e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 32 Causativity And Alternation Me-Kan /-I In Indonesian 1 Robert Masreng, University of Cenderawasih 2 Ni Luh Sutjiati Beratha, sutjiati59@gmail.com, Udayana University 3 I Nengah Sudipa, nengahsudipa@yahoo.co.id, Udayana University 4 I Ketut Darma Laksana, darmalaksana27@yahoo.com, Faculty of Arts,Undana University *Corresponding Author: masrengrobert@yahoo.co.id Received Date: 22-09-2018 Accepted Date: 31-09-2018 Published Date: 22-01-2019 Abstract— Language study is a way of expressing various language phenomena based on macrolinguistics and microlinguistics point of view. The study of macrolinguistic aspects focuses on languages relating to other disciplines. On the contrary, microlinguistic study focuses more on language structures, such as phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. In this paper, the analysis focuses on the aspect of the Indonesian typology phenomenon from the ponit of view of valence verb of transitive verb based on verb formation process meng-kan/i. The analysis results describe that verbs with affix me-i/-kan form causative construction of both formal and semantic parameters; Verb alternation with affix me-i/-kan can be applied when verbal construction presents locative and benefactive roles in two different constructions; The alternation occurs because it is tied to grammatical relation constructing a clause construction; and the alternation of meng/i raises the verb's valence level in the clause construction. Keywords: alternation, formal parameter, valence. 1. Introduction Language typology is a study explaining language phenomena within the domains of morphology, syntax, and semantics. The combination of the three aspects is interrelated and interdependent discussing on a language. In this case, it must certainly be supported by theories that can help to explain the nature or behavior of related language constructions and to form a language rule. The rules of language consist of phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. The rules are possessedd by languages in the world including Indonesian. Morphological rule is certainly related to various aspects of word formation referring to word forms characterized in pre-category, non pre-category, and valences. For example, 'alir' (flow) has various processes, such as alirkan, aliri, mengalir, mengalirkan, and mengaliri. Syntactic construction deals with the ability of verbs to present 'core' and non 'core' arguments or OBLIG. Regarding semantic domain, in semantic role, a verb also becomes an axis to present semantic role based on the characteristics of the verb. https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ mailto:masrengrobert@yahoo.co.id mailto:masrengrobert@yahoo.co.id e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 33 Etymologically, syntax means words formation to become a sentence. Syntactic structures can be distinguished (1) syntactic function consisting of subject (S), predicate (P), object (O), and adverb (Adv.), (2) syntactic category consisting of noun, verb, adjective, and numeral, (3) syntactic role consisting actor, direct object, and recipient. The smallest syntactic structure is word order, word form, and conjunction. The word acts as syntactic function, syntactic category marker, and continuum of syntactic units. Comrie (in Jufrizal, 2007:3) says that the purpose of linguistic typology is to classify languages based on the structural behavioral trait of the language concerned. The main purpose is to answer a question What is the language X like? There are two basic assumptions of linguistic typology, namely (a) all languages can be compared on the basis of their structures, and (b) there are differences among languages. With such the attempts, it is known that language typology consisting accusative nominative-type, ergative-absolute, ergative (grammatically) have similarity. This paper intends to discuss on affixation typology of Indonesian language, particularly affixes of me-i/kan constructing (1) causative and verb alternation of affixes me-i/kan in their use in printed references, especially Indonesian novels but not translated novels. The data are assumed to be the actual data of the language use and compared with data elicitation results of Indonesian language. Data of the language use in Indonesian novels by Indonesian authors show variations in clauses and natural sentence constructions. 2. Research Methods The method used in this research is qualitative method as a research procedure producing descriptive data in the form of words or oral that were obtained from persons observed by Bogdan and Taylor in Moleong (2012:4). In connection with the research, the research data were focused on the verbs identified me-kan/i in Tempurung dan Kembang novels. Theoretical concept used in this research is that morphologically, verbal influences sentence structure by altering the so-called verb valence. Valence involves the number of arguments in a sentence, in which the argument is a noun phrase like a subject and an object chosen by the verb in the sentence. We will also see the boundary between morphology and syntax. Although linguists of language phenomena usually have made obvious boundary between the two but it is not always https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 34 clear. There are cases in which derivational morpheme seems to embody all phrases, for example, elements that appear to be insufficiently attached and sufficiently attached, but not sufficiently free enough to be regarded as stand-alone words (Lieber, 2009:144). Syntactically, sentence structure has its core and its implication is projection or core and non core arguments. A verb binds at least one argument or valence function. Valence refers to a core argument consisting of one valence (monovalent), two valences (bivalent), or three valences (threevalent). The transitive verb has two A O arguments and A O E expansion. The intransitive verb has one argument S and expansion of S E (Dixon, 2000:4). Verb expansion or verbal depreciation refers to derivation and suffix alternation involving a pattern of conforming object construction as ground (GR) or location or figure (FIG) or theme of location. Ground includes: stationary location, goal location (incl. Human recipient), and source location (incl. Human) and patient (Eric Reuland, 2007:63). In addition to the theoretical concepts mentioned above, the following theoretical principles of affixation me-kan and me-i according to Indonesian grammar. Regarding the principles of verb forming are as follows (1) derivation of Transitive Verbs meng-, (2) Derivation of Transitive Verb with –kan, and (3) Derivation of Transitive Verbs -i The basis of transitive verbs derived by suffix -i can be categorized as noun, adjective, or intransitive verb. The meaning of transitive verbs with suffix -i can be variety depending on (a) the syntactic category of word base, (b) this suffix is present or not, and (c) special semantic features (Alwi, et al, 2010:123- 130). 3. Result and Discussion verb meng-kan/i To analyze the phenomenon of the above theory, in this paper, the data source is taken from the novel Tempurung. It is a Balinese nuanced cultural novel. It is realized that the data in the novel do not fully satisfy the theoretical demand because variations of the verb form referring to affixation meng-kan and sufik meng-i, are very limited, such as "Mengikuti saranmu" (p.369) is not found in "Ikuti perintahnya", Mengikuti perintahnya", Mengikutkan pesertanya", and so on. The data in this section are identified on pages 368-407 of novel Tempurung, novel Gadis Pakarena, and novel Kembang Turi. Therefore, to codifying data, it uses codes of Tempurung, https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 35 Pakarena, Kembang with a code p (page). The following explanations describe some data with the approach to the theories mentioned above. 3.1 Causativity of Indonesian Verbs me-i and me-kan Lieber (2009:144) says that the type of verbal morphology influencing sentence structure changes the so-called verb valence. Valence refers to the number of arguments in a sentence, in which arguments are noun phrases like SUBJECT and OBJECT influenced by verbs in sentences. In Lieber's view, valence is the ability of a verb to present the required argument in a sentence construction. Each argument required in a sentence construction is selected by the verb itself according to the context. Each verb has the ability to present the required arguments. Paradigmatically, Artawa (2012) summarizes in the following table. Valence types of verbs described as follows: Verb types Transivity Valence Functions of arg. Non functions of arg. One-place Intransitive 1 2 3 Core Non core +/- 5adjucnt Two-places Monotransitive 2 2 comp. --- Three-places Monotransitifve 3 2 comp. Obl . Ditransitive 3 --- Source: Handout of Syntax Based on the above table, the following examples show verbs presenting arguments in an utterance. The examples proposed in the analysis are as follows: (1) Dieman menghidupkan mesin jipnya. (Kembang p.21) (2) Sejak ibuku melahirkan bayi laki-laki (Tempurung p.393) (3) Kau bisa mempertemukan kami (Tempurung p.369) (4) Jarden mengeluarkan sekotak jus apel dari tas besarnya (Tempurung p.371). In the example (1) the verb menghidupkan presents two core arguments ibuku and mmesin jipnya. This sentence is a CAUSATIVE sentence because its construction is based on the https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 36 basic construction of a intransitive verb hidup. After morphological process, it increases the verb valences presenting two arguments. In contrast to the sentence (2) explicitly, it is presenting DIRECT OBJECT anak laki-laki as the direct object of the verb melahirkan. Similarly, the verb attached to (3) has the same syntactic behavior as construction (2) which presents a direct object with two core arguments. In contrast to the construction (4) which presents four arguments in argument Jarden, sekotak jus apel, and tas besarnya. Each argument occupies the role of AGENT, PATIENT, and LOCATIVE. Construction (2), (3), and (4) are included in CAUSATIVE construction pattern which has cause and causee elements. Comrie (1983:159-167) emphasizes on the study of causative construction parameters including formal parameter, semantic parameter, and valence changes in causative morphology. The formal parameter relates to the formal relationship between expression for the causative macro situation and the impact of micro-situation, such as cause to die or between kill and die. In morphological parameter, it can be made into three different types, although with several different types, the forms in the language are not always precisely made into one or the three types, it is presumably found a higher type (see Jufrizal, 2007:94-95, and compare with Van Valin and La Pola, 1997:139). 3.2 Formal Parameter Causative The examples of causative in formal parameter are identified in the mentioned sources above are seen in (5), (6), and (7). (5) Ia meringankan tubuhnya. (Kembang p.28-29) (6) Ketika bus pelan-pelan meninggalkan terminal Wonosari air mata Marni kembali menetes. (Kembang p.61) (7) Dari arah ruang tamu sudah terdengar suara penyiar televisi mengakhiri pembacaan acara untuk besok malam. (Kembang p.29). Construction (5) is included in causative of micro situation parameter because the verb meringankan shows behavior of causal relationship occurring within the verb. The construction of the clause only presents two arguments, namely the argument ia and tubuhnya. In contrast to the construction of clause (6) which shows the phenomenon of event occurring outside of the https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 37 verb, that is in group of phrases ketika bus pelan-pelan as causer and air mata Marni kembali menetes as cause. The correspondence between the two phrase groups in the constructions constitute a causative construction clause. The verb meninggalkan in construction (6) presents three arguments, i.e. bus, terminal, and air mata Marni. In construction (7) it appears that the verb mengakhiri included in formal situation parameter because the verb has causal relationship occurring within the verb. Clause (7) consists of three arguments: penyiar televisi, pembacaan acara untuk besok malam, dan arah ruang tamu sudah terdengar suara. Clause construction (7) is categorized complex because it consists of combination of two clauses, i.e. Dari arah ruang tamu sudah terdengar suara penyiar televisi dan mengakhiri pembacaan acara untuk besok malam. Just the second clause occurs subject deletion so that the verb mengakhiri is more affected to be the main verb in the combined clauses. Another construction involving causative parameter of macro situation as shown in clause (8) is as follow: (8) Kata Pak Bupati, pokoknya kita tidak boleh meninggalkan tanah kita di sini. (Kembang p.18) In the clause, it appears that the verb meninggalkan does not explicitly indicate causal relationship in the verb itself but it shows causal relationship occurring in the construction. The argument presented by the verb mangakhiri is kita and tanah kita, di sini. Kita and tanah kita are core arguments, while di sini is an OBLIG argument. It is noted that all causative constructions of macro-situation and micro situation parameters as described above tend to be influenced by morphological processes explicitly indicating cause relationship in the constructions. 3.3 Semantic Parameter Causative In this section, we will be concerned with two main semantic parameters, i.e. the difference between direct and indirect causes and control level issues determined in the cause of macro- situation with its cause. One of the parameters is namun layak menyebutnya, however, that is the difference between the actual cause allowed. In English, the two types are implied in different main verb in usual analytic construction, as in I made the vase fall (actual cause) compared with I let the vase fall (permissive). However, in particular language, the cause of morphology, the https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 38 same construction ranges on the two senses are the cause and right permissive. Comrie gives examples of the two forms summarized in Georgian as shown in the following examples: Mama Švil-s çeril -s a-çer Father son DATIVE letter ACCUSATIVE write -in-eb-s 3 SINGULAR 'Father make/helps/lets his son write the letter An example of causative with the cause implied in the main verbs in Indonesian can be seen in the following example. (9) Sudah lama ia ingin ketemu dengan manusia yang membuat kedua orang tuanya celaka (Kembang p.294) In the above constructions, it appears that the verb membuat represents lexical parameter relation implying true causation or specifically, the verb shows the meaning of the cause lexically. Morphologically, it appears that the verb buat added by prefix me- stressing on semantic parameters that means action or true causation. The verb also presents two semantic roles as agent and kedua orang tuanya as patient. The same other construction as (9) is (10) as follows; (2) Pertanyaan yang membuat tubuhnya menjadi gemetar.(Kembang p.302) It appears that the verb membuat in construction (10) implies true causative parameter of word morphological typology. It appears in the construction that semantic parameter of true causativity type presents two arguments, namely argument pertanyaan and tubuhnya menjadi gemetar. Prefix me- does not change its valence because without prefix me-, the verb includes two valences. The semantic role presented by the verb is the roles of agent/effector and patient. Another type of causative semantic parameter is causation permissive. The type of causativity is a correlational characteristic between causal relationship which is consciously made and allowed to occur. The fact appears in the following construction (11): https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 39 (11) Ia biarkan saja tangan majikannya mengelus-elus lengannya yang gempal penuh. daging dan otot itu. (Kembang p.260) It appears in the above construction that the verb biarkan is causative permisive so that causal relationship occurring a correlational action. This means that the result effected is a process of deliberation or allowing something to happen. The verb membiarkan is formed by morphemes combination biar and -kan to form a verb of permissive causative as shown in example (11) above. In the construction, in fact, verb valence is increased to be three valences. The verb of three valences occurs because it binds a phrase occupying OBJECT function (tangan majikannya) and OBLIG function (lengannya yang gempal penuh). 3.4 Alternation -i and -kan in Indonesian Alternation is a form of variation of the use of language units in clause construction. In this paper in particular, alternation relates to verb behavior in morphological and syntactic contexts. To identify the alternation of the use of affixation me-i and me-kan in Indonesian language seems to be difficult. This is because in text read as data source does not provide sufficient variation of affixation. For example, variation of the word 'turun' is only found in 'menuruni'. Variations such as menurun, menurunkan, and turuni are not found in the text so the analysis is only done based on the comparative examples of the other basic forms. Nevertheless, I am trying to show some data in the following presentation for this alternation analysis. (12) Orang-orang dusun kita sering mencopoti kembang itu dari tangkainya. (Kembang p.204). (13) Apa Gunung Kidul melahirkan perempuan-perempuan yang mudah diajak kencan? (Kembang p.33) In the above examples, I try not to look at the basic words to form the two constructions on (12) and (13). The analysis of the two constructions is only directed at the ability of the two verbs to present the arguments required to form the constructions. In construction (12) and (13), the verbs mencopoti and melahirkan collectively present three arguments. The defference occurs on the third argument that identifies semantic role. The verb mencopoti presents LOCATIVE role while melahirkan presents GOAL role. Constructions (12) and (13) use the verb characterizing syntactical role of transitive and intransitive verbs as https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 40 seen on the constructions Dia copot jabatan saya and Dia lahir kemarin. In this case, the amount of arguments presented is also different. Regarding alternation construction on the following example (14) the way of allowing alternation in the clause construction with affixation me-i/me-kan is examined. (14) a. Ketika menuruni tangga hampir saja terpeleset.(Kembang p.85) b. Ketika menurunkan tangga hampir saja terpeleset.(dari penulis) c. Agus menuruni tangga dari mobil. (dari penulis) d. Agus menurunkan tangga dari mobil. (dari penulis) Construction (14a) does not present argument SUBJECT explicitly but it only presents arguments OBJECT and OBLIG. It appears that the verb menuruni characterizes verb proccess. It is different from the verb menurunkan tangga as seen on 13b characterizing action verb. Therefore, the two verbs can be alternated to describe a similar concept, that is a statement implying actions of dynamic and static processes. If the characteristic is mapped in semantic role, the verb menuruni presents BENEFACTIVE role because it is constructed in accordance with individual interest. It is different from the verb menurunkan on construction (14b) present THEME role, namely something discussed or something implied in the verb. Whereas in (14c), a construction is commonly used in Indonesian or unacceptable gramatically. Construction (14d) is acceptable in Indonesian. Therefore, in the context, it can not alternate to present THEME role as seen in the above construction. The other alternation constructions can be seen on (15) and (16). Although it appears that the two constructions have different argument but they can alternate in the construction, such as the verb menyakiti on construction (15) can be alternated with the verb menghadirkan as seen on (16). (15) Aku tidak ingin menyakiti perempuan lain untuk libidoku yang sesaat saja (Tempurung p.377) (16) Jangan pernah menghadirkan orang lain lagi dalam rumah ini. (Tempurung p.378). The verb menyakiti on construction (15) presents three arguments aku, perempuan lain, and libidoku. The arguments imply the roles of AGENT, PATIENT, and BENEFACTIVE. https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 41 Conversely, the verb of construction (16) should have presented three arguments, but it has only two arguments, whereas the other one is omitted. In other word, construction (16) occurs because of argument SUBJECT function deletion. Based on construction (16), the verb presents semantic roles PATIENT and LOCATIVE. Regarding verb alternation on constructions 14 - 16, it can be said that semantic role can allow the occurance of verb alternation in clause construction. Alternation occurs when verb presents roles of locative, theme, and benefactive in different constructions. Conversely, alternation is not allowed because of dependability of meaning and gramatical relation. (17) Saya mengajari dia bahasa Indonesia. AGENT BENEFACTIVE THEME (18) Saya mengajarkan bahasa Indonesia untuk dia. AGENT THEME LOCATIVE The above examples describe that gramatical relation also benefits to determine verb alternation in clause construction. Saya in the construction implies AGENT role and dia implies BENEFACTIVE role and Bahasa Indonesia implies THEME role. Gramatically, the construction is repositioned because it is attached on logical semantic, meaning is only understood because semantic role of BENEFACTIVE (dia) replaces LOCATIVE role (dia). 4. Novelties The superiority and novelties of the article are as follow. (1) Data were obtained through the use of verbs me-kan/i in the novels of Kembang and Tempurung, (2) The research used the approach of syntax typological theory by Dixon and Lieber, and (3) The method used in this research is descriptive qualitative that could be studied continually. 5. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded as follows: 1) Affix me-i/-kan is to form causative construction of both formal and semantic parameters; https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January 2019 Vol. 13. No. 1 P: 32—42 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2019.v13.i01.p04 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ 42 2) Verb alternation of affix me-i/-kan can be done when a construction presents locative and benefactive roles in two different constructions; and 3) Alternation occurs because it is bound to grammatical relation developing clause construction. References: Alwi, Hasan, dkk. 2008. Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Artawa, I Ketut. Valency in Classes in Standard Indonesia. Denpasar: Udayana University. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008 Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Comrie, Bernard. 1983. Language Universal and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Eric Reuland (Edit.). 2007. Argumen Structure. Utrecht: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jufrizal. 2007. Tipologi Gramatikal Bahasa Minangkabau. Padang: UNP Press. Kridalaksana, Harimurti. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Lieber, Rochele. 2009. Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peter, Matthews. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Lingistics. Oxford: Oxford University University Press. Van Valin, Robert J. dan Randy J. Lapola. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tambahkan referensi minimal dua referensi dari eJS contoh: Jayantini, I G. A. S. Rwa et al. 2018. Naturalization and Adaptation Taking Place in the Translation of Medical Texts from English into Indonesian. e-Journal of Linguistics DOAJ Indexed (Since 15 Sep 2015) January2018 Vol.12 No.1 P: 25-36 DOI.10.24843/eJL.2018.v.12.i01.p.03 e-ISSN: 2442-7586 p-ISSN: 2541-5514 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/article/view/38245/23201 6. Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank all those who have given valuable contributions to this research so that the results can be disseminated through publication, especially to the examiners: Prof. Dr. Ketut Artawa, M.A., Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete., Prof. Drs. I Dw. Komang Tantra, M.Sc., Ph.D., Prof. Dr. I Nyoman Suparwa, M.Hum., and Dr. Ni Made Dhanawaty, M.S., for their advices to deepen the analysis and presentation of appropriate research results. https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/ https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/article/view/38245/23201