Representasi Argumen Struktur Konseptual bagi Kata Kerja Kausatif Bahasa Melayu dan Hubungannya dengan Sintaksis (Conceptual Structure Representation of Causative Verb in Malay Language and Relation with Syntax)

Nurul Jamilah Rosly, Maslida Yusof

Abstract


Kata kerja bersifat kausatif boleh merujuk sebagai perbuatan sebab sesuatu itu berlaku, sebab tidak akan terjadi sesuatu tanpa ada alasan tertentu, sebab berlakunya sesuatu pertolongan dan sebab untuk membenarkan sesuatu itu berlaku. Oleh itu, kajian ini akan mengkaji leksikal kata kerja bersifat kausatif dalam merepresentasikan struktur argumen dan hubungannya dengan sintaksis. Kajian ini akan memberi fokus leksikal kata kerja bunuh, paksa, membenarkan dan bantu daripada kelas organisasi semantik struktur konseptual dengan menggunakan data Pangkalan Korpus Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka sebagai contoh bahan kajian. Analisis kajian akan menggunakan Teori Struktur Konseptual (2011). Representasi semantik digambarkan dalam bentuk struktur konseptual dalam Fungsi [Peristiwa] yang membawa rumus struktur konseptual seperti [Peristiwa SEBAB ( [Benda,  x], [Peristiwa ([y], [x])])]. Hasil dapatan menunjukkan representasi struktur konseptual bagi kata kerja bunuh, paksa, membenarkan dan bantu dapat direpresentasikan berdasarkan konstituens [Peristiwa SEBAB  ([MENJADI X], [Y])]), TIDAK [Peristiwa BENAR ([ GERAK X], [Y])], dan [Peristiwa TOLONG  ([ GERAK X], [Y])] yang berhubungan dengan konstituens [BENDA], [TEMPAT] dan [HALA]. Bagi representasi struktur konseptual kepada sintaksis, dapatan menunjukkan adanya hubungan antara Fungsi Utama dengan Fungsi Argumen berdasarkan peranan argumen yang menjadi subset permintaan kata kerja kepada Frasa Nama. Sehubungan dengan itu, kajian ini akan menunjukkan representasi struktur konseptual dan hubungannya dengan sintaksis secara sistematik dan berpada khususnya dalam kata kerja bersifat kausatif.

 

Kata kunci: kausatif; struktur konseptual; konstituens; peristiwa dan argumen

 

ABSTRACT

 

Causative verbs can refer to an act because of something that is happening, because nothing will happen without any specific reason, for the occurrence of a favor and the reason for to justifying something. Therefore, this study will examine lexical verbs that are causative in representing the structure of the argument and its relation to syntax. To examine the lexical verb of causative in representing the structure of the argument and its relation to the syntax, this study will focus on the lexical of verb kill, force, allowed and help from the organizational class of the conceptual structure of semantics using data taken from the Corpus Base of the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka as an example of a data. The analysis of the study will use the Conceptual Structure Theory – by Ray Jackendoff (2011). Semantic representations are depicted in the form of conceptual structures within the Function [Event] that carry the conceptual structure of the formula [Event CAUSE ([THING, x], [Event ([y], [x])])]. The findings show the representation of conceptual structures for verbs to kill, force, allowed and help represented by constituents [Event CAUSE  ([BE X], [Y])]), NO [event LET  ([ GO X], [Y])], and [Event  HELP  ([ GO X], [Y])] to constituents [THING], [PLACE] and [PATH]. For conceptual structure representation to syntax, data findings indicate a connection between the Head Rules and Arguments Rules based on the role of the argument being a subset of the acceptance and verbal request to the Name Phrase. Consequently, this study will show the representation of conceptual structure and its relationship with systematic syntax and especially in the verbal nature.

 

Keywords: causative; conceptual structure; constituents; event and argument


Keywords


Linguistics

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agnihotri, Rama K. (2007). Hindi An Essential Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.

Anatol Stefanowitsch. (2001). Constructing Causation: A Construction Grammar Approachto Analytic Causatives. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Universiti Rice Amerika Syarikat.

Andrew McIntyre. (2005). The Semantic and Syntactic Decomposition of get: An Interaction Between Verb Meaning and Particle Placement. Journal of Semantics. Vol. 22(1), 401–438.

Asmah Haji Omar. (2009). Nahu Melayu Mutakhir. Edisi ke-5. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Assel Zibin. (2016). Acquring the English Causative Alternation: Evidence from the University of Jordon: International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. Vol. 5(3), 7-15.

Bakalá°ská práce. (2012). English Causative Constructions with the Verbs have, get, and make,and their Czech Translation Counterparts. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Universiti Karlova v Praze.

Begum, Rafiya, Samar Husain, Arun Dhwaj, DiptiM. Sharma, Lakshmi Bai

& Rajeev Sangal. (2008). Dependency Annotation Scheme for Indian Languages. Proceedings of The Third International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP), 14-18 October, India.

Chatti Sami. (2009). Semantics of periphrastic causation. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Universiti Sorbonne.

Chomsky. Noam. (1957). Syntactic Structure. Mouton: The Hague.

Chutatip Chirapom Yumitani. (1998). The acquisition of the causative alternation in Thai. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Universiti Kansas.

Gail McKoon & Talke Macfarland. (2000). Externally and Internally Caused Change of State Verbs. Journal of Language. Vol. 76(4), 833-858.

Gillian Ramchand. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Goh Sang Seong. (2011). Penterjemahan kata kerja bahasa Cina-Bahasa Melayu: satu analisis ketepatan makna padanan. Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 11(1), 35-55.

Gruber Jeffrey S. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Univerisiti Linguistik Club Amsterdam, Belanda.

Hiba Gharib. (2015). A semantic analysis of cut and break verb in Sorani Kudish. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Universiti Kansas, Amerika Syarikat.

Kamus Dewan. (2010). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Kyunghwan Kim. (1994). The Syntax And Semantics Of Causative Constructions In Korean. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Universiti Chicago, Amerika Syarikat.

George Lakoff. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. (2008). On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. University of California: MIT Press.

Maslida Yusof. (2007). Analisis Preposisi Lokatif Bahasa Melayu Berdasarkan Kerangka Role And Reference Grammar (RRG). Gema Online® Journal of Languages Studies. Vol. 9(1), 17-33.

Mohd Asraf Abdul Wahab. (1989). Penunjuk Bahasa Melayu Baku KBSM. Petaling Jaya: Sasbadi.

Nik Safiah Karim et al. (2008). Tatabahasa Dewan Edisi ke-3. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Norsimah Mat Awal & Nur Liyana Zulkffle. (2012). Analisis Semantik Kata Kerja Gerak dan Campak dalam dialek Negeri Sembilan. Jurnal Linguistik. Vol. 16 (1), 37-47.

Patric Saint-Dizier. (1995). Computational Lexical Semantics: Study in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press: United Kingdom.

Paul Kay dan Charles J. Fillmore. (1999). Grammatical Constructions and Linguistics Generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? Construction. Journal

Language. Vol. 75(1), 1-33.

Raja Massitah Raja Ariffin.(2010). Analisis Kata Kerja dan Frasa Kerja Bahasa Melayu Kokos di Pulau Home Australia. Jurnal Bahasa. Vol. 10(2), 298-321.

Ray Jackendoff . (1983). Semantics and Cognition. London: MIT Press.

Ray Jackendoff. (1987). Consciousness and the Computational Mind. London: MIT Press.

Ray Jackendoff. (1990). Semantic Structure. London: MIT Press.

Ray Jackendoff. (1993). Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature. New York: Harvester.

Ray Jackendoff. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. London: MIT Press.

Ray Jackendoff. (2005). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. London: MIT Press.

Ray Jackendoff & Peter W. Culicover. (2005). Simpler Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ray Jackendoff. (2007). Language of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. London: MIT Press.

Ray Jackendoff. (2011). Meaning and the lexicon: The Parallel Archicture 1975-2010. London: MIT Press.

Rogayah A. Razak. (2013). Kata Kerja Bersiri dalam Bahasa Melayu. Jurnal Bahasa. Vol. 13(2), 179-191.

Rusmadi Baharudin, Nor Hashimah Jalaludin & Imran Ho-Abdullah. (2013). Sumbangan Framnet Kepada Leksikografi Korpus: Kajian Kes Penyisihan Makna Kata Kerja Melihat. Gema Online® Journal of Languages Studies. Vol. 13 (1), 61-81.

Shanley E.M Allen. (2015). Verb Argument Structure. Journal of Semantics. Vol. 3(1), 271- 297.

Silnitsky G. (2006). Semantics, Grammar, Quantitative and Prototipical Linguistics: Journal of Linguistic. Vol. 2 (1), 255-362.

Svetlana V. Shustova, Elena A. Osheva & Konstantin A. Aklochko. (2017). Desemantization of Functional Grammatical Causatives in the Aspect of Grammaticalization. Journal of XLinguae. Vol. 10(1), 34-41.

Taha, M, Sultan F.M & Yasin S. M. (2017). The Morphosyntax of Causative Construction in Sudanese Arabic: Journal Pertanika. Vol . 25(2), 921-930.

Walid Mohammad. (2016). Causativity in English and Arabic. Retrieved August 17, 2016 dari https://www.coursehero.com/file//Causativity-in-English -and-Arabic-latest/

Yeuru Ni. (2012). Categories of Causative Verbs: A Corpus Study of Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished Master thesis, Universiti Utrecht.

Zaharani Ahmad. (2005). Hubungan Objek dan Kata Kerja Transitif MEN-…KAN: analisis data korpus berkomputer. Jurnal Bahasa. Vol. 5(2), 58-76.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2018-1804-10

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021