BUKU PERSEMBAHAN KEPADA PROF. DR. ARON MEKO …

3.

BUKU PERSEMBAHAN KEPADA PROF. DR. ARON MEKO MBETE

MEMASUKI MASA PURNA TUGAS

DEWAN ?Ei-lYUNTING

I Nengah Sudipa

Made Sri Satyawati

ANGGOT A PENYUNTING

Veronika

Genua

Lanny I.D.

Koroh

I Gusti Agung Sri Rwa Jayantini

PENATASAMPUL

Made Henra Dwikarmawan Sudipa

PENATA LETAK

Putu Edi

Diterbitkan :

Program Magister dan Doktor IImu Linguistik

Fakultas IImu Budaya-Universitas Udayana

2017

Percetakan:

SWASTA NULUS

JI. Tukad Batanghari VI B No.9 Denpasar Bali

Telp. (0361) 241230 Email: [email protected]

Cetakan Pertama

September 2017, xxxiv + 1501 halaman, 15,5 x 23 em

ISBN:

978-602-7599-54-3

Buku Persembahan Kepada Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete Memasuki Masa Pumatugas

DAFTAR ISI

Purwakata ........... .................................................................. .

Refleksi .............. .................................................................. .

Apresiasi ............. .................................................................. .

Kontemplasi ....... .................................................................. .

Daftar Isi ............. :.: ............................................................. .

Sambutan Dekan Fakultas Ilmu Budaya ............................... .

v

Vll

l

Xll

XVll

XXI

XXV

Kumpulan Artikel

1. BUDAYA AUSTRONESIA Ni Luh Sutjiati

Beratha, I Wayan Ardika ......................................................... 3 2. LEKS IKON

BAHASA

BALI

Rona

MEREFLEKSIKAN RITUAL MASY ARAKA T

HINDU I Nengah Sudipa ...................................................... 12

4. Rona PUTIH PADA MASYARAKAT BALI:

KAJIAN X-PHEMISME Gede Doddi Raditya

Diputra ................................................................................. 23

4. KETERANCAMAN KEDUDUKAN BAHASA

BALI SEBAGAI BAHASA IBU ProfDrs. I Made

Suastra Ph.DDra. Ni Nyoman Baktiari, Msi ..................... 30

5. KIDUNG INTERAKTIF DI PANGGUNG

ELEKTRONIK: ALIH W AHANA SASTRA

BALI TRADISIONAL DI RADIO DAN

TELEVISI *), I Nyoman Darma Putra ................................ 45

Rona Bahasa I xxi I

-~~'--",.-."~

I,

Ii

Buku Persembahan Kepada Proi. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete Memasuki Masa Purnatugas

UNDERSTANDING

MULTICUL TURAL

THE

SOCIETY

6. BALI

IN A

GLOBALISED WORLD, I Ketut Ardhana ........... .

GEDING/SEKAR RARE SEBAGAI MEDIA

PEMBELAJARAN BAHASA ANAK BERBASIS

LINGKUNGAN, I Wayan Simpen ................................... 91

8. KONSEPTUALISASI DAN DINAMlKA

BUDAYA GOTONG ROYONG DALAM

REALITAS SOSIAL ETNIK RONGGA DI

FLORES, Fransiskus Bustan, Agustinus Semiun,

dan Hendrikus Pous ........................................................... 99

70

7.

9. PERIBAHASA TINJAUAN

EPISTEMOLOGISNY A, I Ketut Darmalaksana 119

10. PRODUKTIVITAS PREFIKS {MA-} DALAM

BAHASA BALI, I Nyoman Kardana, Made Sri

Satyawati ..........................................................................128

DAN 11. P ARRHESIA KEKUASAAN

SASTRAWAN DALAM MENGUNGKAPKAN

KEBENARAN, Maria Matildis Banda .......................... 143

12. KONSEP W AKTU DALAM BAHASA JEPANG:

DARI BUDA Y A POLIKRONIK KE BUDAY A

MONOKRONIK, Ketut Widya Purnawati, Ketut

Artawa ............................................................................. 165

13. BAHASA DAN KEUTUHAN BANGSA:

EUFEMISME DAN UJARAN KEBENCIAN

Oktavianus ...................................................................... 190

14. KEAGENAN

KLAUSA

SUBJEK GRAMATlKAL

PENTOPlKALAN BAHASA

MINANGKABAU,Jujrizal ............................................... 199

xxii I Rona Bahasa

Buku Persembahan Kepada Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete Memasuki Masa Purnatugas

15.ANCANGAN KAJIAN EKOLINGUISTIK

KRITIS DALAM WACANA HIJAU: ANALISIS

KELINGUISTlKAN YANG PROSPEKTIF,

Fathur Rokhmanl dan Tommi Yuniawan ........................ 222

16. BALINESE LEXICAL REFLEXIVES, I Nyoman

Udayana ....................................................... :.......... 248

17. HAK LINGUAL KULTURAL SUKU BANGSA

DAN STRATEGI PEMBERDAYAAN: Studi

Kasus Undang-Undang Otonomi Khusus di Tanah

Papua Hugo Warami .................................. .............. .... 272

18.MEMPERTEMUKAN MORFOLOGI DAN

LINGUISTIK KORPUS: KAJIAN

KONSTRUKSI

PEMBENTUKAN

KATA

KERJA [PER+AJEKTIVA] DALAM BAHASA

INDONESIA Gede Primahadi-Wijaya-Rajeg dan I

Made Rajeg ..................................................................... 288

19. PERJUANGAN MASYARAKAT KOLOK DI

DESA BENGKALA BULELENG

MENINGKATKAN KUALITAS HIDUP

MELALUI BUDAY A Dian Rahmani Putri ................. 328

20. TUNUHA

DALAM

PERSPEKTIF EKOLINGUISTIK Nirmalasari, Lili Darlian ............... 348

21. KAJIAN FILSAF A T ANALITIK BAHASA

DALAM

MODERNISASI

TERHADAP PERKEMBANGAN FUNGSI DAN KONSEP

BAHASA UNIVERSAL, Maulid Taembo .................... 370

22. VERBA LEMP AR BAHASA SASAK: KAJIAN

MET ABAHASA SEMANTIK ALAMI Irma

Setiawan ......................................................................... 397

Rona Bahasa I xx:ii I

5. Buku Persembahan Kepada Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete Memasuki Masa Purnatugas

23. HlKA Y AT ME LA YU DALAM TRADISI LISAN

BAKAYATSASAK(SEBUAHPENELUSURAN

SEJARAH) Suyasa, I Made ....................................... ..... 417

24.STRA TEGI PEMBELAJARAN KANJI

MENGGUNAKAN METODE MNEMONIC*) I

Gede Oeinada ................................................................. 449

25. KHAZANAH LEKSIKON KEPADIAN SAWAH

KOMUNITAS TUTUR SUNDA : KAJIAN

EKOLINGUISTIK Lien Darlina, Rosbaedi ................... 491

Profil penyunting

xxiv I Rona Bahasa

Buku Persembahan kepada Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete memasuki Purnatugas

|248| Rona Bahasa

16. BALINESE LEXICAL REFLEXIVES

I Nyoman Udayana

Faculty of Arts, Udayana University

[email protected]

Abstract

Lexical reflexives in Balinese manifest themselves with the middle voice marker ma- (and rarely

with nasal prefix N-) attached to a verb root. The middle verb that enters into lexical reflexivity

constitutes an action verb and the construal of its reflexivity can be predicted from the covert or

overt presence of a (simple) reflexive cliticized to the verb root. Inherent in this type of middle

verbs are body action middles.It isarguedthen that a body action middle, in and of itself,isreflexive,

running counter to Kemmer’s (1993, 1994) claim.

Keywords: lexical reflexives, incorporated forms, clitic, middle marker

I. INTRODUCTION

Is a body action middle lexical reflexive?

Balinese has a middle voice system which is marked by the prefix ma-, which itself serves

as an intransitive marker. Thus, the formma- has a detransitivizing effect when used for

designating middle-marking verbs which are semantically dyadic/divalent or triadic/trivalent.

Looking at the middle constructions that behave in this manner, I appeal to the

transitive/intransitive alternation to detect the meaning or property of the middle construction in

question.

There are two kinds of derived constructions that can be associated with the use of the

transitive/intransitive alternation. First, an intransitive clause (with an MV-marking) can be

derived from a transitive clause (with an AV-marking) and the subject of the derived clause is the

patient argument of the erstwhile clause yielding a medio-passive construction, i.e. a middle

construction resembling a passive construction.

(1) a. I Nyoman meli buku ento

ART Nyoman AV.buy book that

‘I Nyoman bought the book’

mailto:[email protected]


|249| Rona Bahasa

b. Buku ento mabeli

book that MV.buy

‘The book was bought’

(2) a. I Ketut ngadep sampi ene

ART Ketut AV.sell cow this

‘I Ketut sold the cow’

b. Sampi ene maadep

cow this MV.sell

‘The cow sold/ the cow was sold’

Second, the derived sentences are middles (with MV-marking) whose subject corresponds to the

agentargument of the transitive clause and they are always interpreted as lexically reflexive

constructions as shown in (b) sentences which, with respect to the situation type, are called body-

care middles (Kemmer 1993, 1994).

(3) a, Ia ngumbah awak/ anak cerik ento

3 AV.wash self/ person small that

‘(S)he washed herself/himself/ the small child’

b. Ia maumbah

3 MV.wash

‘(S)he washed herself/himself’

(4) a I meme nyemuhin awak/ anak ento

ART mother AV.sunbathe self/ person that

‘Mother sunbathed herself/the child’

b. I meme majemuh

ART mother MV.sunbathe

‘Mother sunbathed herself’

In this paper I am concerned with the middles of this second type or specifically middles

that exhibit lexical reflexives. However, lexical reflexivity as shown by body-care middles is not

considered as a reflexive per se in Kemmer (1993, 1994). In what follows I am going to show that


|250| Rona Bahasa

they are reflexives. First of all let us have a look at Kemmer’s (1993) claim that dissociates middles

from reflexives.

Kemmer argues that body care middles such as the ones in (3b) and (4b) are not an instance

of reflexives. The middle verb maumbah ‘wash oneself’ in 3(b), for example, is taken as having

initiating and endpoint entities but conceived of as having a single participant. With the reflexive

type in (3a) headed by the verb ngumbah ‘wash’, on the other hand, the action involved is

considered as involving a two-participant event which happens to be realized by one entity. Despite

the fact that the two situation types have one thing in common in that the two have a single referent,

she maintains that they are conceptually different. Bysymbolizing an action attributing to them

(middles and reflexives)as a circle; a middle type is described as having one circle representing

the initiating and end point of the action. The reflexive situation type, on the other hand, is

described as having two circles with the first representing the initiating point while the second the

end point. Crucially, the conception of initiator-endpoint action is taken to be a determining factor

that distinguishes the two situation types in terms of distinguishability of participant event

hierarchy as illustrated in (5), in which a reflexive is taken as leaning towards the left (a two-

participant event) while a middle leaning toward the right (a one-participant event)(Kemmer 1993:

73).

(5) Two-participant Reflexive Middles One-participant

Event Event

+ -

To support her claim, Kemmer (1993), following Faltz (1977:7), notes that the difference

between body action middles and reflexives has to do with whether the subject of a sentence is

human or not. In body action middles, only a human subject is possible while in the reflexive, only

non human subject is appropriate as shown by the following English examples (Kemmer 1993:

53).

(6) a. Tiger was washing himself [where Tiger is a cat]

b. John washed/John got washed [where John is my brother]


|251| Rona Bahasa

While it is clear that a middle clause in (6b) is only linked to humans while a reflexive in (6a) to

nonhuman. The reflexive-middle distinction shown in (6) is not convincing, however. Lidz (2001)

approaches this problem somewhat differently; it is the reflexive of (6a) type that he classifies as

near-reflexive, i.e. the possibility of taking a non-identical antecedent, while that of type (6b) as a

real reflexive. Following Jackendoff (1992), he claims that syntactic reflexives can exhibit a near-

reflexive while lexically reflexive verb (body care verb) cannot. He illustrates the situation by a

statue that portrays Ringo Starr. Suppose that Ringo Starr visits the museum of Madame Tussauds,

which contains a wax statue that portrays him as a bearded man which he does not like then he

might take a razor to change his portrayed image, the reflexive that best illustrates this situation is

(7a) not (7b). Suppose also that he is portrayed as a man without beard in MmeTussauds museum

and he likes this image but he has beard with him, he might take a razor to change his look so the

action/the reflexive that can illustrate this situation can be either (7a) or (7b).

(7) a. Ringor Starr shaves himself

b. Ringor Starr shaves

On the basis of this fact, sentence (6a) might also have the effect of near-reflexive reading.As is

well known that animals can also perform some action resembling that of a human being;thus,

sentence (6a) in and of itself can also be taken as a real reflexive in the sense of Lidz (2001) in

which the cat tiger can go into a river or some kind of body of water to take care of its filthy body

or to avoid the heat of the sun.Consider also the following example:

(8) Thecat washesseveral times a day

(dictionary.die.net/wash)

Thus on this view, body care verb can also be attributed to nonhumans (animals) although the

number of body-actions tied to them is certainly very limited in comparison with those tied to

humans.

Lidz (2001) also uses data from Kannada to corroborate his claim. In (9a), is an intrinsically

reflexive verb, thus ‘statue reading’ is impossible; while (9b) contains a syntactic reflexive, thus

near-reflexive reading is achieved and ‘statue reading’ is also possible, see Lidz (2001) for more

discussion.


|252| Rona Bahasa

(9) a. Hari tann-annu nooḍ-i-konḍa

Hari self-ACC see-PP-REFL-PST-3SM

‘Hari saw himself (=Hari, *statue)’ (Lidz 2001: 128)

b. Hari tann-annu-taane nooḍ-id-a

Hari self-ACC-self see-PST-3SM

‘Hari saw himself (=Hari or statue)’ (Lidz 2001: 128)

Quite in a different view, however, Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and Reuland (2011),

claim that a middle verb denoting body action such as maumbah‘wash’ above is reflexive.

Investigating languages that have two different forms of reflexive:simple reflexive (SE) as in

Dutchzich and Norwegian seg, and complex reflexive(ZELF) as in Dutch zichzelf, and Norwegian

segselv.1This phenomenon of reflexivizationappears in languages having a two-middle system

(Kemmer1993). Note that the simple reflexive such aszich is used for determining an intrinsic

reflexivization while its complex reflexive counterpart is used for exhibiting extrinsic

reflexifization as shown in the following examples.2

1 The simple reflexive zich which is abbreviated as SE and the complex reflexive which is referred to ZELF are

respectively considered as having universal characteristics. Following the generalization developed by Pica (1987)

and Faltz (1985), Reinhart and Reuland (1993) claim that, besides indicating intrinsic reflexivity, the simple anaphor

(SE) is also taken to be universally anti local in that it can be long-distance bound while the complex reflexive (ZELF)

is universally local. This generalization is merely a tendency not universal (Huang 2000). Data on Balinese reflexives,

complex reflexives not simple reflexives play a role as a long distance anaphors, support Huang’s claim.

The claim that the simple reflexive zich can be long-distance bound can be illustrated in the following

examples. Sentence (ia), zich behaves like a pronominal in that its syntactic position can be filled by a pronoun. This

is also supported in (ib) where it is anteceded by the subject of the matrix clause. Sentence (ic) is ungrammatical

because the complex reflexive zichzelf is strictly local.

(i) a. Jan wast zich / Karel

Jan washes self Karel

‘Jan washes himself/ Karel’

b. Max horde mij over sizh praten

Max heard me about self speak

‘Max heard me talk about him’

c. *Max horde mij over sizhzelf praten

Max heard me about selfself speak

‘Max heard me talk about him’

2Indeed the simple reflexive sizh in Dutch is connected to middle marking. Another type of middle called emotional

middle is also found to take this reflexive as shown in the following example taken from Everaert (1993: 84).


|253| Rona Bahasa

(10) a. *Max haat zich

Max hates self

‘Max hates himself’

b. Max haat zichzelf

Max hates selfself

‘Max hates himself’

c. Max wast zich

Max washes self

‘Max washes himself’

Example (10a) which is headed by the verb haat ‘hates’ is not compatible with the simple reflexive

zich, however, when it takes a complex reflexive zichzelf in (10b) the resulting sentence turns out

to be grammatical. Interestingly when another type of verb, a body care verb in the sense of

Kemmer (1993, 1994), takes a simple reflexive, sentence (10c) is perfectly grammatical in contrast

with (10a)3. Given these binding facts, Reinhart and Reuland contend that a sentence such as (10c)

exhibits an intrinsic reflexivization which in Dutch happens to be marked by a reflexive marker

but in other languages such as English it has no marking on the verb. 4Sentence (10b) indicates

extrinsic reflexivization.

Reinhart and Reulandclaim that binding theory should have been able to account for these

facts, which we turn to in the next sub-section.

II. LEXICAL REFLEXIVITY AND BINDING THEORY

Binding Theory so far formulated only fare well in favor of syntactic reflexivity, ignoring

the fact that there exists a predicate that has intrinsic reflexivity. Thus, to account for this fact,

(ii) Jan scahmdezich/ *zichzelf

‘Jan was ashamed’

4 The same true in English, when the verb wash does take an object, the reflexive reading obtains as illustrated in

(iii).

(iii) John washes

[= John washes himself]’

[ John washes someone else]


|254| Rona Bahasa

Reinhart and Reuland(1993: 660) propose that reflexivizationisa property of a predicate. The

formulation is statable in (11).

(11) Condition A

A reflexive-marked (syntactic) predicate is reflexive

Condition B

A Reflexive (semantic) predicate is reflexive-marked

Definitions

a. A predicate is reflexive iff two of its argument are co-indexed

b. A predicate (P) is reflexive-marked iff

i. P is lexically reflexive, or one of P’s arguments is SELF anaphor, or

ii. One of P’s argument is a SELF anaphor

iii. A SELF anaphor is morphologically complex anaphor

To conclude, lexical reflexivity marking correlates with middle marking associated with the

language in question. If the lexical reflexive is unmarked, the middle associated with the language

is also unmarked. Similarly, if a lexical reflexive is marked, the middle associated with the

language is also marked. An interesting point relates to a language that has two reflexive markers:

simple and complex form. If the reflexive form is used as a middle marker, the choice is always

the simple form.

(12)

Lexical Reflexive marking Middle marking

Simple reflexive form Yes

Complex reflexive form No

Zero form/unmarked Yes


|255| Rona Bahasa

III. THE TYPES OF LEXICAL REFLEXIVES IN BALINESE

As noted above, lexically reflexive constructions in Balinese are middle-marked. Each of

the constructions can be identified with whether or not it takes a reflexive form. It has to be noted

that Balinese has two reflexive forms: complex reflexive forms and a simple reflexive forms. If a

middle construction takes a reflexive marker, it is always realized by the simple reflexive (awak/

iba/raga/dewek/ipun ‘self’). Let us just refer to the lexical reflexivity that appears in the syntax

without reflexive forms as unmarked forms while those that take it as marked forms. The marked

forms can be further partitioned into the forms that take obligatory simple reflexive (incorporated

form) and the forms that take optional simple reflexive (causative form) which can also be

subdivided into two forms: the ones that take one causative morpheme(-an) and those that take

two causative morphemes (pa- and –an), which I will simply call one-causatives form and two-

causative formsrespectively. Thus, there arepreciselyfour types of lexical reflexivity(in Balinese)

which can be stated as follows.

(13) a. Unmarked forms

b. One-causative forms

c. Two-causative forms

d. Incorporated form

3.1 Unmarked forms

The unmarked forms are essentially middles denoting body action verbs. Some of the body

action verbshave been exemplified but in this section more examples are given including the

division of body-care verbs into two: actions that onlyinvolve parts of the body and those involving

all parts of the body. This partition has the same characterization. Its roots can be either realized

by a verb or a noun. However, as noted by Arka (2003),a rootcan be bound or pre-categorial in

that we cannot assign a meaning or a grammatical category (V, N, etc.) to the root prior to being

bound by an affix. For example,the rootsugiis categorically a verb only after it takes a verbal affix

such as -an orma- to respectively form sugian or masugi, then it means ‘wash one’s face’. Thus,


|256| Rona Bahasa

in the following paradigms, if a word root is precategorial/bound, meaning is only given to its

middle form.5

(14) Body parts

Root Middle form

suah ‘comb’ masuah‘comb oneself’

-sugi masugi ‘wash one’s face

pupur ‘powder’ mapupur ‘apply powder on one’s face’

enci ‘lipstick’ maenci ‘put lipstick on one’s lips’

cilak ‘eye shadow’ macilak ‘apply eye shadow on one’s eyelids’

sisig ‘tobacco used to clean teeth’ masisig ‘to clean one’s teeth using sisig’

sikat ‘brush’ masikat ‘brush one’s teeth using toothpaste’

kemuh ‘mouth-wash’ makemuh‘rinse one’s mouth’

kuris ‘shave’ makuris ‘shave oneself’

ambuh ‘wash hair’ maambuh ‘wash one’s hair’

kaca‘mirror’ makaca ‘look at oneself in the mirror’

meka ‘mirror’ mameka ‘look at oneself in the mirror’

baseh‘wash’ mabaseh ‘wash one’s hands or feet’

(15) Whole parts of the body

jemuh ‘sunbathe’ majemuh ‘sunbathe oneself’

kidu‘warm oneself’ makidu ‘warm oneself near the fire’

embon ‘shady’ maembon/*ngembon ‘protect one’s body against the heat of

the sun or rain’

etis ‘cool’ maetis/ngetis ‘to place oneself in a cool place’

umbah ‘wash’ maumbah ‘wash oneself’

boreh ‘wet powder’ maboreh ‘apply boreh on one’s body’

payas ‘dress’ mapayas ‘dress oneself’

5A root can be bound or precategorial because it can derive words of more than one grammatical category. For

example, from the root silur, one can obtain the verb siluran ‘replace’ but a noun can also be derived from the same

root as in pasilur ‘substitute/change’. Thus obviously, the root itself is unclear in terms of its grammatical category

and its meaning. In the case of sugi, besides forming a derived verb such as masugi, a derived noun pasugian is also

available which means ‘the place for washing face’


|257| Rona Bahasa

As noted above, Middle marking in Balinese corresponds to intransitive marking (prefix ma- and

nasal prefix N-). Although generally speaking, it is ma- prefix that plays a role as a middle marker.

However, in a minority of verbs, N- prefix can also serve as a middle marker as seen in ngetis

which is an alternative form of maetis. However, which middle verb can take N- form is not clearly

predictable as seen in the impossibility of ngembon when taken as an alternative form of maembon

‘to place oneself in a shady place’.

The action performed tied to body partsand whole body parts leads to different reflexive

readings. Ideally, reflexive action involved the whole body. However, the middle verbs related to

body parts can be ambiguous between possessive reflexive reading and pronominal reflexive

reading as seen in (16). Note that the middle form is the same across registers (low, mid, and high

registers) but it is different only in the lexicon (the NP subject and the verb root).

.

(16) a. Cang masugi (low register)

1 MV.wash.face

(i) ‘I washed my face’

(ii) ‘I (face-)washed myself’

b. Ipun maraup (mid register)

3 MV.wash.face

(i) ‘(S)he washed his/her face’

(ii) ‘(S)he (face-)washed herself/himself’

c. Ida maraup (high register)

3 MV.wash.face

(i) ‘(S)he washed his/her face’

(ii) ‘(S)he (face)-washed herself/himself’

The same possessive reflexivereadings also obtain when we have recourse to AV clauses

(17) a. Cang nyugi(-n)-in mua

1 AV.wash.face(LK)-CAUS face

‘I wash my face’


|258| Rona Bahasa

b. Ida ngraupin prarai

3 AV.wash.face-CAUSE face

‘(S)he wash his/her face’

(18) a. Cang nyugi(-n)-in awak

1 AV.wash.face.(LK)-CAUS self

‘I (face-)washed myself’

b. Ida ngraupin raga

3 AV.wash.face.CAUS self

‘(S)he (face-)washed herself/himself’

Note that the presence of the causative affix –in in AV clauses in (17) and (18) is obligatory

otherwise the resulting sentences are ungrammatical as shown in (19). However, in the middle

forms as seen above the causative morpheme is dropped without affecting the grammaticality of

the sentence.

(19) a. *Icang nyugi mua

1 AV.wash.face face

‘I washed my face’

b *Ida ngraup prarai

3 AV.wash.face face

‘(S)he washed her/his face’

c *Ipun ngraup dewek

3 AV.wash.face self

‘(S)he (face-)washed herself/himself’

3.2 One Causative Form

This middle type takes a root, causative morpheme, plus an optional simple reflexive.

Likethe roots of unmarked forms, the roots of one-causative formscan also be bound/ precategorial,

which is marked with no meaning. As noted, this middle type takes optional simple reflexive form

and I just use the simple reflexive awak to represent one of the possible simple reflexive forms


|259| Rona Bahasa

that the verb in question can take. The evidence that makes the simple reflexive optionally appear

lies in the fact that the verb root takes causative morpheme –an(g) in the middle forms, which as

noted make this middle type distinct from the unmarked type.Note also that verbs indication body

action middles can also take part in this middle type such asmaememan ‘make oneself immersed

in the water’. Since these middle forms take one causative morpheme and optional reflexive, I

subsume them under one-causative form type.

Root Middle form

seliah maseliahan (awak) ‘make oneself have a break’

dabdab ‘prepared in madabdaban (awak) ‘make oneself prepared’

an orderly slow manner’

tragia ‘ready’ matragian (awak) ‘make oneself ready’

selsel ‘regret’ maselselan (awak) ‘make oneself regret one’s deeds’

nyelsel (awak)

tegteg ‘calm/steady’ mategtegan (awak)‘make oneself do something calmly’

kitip ‘do something freely’ makitipan (awak) ‘make oneself do something freely’

emem ‘immerse’ maememan (awak) ‘make oneself immersed in the water’

(20) a. Ia maseliahan (awak/dewek/iba/raga)

3 MV.have.a.break.CAUS self

‘(S)he allowedherself/himself to have a break’

b. Ia nyeliahan awak/dewek/iba/raga

3 AV.have.a.break.CAUS self

‘(S)he allowed herself/himself to have a break’

Interestingly,the intransitive prefix N- is also available in this type of middle as seen in (20b).

Notice that the ma- form such as the one in (20a) consistently takes the cause morpheme –an, and

the optional simple reflexive form. However, the middle in (21c) does not take the causative

morpheme but the reflexive form it takes is optional. The mismatch is expected because if the


|260| Rona Bahasa

causative morpheme were retained, it would be no difference from the transitive reflexive form as

in (21a).6

(21) a. Ia nyelselan awak/dewek/iba/raga

3 AV.regret.CAUSE self

‘(S)he regretted herself/himself’

b. Ia maselselan (awak/dewek/iba/raga)

3 MV.regret.CAUSE self


c. Ia nyelsel (awak/dewe/iba/raga)

3 MV.regret self


3.3 Two-Causative Form

Unlike the one-causative form type, this two-causative form type is more restricted. The

formative pa- has a number of different uses such as a nominalizer (Kersten 1984). She also notes

that one of its uses relates to causative marker, which is reminiscentof the causative morpheme

per- in Indonesian. Thus compare the following examples:

Indonesian

(22) a. Besar-kan

‘big-CAUS’

‘Make something big’

b. Per-besar

CAUS-big

‘Make something bigger’

c. Per-besar(-kan)

CAUS-big-CAUS


6This serves as evidence that Balinese middle marker corresponds to intransitive marker and of the two intransitive

markers: ma- and N-, it is the former that is widely used.


|261| Rona Bahasa

Balinese

(23) a. Gede-(n)-an

big-(LK)-CAUS

‘Make something big’

b. * Pa-gede

CAUS-big


c. Pa-gede-(n)-an

CAUS-big-CAUS


Root Middle form

angen‘compassionate’ mapangenan (awak) ‘cause oneself to be more

angenan ‘cause to be compassionate’ compassionate’/regret oneself’

pangenan ‘cause to be more compassionate’

kiken mapakikenan (awak) ‘make oneself more ready’

kikenan ‘make ready;

pakikenan ‘make more ready’

itung ‘consider’ mapaitungan ‘cause oneself to consider more

itungan ‘cause to consider’ (lit.)/‘cause oneself to act more deliberatively’

paitugan ‘cause to considermore’

(24) a. Ia mangenan awak/dewek/ iba/raga

3 MV.regret.CAUS self


b. Ia mapangenan (awak/dewek/iba/raga)

3 MV.CAUS.regret.CAUS self



|262| Rona Bahasa

3.4 Incorporated Form

This form of middles is very restricted in Balinese. The root is realized by a noun which

semantically understood as a relational noun (Udayana and Beavers 2013).

Root Middle form

dagang ‘trader’ madagangawak/dewek/iba/raga ‘sell oneself’

capil ‘hat’ macapil ‘ have a hat on’

The reflexive element cliticized to the verb is obligatory. Thus the omission of the clitcized element

does not trigger (lexical) reflexivity, as shown in (25c). Note that the verb madagang closely

related to its active form adep ‘sell’. However when this verb takes ma-form, it must be interpreted

as belonging to a medio passive which is shown by the fact that the middle verb maadep cannot

combine with the reflexive element, as illustrated in (26c).

(25) a. Ia madagang awak/dewek/iba/raga

3 MV.trader self

‘(S)he sold herself/himself’

b. Ia madagang awak/dewek/iba/raga

3 MV.trader self

‘(S)he sold herself/himslf’

c. Ia madagang

3 MV.trader

‘(S)he sells something’

(26) a. Ia ngadep awak/dewek/iba/raga

3 AV.sell self

‘(S)he sold herself/himself’

b. *Ia maadep awak/dewe/iba/raga

3 MV.sell self

‘(S)he sells’


|263| Rona Bahasa

IV. Syntactic Structures of Balinese Lexical Reflexives

All types of Balinese lexical reflexives can uniformly be taken as a structure in which the

verb root headed by the ma-form takes a dyadic predicate XP complement (which can be a VP or

NP) and the XP complement may further take an NP complement which is eventually incorporated

into the ma-from. This operation is assumed to be achieved by head to head movement.

First let us consider the unmarked form lexical reflexive, as shown in (27). The tree

diagram depicts the situation that the dyadic verb is incorporated into the ma-form and the NP

predicate does take any complement, indicating that the middle verb is interpreted as inherently

reflexive.

(27) TP

NP VP

V int VP

ma-

V dyadic

One-causative form and two-causative form reflexives have the same c-structure

representation in which the dyadic VP predicate is incorporated into the ma-form. And this NP

predicate complement further takes an optional object (which is realized by the simple reflexive

element).


|264| Rona Bahasa

(28) TP

NP VP

V int VP

ma-

V dyadic (NP)

Finally, the incorporated form lexical reflexive is illustrated in (29). The predicate NP

complement is a relational N which is obviously dyadic. This NP complement further takes

obligatory reflexive element ensuring the resulting middle verb to have the lexical reflexive

interpretation.

(29) TP

NP VP

V int NP

ma-

N dyadic NP refl

V. CONCLUSION

The ma-form in Balinese is traditionally understood as an intransitive marker. Following

Kemmer (1993, 1994), I have shown that the ma-form serves as the exponent of middle marker.

There are many situation types associated with the ma-forms, one of them being what is referred

to as body action middles by Kemmer (1993). Body action middles in Balinese encode reflexivity,

either with covert or overt (simple) reflexive element, awak/dewek/iba/raga ‘self’, cliticized to a

verb base. This paper argues that body action middles are an instance of lexical reflexives, rejecting

Kemmer’s (1993) claim that dissociates them from reflexivity. To support the claim, the


|265| Rona Bahasa

transitive/intransitive alternation strategy is adopted in which the interpretation of the body action

middles can be detected. It is shown that the meaning of the (transitive) form is preserved in the

intransitive (middle) form and importantly reflexivity interpretation is also well maintained even

though the presence of the reflexive element is covertly or overtly required in the ma-form.

References

Ackema, Peter and MaaikeSchoorlemmer. 1994. “The Middle Construction and the Syntax-

Semantics Interface” in Lingua, 93: 59-90.

Ackema, Peter and MaaikeSchoorlemmer. 1995. “Middles and Non movement” in Lingua, 26:

173-197.

Arka, I Wayan. 2003. Balinese Morphosyntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Canberra:

PacificLinguistics, School of Pacific and Asian Studies, the Australian National

University.

Authier, J-Marc and Lisa Reed. 1996. “On the Canadian French Middle” in LinguisticInquiry,

Condoravdi, C. 1989. The Middle: Where Semantics and Morphology Meet. In MIT Working

Papers in Linguistics 11, 18-30. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Syntax and Semantics: Lexical Functional Grammar. New York:

Academic Press.

Everaert, Martin. 1993. “Contextual Determination of the Anaphor/Pronominal Distinction” in

Long-Distance Anaphora. Koster, Jan and Eric Reuland (eds.)

Fagan, Sarah M.B. 1988. “The English Middle” in Linguistic Inquiry, 19:181-203

Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland

Publishing.

Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kaufman,Inggrid. 2007. “Middle Voice” in Lingua 177, 1677-1714.

Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Kemmer, Suzanne. 1994. Middle Voice, Transitivity, and Events. Voice: Form and Function, ed.

by Barbara A. Fox and Paul J. Hopper. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Kersten, J S.V.D. 1984. Bahasa Bali. Ende: Penerbit Nusa Indah.

Keyser, Jay Samuel and Thomas Roeper. 1984. “On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in

English” in Linguistic Inquiry, 15: 381-416


|266| Rona Bahasa

Lidz, Jeffrey. 2001. ‘Condition R’ in Linguistic Inquiry, 32: 123-140

Marelj, Marijana. 2004. Middles and Argument Structure across Languages. Doctoral

Dissertation, OTS, Utrecht University.

Matthews, P.H. 2007. Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nichols, Johanna. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In W. Shipley, ed., In Honor

of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics,

pages557– 610. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Palancar, Enrique L. 2004. “Middle Voice in Otomi” in International Journal of American

Linguistics 70 (1): 52 – 85.

Pica, Pierre .1987.On the nature of the reflexivization cycle.NELS 17.

Rapoport, T.R. 1999. “The English Middle and Agentivity” in Linguistic Inquiry, 30: 147-155

Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland. 1993. “Reflexivity” in Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 657-720

Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni. 2004. “Against the Unaccusative Analysis of Reflexives” in

TheUnaccusativityPuzzle: ExplorationsoftheSyntax-LexiconInterface. Alexiadou et

al.(eds).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni. 2005. “The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and

Other Arity Operations” inLinguistic Inquiry, 36 (3): 389-436.

Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. “The Theta System: An Overview” in TheoreticalLinguistics 28:

229-290.

Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Roeper, Thomas. 1987. “Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation”

LinguisticInquiry,18:267-310.

Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-) Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State

Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Shibatani, Masayoshi and KetutArtawa. 2007. The Balinese middle voice. SEALSXIII: Papers

from the 13th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2003), 239-261.ed. by

Shoici Iwasaki, Andrew Simpson, Karen Adamas, and Paul Sidwell.

Stroik, Thomas. 1992. “Middles and Movement” in LinguisticInquiry,23: 127-137.

Stroik, Thomas. 1999. “Middles and Reflexivity” inLinguistic Inquiry, 30: 119-131

Udayana, I Nyoman. 1994. The Indonesian Reflexive. M.LittThesis. The University of

Sydney.


|267| Rona Bahasa

Udayana, I Nyoman and John Beavers. 2013. Middle Voice in Indonesian. A Talk Given at LSA

2013 Annual Meeting. Massachusetts, Boston.

BUKU PERSEMBAHAN KEPADA PROF. DR. ARON MEKO …

Documents

Transcript of BUKU PERSEMBAHAN KEPADA PROF. DR. ARON MEKO …