without it. In addition, there is also XCOMP. In the serial str-c, it appears under the V’ (V-Bar). 5 3.1.4 Verbal Serialization Grammatically, verbal serialization in BL can be categorized into monotransitive verb with intransitive verb (Vmonotrans + Vintrs), intransitive verb with mono transitive verb (Vintr + Vmonotrans), intransitive verb with intransitive verb (Vintrans + Vintrans ), and monotransitive verb with bitransitive verb (Vmonotrans + Vbitrans). KVS (simple verbal clause) in BL is accompanied by aspect and negation which are semantically and syntactically related to the verb forming it. The construction of serial verb can be seen in the following sentences (i) Ebé mera repasisi ‘Mereka duduk berdesakan’ (They are densely seated) (ii) Ine mbana ria ‘ibu pergi mandi’ (Mother went taking a bath). The verb mera repasisi in sentence (i) and the verb mbana ria in sentence (ii) are serial verbs forming simple sentences. By forming clauses, the SUBJ in the clauses grammatically function as the SUBJ of the two verbs forming the KVS. The construction of the serial verb cannot be inserted with iwa ‘tidak’ (not). This can be proved by the sentence (iii) Kami mbana kedho ana ghea leka one mosalaki ‘Kami pergi menengok anak itu di rumah sakit’ (We went to hospital to see the child). The verb mbana kedho ‘pergi jenguk’ (go to see) cannot be inserted with the negative iwa ‘tidak’ (not); therefore, the construction of the verb mbana kedo ‘pergi jenguk’ (go to see) is classified into KVS, which appears in a sequence and is under V’ or the V in the phrasal structure rule. This proves that the KBVS in BL is a construction which behaves similarly to the simple verb. The verbal serialization in BL can be classified into causative, benefactive, goal, instrument, aspectual, manner, locative and directive. Its grammatical meaning is clear as it is lexicalized since BL is an isolating language. 3.1.5 The Mapping and Structural Alternate in BL As an isolating language, the mapping of the morphological aspect in BL is highly complicated. Being able to direct the mapping, the construction of str-c determines the mapping. The functional mapping is morphologically obstructed as in BL there is no marker distinguishing the active verb from the passive one. The morphological marker plays a highly important role in directing the mapping. Therefore, syntactical strategy is needed to identify whether a verb is passive or active. It is not clear whether the verb pasa is passive or active as it may mean menembak/ditembak (shot or being shot). However, as far as the argument mapping is concerned, there is no obstruction as the str-a matches the stre-sem. 6 Morphologically and syntactically, BL does not have any passivisation structural alternate. It does not have any passive construction either as, if the OBJ is put in the front it will become Ps FOK instead of SUBJ. This can be proved by the sentence Kai pati analo’o ghéa’, meaning ‘Dia memberikan uang anak itu’ (He/she gave money to the child). In this sentence, kai ‘dia’ (he/she) functions as the SUBJ and analo’o functions as the OBJ. Its alternate structure is Analo’o ghea pati doi kai ,meaning ‘Dia memberikan anak itu uang’ (He/she gave the child money). Based on the alternate structure, the active construction does not change into passive, as BL does not have any passive marker; the OBJ, which is put in the front, becomes PsFOK. The causative in BL is classified into analytic causative and lexical causative. Such a classification is made based on to what extent the PRED1 is dependent upon the PRED2 due to the expressions of the serializations of the benefactive and the goal. The LFG can give correspondence between the causative monoclause and biclause. The constituent structure (str-c), the functional structure (str-f) and the semantic structure (str-sem) differ in regard to their expressions. However, the argument structure (str-a) in the monoclause is similar to that in the biclause in regard to their expressions. BL has simple adjunct and relative clausal adjunct. The simple adjunct gives additional information to the nuclear category and the relative clausal adjunct gives meaning or information on additional meaning to the matrix clause. The simple adjunct appears on the left position of the nuclear category; however, if it functions as the adjectival breaker it will appear on the right position. The relationship between the adjunct and the nuclear category is that the former may appear in various positions if the latter is a verb, a noun, an adjective and so forth. In the relative clause, the adjunct may appear on the left or right position of the matrix clause. The adjunct constructions are different depending on the types of the adjunct. Some constructions have the SUBJ and some others do not. Pragmatically, the disappearance of the SUBJ results from the fact that it refers to the one in the previous clause. Syntactically, the coreference causes the SUBJ to disappear. Being controlled by the SUBJ of the matrix clause, it disappears. 7 3.1.6 Syntactical and Typological Interpretation of BL The first and second personal pronouns in Dyrbal language with accusative nominative marker can be used to reveal the BL’s ergativeness. However, Dyrbal language is recognized to be syntactically ergative as its first syntactical construction operates in accordance with the pivot S/P. BL also operates as Dyrbal language. However, the tight syntactical obstruction shown by BL, causing the coreference to disappear, makes it different from Dyrbal language. The syntactical obstruction in BL can be overcome by pragmatic factors. Whether a language is ergative or accusative needs further discussion, as there is no language which is entirely ergative or entirely accusative. However, to what extent a language is ergative or accusative can be identified. BL is a language which has accusative characteristics, one of which is that S, which is the argument of the intransitive sentence, is similarly treated to A but it is differently treated from P. This can be proved by the following sentences; (a) Petrus paru ‘Petrus lari’ (Petrus ran); (b) Petrus tebo Maria ‘Petrus pukul Maria’ (Petrus hit Maria); (c) Petrus meremai tebo Maria ‘Petrus kemarin tebo Maria’; (d) ….. eo tebo Maria ‘Siapa yang memukul Maria’ (Who hit Maria); (e) Maria Petrus tebo ‘Maria dipukul Petrus’ (Maria was hit by Petrus). Petrus in sentence (a) is the (S) argument of the intransitive sentence; however, Petrus in sentence (b) is the Ag and Maria is the Ps. Petrus in sentence A is similarly treated to that in sentence (b), that is, (i) it is in the initial position; (ii) the adverb meremai ‘kemarin’ (yesterday) is inserted between the Ag and the verb in sentence (c); and (iii) it may be asked about starting with ‘siapa’ (who). Based the treatments described above, BL is an accusative language. BL also shows that it is an ergative language as well as an accusative as mentioned above. This can be seen in the following sentences; (d) Petrus paru ‘Petrus lari’(Petrus ran); (e) Maria Petrus tebo ‘Petrus memukul Maria’(Petrus hit Maria). Petrus in sentence (d) functions as the S. Maria in sentence (e) functions as the Ps and Petrus functions as the Ag. In sentences (d) and (e) adverb can be inserted between the Ag and the verb. In addition, they can be negated using iwa ‘tidak’ (not) as in sentence (f) Petrus iwa paru ‘Petrus tidak lari’ (Petrus did not run) and in sentence (d) Maria iwa Petrus tebo ‘Maria tidak dipukul Petrus’ (Maria was not hit by Petrus). BL is an analytic ergative language as the unmarked transitive verb of the argument P is similarly treated to the intransitive simple argument depending on how the constituents are ordered. The limitation of BL is that P and S can be relativized and modified with emphatic 8 marker. The only P and S function as the pivots which allow the coreferencing noun in both the subordinate and coordinate clauses to disappear. 4. Novelties Based on the analysis described above, several novelties are found; they are: BL is an SVO language (SUBJ-PRED-OBJ) and its alternate structure is OSV (OBJ- SUBJ-PRED). The GF-SUBJ is featured by (1) the canonic structure which appears before the verb (2) being relativizable; (3) being controllable; (4) the inserted predicate of the SUBJ can be raised to the position of the matrix verbal SUBJ; and (5) being insertable with adverb. The GF-OBJ is characterized by a) the canonic structure which appears on the right position of the verb (preverbal), b) being unrelativizable; c) being uncontrollable; and d) being unraisable to the higher function. The bitransitive clause has OBJ1 and OBJ2 (OBJƟ). The OBJ2 is dependent on the semantic role of the theme and the OBJ functions as the goal. The OBL in BL is classified into the agentOBL , the goal OBL , the source OBL , the instrument OBL, and the locative OBL which is marked by the prepositional phrase. The COMP may appear with so and the ADJ is filled in by adverb. Based on the phrase structural rule in BL, the noun phrase and verb phrase have branches to the left and to the right. The noun phrase (NP) SUBJ does not always appear in the right position of the VP, it appears in the right position of the VP. As far as the phrase structural role is concerned, the comma (‘) is used to mark the knot between the NP and VP. The time, aspect, and mood in BL are peripherally realized in the form of particular lexicon. The time, aspect and mood generally appear before the verb, the noun and the adjective. The perfective dowa appears in the right position of the verb. If its position is after the verb, the clause will remain grammatical. BL has negation which functions to negate the constituents within a clause and sentence. The complement phrase in a complex clausal structure has the argument COMP, which is marked by the complement so and without the complement. In addition, in BL there is also XCOMP. The serial verb of the str-c appears under the V’ (V-Bar). The CVS is accompanied by aspect and negation which are semantically and syntactically related to the verb forming it and appears in an order. The ordered and separated 9 construction in the phrase structural role is under V’ or the knot V. This proves that the CVS in BL is a construction which behaves similarly to the simple verb. The verbal serialization in BL is classified into causative, benefactive, goal, instrument, aspectual, manner, goal, locative and directive. Its grammatical meaning is clear as it is lexicalized as an isolating language. The functional mapping is morphologically obstructed as BL does not have any marker which distinguishes which verb is active and which one is passive. BL does not have any passive construction as, when the OBJ is put in the front, it will become Ps FOK instead of SUBJ. The causative in BL is classified into analytic causative and lexical causative. BL has simple adjunct and relative clausal adjunct. The simple adjunct gives additional information to the nuclear category and the relative clausal adjunct gives meaning or information on additional meaning to the matrix clause. BL is an ergative analytic language as the argument of the unmarked transitive verbal phrase is similarly treated to the intransitive simple argument in accordance with the order of its constituents. 5. Conclusions and Suggestions 5.1 Conclusions Based on the analysis of the data collected to identify the structure and grammatical function of BL, several conclusions can be withdrawn as follows: 1) BL has both nuclear GF which includes SUBJ, OBJ, OBJƟ and nonnuclear GF which includes OBL, COMP, and ADJ. The GF OBJ cannot be relativized, controlled and raised. It cannot be inserted with adverb either. The GF SUBJ can be both definite and indefinite. The SUBJ is definite if the filler is the noun phrase. 2) Predicate is a nuclear constituent which is usually categorized into both verb and nonverb. The verbal predicate in BL is classified into simple verb and complex verb. CVS is formed from two nuclear verbs which are not related to the complementation of the verbs forming the CVS. 3) The strategies used to change valence are causativity, applicativity and resultivity. The functional mapping in BL refers to the classical one using the features [+/-r] and [+/-o]. The argument which has the features [-r] and [-o] is mapped to the function SUBJ; the 10 argument which has the features [-r] and [+o] is mapped to the function OBJƟ. The argument which has the features [+r] and [-o] is mapped to OBL. The mapping principle referred to by LFG cannot be applied to BL. In addition, BL does not have any passive construction as it does not have any both morphological and syntactical marker; as a result, the OBJ which is put in the front becomes Ps FOC. 4) The SUBJ in BL always appears before the verb (preverbal) as the nuclear constituent, while the OBJ appears after the verb (postverbal). In the noncanonic structure, the SBJ appears in the end of the clause and the verb appears in the beginning of the clause. The word orders in BL are SVO and VOS. In addition, OSV is also another word order in BL. Having no diathesis, such a word order is classified into Ps FOC. 5) BL is classified into an accusative language treating A similarly to S (S/A) and differently from P; however, syntactically, BL is classified into an analytic ergative as the transitive verbal argument is not marked and is treated similarly to the intransitive simple argument in accordance with the constituent order. 5.2 Suggestions The research in BL aims at exploring the canonic structure, the grammatical function, the verbal serialization, the mapping and the structural alternate, the adjunct clause and the ergativeness of BL which are realized based on pivotance. There are still many syntactical areas which have not been revealed in this study. Therefore, it is necessary for linguists to conduct further and deeper research in syntactical aspects of BL using the most current theories which are able to reveal clausal matters in more detail and completely. 6. Acknowledgments In this opportunity, I would like to thank those people who have contributed to this research, especially Prof. Drs. Ketut Artawa, M.A., Ph.D. as a promotor, Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete, as co-promotor I, Dr. Ni Made Sri Satyawati. M. Hum., as co-promotor II, and the team of examiners, Prof. Dr. Drs. Ida Bagus Putra Yadnya, M.A., Prof. Dr. Made Budiarsa, M.A., Prof. Dr. I Ketut Darma Laksana, M.Hum., Dr. Ni Made Dhanawaty, M.S., and Dr. I Nyoman Kardana, M.Hum., for their suggestions and criticisms for this research. However, none of them is responsible for the errors in this article. 11 7. Bibliography Ackerman, Farel dan Gert Webelhuth. 1998. A Theory of Predicate. Satnford, California: CSLI Alsina, Alex. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Arka, I Wayan. 1998. “From Morphosyntax to Pragmatics in Baliness: A Lexical Functional Approach”. (dissertation). Sydney, Australia: University of Sedney. Artawa, Ketut. 1996. Keergatifan Sintaksis di dalam Bahasa: Bahasa Bali, Sasak, dan Indonesia. Dalam PELBA 10. Jakarta: Lembaga Bahasa Universitas Katolik Atmajaya. Baker, Mark C. 1991. On the Relation of Serialization to Verb Extentions. Dalam Claire Lefebvre (Ed.). Serial Verb: Grammatical, Comparative, and Cognitive Approaches: 79 – 103. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universal and Linguistic Tipology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dalrymple, Mary; Ronald M. Kaplan; John T. Maxwell III; Annie, Zaenen (Ed.). 1995. Formal Issues in Lexical Functional Grammar. Stanford, California: CSLI. Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Durie, Mark. 1977. Grammatical Structures in Verb Serialization. Dalam Alsina Alex, Joan Bresnan, dan Peter Sells (Ed.). Complex Predicates. 289 – 354. Stanford, California: CSLI. Kaplan, Ronald M. 1995. The Formal Architecture of Lexical- Fuctional Grammar: Dalam Mery Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan. John T. Maxwell III, dan Annie Zaenen (Ed.). Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar: 7 – 28. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Mbete, Aron Meko dkk. Khazanah Budaya: Lio Ende. 2006. Ende: Dinas Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Sawardi, F.X. 2000. “ Argumen Kompleks pada Verba Kontrol dalam Bahasa Lio”. (tesis). Denpasar. Universitas Udayana.