Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 77–106

The Malay verbal prefix meN- and the unergative/unaccusative distinction



The verbal prefix meN- in Malay is known to block DP movement. The existing analyses of this phenomenon focus on the blocking effect of meN- in transitive sentences but have not paid attention to whether such an effect holds in intransitive sentences. In this paper, we examine the blocking effect of meN- in intransitive sentences and show that, surprisingly, meN- does not appear to block DP movement in sentences that are usually considered unaccusative. We propose that no blocking effect is found in intransitive sentences because all intransitive meN- sentences are unergative. We present a hypothesis of the relation between verb meaning and sentence structure that accounts for meN-’s effect on verb syntax, making use of the notion of telicity and the distinction between “internal” and “external” causation. Our analysis implies that both lexical specification and structural determination are involved in determining the unergative/unaccusative distinction.


Malay verbal prefix meN- Blocking effects Argument realization Telicity “Internal” and “external” causation Unergative and unaccusative distinction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aldridge Edith. (2008) Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118: 1440–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asmah Haji, Omar. 1993. Nahu Melayu mutakhir (edisi keempat) [A grammar of contemporary Malay (4th ed.)]. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
  3. Borer Hagit (2005) Structuring sense. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomsky Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chung, Sandra. 1976. On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 57–99. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cole Peter, Gabriella Hermon (1998) The typology of wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1: 221–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole Peter, Hermon Gabriella, Gabriella Hermon (2008) Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118: 1500–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole Peter, Son Minjeong (2004) The argument structure of verbs with the suffix -kan in Indonesian. Oceanic Linguistics 43: 339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cumming Susanna (1991) Functional change: The case of Malay constituent order. Mouton de Gryuter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dardjowidjojo Soenjono (1978) Sentence patterns of Indonesian. University of Hawaii Press, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  12. de Swart Henriette (1998) Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 347–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowty David. (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Englebretson Robert (2003) Searching for structure: The problem of complementation in Colloquial Indonesian conversation. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortin, Catherine. in press. Reconciling meng- and NP movement in Indonesian. To appear in Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  16. Gil, David. 2002. The prefixes di− and N− in Malay/Indonesian dialects. In The history and typology of Western Austronesian voice systems, ed. Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 241–283. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
  17. Guilfoyle Eithne, Hung Henrietta, Travis Lisa (1992) Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hallman Peter (2009) Proportions in time: Interaction of quantification and aspect. Natural Language Semantics 17: 29–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy, and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In Proceedings of SALT 9, 127-144. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistic Circle Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Jackendoff Ray (1990) Semantic structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical matters, ed. Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 29–53. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Kroeger, Paul R. 2007. Morphosyntactic vs. morphosemantic functions of Indonesian -kan. In Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes of Joan Bresnan, ed. Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, and Chris Manning, 229–251. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Landman Fred (1992) The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landman, Fred. 2008. 1066: On the differences between the tense-perspective-aspect systems of English and Dutch. In Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. Susan Rothstein, 107–166. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Levin Beth, Hovav Malka Rappapport (1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics, vol. 4.2, ed. Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams, 201–225.Google Scholar
  28. Mittwoch Anita (1988) Aspects of English aspect: On the interaction of perfect, progressive and duration phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 203–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moens Marc, Mark Steedman (1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14: 15–28Google Scholar
  30. Nishiyama, Kunio. 2003. Post-syntactic passivization and the abstract clitic position in Indonesian. In Cornell working papers in linguistics, vol. 19, ed. Anastasia Riehl and Thess Savella, 107–121.Google Scholar
  31. Nomoto, Hiroki. 2006. A study on complex existential sentences in Malay. Master’s thesis, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
  32. Nomoto, Hiroki. 2008. A unified analysis of funny control. Paper presented at the 12th International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL), Leiden, the Netherlands, June 2008.Google Scholar
  33. Nomoto Hiroki (2009) On indefinite subjects of pivot verbs in Malay. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 221–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nomoto, Hiroki. 2010. Making sense of the optionality of voice marking in Malay/Indonesian. In Proceedings of workshop on Indonesian-type voice system, 37–44. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
  35. Nomoto, Hiroki. To appear. Analisis seragam bagi kawalan lucu [A unified analysis of funny control]. In Kajian dan pendidikan bahasa—Tinta kenangan bagi Profesor Isamu Shoho [Langauge research and language education—A festschrift for Professor Isamu Shoho], ed. Hiroki Nomoto, Anwar Ridhwan, and Zaharani Ahmad. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
  36. Nomoto, Hiroki, and Isamu Shoho. 2007. Voice in relative clauses in Malay: A comparison of written and spoken language. In Corpus-based perspectives in linguistics, ed. Yuji Kawaguchi, Toshihiro Takagaki, Nobuo Tomimori, and Yoichiro Tsuruga, 353–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  37. Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–189.Google Scholar
  38. Perlmutter, David, and Paul Postal. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In Studies in relational grammar, vol. 2, ed. David Perlmutter and Carol Rosen, 81–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Postman, Whitney A. 2002. Thematic role assignment in Indonesian: A case study of agrammatic aphasia. PhD diss., Cornell University.Google Scholar
  40. Pylkkänen Liina (2008) Introducing arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Rackowski Andrea, Richards Norvin (2005) Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ramchand Gillian Catriona (2008) Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2007. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects, ed. Susan Rothstein, 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2002. Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projections. In Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 269–280.Google Scholar
  46. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Thomas Rosen. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 135–164. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Rothstein, Susan. 2008a. Two puzzles for a theory of lexical aspect: Semelfactives and degree achievements. In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, ed. Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow, and Martin Schäfer, 75–197. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  48. Rothstein, Susan. 2008b. Telicity, atomicity and the Vendler classification of verbs. In Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects, ed. Susan Rothstein, 43–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  49. Saddy, Douglas. 1991. WH scope mechanism in Bahasa Indonesia. In MIT working papers in linguistics 15: More papers on wh-movement, ed. Lisa L. S. Cheng and Hamida Demirdash, 183–218.Google Scholar
  50. Sato, Yosuke. To appear. Successive cyclicity at the syntax-morphology interface: Evidence from Standard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese. Studia Linguistica.Google Scholar
  51. Shoho, Isamu. 1998. Mareeshiago kyoutei [A course in the Malay language]. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
  52. Sneddon James N (1996) Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. Allen & Unwin, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  53. Soh, Hooi Ling. 1994. Aspect and the organization of argument structure and phrase structure: Evidence from Malay. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  54. Soh, Hooi Ling. 1998. Certain restrictions on A-bar movement in Malay. In Proceedings of the third and fourth meetings of Austronesian Linguistics Association 1996–1999, ed. Matthew Pearson, 295–308. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
  55. Soh, Hooi Ling. 2008. Awalan meN− dalam bahasa Melayu: Satu morfem atau dua morfem? [The prefix meN- in Malay: One morpheme or two?]. Paper presented at Persidangan Bahasa Melayu Antarabangsa [International Conference on Malay], Subang, Malaysia, November 2008.Google Scholar
  56. Soh, Hooi Ling. 2010. Voice and aspect: Some notes from Malay. In Proceedings of workshop on Indonesian-type voice system, 25–35. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
  57. Soh Hooi Ling, Nomoto Hiroki (2009) Progressive aspect, the verbal prefix meN−, and stative sentences in Malay. Oceanic Linguistics 48: 148–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Soh, Hooi Ling, Hiroki Nomoto. 2010. Degree achievements, telicity and the verbal prefix meN− in Malay. Paper presented at the 14th International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL), Minneapolis, April/May 2010.Google Scholar
  59. Son, Minjeong, and Peter Cole. 2004. Event decomposition and the syntax and semantics of -kan in Standard Indonesian. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 34, ed. Keir Moulton and Matthew Wolf, 555–570. Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  60. Son Minjeong, Cole Peter (2008) An event-based account of −kan constructions in Standard Indonesian. Language 84: 120–160Google Scholar
  61. Travis, Lisa. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, ed. Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 145–185. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Vamarasi Marit Kana (1999) Grammatical relations in Bahasa Indonesia. Pacific Linguistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  63. van Hout, Angeliek. 2004. Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Evereart, 60–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Van Valin Robert D. Jr. (1990) Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Voskuil, Jan E. 1993. Verbal inflection in Indonesian. In Semaian 11: Topics in descriptive Austronesian linguistics, ed. Ger P. Reesink, 159-180. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azie en Oceanie, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden.Google Scholar
  66. Voskuil, Jan E. 2000. Indonesian voice and A-bar movement. In Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, ed. Ileana Paul, Vivianne Phillips, and Lisa Travis, 195-214. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  67. Willett, Marie L. 1993. Object preposed construction in Malay. Master’s thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
  68. Wouk, Fay. 1989. The use of verb morphology in spoken Jakarta Indonesian. PhD diss., UCLA.Google Scholar
  69. Yasui, Miyoko. 2009. Prepositional versus verbal causativizers. Paper presented at NELS 40.Google Scholar
  70. Zaenen, Annie. 1988. Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface. In CSLI Report 123. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of LinguisticsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Southeast Asian StudiesTokyo University of Foreign StudiesTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations