Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 59–88 | Cite as

Subject And Non-subject Relativization in Indonesian

Article

Abstract

It has been claimed widely that in Indonesian the most frequent type of relative clause, that formed with the complementizer yang and with a gap in place of the relativized NP, is restricted to subject relativization. We challenge this claim and argue that complementizer/gap direct object relativization is also well formed. Furthermore, we argue against the proposal that the grammar of Indonesian contains a stipulation that complementizer/gap relativization is restricted to subjects and direct objects. Rather, the appearance of constraints which conform to the Accessibility Hierarchy of Keenan and Comrie [Linguist. Inquiry 8 (1977) 63] is due to the interaction of ECP-like restrictions on extraction with the structure of various clause types in Indonesian. Specifically, Indonesian exhibits a VP shell structure along the lines of Larson [Linguist. Inquiry 19 (1988) 335], which predicts the extraction facts. While the resulting distribution appears to conform to the Accessibility Hierarchy, there does not appear to be any motivation on the basis of the facts of Indonesian to attribute to the Accessibility Hierarchy an independent role in the grammar. Rather, the appearance of conformity to the Accessibility Hierarchy is epiphenomenal.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alsagoff, Lubna Shariffa (1992) Topic in Malay: the Other Subject , PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  2. Arka, I, Wayan and Christopher D. Manning (in press) “Voice and Grammatical Relations in Indonesian: a New Perspective,” in S. Musgrave and Austin (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian Language , CSLI, Standford.Google Scholar
  3. Butar-Butar, Maruli (1976) Some Movement Transformations and their Constraints in Indonesian , PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, Noam 1995The Minimalist ProgramMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Chung, Sandra 1976“An Object Creating Rule in Bahasa Indonesia,”Linguistic Inquiry74187Google Scholar
  6. Chung, Sandra (1978) “Stem Sentences in Indonesian,” in S.A. Wurm and L. Carrington (eds.), Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics : Proceedings , Fascicle 1, Western Austronesian, Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 61, pp. 335–365Google Scholar
  7. Chung, Sandra 1982“Unbounded Dependencies in Chamorro Grammar”Linguistic Inquiry133977Google Scholar
  8. Chung, Sandra 1994“ Wh -agreement and ‘Referentiality’ in Chamorro,”Linguistic Inquiry25144Google Scholar
  9. Cole, Peter 1976“The Interface of Theory and Description: Notes on Modern Hebrew Relativization,”Language52563583Google Scholar
  10. Cole, Peter 1976b

    “An Apparent Asymmetry in the Formation of Relative Clauses in Modern Hebrew,”

    Cole, P eds. Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and SemanticsNorth-Holland Publishing CompanyThe Hague
    Google Scholar
  11. Cole, Peter, Gabriella, Hermon 1995

    “Is wh-in-situ really in-situ? Evidence from Malay and Chinese,”

    Aronovich, R. eds. Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal LinguisticsCSLIStanford189204
    Google Scholar
  12. Cole, Peter, Gabriella, Hermon 1998“The Typology of wh Movement: wh Questions in Malay),”Syntax1221258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and Yassir Tjung (2003) “The Formation of Relative Clauses in Jakarta Indonesian,” paper presented at ISMIL 7, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, June 2003.Google Scholar
  14. Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono 1978Sentence Patterns of IndonesianUniversity of Hawaii PressHonoluluGoogle Scholar
  15. Gil, David and Uri Tadmor (1997) “Towards a Typology of Malay/Indonesian Dialects,” paper presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology, Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics, Penang, Malaysia, 14 January 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Givon, Talmy 1973

    “Complex NP’s, Word Order and Resumptive Pronouns in Hebrew,”

    Corum, C. eds. You Take the High Node and I’ll Take the Low Node: Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festiva lChicago Linguistic SocietyChicago135146
    Google Scholar
  17. Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta, Hung, Lisa, Travis 1992“Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjects in Austronesian Languages,”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory10375414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keenan Edward, L., Bernard, Comrie 1977“Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar,”Linguistic Inquiry86399Google Scholar
  19. Larson, Richard K. 1988“On the Double Object Construction,”Linguistic Inquiry19335391Google Scholar
  20. Macdonald, R. Ross, soenjono, Dardjowidjojo 1967Indonesian References grammerGeorgetown University pressWashington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. Maling, Joan 1990

    “Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modern Icelandic,”

    Maling, J.Zaenen, A. eds. Syntax and Semantics: Volume 24, Modern Icelandic SyntaxAcademic PressNew York7191
    Google Scholar
  22. Musgrave, Simon (2001) Non-subject Arguments in Indonesian , PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  23. Rizzi, Luigi 1990Relativized MinimalityMIT PressCambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Rogayah, A. Razak (1995) The Syntax and Semantics of Quantification in Malay: a Government and Binding Approach, PhD dissertation, Universiti Sains, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  25. Ross, John R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax , PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Saddy, Douglas (1991) “ Wh Scope Mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia,” in L. Cheng and H. Demirdash (eds.), More Papers on Wh-Movement , MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, pp. 183–218.Google Scholar
  27. Saddy, Douglas 1992“A versus A-bar Movement and wh -Fronting in Bahasa Indonesia,”University of QueenslandmsGoogle Scholar
  28. Salleh, Ramli (1987) Fronted Constituents in Malay: Base Structures and Move-α in a Configurational Non-Indo-European Language , PhD dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  29. Schindler, Patrick A. (1998) “The Accessibility Hierarchy Revisited: the Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns in Malay,” paper presented at the Second Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics, Ujung Pandang, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  30. Sie, Ing Djang (1988) The Syntactic Passine in Bahasa Indonesia , PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Sneddon, James 1996Indonesian: a Comprehensive GrammarRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Soh, Hooi Ling 1996“Certain Restrictions on A-bar Movement in Malay,”MITmsGoogle Scholar
  33. Vikner, Sten 1995Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic LanguagesOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of DelawareNewark
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsMax-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations