Download Document

Abstract
In this MA thesis, I propose a unified analysis for all the uses of enclitic –NYA in
the nominal domain in Bahasa Indonesia. My analysis starts out by implementing
the application of Predicate Inversion (Den Dikken’s (1998) and Bennis et al’s
(1998)) on the Bahasa Indonesia N of a N construction as well as the nominal
possessive construction. I argue that in both cases -NYA is not a nominal ‘copula’,
rather, I argue that –NYA is a determiner element. This conclusion is based on the
obligatory occurrence of –NYA in definite NPs, where it introduces the
definiteness of noun phrases. Following Abney’s (1987) claim that determiner
categories are projected under the highest functional head in noun phrases, D head,
I propose that –NYA sits in the position. Further, I extend my analysis of –NYA as
a determiner in all other nominal constructions.
1. Introduction
Bahasa Indonesia (also known as Indonesian) is the national language of the Republic of
Indonesia (RI), uniting the multi-ethnic inhabitants living in the Indonesian archipelago.
Originating from Malay- a language that used to be used as a Bahasa Pasar ‘Market
Language’, Bahasa Indonesia, after the independence of Indonesia in 1945, was initially
used as an official language spoken by only part of the population, for instance in the
governmental-ceremony occasions, schools, news etc. However, nowadays Bahasa
Indonesia1 (henceforth BI) is acquired as the first language by the later generations of the
inhabitants replacing the use of the so-called bahasa daerah ‘the local languages’- the
mother tongues of their parents such as Javanese, Batak, Sundanese, Minahasa etc.
The pronouns in BI are not marked for gender, tense, numbers and Case. For example,
dia 3sg pronoun can occur as a subject that means as ‘she’, ‘he’ or ‘it’, and also as object
means as ‘her’, ‘him’ or ‘it’. The 3sg pronoun dia that occurs in the object position can
be replaced by the enclitic –NYA as seen in (1). In (1) –NYA2 like dia can occur as a
direct object (DO) (1a-b) and also as an indirect object (IO) (1c).
1
Indeed, there are some BI (Malay) dialects used in the local areas of Indonesia such as Manado, Ternate,
Medan, Palembang etc spoken as a lingua franca. However, besides using their own dialects, people in
those areas can also speak BI, for instance, when they meet with colleagues who come from different
regions, or in formal occasions, such as in official meetings, radio broadcasts etc.
2
-NYA in the examples in (1) above can only be interpreted as 3sg pronoun. It cannot be interpreted as 3pl
pronoun.
(1) *John memukul-nya
John hit-NYA
Intended meaning: ‘John hit them’
1
(1)
3sg (DO/IO) pronoun
a. John mem-pukul-nya/dia
John MEM-hit
-NYA 3sg
‘John hits him/her/it’.
b. aku mem-benci-nya/dia
1sg MEM-hate
-NYA 3sg
‘I hate him/her/it’.
c. John mem-beli buku untuk-nya/dia
John MEM-buy
book for-NYA 3sg
‘John bought a book for him/her’.
In this thesis, I would like to focus on the enclitic –NYA. Besides can function as 3sg
pronoun as seen in (1) above, it also has at least eight other functions3. They are the
following; 1. as a 3sg possessive pronoun (2), 2. a definite marker (3), 3. a nominalizer
(4), 4. a possessive marker (5), 5. an exclamative marker (producing meaning ‘very’) (6),
6. a preposition-like element (like English of in the N of a N construction such as that
idiot of a doctor in the sense of Den Dikken (1998) and Bennis et al (1998) (7), 7.
together with prefix SE- forming adverbs (8), and finally 8. together with SE- resulting
into comparative-superlative reading (9).
In the BI grammars, –NYA is also often described to function as 2sg pronoun ‘you’ as in (1) below
(quoted from Mintz (1994) p. 84) (the gloss and the translation are mine). However, I think, -NYA like in
(1) is not a 2sg pronoun at all, but (1) is actually an elliptical form (as seen in (2)). In (2) the 2sg pronoun
kamu is not pronounced and –NYA here functions more like a nominalizer (similar to the nominalizer in
(4)).
(1) tinggal-nya di mana, Om?
Live-NYA loc where uncle
‘where do you live, Uncle?’
(2) tinggal-nya (kamu) di mana, Om?
Live-NYA 2sg
loc where uncle
Lit. ‘the living of you is where, Uncle?’
Such an ellipted 2nd pronoun in BI seems to be common especially when the speaker talks with older or
honorable persons. Probably it is so, because of the cultural value that to address directly to older people by
saying kamu ‘you’ is considered not polite.
For Mintz himself, he translates (1) as ‘where does he live, Uncle?’, where –NYA functions as 3sg person
‘he’ that politely refers to ‘Uncle’. I think this is not the case.
3
2
(2) 3sg possessive pronoun
a. buku-nya
book-NYA
‘its/his/her book’
b. ibu-nya
mother-NYA
‘its/his/her mother’
(3) definite marker
a.
kemarin Budi meminjam buku kamu. Sekarang buku*(-nya) ada pada John
yesterday Budi borrow
book 2sg
now
book –NYA exist at John
‘Yesterday Budi borrowed the book of yours’. ‘Now, the book is with John’.
b. John menyirami taman dengan air. Sekarang air*(-nya) menggenangi taman itu.
John pour
garden with water now
water-NYA whelm
garden that
‘John poured water on the garden. Now the water floods the garden’
(4) nominalizer
a. kuda-kuda itu lari-nya
ke utara
horse-horse that fly-NYA to north
‘the the run of the horses was to the north’
b. Pesawat itu jatuh-nya melintir
Airplane that fall-NYA spin
‘the fall of the airplane was with a spinning motion’
(5) possessive marker
a. mobil-nya John/dia/kamu/kalian/mereka/saya/kami
car-NYA
John 3sg 2sg
2pl
3pl
‘John’s/his/her/your/their/my/our car’
3
1sg 1pl
b ibu-nya
John/dia/kamu/kalian/mereka/saya/kami
mother-NYA John 3sg 2sg 3pl
3pl
1sg 1pl
‘John’s/his/her/your/their/my/our mother’.
(6) exclamative marker
a. cantik-nya!
beautiful-NYA
‘what a beautiful one!’
b. tinggi-nya!
tall-NYA
‘what a tall one!’
(7) preposition-like or nominal copula element
a. bodoh-nya dokter
stupid-NYA doctor
‘that idiot of a doctor’
b. bajingan-nya preman
scoundrel-NYA street.kid
‘that scoundrel of a street kid’
(8) adverbial-like marker (SE-base-NYA)4
a. Se-harus-nya: ‘it’s supposed to happen/be that…’
e.g. se-harus-nya
kamu tidak boleh makan es krim.
One-should-NYA 1sg neg may eat
ice cream
‘actually you may not eat ice cream’.
b. se-tidak-nya: ‘it would be the least, but…’
e.g. se-tidak-nya saya sudah mencoba.
One-no-NYA 1sg have try
‘at least I have tried’.
4
The base for this adverbial construction is restricted to certain words, i.e. not every word can be attached
by the affixes, prefix se- and -NYA.
4
(9) comparative-superlative construction marker (SE-red.adjective-NYA)
a. se-pintar-pintar-nya John,
masih lebih pintar lagi Max.
one-smart-smart-NYA John still more smart again Max
‘John is so smart, but Max is still smarter’
b. se-bodoh-bodoh-nya orang, kalo dia mau belajar keras dia akan berhasil.
One-stupid-stupid-NYA person, if 3sg want study hard 3sg will successful
‘even the stupidest person will be successful if he wants to study hard’
My concern in analysing the element –NYA here, is to look at its synchronic distributions
in the nominal domain. There are two main questions I would like to raise about –NYA,
namely, (i) what element is –NYA actually? (is it the same element in all constructions,
or some different elements?), and (ii) as what category it should be realized in the syntax?.
Concerning the two questions mentioned above, I come up with two hypotheses. The first
is that –NYA is a preposition-like element. This is suggested by the examples in (7)
above, in where they are very similar to the N of a N constructions in English and Dutch,
such as that idiot of a doctor and een beer van een kerel ‘a bear of a guy’ respectively.
Following Den Dikken’s (1998) and Bennis et al’s (1998) analysis on the N of a N
constructions, -NYA in (7) functions like English preposition of and Dutch van in the N
of a N constructions, realized as a nominal ‘copula’ element. The second one is that, NYA is a determiner-like element. This is based on the examples in (3) above, where in
order for the noun to be definite, -NYA obligatorily occurs.
I begin my analysis by focusing on two constructions, namely the N of a N (N-NYA N)
constructions as in (7), and the possessive constructions as in (5) above. I propose an
analysis for both constructions that makes crucial use of one ingredient namely the
predicate inversion in the nominal domain (Den Dikken (1998) and Bennis et al (1998).
In my analysis, I undergo a uniform approach that is to consider –NYA as a single
element. By doing such an approach then I propose that –NYA in all constructions (in 1-7)
5
above) (but not 8-95), is actually a single syntactic element that is as a determiner-like
element. Following Abney’s (1987) claim on determiner categories that they should
occupy the highest functional head of the noun phrase, namely D head (D0), I propose
that –NYA should also sit in the same position.
Having proposed that –NYA is a determiner element that sits in D0, I reconstruct the
structure of the N-NYA N and the possessive constructions. In these two constructions as
well, I propose –NYA is actually the same element. Further, I extend my analysis on –
NYA in the other nominal constructions, and find out that it is the same element as well.
In the possessive constructions, besides the one with –NYA, I also discuss three other
different ‘possessive markers’ (PM), namely, empty PM (10a), milik ‘own’ (10b) and
punya ‘own’ (10c).
(10)
a. buku John
Book John
b. buku milik John
book own John
c. buku punya John
book own John
‘the book of John’
Based on the facts i.e, (i) that milik/punya can be attached by –NYA without changing the
meaning (11), and (ii) that BI ‘indefinite article’ se-buah can occur in the constructions
with milik/punya (either without –NYA (12a) or with –NYA (12b), but cannot occur in
the construction without milik/punya (either the empty PM (13a) or with –NYA), I
propose that the possessive constructions with milik/punya are derived differently from
the ones without milik/punya.
5
The constructions in (8-9) are not clear to me yet for this moment. Thus in this thesis I do not analyse
these two constructions, but leave them for a future research. However, I believe that –NYA in these two
constructions as well is actually the same element namely as a determiner-like element.
6
(11)
a. buku milik-nya John
Buku own-NYA John
b. buku punya-nya John
book own-NYA John
‘the book of John’
(12)
a. se-buah buku milik/punya John
one-Cl book own John
‘a book of John’
b. se-buah buku milik-nya/punya-nya John
one-CL book own-NYA/own-NYA John
‘a book of John’
(13)
a. ??se-buah buku John
one-CL book John
‘a book of John’
b. *se-buah buku-nya John
one-CL book-NYA John
‘a book of John’
This thesis is organized as follows. In section 2, I introduce Predicate Inversion in the
nominal domain. In section 3, I focus mainly on two constructions namely, the N-NYA N
construction (like those in (7) above), and the possessive constructions (like in (10) above)
by making use of Predicate Inversion. In section 4, I analyse the definite common noun
construction like in (3). Here I argue that –NYA is a determiner-like element that must sit
in D0. Having argued that –NYA should be projected under D0, in section 5, I reanalyse
the BI N-NYA N construction as well as the possessive construction, and argue that –
NYA in these constructions as well can be realized as the same functional element,
projected under D0. In this section, I propose that the BI nominal possessive constructions
without the occurrence of milik/punya as in (10a), (5) and also (2) (where –NYA
functions as a3sg possessive pronoun) are derived differently from the ones with
7
milik/punya as in (10b-c), (11) and (12). While the former constructions are derived by
the Predicate Inversion application, the latter constructions are derived by the application
of nominalization, in which –NYA appears to function to nominalize milik/punya that
occur as possessive verbs in the sentence. In section 6, I discuss that –NYA in the three
other constructions: -NYA as a 3sg pronoun as in (1), as a nominalizer (4) and as an
exclamative marker (6), is also actually the same element, namely a determiner. Section 7
summarizes my conclusions.
2. Predicate Inversion in DP, introduced
The main idea in the Predicate Inversion analysis proposed in Den Dikken’s (1998) and
Bennis et al’s (1998) is that, both in clauses and in nominal phrases, predication plays a
crucial role. More specifically, the authors argue that in the two domains there is a
structural parallel with regard to their subject-predicate relationships, namely that like in
the clausal phrases, in nominal phrases as well there can display a movement of
predicates to the left of their subjects. This is clearly reflected in the copular construction
as in (14) for the clausal domain versus the N of a N construction in (15) for the nominal
phrase.
(14)
a. our doctor is the biggest idiot in town
b. the biggest idiot in town is our doctor
(15)
that idiot of a doctor
Let us first consider the copular constructions in (14). Following Stowell (1981) and
Moro (1991), Den Dikken (1998) and Bennis et al (1998) argue that such copular
constructions underlyingly feature a Small Clause (SC=XP) containing the subject our
doctor and the predicate the biggest idiot in town, projected as the complement of the
copula be as seen in (16a). In order to derive (14a) the SC subject our doctor raises to
SpecIP (16b).To derive (14b), the predicate the biggest idiot in the town moves to target
the same position, SpecIP (16c). The latter derivation hence exemplifies Predicate
Inversion.
8
(16)
a. [IP… be [XP our doctor X [Pred the biggest idiot in town]]]
b. [IP our doctori… be [P ti X [Pred the biggest idiot in town]]]
c. [IP the biggest idiot in townj …be [XP our doctor X [Pred tj]]]
The tree structure of (16c) is represented in (17). The movement of the predicate around
its subject (SpecXP) is a case of A-movement. In order to avoid the violation of
Chomsky’s (1993) Minimal Link Condition, they propose that the position of the subject
and the predicate are equidistant as they are members of the same minimal domain. They
suggest that it is the movement of X (the functional head of SC) to F (the functional head
of the landing site of the predicate), that makes the subject and the predicate part of the
same minimal domain. They claim further that the raising of X to F causes F to be
phonetically realized as a copula.
(17)
FP
F’
Spec
predj
F+Xi
XP
X’
subject
X
ti
pred
tj
Something similar happens in the nominal domain with the N of a N constructions in (15).
For the English N of a N construction (18a), Den Dikken proposes that it may have the
same underlying structure as the clausal copula construction, namely a SC that consists of
doctor as the subject and idiot as the predicate (as seen in (18b)). Furthermore, he
suggests that in order to have the surface order, the predicate idiot should move to the
subject position crossing the SC subject (18c).
(18)
a. that idiot of a doctor
b. [DP that (…) [SC a doctor [Pred idiot]]]
9
c. [DP that (…) idioti of [SC a doctor ti]]
He also proposes that like be in the copular sentences being realized as a copula as the
result of the X-to-F movement, of in the N of a N construction is also the realization of a
‘copula’; after movement of the X head to F, they form together a complex head spelled
out as ‘of’. The structure that underlies the N of a N construction is provided in (19a) and
the derivation of the example in (18a) is sketched out in (19b-c).
(19)
a. [DP Det [FP Spec F [XP NP [X’ X NP]]]]
b. [DP Det [FP [Spec [NP idiot]i] [F F+Xj (=of)] [XP [NP a doctor][X tj [NP ti]]]]]
c.
DP
Det
FP
F’
NPi
idiot
F+Xj
of
XP
X’
NP
a doctor
X
tj
NP
ti
Similarly to the Dutch N of a N construction (N van een N) een beer van een kerel ‘a bear
of a guy’, the same result obtains, namely, after the second noun beer A-moves to
SpecFP across the first noun kerel. Movement of X to F is also triggered, resulting into
the realization of van as the copula (20).
(20) [DP Det [FP [Spec [NP een beer]i] [F F+Xj (=van)] [XP [NP een kerel][X tj [NP ti]]]]]
The occurrence of the copula element in the nominal domain like English of and Dutch
van in the N of a N constructions hence can be taken to be the evidence of what Moro’s
(1991) claim that whenever Predicate Inversion applies the presence of copular element is
10
obligatory. This is shown in the examples in (21), where in (21a), the infinitival copula to
be can be absent but in the Predicate Inversion counterpart in (21b), it cannot be omitted.
(21)
a. I consider John (to be) the best candidate
b. I consider the best candidate *(to be) John
Hence, similar to the clausal copula construction where the copula ‘be’ obligatorily
occurs when the predicate moves to the left position of the subject, in the nominal N of a
N constructions too, the element ‘of’ in English and ‘van’ in Dutch must be realized as a
copula, since they are cases of Predicate Inversion.
Furthermore, for the Dutch N van een N construction, Bennis et al (1998) argue that the
element een ‘a’ that precedes the second N (N2) is actually not a normal indefinite article,
since it does not form a constituent with either N2 or the first N (N1). That een does not
form a constituent with N2 is seen in the example in (22-24), where een can occur before
plural nouns (22), before proper names (23) and before mass nouns (24). (Bennis et al’s
(1998) ex. 12, 13, and 14). That een does not form a constituent with N1 is seen in (25)
where N1 can be plural as well (Bennis et al’s (1998) ex. 17).
(22)
a. ?dat schandaal van een directeurssalarissen
that outrage
of a
managers’salaries
b. ?die ramp van een getalscongruentiefeiten
that disaster of a number agreement facts
(23)
a. dat juweeltje
van een Paleis op the Dam
That little-jewel of a
Palace on the Dam
b. die pracht van een Westertoren
that beauty of a
(24)
Westertoren
a. een pracht van een spinazie
A beauty of
a spinach
b. die rommel van een Koreans speelgoed
that junk
of a Korean
toys
11
(25)
a. die idioten van een regering
that idiots of a government
b. die
schatten van een kinderen
those darlings of
a children
Further they argue that een in the Dutch N van een N construction is actually originated in
X, the functional head of the small clause (26a). In order to derive the surface order een
beer van een kerel in (20) above, they propose that at first the predicate beer moves to the
subject position in SpecFP. As the consequence of the predicate inversion, then the head
X to F movement is also triggered. Here it brings about two results, namely the
obligatory occurrence of the nominal copula van and also the occurrence of een after it
moves from X to F, leading these two elements to occur between the two nouns (26b).
(26)
a. [XP [NP een kerel][X een [NP beer]]]
b. [DP Det [FP [Spec [NP beer]i] [F F+Xj =van een] [XP [NP kerel][X tj [NP ti]]]]]
For the indefinite article a in the English N of a N construction, it seems that its
occurence cannot be derived from the same line of analysis as een in Dutch. In the
English N of a N construction, a that occurs in front of N2 is possible only with singular
noun. In other words, a cannot co-occur with a plural noun as in *that idiot of a men.
Hence, unlike the spurious indefinite article een in the Dutch N van een N construction
that is unspecified for number, a in the English N of a N is specified for singular only.
The occurence of the English indefinite article a that precedes N2 thus is still a mystery,
and needs to have a further insvestigation.
2.1. Predicate Inversion on the possessive construction
Having argued that N of a N constructions are derived by the application of Predicate
Inversion, Den Dikken extends the discussion of predicate inversion in the English
nominal possessive constructions. He proposes that pre-nominal possessive constructions
that feature the so-called Saxon genitive ‘s (like in (27b)) and post-nominal possessive
constructions featuring the preposition of (27a) are also subject to Predicate Inversion.
12
(27)
a. a picture of John(‘s)
b. John’s picture
2.1.1. Pre-nominal possessive constructions
Den Dikken argues that the pre-nominal possessive construction like in (27b) is derived
from an underlying structure containing a prepositional phrase that consists of a
possessum picture as the subject and a possessor John as the predicate, the complement
of a dative preposition. The base structure is as seen in (28).
(28)
[SC POSSESSUM SC’ SC[PP Pdat POSSESSOR]]
The idea of such a base structure of possessive constructions is based on the French
clausal possessive ‘have’ construction (29b), which is derived from the ‘be+to’
construction (29a). He argues that the possessive have constructions in (29b) is derived
from the possessive be+to constructions in (29a) after the application of two operations.
The first is Predicate Inversion applied to the dative PP, and the second, following Baker
(1998), the dative preposition to incorporates into be, resulting to the realization of the
possessive verb, which in English is ‘have’.
(29)
a. le livre est à Jean
the book is to John
b. Jean a le livre
John has the book
The structure of the underlying structure of the possessive construction is as seen in (30a),
and the structure of the ‘have’ sentences is as in (30b-c). Underlyingly, the possessor
John is projected as the complement of the dative preposition. In order to have the
surface order of ‘have’ construction, the dative PP inverts with its subject, headed by
book and the dative preposition incorporates into the F-complex. The F-node resulting
from X-to-F movement and P-incorporation is realized as ‘have’, the counterpart of the
copula.
13
(30)
a. [IP Spec [I’ I [FP Spec [F’ F [XP book [X’ X be [PP P to John]]]]]]]
b. [IP Spec [I’ I [FP [PP tk John]i [F’ F+Xj+Pk(=have) [XP book [X’ tj ti]]]]]]
c.
FP
F’
PPi
P
tk
John
F+Xj+Pk
XP
have
X’
book
X
PP
tj
ti
Den Dikken argues that the pre-nominal possessive construction in (27b) may also have
the base structure in (28). So, the possessor John in (27b) just like the possessor John in
(29b) starts out as the complement of a dative preposition which heads a small clause.
The subject of this small clause is the possessum, picture. The structure of (27b) thus can
be seen as (31), where (31a) is its underlying structure. This underlying structure is based
on the French nominal phrase (32) where preposition à ‘to’ is also present.
(31)
a. [DP Spec [D’ D [FP Spec [F’ F [XP picture [X’ X [PP P to John]]]]]]]
b. [DP Spec [D’ D [FP [PP tk John]i [F’ F+Xj+Pk (=’s) [XP picture [X’ tj ti]]]]]]
14
c.
FP
F’
PPi
P
F+Xj+Pk =’s XP
John
tk
X’
picture
(32)
X
PP
tj
ti
un livre à Jean
a book to John
The Saxon genitive ‘s in the pre-nominal possessive construction as seen in (31b-c), like
the ‘transitive have’, results from the domain-extending X-to-F movement plus the
incorporation of the dative preposition into the F-complex.
2.1.2 Post-nominal possessive construction
The N of a N reading and the possessive reading of post-nominal possessive constructions
are argued to have the same derivation, as seen in (33). The difference between the N of a
N construction and the possessive of construction is that while the former disallows a
modifier-NPI particularly on the second noun phrase (34a) the latter using the same
lexical item does not (34b).
(33)
a picture of a slender woman
(34)
I do not think that this is a picture of a (particularly) slender woman
a. N of a N reading
*particularly (a very pretty slender woman)
b. possessive reading √particularly (a picture owned by a slender woman)
15
Den Dikken argues that the difference between these two constructions comes about
because in the N of a N construction the second noun phrase is the subject of an inverted
predicate while in the possessive construction it is not a subject at all. Based on the
discussion of the pre-nominal possessive construction in section 2.1.1 above, the
predicate of the base structure of the possessive reading of (33) is the dative PP of the SC
structure in (28). However, if this predicate inverts with its subject and the copular
element is in the process, then we will have the wrong word order, just as in a slender
woman’s picture, the possessor precedes the possessee. And moreover, the surface spellout of the copular element that we have when we invert the PP predicate around its
subject is ‘s, not of as we find in the possessive reading of the of construction in (33).
In order to derive the post-nominal possessive of construction like in (33) above, Den
Dikken (1998) proposes that at first, just like the derivation of the pre-nominal
construction, the dative PP predicate to a slender woman should A-move to SpecFP
across the SC subject picture, (35a). Secondly, the Predicate Inversion remnant that
contains only the possessum, picture A’-moves to SpecDP, around the landing site of the
dative PP harbouring the possessor a slender woman. As the consequence of A’movement to SpecDP, movement of F to D is also forced which yields the result that the
copular element of ends up between the possessee and possessor (35b-c). The F-to-D
head movement is interpreted as a verb second-like effect (Rizzi’s (1991), i.e. in contexts
of A-bar movement, a head is moved to the functional head whose specifier is occupied
by a displaced operator.
(35)
a. [DP Spec [D’ D [FP [PP tk a slender woman]i [F’ F+Xj+Pk [XP picture [X’ tj ti]]]]]]
b. [DP [XP picture [X’ tj ti]]XP [D’ [F F+Xj+Pk (=of)]F [FP [PP tk a slender woman]i [F’ tF
tXP]]]]
16
c.
DP
D’
XP
POSS’M
X’
D
FP
F+Xj+Pk
X
PP
tj
ti
F’
PP
P
tk
POSS’R
F
XP
tF
tXP
To sum up, the English pre-nominal possessive constructions that features the copula ‘s
like in John’s picture, and the post-nominal possessive constructions that features the
copula of such as in a picture of John are derived from the same underlying structure as
in (28), where the possessum is the subject and the possessor is the predicate, occurring
as the complement of the dative PP. In order to have the surface order however, they have
to be derived differently. In the pre-nominal possessive construction the dative
preposition that contains the possessor A’-moves to the subject position in SpecFP, and
as the result the head movement of X to F and the incorporation of P is realized as the
copula ‘s. In the post-nominal possessive construction, there are two instances of A-bar
movement. The first is the movement of the dative preposition to SpecFP exactly like the
one in the pronominal possessive construction. The second one is the movement of the
possessum to SpecDP across the PP that already sits in SpecFP, and as the consequence,
the head movement of F+X to D is also forced, spelled out as copula of.
Den Dikken (1998) also extends the analysis on the post-nominal possessive construction
that features two tokens of copula of and ‘s like in a picture of John’s. He argues that in
order to derive such a construction, there should be two instances of Predicate Inversion,
where each predicate inversion application is responsible for the occurrence of the two
copulas. Since in BI there is no such double-copula in the possessive construction, hence
I do not present the discussion here.
17
3. –NYA as a preposition-like element
In this section, by following Den Dikken’s (1998) and Bennis et al’s (1998) predicate
inversion analysis on the N of a N constructions and Den Dikken’s (1998) on the nominal
possessive constructions, I analyse –NYA in the BI N of a N (N-NYA N) and the
possessive constructions. I would like to find out whether the two constructions can be
derived by the application of Predicate Inversion, and whether –NYA can be realized as a
nominal copula.
It seems -NYA is similar to the English preposition of in the two nominal constructions
i.e. in the N of a N constructions like that idiot of a doctor and in the post-nominal
possessive constructions like in a book of John, namely to function as a linker- to link the
two noun phrases in the constructions. The examples for the BI N-NYA N construction are
shown in (7) above repeated here as (36) and for the BI post-nominal possessive
construction in (2) repeated as (37).
(36)
a. bodoh-nya dokter
stupid-NYA doctor
‘that idiot of a doctor’
b. bajingan-nya preman
scoundrel-NYA street.kid
‘that scoundrel of a street kid’
(37)
a. buku-nya John
book-NYA 1sg
‘the book of John’
b. ibu-nya
John
mother-NYA John
‘the mother of John’
Let me first discuss the N-NYA N construction.
18
3.1. –NYA in the N-NYA N construction
As I have mentioned in the introduction above, one of the grammatical roles of –NYA in
BI nominal domain is to function as a preposition-like element like English of in the N of
a N construction. This is shown in the examples in (36). In (36) -NYA can function as a
prepositional-like element because it seems that it occurs in the derivations in order to
link the two nouns (bodoh ‘idiot’ and dokter ‘doctor’in (36a), and bajingan
‘scoundrel’and preman ‘street kid’ in (36b)), just like the English of in that idiot of a
doctor, or Dutch van in een beer van een kere ‘a bear of a guy’. Moreover, the BI string
of N-NYA N can have exactly the same meaning as those of the English and Dutch
counterparts, namely the second N is ascribed the property of being the first N e.g. (36a)
is interpreted as ‘the doctor is ascribed as being an idiot’ and (36b) ‘the street kid is
ascribed as being a scoundrel’.
In the N-NYA N constructions, the BI indefinite article se-orang ‘se-CL’ (se means ‘one’
and CL stands for ‘classifier’6) is optional as seen in (38). However, if it occurs, it is only
possible to occur in front of the second noun (N2) that is singular (see (39) where seorang is not possible to occur in front of the first noun (N1)). It also cannot occur with a
plural noun7 (40). Thus, this suggests that the indefinite article se-CL in BI the N-NYA N
constructions is not similar to the Dutch spurious indefinite article een that is possible to
occur with plural nouns, but more like a in English because it is only possible with
singular nouns. In this section, however, I do not discuss the indefinite article any further,
but focus mainly on –NYA as a preposition like element, namely whether this element
can also be realized as a nominal copula.
(38)
a. bodoh-nya (se-orang) dokter
stupid-NYA one-CL doctor
‘that stupid of a doctor’
6
Classifiers in BI commonly occur after numerals. There are some different types of classifier in BI, i.e. it
depends on the types of the noun that follows it, such as orang ‘person’ for humans, ekor ‘tail’ for animals,
buah ‘fruit’ for countable nouns with a round or a square shape, batang ‘stick’ for stick-shaped countable
nouns, etc.
7
commonly, plural nouns in BI are formed by reduplicating the noun.
19
b. bajingan-nya (se-orang) preman
scoundrel-NYA one-CL street.kid
‘that scoundrel of a street kid’
(39)
a. *se-orang bodoh-nya dokter
one-CL stupid-NYA doctor
‘that stupid of a doctor’
b. *se-orang bajingan-nya preman
one-CL scoundrel-NYA street.kid
‘that scoundrel of a street kid’
(40)
a. *bodoh-nya se-orang dokter-dokter
stupid-NYA one-CL doctor-doctor
‘*that stupid of a doctors’
b. bajingan-nya se-orang preman-preman
scoundrel-NYA one-CL street.kid-street.kid
‘*that scoundrel of a street.kids’
It seems that the BI N-NYA N construction like in the examples in (36) above, can be
analysed along the same lines as the English N of a N construction, by applying Predicate
Inversion. To follow the base structure of the English N of a N construction, the BI
example (36b) can also be analysed as having an underlying small clause (SC) structure
(41a). In (41a) the first noun bajingan ‘scoundrel’ starts out as the predicate and the
second noun preman ‘street kid’ as the subject of SC. Then in order to have the right
order, the SC predicate, bajingan should move across the SC subject, to the subject
position in SpecFP. Just like in English, the movement of X to F is also triggered. In BI it
is realized as –NYA. This is depicted in (41b-c). The only difference between English
copula of and BI –NYA is that while the former is ‘free’ the latter should attach to the
noun preceding it.
20
(41)
BI’s N of a N construction
a. [DP Det [FP Spec F [XP preman [X’ X NP bajingan]]]]
b. [DP Det [FP [Spec [NP bajingan]i] [F’ F+Xj (=-nya)] [XP [NP preman][X’ tj [NP ti]]]]]
c.
DP
Det
FP
NPi
F’
bajingan
F+Xj
XP
-nya
NP
preman
X
tj
X’
NP
ti
3.2. BI possessive constructions
Following Den Dikken’s (1998) predicate inversion analysis on the English nominal
possessive constructions, the BI possessive constructions can be derived similarly. Before
I put forward my analysis, let me first describe the nominal possessive constructions in
BI.
Besides the occurrence of –NYA in the BI nominal possessive constructions (42b), there
are also three other ‘possessive markers’ (PM) that may occur in the constructions i.e,
empty PM (42a), milik (42c) and punya (42d).8
There is however a difference between the four possessive markers. The bare –NYA and –NYA can occur
in alienable (as seen in (40a-b) above) and also in inalienable possession (as seen in (1) below). On the
other hand, milik and punya are only possible in alienable possession (like in (39c-d)) but not possible in
inalienable possessive constructions ((2) below).
(1) a. ibu(-nya)
John/saya/kamu/mereka/dia/kami
mother NYA John 1sg 2sg 3pl
2sg 1pl
‘John’s/my/yours/their/his/her/our mother’
b. kepala(-nya) John/saya/kamu/mereka/dia/kami
head NYA
John 1sg 2sg 3pl
3sg 1pl
‘John’s/my/your/their/his/her/our head(s)’
(2) a. *ibu milik/punya
John/saya/kamu/mereka/dia/kami
mother MILIK/PUNYA John 1sg 2sg
3pl
2sg 1pl
intended meaning: John’s/my/your/their/his/her/our mother
b. *kepala milik/punya
John/saya/kamu/mereka/dia/kami
head MILIK/PUNYA John 1sg 2sg
3pl 3sg 1pl
8
21
(42)
a. buku John
book John
b. buku-nya John
book-NYA John
c. buku milik John
book own John
d. buku punya John
book own John
‘the book of John’
As we can see in the English translation, the four derivations have the same meaning, that
they all mean the book of John. Hence, in these derivations I assume, for the moment that
the empty PM, milik and punya function like –NYA, namely to function as a PM, that
occur in between the possessee and the possessor as linkers.
The BI possessive constructions are structurally similar to the English post-nominal
possessive construction in which the possessee precedes the possessor and the PM
intervenes, Possessee+(PM)+Possessor. Therefore, here I analyse them by following Den
Dikken’s analysis on the English post-nominal possessive constructions.
Den Dikken has argued that nominal possessive constructions are derived from a base
structure, a SC consisting of Possessum as the subject and a prepositional phrase
containing Possessor as the predicate (see also (28) above). This underlying structure is
based on the French prepositional construction in (32) repeated here as (43). In BI as well,
this derivation is possible as seen in (44). The derivation in (44a) is a noun phrase as it
can be an argument of a verb (44b).
(43) un livre à Jean
a book to Jean
intended meaning: John’s/my/your/their/his/her/our head(s)
In the analysis here, however I do not be concerned with the inalienable possessive constructions but just
focus on alienable ones.
22
(44) a. buku untuk John
book for
John
‘a book to John’
b. buku untuk John hilang
book for
John disappear
‘the book to John is missing’
Here I assume that the construction in (44a) illustrates the base structure of possessive
constructions in BI. In other words, it has the structure as given in (28) repeated here as
(45).
(45)
[SC POSSESSUM SC’ SC [PP Pdat POSSESSOR]]
For the post-nominal possessive constructions, Den Dikken (1998) has argued that there
are two instances of movement. At first, the prepositional phrase containing the possessor,
A-moves to SpecFP. This is the step that derives the pre-nominal possessive construction
(46a). Secondly, from the underlying SC (XP) that now contains only the remnant of
Predicate Inversion, the possessum A-bar moves to SpecDP. And finally, F-to-D
movement plus the incorporation of P takes place. In BI the complex F+X+P results in
the PMs (either Ø, -nya, milik or punya) ending up between the two noun phrases, the
possessum precedes the possessor (46b and c). Thus, now we can derive all the BI
possessive constructions in (42) above.
(46)
a. [DP Spec [D’ D [FP [PP tk POSS’R]i [F’ F+Xj+Pk [XP POSS’M [X’ tj ti]]]]]]
b. [DP [XP POSS’M [X’ tj ti]]XP [D’ [F F+Xj+Pk (=Ø/-nya/milik/punya)]F [FP [PP tk
POSS’R]i [F’ tF tXP]]]]
23
c.
DP
D’
XP
POSS’M
X’
D
FP
F+Xj+Pk
X
PP
tj
ti
F’
PP
P
tk
POSS’R
F
XP
tF
tXP
As –NYA has the same analysis as the other PMs (but not the empty PM), might
corroborate with the impossibility of them to co-occur in the same nominal phrase. This
is seen in (47) below.
(47)
a. *buku-nya punya/milik
John
book-NYA PUNYA/MILIK John
intended meaning: ‘the book of John’
but OK: ‘the book is John’s’
b. *buku punya milik John
book PUNYA MILIK John
intended meaning: ‘the book of John’
In (47b) punya and milik are in complementary distribution- only one possessive marker
can appear. In (47a) –NYA that attaches to the possessed noun cannot be followed by
either punya or milik.
However, the derivation in (47a) would be fine if –NYA attaches to (occur after) either
punya or milik. This co-occurrence of –NYA with punya/milik is completely fine and
does not change the meaning (48).
24
(48)
a. buku punya-nya John
book PUNYA-NYA John
‘the book of John.’
b. buku milik-nya John
book MILIK-NYA John
‘the book of John’
The question arises, namely, how to derive the derivations in (48)? The possibility of –
NYA to attach to punya/milik and the impossibility of –NYA to co-occur with
punya/milik when it is attached to the possessed noun suggest that –NYA must be a
different element from punya and milik. I leave this problem unsolved here, but come
back to it in section 5.2
To sum up the analysis in this section, -NYA in the N-NYA N construction is similar to
the English preposition of in the N of a N and the Dutch preposition van in the N van een
N construction. It is realized as a nominal copula namely after the application of
Predicate Inversion. Similarly, –NYA in the BI possessive construction as well as the
other ‘possessive markers’, empty PM, milik and punya, can also be realized as a copula
(like English of) that intervenes between the posseesee and the possessor. However, the
data in (48) above, suggests that we cannot treat –NYA as the same element as milik and
punya. –NYA must be a different element from milik and punya because it can attach to
them.
4. –NYA as a determiner-like element
In this section, I focus on the BI definite common NP constructions such as buku-nya ‘the
book’ and air-nya ‘the water’. I argue that –NYA is analogous to the English definite
article ‘the’, in the sense that it functions to introduce the definiteness of noun phrases.
In the BI nominal domain –NYA can function as a definite marker, as shown in the
examples (3) above repeated here as (49). In (49), -NYA obligatorily occurs in order to
introduce the definiteness of the common noun it attaches to. Indeed, -NYA in (49) can
25
be substituted by the demonstratives like ini ‘this’ or itu ‘that’, but then, it suggests that –
NYA and the demonstratives are similar in their function, as determiner elements. In
their English counterparts as well, it is generally noted that the definite article ‘the’ and
the demonstratives like ‘this’ and ‘that’ can substitute each other in the definite phrases
such as in ‘the book’, ‘this book’ and ‘that book’.
(49) a. kemarin Budi meminjam buku kamu. Sekarang buku*(-nya) ada pada John
yesterday Budi borrow
book 2sg
book –NYA exist at John
now
‘Yesterday Budi borrowed the book of yours’. ‘Now, the book is with John’.
c. John menyirami taman dengan air. Sekarang air*(-nya) menggenangi taman itu.
John pour
garden with water now
water-NYA whelm
garden that
‘John poured water on the garden. Now the water floods the garden’
Besides attach to common nouns, -NYA can also attach to proper names (50). The
difference between –NYA occurring with common nouns and the one occurring in proper
names is that in the former it is obligatory, whereas in the latter it is optional. However,
here the demonstratives ini ‘this or itu ‘that’ can also substitute –NYA. The meaning that
–NYA constitutes as it attaches to the proper name John as in (50) is that it must be a
specific identity whose referent has been established previously in the discourse.
(50) a. John tidak tau siapa nama presiden Amerika Serikat? John(-nya) pasti bodoh.
John neg know who name president America united John-NYA must stupid
‘John doesn’t know what the name of US president is?’ ‘(that) John must be
stupid’.
b. tadi
saya ketemu John. Sekarang John(-nya) ada di
Just.before 1sg meet
John
now
John-NYA exist loc
rumah sakit.
house sick
I just met John. Now John is in the hospital.
-NYA as a determiner-like element also can attach to some WH expressions, i.e., siapa
‘who’ (51a), ke mana ‘to where’ (51b), dari mana ‘from where’ (51c), di mana ‘where’
(51d), yang mana ‘which one’ (51e) kapan ‘when’ (51f), and apa ‘what’ (51g) (but not
26
possible with the other WH expressions like kenapa ‘why’ and bagaimana ‘how’).
However, here again –NYA is optional.
(51) a. Budi kemarin menang lotre. Siapa(-nya) yang menang lotre?
Budi yesterday win
lottery who-NYA comp win
lottery
‘yesterday Budi won a lottery. Who did win a lottery?’
(the hearer asks the question in order to make sure who won a lottery)
b.
Budi bilang dia mau pergi. Ke mana(-nya) saya tidak tau.
Budi say
3sg want go
to where-NYA 1sg neg know
‘Budi said that he wants to go. To where, I don’t know’.
c.
Budi berasal dari Jawa. Tapi dari mana(-nya) saya tidak tau.
Budi original from Java but from where-NYA 1sg neg know
‘Budi is originally from Java. But from which part (of Java), I don’t know’.
d.
?seorang
anak tetangga hilang
kemaren. Anak yang mana-(nya) hilang?
One-person child neighbour disappear yesterday. Child rel which-NYA disappear
One of the neighbour’s children disappear yesterday. Which child did disappear?
e.
John menyembunyikan uang-nya
John hide
di belakang rumah. Di sebelah mana(-nya)
money-NYA loc behind house loc side
where-NYA
saya tidak tau.
1sg neg know
‘John hid the money behind the house. At which part, I don’t know’
f.
John bilang dia mau pergi ke Amsterdam. Tapi kapan(-nya) saya tidak tau.
John say 3sg want go
to Amsterdam but when-NYA 1sg neg know
‘John said that he wants to go to Amsterdam. But when he will go, I don’t know’.
g.
Budi bilang dia baru beli cincin pertunangan. Apa(-nya) Budi baru beli?
Budi say
3sg just buy ring engagement what-NYA Budi just buy
‘Budi said that he just bought an engagement ring. What did Budi just buy?
(the hearer asks the question in order to make sure what Budi bought)
I do not know why –NYA can attach to the WH expressions in the examples above, but
not to the other ones, kenapa ‘why’ and bagaimana ‘how’. But perhaps it is because the
27
answer for the former WH expressions commonly refer to nouns, i.e. siapa ‘who’ for
persons, apa ‘what’ for ‘things’ ke mana ‘to where’, dari mana ‘from where’, and di
mana ‘in where’ for places and kapan ‘when’ for time, whereas the latter cannot refer to
nouns.
As long as the structure of the definite noun phrases is concerned, based on the examples
in (49) above where –NYA obligatorily occurs, I argue that –NYA functionally similar to
English definite article ‘the’. Following Abney (1987) and Szablocsi (1994), I argue that
-NYA as a determiner element should be viewed as a D-category, namely it sits in D
head (D0), the highest functional projection in the nominal structure (DP). I argue further
that –NYA in the seven constructions (in (1-7) above) should also be originated in the
same head position.
Let me first show how the BI definite NPs like in (49), ‘definite’ proper names
constructions (50) and ‘definite’ WH-expression constructions (51) be derived.
4.1. BI definite NPs
In the discussion above, I have proposed that –NYA is analogous to the English definite
article ‘the’ in the definite NP constructions, namely it should occupy D0 position. There
is an apparent difference however between English and BI definite NPs: while in English
the NP occurs to the right of D0, in BI it occurs to the left.
The occurrence of NPs to the left of the determiner element like in BI is common in other
languages such as Norwegian and Rumanian. See (52) and (53) for Norwegian and
Rumanian definite NP respectively (taken from Longobardi (2003) p.587). Similar to –
NYA in the definite common NPs, in both languages the determiner (enclitic-like)
elements –en and –ul occur to the right of the common NP.
(52) bok-en
book-the
28
(53) lup-ul
wolf-the
However, as Longobardi (2003) has pointed out, the Norwegian determiner element –en
and Rumanian –ul are in different position in the structure, i.e. while Rumanian –ul is in
D0, Norwegian –en must be in a lower position. This is as suggested by the data in (54)
and (55) below.
(54) Den vidunderlige boken
the wonderful
(55)
(Norwegian)
book-the
a. lupul frumoas
(Rumanian)
wolf-the beautiful
b. *acest lupul frumoas
this wolf-the beautiful
In the Norwegian example in (54), -en can co-occur with the definite article den when an
adjective vidunderlige ‘wonderful’ is inserted, having a definite interpretation. Hence,
den should sit in D0, whereas –en not- it must sit in some lower position. On the other
hand, the definite common NP in Rumanian like in (55) is not possible for ‘double
determiners’. In other words, when an adjective is inserted in the derivation, there does
not appear any additional definite article (55a) and no other analogous determination like
demonstrative acest ‘this’ is possible to co-occur with –ul (55b). Hence, Rumanian
definite enclitic –ul should be originated in D0.
The BI enclitic –NYA that functions as a determiner element is very similar to Rumanian
–ul, i.e. it is not possible with the occurrence of ‘double determiners’. When an adjective
is inserted, only –NYA that appears as the determiner (56a) and no other analogous
determination such as demonstrative ini ‘this’ can co-occur with –NYA (56b). The only
difference between BI and Rumanian definite NPs containing an adjective is that, in
Rumanian the adjective follows the definite common NP, in BI the adjective ‘splits’ the
29
common noun and the determiner, forming a Noun+Adjective+Det order. Thus in the BI
definite NP constructions, the determiner –NYA ‘modifies’ the noun as well as the
adjective.
(56)
a. buku bagus-nya
book good-NYA
‘the nice book’
b. *ini buku bagus-nya
this book good-NYA
Here I propose that the BI definite common NPs (DefCNP) such as buku-nya ‘the book’
as well as the definite NPs containing an adjective (DefNP-AP) like in (56a) above are
derived by moving the whole NP to the left of –NYA, namely SpecDP. However, this NP
movement to SpecDP is restricted only to NPs containing APs, not possible with NPs
containing PPs. This restriction will be accounted for later in the discussion below.
Following Abney’s (1987) claim that NPs are projected under DPs, here I also assume
that the BI definite NPs underlyingly have such a construction. Thus, the underlying
structure for buku-nya ‘the book’ will be like in (57a), and buku bagus-nya ‘the nice
book’ (57b), where –NYA as a determiner is originated in D0, whereas buku (book) /
buku bagus (book good) are its complement. In order for the noun phrases to be definite,
they should move to the left periphery of the determiner element –NYA, to SpecDP,
resulting into the surface order buku-nya (58) and buku bagus-nya (59).
(57)
a. [DP [D’ –nya [NP [N’ buku]]]]
(DefCNP underlying structure)
b. [DP [D’ –nya [NP [N’ buku [AP [A’ bagus]]]]]] (DefNP-AP underlying structure)
30
(58)
a. [DP [NP buku]i [D’ –nya [ti]]]
b.
(DefCNP surface structure)
DP
D’
NPi
buku
-nya
(59)
ti
a. [DP [NP [N’ buku [AP [A’ bagus]]]]i [D’ –nya [ti]]]
b.
(DefNP-AP surface structure)
DP
D’
NPi
buku bagus
-nya
ti
However, such a movement of NP to SpecDP is only restricted to NPs containing APs. It
is not possible in definite NPs containing PPs as shown by the example in (60). The
ungrammaticality of the derivation in (60) will be accounted for if we apply the same
movement of NP from the similar underlying structure as depicted in (57-59) above.
(60)
??buku di atas
meja-nya
book loc above table-NYA
‘the book on the table’
The underlying structure of (60) is depicted in (61a). In order for the NP containing PP
buku di atas meja (book at above table) to be definite, then just like (58-59), the whole
NP in (61a) should move to SpecDP (61b-c). Here, however the derivation is crashed
because of the following fact.
(61)
a. [DP [D’ –nya [NP [N’ buku [PP [P’ di atas [NP [N’ meja]]]]]]]]
b. [DP [NP [N’ buku [PP [P’ di atas [NP [N’ meja]]]]]]i [D’ –nya [ti]]]
31
c.
DP
D’
NPi
??buku di atas meja
-nya
ti
As we see in (61a), PP contains a common NP (CNP) meja ‘table’. Hence, in the whole
NP there are two CNPs, namely CNP1 buku ‘book’ and CNP2 meja ‘table’. By moving
the whole NP to SpecDP, we expect CNP1 to be definite. In the surface order, however it
is CNP2 meja that becomes definite, not CNP1 buku. This is so because superficially
CNP2 is closer to the determiner –NYA. This then suggests that (by assuming that PPs
always contains NPs)9; (i) BI NPs can be definite if they do not contain PP, or another NP,
(ii) –NYA can only introduce definiteness to the closest CN (APs are not a ‘barrier’,
whereas PPs or the occurrence of another NP are).
Having proposed that the BI definite NPs are derived by moving NP to SpecDP, I also
propose that the ‘definite’ proper name constructions like in (50) and the ‘definite’ WHexpression constructions (51) are also derived by similar application. For the ‘definite’
proper name construction like John-nya ‘the John’, it is derived exactly the same way as
the definite NP buku-nya ‘the book’ (see (58) above), where John is originated in NP the
complement of DP, and A-bar moves to SpecDP.
As for the ‘definite’ WH-expression constructions, I do not know yet precisely how the
whole examples like in (51) above, siapa-nya ‘who’, apa-nya ‘what’, kapan-nya ‘when’,
ke mana-nya ‘to where’, dari mana-nya ‘from where’ and yang mana-nya ‘which one’
are derived. I believe however, that they must be derived by moving the WH phrases to
the left periphery of –NYA that sits in D0, to SpecDP. This is supported by the two first
examples, siapa-nya and apa-nya. Similar to the other definite NP constructions, they are
derived from the underlying structure (62a) where siapa ‘who’ and apa ‘what’ originated
9
To be more specific, the type of PPs that I mean here is that locative PPs, in which they normally contain
NP.
32
in the lower projection than DP, and –NYA in D0 attracts them to move to SpecDP in
order to be ‘definite’ (62b-c). Here, I assume that the movement of siapa/apa is NP
movement not N head movement, as suggested by the definite NP containing AP
constructions as seen in (59) above.
(62)
a. [DP [D’ –nya [NP [N’ siapa/apa]]]]
b. a. [DP [NP siapa/apa]i [D’ –nya [ti]]]
c.
DP
D’
NPi
Siapa/apa
-nya
ti
I do not discuss how the other WH-expressions with –NYA are derived, but leave them
for a future research. However, my point in this section is clear already that –NYA is a
determiner element that should occupy D head position. This is supported by two facts,
namely (i) its obligatory occurrence in order to introduce definiteness of the NP, (ii) it is
not possible for –NYA to co-occur with the other analogous determination. In order for
the noun to be definite and to have the surface order, -NYA in D0, attracts the noun to
move to its left periphery, in SpecDP. BI seems to allow NP movement (not N
movement), namely to pied-pipe a larger NP containing an AP but not a PP, as discussed
above.
5. Reanalysing –NYA in the BI N-NYA N and the possessive constructions
In this section, I reanalyse the BI N-NYA N and the possessive constructions that I have
discussed in section 3, above. I argue that in these two constructions as well –NYA must
be the same element like the one in the definite NP constructions namely it is a Dcategory that should sit in D0 position. Let me first discuss the N-NYA N constructions.
33
5.1. BI N-NYA N construction, reanalysed
In chapter 3, I have analysed -NYA in the N-NYA N construction like bajingan-nya
preman ‘that scoundrel of a street kid’. I reached the conclusion that the –NYA element
is similar to English of and Dutch van in that idiot of a doctor and een beer van een kerel
‘a bear of a guy’ in that it is realized as a nominal copula. However, in this chapter, I try
to provide a uniform approach to –NYA, namely by analysing –NYA as a determiner-like
element. In order to do so, I need to reconstruct the structure of BI N-NYA N construction.
In section 4 above, I argued that –NYA is a determiner-like element. Here, I show that
the –NYA element is actually a determiner element. Thus, like in the definite CNP
constructions, –NYA in the N-NYA N construction should also occupy the D0 position. So,
how is the BI N-NYA N construction like in bajingan-nya preman to be derived?
Following Den Dikken’s (1998) and Bennis et al’s (1998) underlying structure for the N
of a N construction, BI N-NYA N construction like bajingan-nya preman ‘that scoundrel
of a street boy’ can have the base structure as seen in (63a) where the second noun
preman is the subject of the SC=XP and the first one bajingan as the predicate. In
contrast to the previous analysis, here –NYA is a determiner element that originates in D0
(as seen in (63b)).
Based on this type of underlying structure, then in order to derive the right order there
should be two steps of movement. At first just like in the previous analysis of BI N-NYA
N constructions, the predicate bajingan ‘scoundrel’ should move across the SC subject
preman ‘street kid’ to SpecFP. As the consequence the head movement of X-to-F is also
triggered, but here it is realized as null copula (63c). Secondly, -NYA in D0 attracts the
predicate bajingan that now occupies SpecFP to move to its left periphery SpecDP.
Again, as the consequence of the predicate movement, the head-to-head movements is
also triggered, namely the head complex F+X should raise to D to adjoin with -NYA.
However, since F+X is phonetically null, D head position is only realized as –NYA (63de). These two steps of movement of the predicate bajingan plus the head-to-head
movement then result into the surface order bajingan-nya preman whose meaning can be
34
understood as the second N preman ‘street kid’ is ascribed the property of being the first
N, bajingan ‘scoundrel’.
(63)
a. [XP preman [X’ X NP bajingan]]
b. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [FP Spec [F’ F [XP preman [X’ X NP bajingan]]]]]]
c. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [FP [NP bajingan]i] [F’ F+Xj (=Ø)] [XP preman [X’ tj ti]]]]
d. [DP [NP bajingan]i] [D’ [F’ D [F+Xj (=Ø)]k -nya [FP ti tk[XP preman [X’ tj ti]]]]
e.
DP
NP
D’
bajingani
[F+Xj]k Ø-nya
FP
ti
F’
tk
XP
X’
preman
tj
ti
Now we have seen that unlike the previous analysis in section 3.1, in the analysis on the
BI N-NYA N as shown in (63) above, the head-to-head movement as the consequence of
the movement of the predicate does not result into –NYA being realized as a nominal
copula, rather this element originates in D0. Indeed, -NYA in the surface order looks like
a ‘linker’, namely to link the two nouns in the N-NYA N constructions. However,
structurally it must be the same element that is a determiner that sits in D0. This is
supported by the example below, that neither –NYA as a determiner element can occur in
the second noun, nor another analogous determiner like the demonstrative itu ‘that’.
35
(64)
bajingan-nya preman(*-nya/itu)
scoundrel-NYA street.kid-NYA that
intended meaning: ‘that scoundrel of a street kid’
but OK: ‘the scoundrel is the/that street kid’
Hence, in this kind of analysis of the BI N-NYA N construction, -NYA differs from the
English preposition of and Dutch van, that –NYA is not realized as nominal copula rather
it is a determiner element that originates in D0. And, for the reason of surface word order
then it attracts the second N (that has moved to SpecFP) to raise to SpecDP, to its left
periphery. This result is then against Moro’s (1991) claim that says that whenever
Predicate Inversion applies the presence of copular element is obligatory. In BI N-NYA N,
the copula is not realized.
5.2. BI nominal possessive constructions, reanalysed
In chapter 3 we have seen that the possible co-occurrence of –NYA with the other
‘possessive markers’ either punya or milik poses a problem for the structure of BI
possessive constructions derived from the application of Predicate Inversion. Following
Den Dikken’s Predicate Inversion on the English post-nominal constructions, we have the
four BI PMs i.e. empty PM, -NYA, punya and milik, ending up as functional head
projected in D (see (46) above). My concern here now is: how the BI possessive
construction in where –NYA can co-occur with punya or milik ((48) repeated here as (65))
can be derived?
(65)
a. buku punya-nya John
book PUNYA-NYA John
‘the book of John.’
b. buku milik-nya John
book MILIK-NYA John
‘the book of John’
36
In (65) since –NYA can co-occur with either punya or milik, it suggests that they are not
the same functional element- in contrast with the occurrence of these three elements in
the previous possessive constructions (42) (repeated here as (66)) in which each of them
occurs in between the possessee and the possessor, hence they function more like a
‘linker’.
(66)
a. buku John
book John
b. buku-nya John
book-NYA 1sg
c. buku milik John
book own John
d. buku punya John
book own John
‘the book of John’
In chapter 4, I have argued that –NYA is a determiner element that should sit in D0. In the
possessive constructions as well like those in (65), I also propose that –NYA is actually
the same element hence it should originate in D0. For milik and punya, I assume that
probably these two elements are nominal copulas, the realization of the head-to-head
movement as the consequence of Predicate Inversion, that ends up in D0, ‘adjoin’ to –
NYA.
Following Den Dikken’s (1998) base structure for the English possessive construction in
(45) repeated here as (67a), the examples in (65) underlyingly are derived from the
structure in (67b). In (67b), -NYA originates in D0, and the small clause XP contains a
subject, the possessum buku ‘book’, and prepositional phrase consisting of the possessor
John. In order to get the surface order, there should be two instances of movement.
Firstly, just like the movement in the pre-nominal possessive constructions (see (31)
above), the possessor John A-moves to SpecFP, and as the consequence of this
movement, P incorporates with F+X. The F complex resulted from the X-to-F movement
and P incorporation is then realized as punya/milik (67c). Secondly, XP that contains only
37
the possessum buku ‘book’ A-bar moves to SpecDP. And as a consequence, this
movement triggers the head movement of punya/milik in F to ‘adjoin’ to –NYA in D
(67d-e).
(67)
a. [SC POSSESSUM SC’ SC [PP Pdat POSSESSOR]]
b. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [FP Spec [F’ F [XP buku [X’ X [PP untuk John]]]]]]]
c. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [FP [PP tk John]i [F’ F+Xj+Pk (=punya/milik) [XP buku
X’ tj ti]]]]]]
d. [DP [XP POSS’M [X’ tj ti]]XP [D’ [D D+F+Xj+Pk (=milik/punya-nya)]F [FP [PP tk
POSS’R]i [F’ tF tXP]]]]
e.
DP
D’
XP
X’
buku
D
FP
D+F+Xj+Pk
X
PP
tj
ti
F’
punya/milik-nya PP
P
tk
John
F
XP
tF
tXP
Thus now, by analysing it this way we can derive the fact that –NYA can co-occur with
punya/milik as seen in the examples in (65). This result thus suggests that -NYA is a
determiner element that originates in D0, whereas, possibly punya and milik do function
more like a preposition in the sense that their occurrence in the derivation is because of
the consequence of the P incorporation with the F+X complex head.
The fact that –NYA is a determiner element that should sit in D0, is supported by the
following data in (68b). In (68b), the possessive construction containing –NYA [bukunya John], cannot co-occur with the indefinite article se-buah. I argue that the
38
ungrammaticality of (68b) is because D position is already occupied by –NYA, thus sebuah has no position in the structure. But, what about the ungrammaticality of the
derivation in (68a) where –NYA is absent?
(68)
a. ??se-buah buku John
One-Cl book John
‘a book of John’
b. *se-buah buku-nya John
one-Cl
book-NYA John
‘a book of John’
Before I answer this question, let us see first the occurrence of the indefinite article the
possessive construction with milik/punya (plus –NYA) (69).
(69)
a. se-buah buku punya/milik John
One-Cl book PUNYA/MILIK John
‘a book of John’
b. se-buah buku punya-nya/milik-nya John
one-Cl book PUNYA-NYA/MILIK-NYA John
‘a book of John’
Contrary to the possessive constructions type without punya/milik in (68), in (69) the one
with punya/milik (69a), and the one with punya/milik plus –NYA (69b) are possible with
the indefinite article se-buah. Furthermore, apparently the indefinite possessed noun sebuah buku ‘a book’ can contain an adjective phrase such as bagus ‘nice’ even a
prepositional phrase such di atas meja ‘on the table’ in (70a-b) respectively
(70)
a. se-buah buku bagus punya(-nya)/milik(-nya) John
one-CL book nice PUNYA-NYA/MILIK-NYA John
‘a nice book of John’
39
b. se-buah buku bagus di atas meja punya(-nya)/milik(-nya) John
one-CL book nice loc above table PUNYA-NYA/MILIK-NYA John
‘a nice book on the table of John’
Since the possessive constructions with punya/milik allow se-buah to occur, whereas the
possessive constructions without punya/milik do not, it suggests that they are two
different types of construction. Hence, they must be derived differently. I propose that the
possessive constructions with punya/milik (plus –NYA) are derived from verbal
possessive constructions, where punya and milik functions as verbs, both mean ‘to own’.
On the other hand, the possessive constructions without punya/milik (with or without –
NYA) are derived from a small clause (the small clause of Den Dikken’s (1998) for the
English possessive construction).
Having proposed this, I need to reconstruct the structure of the BI possessive
constructions as depicted in (67) above. In section 5.2.1. below, I provide the discussion
for the possessive constructions with punya/milik, and try to find out their structure. And,
in section 5.2.2. I reanalyse the possessive constructions without punya/milik, and try to
answer the question why the indefinite article se-buah is not allowed in the construction
without -NYA.
5.2.1. BI nominal possessive constructions with punya/milik
I have proposed above that the possessive constructions with punya/milik are derived
from verbal possessive constructions. This is supported by the fact that this type of
construction allows a negation (but not an adverb). In (71a) the negative element bukan
‘not’ can occur in the derivation, but in (71b) the adverb kemaren ‘yesterday’ is not
possible to occur.
(71)
a. nominal possessive with negation
se-buah buku di atas meja bukan punya-nya/milik-nya John
one-Cl book loc above table neg PUNYA-NYA MILIK-NYA John
‘a book on the table not of John’s’
40
b. nominal possessive with an adverb
*se-buah buku di atas meja kemaren punya-nya/milik-nya John
one-Cl book loc above table yesterday PUNYA-NYA MILIK-NYA John
‘a yesterday book on the table of John’s’
But OK: ‘John had a book on the table yesterday (but now someone else has
it)’
Following Fu (1994) adapted from Rozwadowska (2006), I assume that VP is responsible
for the projection of the verbal possessive. Consider the proposal for the structure of
nominalization below (cited from (Rozwadowska (2006) p. 38-39).
(72)
The nominalization structure
‘Fu proposes that nominalization structure may vary between an underlying VP and underlying IP.
Languages whose nominalization constructions admit verbal cases and adverbs have nominalizers
which select for an IP rather than VP. It is the presence of an IP that makes the head licensing
possible for verbal Cases and adverbs.’
Since the BI nominal possessive constructions with punya/milik do not allow adverbs
(instead a negation), and there is no Case agreement as well, i.e. no agreement between
the verbs and the pronouns, I propose along Fu’s proposal stated above that they select
VP in their underlying structures.
In section 4 above, I have argued that –NYA originates in D head position. I propose here
that this element is responsible for nominalizing the verbal possessive. In other words, NYA in D0, functions to nominalize the verbs punya and milik. Since, -NYA as a
nominalizer10 originates in D0, thus the underlying structure for the nominal possessive
constructions with punya/milik will become DP selects VP as its complement [DP D0 VP].
Now, let us see first the occurrence of punya and milik, as well as the order of the
possessee and the possessor in verbal possessive constructions. In the verbal possessive
-NYA as a nominalizer here has the similar function with the one in the examples in (4) above. In (4) –
NYA functions to nominalize intransitives, but here to nominalize possessive transitives.
10
41
construction, commonly punya and milik require verbal affixes ME(M)- and -I to attach11
(73). In (73) also we can see that contrary to the nominal possessive constructions, here
the possessor precedes the possessee.
(73) John me(m)-punya-i/me(m)-milik-i se-buah buku
John ME(M)-own-I ME(M)-own-I one-CL book
‘John has a book’
The ME(M)- and –I affixes are kinds of Voice marker. ME(M)- functions to introduce an
active sentence that requires an Agent as its external argument. When it co-occurs with –I
normally they result into the meaning of ‘continual action’ (74).
(74)
John sering me(m)-pukul-i anjing-nya
John often ME(M)-hit-I dog-his
‘John often hits his dog’
(when John hits the dog, it’s not once, but repeatedly)
I assume here that the ME(M)- and –I affixes realize some extended functional head
above VP. Following Kratzer’s (1996) Voice Phrase structure, in which VoiceP head
functions to introduce the external argument, I propose that ME(M)- and –I are projected
under VoiceP head.
Let us see how the structure of the verbal possessive constructions with ME(M)- and -I in
(73) is derived (see (75) below). In (75a) the Voice markers ME(M)- and –I originate in
VoiceP head. They take VP as their complement where the possessor John sits in SpecVP
11
For punya, the verbal affixes ME(N)- -I is optional (as in (1) below, but for milik, they are obligatory (2).
(1)
a. John mem-punya-i se-buah buku
b. John punya sebuah buku
John own one-Cl book
‘John has a book’
(2)
a. John me-milik-i se-buah buku
b. *John milik se-buah buku
John own one-CL book
‘John has a book’
42
verbs punya/milik in V head and the possessed noun se-buah buku ‘a book’ is in DP, the
complement of the verbs. In order for the verb phrase to be an active sentence, ME(N)and –I attract punya/milik to move to its position, VoiceP head. As the consequence, the
possessor John, is also triggered to move to SpecVoiceP to be introduced as an external
argument (75b).
(75)
a.
VoiceP
Voice’
Spec
me(m)- -i
VP
me(m)- -i
V’
John
punya
DP
milik
se-buah buku
b.
VoiceP
Johnj
Voice’
me(m)punyai-i
VP
me(m)-miliki-i
V’
tj
ti
DP
se-buah buku
43
Now, let us see how the nominal possessive construction with punya/milik in (65), (66bc), (69) and (70) above (repeated here as (76), (77), (78) and (79) respectively) to be
derived from the verbal possessive construction.
(76)
a. buku punya-nya John
book PUNYA-NYA John
‘the book of John.’
b. buku milik-nya John
book MILIK-NYA John
‘the book of John’
(77)
a. buku milik John
book own John
b. buku punya John
book own John
‘the book of John’
(78)
a. se-buah buku punya/milik John
One-Cl book PUNYA/MILIK John
‘a book of John’
b. se-buah buku punya-nya/milik-nya John
one-Cl book PUNYA-NYA/MILIK-NYA John
‘a book of John’
(79)
a. se-buah buku bagus punya(-nya)/milik(-nya) John
one-CL book nice PUNYA-NYA/MILIK-NYA John
‘a nice book of John’
b. se-buah buku bagus di atas meja punya(-nya)/milik(-nya) John
one-CL book nice loc above table PUNYA-NYA/MILIK-NYA John
‘a nice book on the table of John’
44
I have proposed above that the underlying structure of the nominal possessive
construction is DP selects VP as its complement. Hence, in the underlying structure for
the nominalization process, VoiceP that projects the Voice markers ME(M)- and –I are
not required.
For example (79b) the derivation with –NYA then, it can have an underlying structure as
in (80a). In (80a) –NYA originates in D0, and it takes VP, the whole sentence as its
complement. In order for the verbal possessive to be nominalized, at first the verb punya/
milik should move to D0, to adjoin to –NYA (80b). After the verb raise to D0, it also
attracts its complement the whole DP, se-buah buku bagus di atas meja ‘a nice book on
the table’ to its left periphery, SpecDP (80c-d).
(80)
a. [DP [D’ –nya [VP [DP John [VP V’ punya/milik [DP se-buah buku bagus di atas
meja]]]]]]
b. [DP [D’ [V’ punya/milik]i –nya [VP [DP John [VP ti [DP se-buah buku bagus di atas
meja]]]]]
c. [DP [DP se-buah buku bagus di atas meja]j [D’ [V’ punya/milik]i –nya [VP [DP John
[VP ti tj]]]]]
d.
DP
D’
DPj
Se-buah buku bagus di atas meja
punya/miliki –nya
VP
V’
DP
John
ti
tj
For (78b) and (79a), the ones with –NYA, they will be derived exactly the same
application like in (80). For the examples in (78a) and (79a-b) the derivation without –
NYA, they are also derived the same way like (80). The only difference is that –NYA in
45
D0 is covert. Thus, underlyingly, their structure will be as shown in (81a). In order for the
sentence to be nominalized, the verb punya/milik should move to D0, in where the
determiner element –NYA is covert, resulting into only the nominalized verb appears in
the position, punya/milik (81b). And then, like in (80c), after the verb raised, the verb’s
complement in the underlying structure, the whole DP, should also move to SpecDP
(81c-d).
(81)
a. [DP [D’ Ø [VP [DP John [VP V’ punya/milik [DP se-buah buku bagus di atas
meja]]]]]]
b. [DP [D’ [v’ punya/milik]i Ø [VP [DP John [VP ti [DP se-buah buku bagus di atas
meja]]]]]]
c. [DP [DP se-buah buku bagus di atas meja]j [D’ [V’ punya/milik]i Ø [VP [DP John [VP
ti tj]]]]]
d.
DP
D’
DPj
Se-buah buku (bagus di atas meja)
Punya/miliki Ø
VP
V’
DP
John
ti
tj
In the nominal possessive construction with punya/milik, the possessee se-buah buku
(bagus di atas meja) ‘a book (a nice book on the table)’ is interpreted as a specific noun.
In Enç’s (1991) specificity theory, a specific noun always entails definiteness. Since the
nominal possessive is derived from the verbal possessive construction, then the possessee
must have been introduced previously (in the possessive sentence). Hence, I predict that
whenever a possessive nominalization takes place, the possessee must be specific
(definite).
46
How about the nominal possessive constructions with punya/milik (with or without –
NYA) without se-buah as in (76) and (77) above? How are they derived? Is the possessee
also definite? I propose they are also derived from the same underlying structure like the
one of the other nominal possessive constructions with milik/punya. For the derivation
without –NYA in (77), they are also derived from the same underlying structure, but –
NYA in D0 is covert. The difference with the previous constructions is that here the
indefinite article se-buah does not appear in the underlying structure in DP, the
complement of the verb. Recall that in BI nominal domain, the indefinite article is
optional, thus buku ‘book’ can be interpreted as ‘a book’. The underlying structure for
(76) the derivation with –NYA, looks like (82a). In order for the sentence to be
nominalized, like in (80) above,–NYA in D0, attracts the verb milik/punya to its position
(82b). As the result, the verb’s complement, DP that contains buku is also triggered to
move to SpecDP (82c-d).
(82)
a. [DP [D’ –nya [VP [DP John [VP V’ punya/ milik [DP buku]]]]]]
b. [DP [D’ [v’ punya/milik]i –nya [VP [DP John [VP ti [DP buku]]]]]]
c. [DP [DP buku]j [D’ [V’ punya/milik]i -nya [VP [DP John [VP ti tj]]]]]
d.
DP
DPj
D’
buku
punya/miliki -nya
VP
V’
DP
John
ti
tj
Thus the nominalization of the verb milik/punya, and the movement of the verb’s
complement DP into SpecDP in the higher position, result into the surface order (76) as
expected buku punya-nya/milik-nya John ‘the book of John’. Because the indefinite
47
article se-buah is absent in the derivation, and because the speaker/hearer is familiar with
the possessed noun (that it is already known in the context), namely it is the book that
John has, then buku in (77) as predicted is interpreted as a specific (definite) noun.
Along the lines of analysis for the BI nominal possessive constructions with milik/punya
above, there results that they are derived by the application of nominalizing the verbs, i.e.
the determiner element –NYA in D0 triggers the verb punya/milik to move to its position,
and forces the verb’s complement, the whole DP to move to its left periphery, SpecDP.
As for the indefinite article se-buah, it seems that it is in one constituent with the
possessed noun, namely they are both derived from the lower DP position, the
complement of the verb in the underlying structure. They move to occupy the SpecDP
because of the nominalization of the verb punya/milik. After they move to SpecDP they
must be interpreted as a specific (definite) noun. Thus in the nominalization, -NYA does
not determine the definiteness of the whole DP, instead the movement of the possessee
from its base position (the complement of the verb) to SpecDP that makes the whole DP
definite.
5.2.2. BI nominal possessive constructions without punya/milik
In this sub-section, I discuss the BI nominal possessive constructions without punya/milik
as in (66a-b) repeated here as (83). Here I would like to find out how they are derived,
and also, to account for why the indefinite article se-buah is not allowed in the
constructions (as seen in (68) repeated here as (84)).
(83)
a. buku John
book John
b. buku-nya John
book-NYA 1sg
‘the book of John’
(84)
a. ??se-buah buku John
One-Cl book John
‘a book of John’
48
b. *se-buah buku-nya John
one-Cl
book-NYA John
‘a book of John’
I propose that the nominal possessive constructions without punya/milik are derived
differently from the nominal possessive constructions with punya/milik. Since milik and
punya do not occur in the constructions, there must be no de-verbalizing process, i.e. they
are not derived from the clausal possessive constructions, rather from a nonverbal
underlying construction namely, a small clause. Following Den Dikken’s small clause
type for the English nominal possessive constructions as stated in (67a) above (repeated
here as (85)), the BI nominal possessive constructions without milik/punya as in (83a-b)
above will be derived from a similar application of Predicate Inversion as in (67b-e)
above.
(85)
[SC POSSESSUM SC’ SC [PP Pdat POSSESSOR]]
For (83b), the underlying structure will look like (86a). I (86a) –NYA like in the other
constructions, originates in D0, and the small clause XP contains the possessee buku in
the subject position and the possessor John as the predicate occurs inside PP. In order to
get the surface order, there are two instances of movement. At first, PP containing the
possessor John moves to SpecFP. As the consequence of this movement, X-to-F
movement is also forced, and P incorporates with the complex head position (in English
the incorporation results into copula ’s, but in BI it is phonetically not realized) (86b).
Secondly, XP that only contains the possessum buku, A-bar moves to SpecDP. This
movement triggers the head-to-head movement, i.e. the complex head F+X+P moves to
D. However, since the head complex is phonetically not realized, D position is only
spelled out as –NYA, resulting into the surface order buku-nya John ‘the book of John’
(86c-d).
(86)
a. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [FP Spec [F’ F [XP buku [X’ X [PP P John]]]]]]]
b. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [FP [PP tk John]i [F’ F+Xj+Pk (=Ø) [XP buku X’ tj ti]]]]]]
49
c. [DP [XP buku [X’ tj ti]]XP [D’ [D D+F+Xj+Pk (=Ø -nya)]F [FP [PP tk John]i [F’ tF
tXP]]]]
d.
DP
D’
XP
X’
buku
D
FP
D+F+Xj+Pk
X
PP
tj
ti
Ø -nya
P
F’
PP
John
tk
F
XP
tF
tXP
For the example in (83a), the construction without –NYA, it is also derived exactly the
same with the one with –NYA as in (86) above. The difference is –NYA in D0 is covert.
Thus for (83a), its underlying structure will look like (87a). In order to have the surface
order, it will have exactly the same movement like in (86b-c-d) above, but will end up
with the surface order without –NYA, buku John ‘the book of John’ (87c-d).
(87)
a. [DP Spec [D’ Ø [FP Spec [F’ F [XP buku [X’ X [PP P John]]]]]]]
b. [DP Spec [D’ Ø [FP [PP tk John]i [F’ F+Xj+Pk (=Ø) [XP buku
X’ tj ti]]]]]]
c. [DP [XP buku [X’ tj ti]]XP [D’ [D D+F+Xj+Pk (=Ø Ø)]F [FP [PP tk John]i [F’ tF tXP]]]]
50
d.
DP
D’
XP
X’
buku
D
FP
D+F+Xj+Pk
X
PP
tj
ti
ØØ
F’
PP
P
tk
John
F
XP
tF
tXP
The incompatibility of the indefinite article se-buah to co-occur with –NYA in these two
nominal possessive constructions without punya/milik (as seen in the examples in (84)
above), is because –NYA (and the covert –NYA) functions as the ‘true’ determiner
(unlike –NYA in the constructions with punya/milik that functions as a nominalizer).
Thus, the determiner –NYA does not allow the indefinite article se-buah to co-occur with
it.
5.2.3. BI possessive constructions where –NYA functions as a 3sg possessive
pronoun
One of the grammatical roles of –NYA in the BI nominal domain as mentioned in the
introduction is that it functions as a 3sg possessive pronoun, i.e. as a neutral ‘it’, female
‘her’ or male ‘his’, as seen in the examples in (2) above, repeated here as (88).
(88)
a. buku-nya
book-NYA
‘its/his/her book’
c. ibu-nya
mother-NYA
‘its/his/her mother’
51
I propose that the possessive constructions in (88) are derived from the same analysis for
the nominal possessive constructions without milik/punya as discussed in sub-section
5.2.2., above. The examples in (88), thus have the underlying structure of a small clause
(SC). Since the nominal possessive constructions in (88) do not contain any pronominal
possessor, then in their underlying structure SC=XP, the position for the possessor is
empty. Hence, the underlying structure for (88) looks like (89a). In order to get the
surface order (just like in (86) for buku-nya John ‘the book of John’), PP that contains the
empty possessor moves to SpecFP. As the consequence of this movement, X-to-F
movement is also forced, and P incorporates with the complex head position, but
phonetically this head not realized (89b). Secondly, the XP that contains the possessum
buku/ibu, A-bar moves to SpecDP. And again, as the consequence, this movement
triggers head-to-head movement of the complex head F+X+P to D, adjoining to -NYA.
However, since the head complex is phonetically not realized, the D position is only
spelled out as –NYA, resulting into the surface order buku-nya/ibu-nya (89c-d).
(89)
a. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [FP Spec [F’ F [XP buku/ibu [X’ X [PP P Ø]]]]]]]
b. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [FP [PP tk Ø]i [F’ F+Xj+Pk (=Ø) [XP buku X’ tj ti]]]]]]
c. [DP [XP buku/ibu [X’ tj ti]]XP [D’ [D D+F+Xj+Pk (=Ø -nya)]F [FP [PP tk Ø]i [F’ tF
tXP]]]]
d.
DP
D’
XP
buku/ibu
X’
D
FP
D+F+Xj+Pk
X
PP
tj
ti
Ø -nya
P
tk
52
F’
PP
Ø
F
XP
tF
tXP
Since in the surface order, the pronominal possessor is absent, then –NYA is interpreted
as the possessor. Thus, -NYA in buku-nya/ibu-nya is interpreted as ‘its book/mother, her
book/mother or his book/mother’. Whether the hearer can distinguish the gender diversity,
i.e. neutral pronoun ‘its’, female ‘her’, or male ‘his’, is that because she/he is already
familiar with the referent that is it must have been established previously in the discourse.
To sum up section 5, -NYA in the N-NYA N and the nominal possessive construction
(either the one with punya/milik or without punya/milik or the one without pronominal
possessor) similar to the definite NP construction, syntactically realized as determiner
element sits in D0. However, -NYA in the nominal possessive construction with
punya/milik, behaves differently, i.e. it does not function to introduce the definiteness of a
noun phrase like in the other constructions, instead it functions to nominalize the
possessive sentence.
I have discussed four BI nominal constructions in where –NYA appears. They are (1) the
definite NPs, (2) the N-NYA N construction, (3) the nominal possessive construction
(either with milik/punya or without milik/punya), and (4) the nominal possessive
constructions where –NYA functions as 3sg pronoun. In the next section, I will discuss
the three other nominal constructions, namely (1) the exclamative constructions (where –
NYA functions as a exclamative marker), (2) the nominalized constructions (where –
NYA functions as nominalizer) and, (3) 3sg pronoun (where –NYA functions as a direct
and indirect object pronoun). In these three constructions as well, I will propose that –
NYA is actually the same element, in which syntactically it should originate in D head.
6. –NYA as a nominalizer, as an exclamative marker and as a 3sg (DO/IO) pronoun
6.1. –NYA as a nominalizer
Let us consider again, the examples in (4) above, repeated here as (90) where –NYA
functions as a nominalizer. In (90) –NYA attaches to the intransitives lari ‘run’ (90a),
and jatuh ‘fall’(90b)- when it attaches to the intransitives, they become nouns. If –NYA
does not occur then they become normal verbs (91).
53
(90)
a. kuda-kuda itu
lari-nya ke utara
horse-horse that run-NTA
to north
‘the run of the horses was to the north’
b. Pesawat itu jatuh-nya melintir
Airplane that fall-NYA spin
‘the fall of the airplane was with a spinning motion’
(91)
a. Kuda-kuda
itu
lari ke utara
horse-horse that fly to north
‘the horses run the north’
b. Pesawat itu jatuh melintir
Airplane that fall spin
‘the airplane fell with a spinning motion’
If we look at the BI nominal possessive constructions with milik/punya discussed in
section 5.2.1 above, we can see that jatuh-nya and lari-nya in (90) have the similar
nominalization process, namely the determiner element –NYA functions to nominalize
the verbs. I propose the nominalized verbs in (90) above are derived from the similar
underlying structure of the nominal possessive constructions with milik/punya, namely
DP selects VP [DP D0 VP]. In order for the intransitives to be nominalized, the
intransitives that are base generated in VP should move to D0 to adjoin with –NYA.
However, there is a difference between the underlying structure for the nominal
possessive construction with milik/punya and for the nominalized intransitives in (90).
In the former constructions, milik ‘own’ and punya ‘own’ are two-place predicate (they
require two arguments to occur in the derivation- one as the subject and the other as the
object). Thus in their underlying structure the two arguments should occur in VP, namely
as the subject (possessor) and as the object (possessed noun). I argued above that as the
object, the noun, the complement of the verb obligatorily moves to SpecDP after the
verbs milik/punya raised to D0 to adjoin with –NYA (see section 5.2.1.). In the latter
constructions, the nominalized intransitives in (90) jatuh-nya ‘the fall’ and lari-nya ‘the
54
run’, jatuh ‘fall’ and lari ‘run’ are one-place predicate (they require only one argument,
as the subject). In their underlying structure, in VP, then there will be no object position.
Here is the difference. Hence, there will be also no movement of the object after the
intransitive raises.
I propose that underlyingly the internal structure for both nominalized intransitives in (90)
as seen in (92a). In (92), just like the underlying structure for the nominal possessive
constructions with milik/punya, -NYA originates in D0, the subject kuda-kuda itu ‘the
horses’ and pesawat itu ‘the airplane’ in SpecVP and the intransitives lari ‘run’ and jatuh
‘fall’ in V0. In order for the intransitives to be nominal, then they should move to D0, to
adjoin with –NYA (92b-c). In BI the subject of the nominalized intransitives can occur in
the initial position like in (90) above, but also they can occur after the nominalized
intransitives, as seen in (93). When they occur after the nominalized intransitives their
surface structure will be like (92b-c). If they are in the initial position, their structure is as
seen in (92d), where the subject kuda-kuda itu and pesawat itu move to SpecDP, after
intransitives move to D0.
(92)
a. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [VP [DP kuda-kuda itu /pesawat itu [V’ lari/jatuh]]]]]
b. [DP Spec [V’ lari/jatuh]i [D’ -nya [VP [DP kuda-kuda itu/pesawat itu [ti ]]]]]
c.
DP
Spec
D’
lari/jatuhi –nya
VP
V’
DP
kuda-kuda itu/pesawat itu
V
ti
55
d.
DP
D’
Spec
kuda-kuda itu/pesawat ituj
lari/jatuhi –nya
VP
V’
DP
tj
V
ti
(93)
a. lari-nya
kuda-kuda itu
ke utara
run-NYA horse-horse that to north
‘the run of the horses was to the north’
c. jatuh-nya pesawat itu melintir
fall-NYA Airplane that spin
‘the fall of the airplane was with a spinning motion’
In BI, this nominalization process can apply to almost any intransitives. Perhaps it is so
because they do not have any object, thus the nominalization does not need to maintain
the object into the nominal domain. On the other hand, the nominalization process seems
to be restricted to the possessive verbs punya/milik, it is not possible with the other
transitives (see the footnote below as examples)12. I will not discuss the restriction of the
nominalized transitives here, but will leave it for a further research.
12
a. *Maria beli-nya bunga kemarin
Maria buy-NYA
flower yesterday
Intended meaning: ‘the buying of the flower by Maria was yesterday’
b. *John angkat-nya kursi ke dapur
John carry-NYA
chair to kitchen
Intended meaning: ‘the carrying of the chair by John was to the kitchen’
56
In the next section, I discuss adjectives in the exclamative constructions as seen in (6)
above, where –NYA functions as an exclamative marker. I propose that the construction
is also derived from a similar nominalization application like in the nominalized
intransitive constructions.
6.2. –NYA as an exclamative marker
Let us consider the examples in (6) above, repeated here as (94), where –NYA functions
as an exclamative marker. The class of the words –NYA can attach to in this
constructions is adjective. Almost to all of adjectives –NYA can attach, and when it
attaches to them, they result into a reading, meaning ‘very’ (exclamative reading).
(94)
a. cantik-nya!
beautiful-NYA
‘what a beautiful one!’
b. tinggi-nya!
tall-NYA
‘what a tall one!’
I propose that the construction in (94) is derived from a predicative adjective sentence,
where the adjective functions as a predicate. In (94) however, there is no subject, thus in
the underlying structure the subject position is filled by a pro.
Let me show first the occurrence of adjectives in sentences in BI. In BI, adjectives are
very much alike the intransitives, when they follow a proper name or a definite noun
phrase. Consider the examples in (95). In (95a) the adjective cantik ‘beautiful’ is
preceded by a proper name Maria, and in (95b), mahal ‘expensive’ is preceded by a
definite noun buku-nya ‘the book’. From the English translation, we can see that the order
of a proper name/definite noun and an adjective forms a sentence- where the proper
name/definite noun functions as the subject and the adjective as predicate. When the
57
linking verb adalah13 ‘be’ occurs in between the subject and the adjective, the derivations
become ungrammatical (96).
(95)
a. Maria cantik
Maria beautiful
‘Maria is beautiful’
b. buku-nya mahal
book-def expensive
‘the book is expensive’
(96)
a. *Maria adalah cantik
Maria be beautiful
‘Maria is beautiful’
b. *buku-nya adalah mahal
book-def be expensive
‘the book is expensive’
On the other hand, if the adjectives are preceded by indefinite nouns, the derivation
becomes a noun phrase (98). Thus, adjectives that follow indefinite nouns function as
modifiers.
(98)
a. se-buah buku mahal
one-Cl book expensive
‘an expensive book’
Not possible: ‘a book is expensive’
Normally, the BI linking verb adalah ‘be’ occur in between two noun phrases as seen in the examples
below. It cannot occur before adjective and also intransitive verbs.
(1)
a. John adalah se-orang guru
John be
one-CL teacher
‘John is a teacher’
b. anjing adalah sahabat manusia
dog be
friend human
‘dogs are the friend of human’
13
58
b. se-ekor anjing pintar
one-Cl dog smart
‘a smart dog’
Not possible: ‘a dog is smart’
The facts above suggest that whenever an adjective is preceded by a definite noun or a
proper name, the adjective is predicative- it functions like an intransitive, namely it takes
the noun phrase as its single argument. And, whenever an adjective is preceded by an
indefinite noun, it is attributive, it functions as a modifier. Thus, the order of a definite
noun/proper name and an adjective is a sentence, whereas the order of an indefinite and
an adjective is a noun phrase (99).
(99)
a. definite noun /proper names - adjective
sentence
b. indefinite noun – adjective
noun phrase
Since adjectives in the sentences behave like intransitives i.e. they take a definite noun or
a proper name as their argument (subject), and the linking verb adalah cannot occur
between the subject and the adjective, it suggests that they must have a structure similar
to the intransitive structure. Hence, the predicative adjective sentence like in (95a) above,
can have a structure in (100). I label this predicative adjective structure, ZP. In (100) the
subject Maria occurs in the Specifier position of ZP and the adjective is the complement
of functional head Z.
(100) [ZP Maria [Z’ Z cantik]]
Having proposed that the predicative adjective sentence have a structure like in (100), I
try to find out whether the exclamative construction in (94) above, can be derived from
such a structure. Since in (94) the exclamative construction does not have a subject I
assume that in the underlying structure the subject position is filled by a pro (101).
(101) [ZP pro [Z’ Z cantik/tinggi]]
59
How then the exclamative construction (94) can be derived from the underlying structure
in (101)? For the moment, I do not know precisely how the derived structure looks like.
However, I believe that –NYA in the construction is similar to the one in the nominalized
intransitive construction, that is –NYA in D0 functions as a ‘nominalizer’- it attracts the
adjectives in their base position, to move to its position, to be adjoined. The underlying
structure for (94) then roughly can look like (102a) where DP selects ZP. ZP contains
both the subject, pro and the predicative adjective, cantik/tinggi. In order for the
predicative adjective sentence to have the exclamative reading, similar to the
nominalization process in the nominalized intransitive, the predicate adjective
cantik/tinggi moves to the position of –NYA in D0, leaving the subject pro, in its base
position. This movement result into the surface order cantik-nya/tinggi-nya, interpreted as
‘what a beautiful one’ and ‘what a tall one’ respectively.
(102) a. [DP Spec [D’ -nya [ZP [DP pro [Z’ cantik/tinggi]]]]]
b. [DP Spec [Z’ cantik/tinggi]i [D’ -nya [ZP [DP pro [ti ]]]]]
c.
DP
Spec
D’
cantik/tinggii –nya
ZP
subject
Z’
pro
Z
ti
Here I have discussed how to derive the BI exclamative constructions. I propose that –
NYA in the exclamative construction is also the same element like in the other
constructions that is a determiner-like element that sits in D0. It functions similarly to NYA in the nominalized intransitive construction, as a nominalizer.
60
6.3. –NYA as a DO/IO 3sg pronoun
Finally, the function of –NYA that I would like to discuss here is –NYA as a DO/IO 3sg
pronoun. Like –NYA in the other nominal constructions discussed above, I also propose
that -NYA here also is actually the same element, namely as a determiner-like element,
that structurally should sit in D head position.
Let us see the occurence of –NYA as a DO/IO 3sg pronoun. As seen in the examples in
(1) above (repeated here as (103)), -NYA can function as 3sg pronoun that occurs as an
internal argument of a VP as a DO (103a-b) or of a PP as an IO in the double object
construction (103c).
(103) a. John me(m)-pukul-nya
John ME(M)-hit -NYA
‘John hits him/her/it’.
b. aku me(m)-benci-nya
1sg ME(M)-hate -NYA
‘I hate him/her/it’.
c. John me(m)-beli buku untuk-nya
John ME(M)-buy book for-NYA
‘John bought a book for him/her’
The occurrence of –NYA as a 3sg pronoun can be substituted by the ‘real’ 3sg pronoun
dia (104). The difference is while –NYA can only occur in the object position (not
possible in the subject position) (105a), dia can occur in the subject position (105b).
(104) a. John me(m)-pukul dia
John ME(M)-hit 3sg
‘John hits him/her/it’.
b. aku me(m)-benci dia
1sg ME(M)-hate 3sg
‘I hate him/her/it’.
61
c. John me(m)-beli buku untuk dia
John ME(M)-buy book for
3sg
‘John bought a book for him/her’
(105) a. *nya me(m)-pukul John
NYA ME(M)-hit
John
Intended meaning: ‘he/she/it hit John’
b. dia me(m)-pukul John
3sg ME(M)-hit John
‘he/she/it hit John’
The occurrence of –NYA in the object position can only be interpreted as a 3sg pronoun.
It cannot be interpreted as 3pl pronoun as seen in the examples in (106). The examples in
(106) then suggest that–NYA is only specified for 3sg pronoun.
(106) a. *aku me(m)-benci-nya
1sg ME(M)-hate -NYA
intended meaning: ‘I hate them’
b. *John me(m)-beli buku untuk-nya
John ME(M)-buy book for-NYA
Intended meaning: ‘John bought a book for them’
The questions I would like to answer about –NYA as a DO/IO 3sg pronoun are; (i) how
does the structure of –NYA look like, and how it is derived?, and (ii) why it can only
occur in the object position, not in the subject position?.
Now, let us consider first the examples in (107) below. The examples in (107) show that
–NYA can attach to the pronouns14, e.g. dia ‘3sg’ (107a) or kamu ‘2sg’ (107b). When –
NYA attaches to the pronouns, the meaning of the pronouns becomes ‘specific’, in the
sense that the hearer can know that the speaker must refer to a particular identity that has
Note, that –NYA also can attach to any other pronouns, i.e. saya ‘1sg’ saya-nya, mereka ‘3pl’
mereka-nya, kalian ‘2pl’  kalian-nya, kami ‘1pl exclusive’  kami-nya and kita ‘1pl inclusive  kitanya.
14
62
been identified previously in the discourse. Moreover, as being specific, the occurrence
of –NYA is also to ‘emphasize’ on the specificity of the pronoun, e.g. ‘this HIM not that
him’.
(107) a. John me(m)-pukul dia-nya
John ME(M)-hit
3sg-NYA
‘John hit HIM/HER/IT’
b. Maria me(m)-benci kamu-nya
Maria ME(M)-hate 2sg-NYA
‘Maria hated YOU’
If we look at the previous discussion on the definite NPs in section 4.1, we can see that –
NYA also have the similar function, namely to introduces the definiteness to the noun
phrases, proper names and WH-expressions. I propose that definite pronoun+NYA
constructions like in (107) are derived exactly like their counterpart in the other definite
constructions, namely by moving the pronouns to the left periphery of –NYA, SpecDP.
Hence, dia-nya (107a) and kamu-nya (107b) can have the underlying structure exactly the
same with the other definite constructions (108a), in where –NYA originates in D0, the
pronouns are as its complement. And in order for the pronoun to have the specific reading,
the pronouns dia ‘3sg’ and kamu ‘2sg’ move to SpecDP (108b-c).
(108) a. [DP [D’ –nya [NP dia/kamu]]]
b. [DP [NP dia/kamu]i [D’ –nya [ti]]]
c.
DP
D’
NPi
dia/kamu
-nya
ti
63
For –NYA in (103) that functions as 3sg pronoun I propose that it is derived from the
construction like in (108) above. The only difference is that the 3sg pronoun dia, does not
occur in the derivation. Thus the structure of –NYA itself will be a single element in DP,
without the occurrence of a complement and a specifier, as seen in (109).
(109) a.
DP
D’
D
-nya
Now we already know the structure of –NYA as a 3sg pronoun as seen in (109) above,
projected under DP. Because–NYA is projected under DP, then it can occur as a
complement of the verb (as a DO), and of the preposition (as an IO). Thus, the examples
in (103) above, in where –NYA functions as a 3sg pronoun, will look like (110) for –
NYA as a DO, and (111) for –NYA as an IO.15
15
The verbs in the sentences in (103) contain the Voice marker MEM-, similar to the one in the possessive
verb punya/milik. I have proposed previously that MEM- realizes an extended projection above VP. This
projection functions to introduce the agent external argument. I label the extended projection VoiceP.
Hence, the structure in (110) and (111) VoiceP is also required. In (111) where –NYA occurs as an IO,
following Larson’s (1988) treatment on the double object construction, the DO buku ‘book’ is originated as
the specifier of VP. The verb beli ‘buy’ in V0 moves to the head position of VoiceP, to Voice 0, adjoining
with MEM-.
64
(110) John me(m)-pukul-nya ‘John hit him/her/it’
VoiceP
Voice’
John
me(m)-pukul i
VP
V’
Spec
ti
DP
D’
D
-nya
(111) John me(m)-beli buku untuk-nya ‘John bought a book for him/her/it’
VoiceP
John
Voice’
me(m)-belii
VP
V’
buku
ti
PP
P’
Spec
untuk
DP
-nya
65
In (110) –NYA as a DO 3sg pronoun occurs as the complement of the verb me(m)-pukul
‘hit’, and as an IO 3sg pronoun, it occurs as the complement of the preposition untuk ‘for’
(111). In the derivation,–NYA as a DO 3sg pronoun attaches to the verb me(m)-pukul,
me(m)-pukul-nya ‘hit him/her/it’ and as an IO 3sg pronoun attaches to the preposition
untuk, untuk-nya ‘for him/her/it’. In example (107) above as well, –NYA in the object
position can attach to the pronoun. If –NYA attaches to a pronoun and occurs in the
subject position, it will be fine as seen in the example below.
(112) dia-nya me(m)-pukul John
3sg-NYA ME(N)-hit John
‘he hit John’
Why is then –NYA not possible to occur in the subject position when it stands alone (as
in (105a) above)? The example in (112) suggests that –NYA requires an overt element to
which it can attach. In the object position, -NYA is possible without the pronoun, because
it can attach to the element that precedes it.
7. Conclusion
I claim –NYA in the BI definite NP constructions is analogous with the English definite
article ‘the’, namely a determiner element that should sit in D0. By doing the uniform
approach, I argue that –NYA in the six other nominal constructions, in which it functions
as; (i) a prepositional-like element (in the N-NYA N) (ii) a possessive marker (in the
nominal possessive constructions (without milik/punya)), (iii) a 3sg possessive pronoun,
(iv) a nominalizer (v) an exclamative marker, (vi) and as a 3sg pronoun, is actually the
same syntactic element, that occupies D head position.
-NYA in the nominal possessive constructions with punya/milik is also syntactically
realized as a determiner, sitting in D head position. However, it functions as a
nominalizer, to nominalize the possessive verb punya/milik.
66
Generally, the determiner –NYA can have two functions. Firstly, it functions as a
determiner, as in the definite NP constructions, the nominal possessive constructions
without milik/punya, the N-NYA N constructions, and as a 3sg pronoun. Secondly, it
functions as nominalizer, to nominalize verbs or predicative adjectives as in the
possessive constructions with milik/punya, the nominalized intransitive, and the
exclamative construction.
Finally, I believe that –NYA that functions as an adverbial-like marker as in (8) and as a
comparative-superlative construction marker as in (9) in the introduction above, is also
actually the same element as in the other constructions. I leave the two functions of –
NYA open here, and will return to study them in the future.
References
Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its existential aspects. Unpublished
dissertation MIT.
Alexiadou, A. (2003). ‘Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable
possessor.’ In: Coene, M & D’hulst, Y (eds). ‘From NP to DP, Volume II: The
expression of possession in noun phrases. [Linguistik Aktuel- Linguistic Today
58] (pp. 167-188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Arka, I. W and Manning, C. 1998. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new
perspective. In Butt, M and King, T. C (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG98
Conference. The University of Queensland, Brisbane. CSLI Publications.
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Bennis, Hans, Norbert Corver, and Marcel den Dikken (1998). ‘Predication in nominal
phrases’. in The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1 (pp. 85-117).
Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherlands.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts/London.
Coene, M & D’hulst, Y (2003) ‘Introduction’. In: Coene, M & D’hulst, Y (eds). ‘From
NP to DP Vol. II: The expression of possession in noun phrases’ [Linguistik
Aktuel- Linguistics Today 58] (pp. 1-19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
67
Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Tjung, Y. 2005b. How irregular is WH in situ in Indonesian?.
Studies in Language 29.2.
Collins, J. T. 1983. Syntactic Change in Ambonese Malay: The Possessive Construction.
In Collins, J. T (ed), NUSA, Linguistic studies of Indonesian and other languages
in Indonesia vol. 17, Studies in Malay Dialects Part II, p. 28-41.
Dikken, Marcel den (1998). ‘Predicate inversion in DP’. in A. Alexiadou and C. Wilder
eds. ‘Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase’ [Linguistik
Aktuel- Linguistics Today 22] (pp. 177-214) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Enç, Mürvet. 1991, The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1-25.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. In Studia
Linguistica 47(1), p. 3-31
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In: J. Rooryck and L.
Zaring (eds.) Phrase structure and the lexicon. Dordrecht (Kluwer Academic
Publishers) p. 109-137.
Larson, R. K. 1998. On the double object construction, Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 19, p.335391.
Longobardi, G. 2003. The structure of DPs: some principles, parameters and problems. In:
M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds). The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, p.
562-603.
Mintz, M. 1994. A student’s grammar of Malay and Indonesian. Singapore, EPB
Publisher.
Rozwadowska, B. 2006. Derived Nominals. In: M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds).
The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Vol. II, p. 24-55.
68