Download this PDF file

CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN INDONESIAN LANGUAGE
By
Ni Wayan Sukarini
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This research concerns with causative construction in Indonesian language. The analyses
of causative construction of Indonesian language based on the parameter of morphosyntax and
semantics as proposed by Comrie (1989).The objectives of this research are to identify the
causative types of Indonesian language.
The result of the analyses shows that based on morphosyntax parameter the causative
types in Indonesian language are (1) analytical causative, (2) morphological causative, (3)
resultative causative, and (4) lexical causative. Based on semantic parameter causative types in
Indonesian language are differentiated into two features, (1) the controlling level accepted by
causee, and (2) the closeness of relationship between cause and effect components.
Key words: morphosyntax parameter, semantic parameter, types of causative
I. INTRODUCTION
Causative construction in every language has its own structures and among the structures
there is one structure that is common to all languages by using complex sentence. Complex
sentence consists of one clause to state cause or reason, and the other clause to state effect or
result. Both clauses are connected by using conjunctions that have a causative meaning. In
Indonesian language the conjunctions which have the capacity to combine the relationship of
cause and effect clauses are cause and effect. Here are some examples:
1. Dia tidak membeli baju itu sebab harganya sangat mahal.
2. Banyak orang membencinya karena ia tidak pernah menepati janji.
For example in data (1) the clause sebab harganya mahal states the cause, while the other clause
Dia tidak membeli baju itu states the effect or result. The two components, cause and effect are
micro situations. These micro situations are combined with a conjunction in this case because in
order to form one macro situation that is causative construction. Data (2) the clause ia tidak
pernah menepati janji states the cause, while the other clause banyak orang membencinya states
the effect. The two conditions of micro situations are connected with conjunction because as to
form a causative construction of micro situation. A causative construction does not necessarily
state cause and effect explicitly as can be seen in the previous data (1) and (2), but it can also be
implicitly performed as in the following examples of data:
3. Para wali telah mengislamkan penduduk negeri itu.
4. Keringkan bunga itu.
As a causative construction the sentence in data (3) has the components of cause and
effect. However, in data (3) both components are not explicitly performed. Because is the only
component which is performed explicitly as can be seen in the following clause, Para wali telah
mengislamkan penduduk negeri itu, while the component of effect which causes the country's
population believe in Moslem due to the activity of Godfathers Islamize the population is not
explicitly performed. The absent of cause argument in the construction of imperatives causative
in data (4) does not eliminate the meaning of a person (X) the causer to tell someone else (Y) the
causee to do something and to make something (Z) as has been mentioned in its base word form.
Although the causer (X) is not present in data (4) the activities of a person (Y) to make dried
flowers will occur and is understood as the causee component that causes result or it makes the
flower dry.
Based on the above explanation it seems that the causative can be formed through
several ways and it has several meanings. Thus the focus of the causative construction in this
study is the causative construction based on morphosyntax and semantic parameters proposed by
Comrie (1989).
II. RESEARCH METHOD
Data source of this research is Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, the data is in written
form and has causative construction. Methods and techniques included are data collection in
which all verbs that consist of causative constructions are used as corpus of data; data analysis is
to identify and analyze all data that has causative constructions based on the theory proposed by
Comrie (1989); and presenting the data analysis informally that is through adequate description
of each data.
III. DISCUSSION
3.1 CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN INDONESIAN LANGUAGE
This study analyses the causative construction of Indonesian language as seen from two
perspectives or different parameters, namely (1) the analyses of morphosyntax parameter and (2)
the analyses from semantic point of view.
3.1.1 Causative Based on Morphosyntax Parameter
Formation of analytical causative in Indonesian language is done by using verbs buat,
{me- + buat}, suruh {me- + suruh}, akibat {me- -kan}, perintah {me- -kan), and sebab{me- kan}. Morphological causative is formed by using causative affixes such as {me- -kan}, {me- -i},
{per-}, {me- per-}, {me- per- -an}. These affixes have the ability of being attached to the pre
categorial words or words that have been categorized as adjective, verb, adverb, number, and
noun. Words which are categorized as verbs in Indonesian language and already have causative
meaning among others are menutup, membuka, and membunuh.
3.1.1.1 Analytical Causative
Membuat, menyuruh, menyebabkan, and mengakibatkan are causative verbs used in
analytical causative construction in Indonesian language. Below are some data:
5.
Adik sedih.
5a
Kakak menyebabkan adik sedih.
5b
*Kakak menyebabkan sedih adik.
6.
Saya tidur
6a
Ibu membuat saya tidur.
6b
*Ibu membuat tidur saya.
7.
Murid-murid mengerjakan pekerjaan rumah.
7a
Pak Guru menyuruh murid-murid mengerjakan pekerjaan rumah.
7b
* Pak Guru menyuruh mengerjakan murid-murid pekerjaan rumah.
Changes of non causative construction in Indonesian language requires the presence of
causative verbs. Either the construction is with the predicate of intransitive basic verbs or with
transitive verbs as in data (5), (6) and (7) to become a causative construction as in data (5a), (6a),
and (7a) requires the presence of causative verbs menyebabkan, membuat, and menyuruh. The
presence of these causative verbs makes the analytical causative construction has two predicates
in each of its construction. The impact of the addition of the causative verb is the addition of an
argument which functions as the causer. The presence of verbs menyebabkan and membuat in
data (5a) and (6a) requires the presence of kakak and ibu as the causer to do something and to
make adik sedih and saya tidur. Similar to data (7a), the causative verb menyuruh causes the
teacher to do something for the students that is doing some homework.
Predicate of the cause components which accompanying the following causative verbs
menyebabkan, membuat, and menyuruh do not only belong to categorized intransitive verbs (5a)
but also belong to categorized transitive verbs (7a). Data (8) below shows that the accompanied
predicate of causative verbs menyebabkan can be also an adjective. The causer Susi in data (8)
caused the causee Susan happy.
Data:
8.
Susan senang.
8a
Susi menyebabkan Susan senang.
8b
*Susi menyebabkan senang Susan.
Analytical causative constructions as causative formation process with causative verbs
seem to state a tendency that this construction is not only constructed because of the role of
causative verbs, but the structure of the argument also plays important roles. The roles of the
argument structure in analytical causative construction can be proved from the ungrammatical or
unacceptable construction of data (5b), (6b), and (7b). Based on the argument structure category
the structure of analytical causative construction in Indonesian language consists of
[FN-
FVKaus-FN-FV/FAjv] for causative which derives from intransitive basic with argument
structure [FN-FV/FAjv] and argument structure [FN - FN - FVKaus - FN - FV] for causative
which derives from mono transitive basic verbs with argument structure [FN - FN - FV].
In accordance with the characteristics of causative construction which consists of cause and
effect, the presence of an argument which acts as a causer becomes very important in the
causative construction. In the causative imperatives construction, the causee argument implicitly
presents. It is not possible to find two arguments function as subject in one sentence. The
presence of causee argument in this type of construction will change the function of syntactic
argument from non causative construction. For example, the subject argument of intransitive
verb in non causative construction in data (5), (6), and (8), with the presence of a new argument
that acts as causers, namely kakak and ibu in data (5), (6), and (8) cause the subjects on the non
causative construction adik and saya turn into a direct object. This change of function occurs
since the function of subject has been filled with causer argument, while the function of the
direct object in the causative construction is still empty. Furthermore, the causer argument Pak
Guru in data (7a) makes the subject which derives from mono transitive verb in non causative
construction in data (7) turns into indirect object function as the direct object position is still
occupied by pekerjaan rumah.
3.1.1.2 Morphological Causative
A number of affixes as causative markers in Indonesian language are {me- -kan, {kan},{per-}, and {me-}, {me- -i}. Those affixes are able to adhere to pre category word or to words
that have been categorized such as adjective, verb, adverb, number, and noun. Words which
belong to verb category and have causative meaning in Indonesian language are among others
menutup, membuka, membunuh.
a. {me- -kan} + Noun as basic
budaya
membudayakan
‘to make something (X) to become cultural.’
Pendidikan dapat membudayakan masyarakat.
artikel
mengartikelkan
‘to make something (X) to become an article’
Dia sering mengartikelkan tulisannya.
hutan
menghutankan
‘to make something (X) to become forested’
Pemerintah daerah menghutankan bukit-bukit.
b. {me- -kan} + Verb as basic
buka
membukakan
‘to make something (X) to become opened’
Ibu itu membukakan pakaian anaknya yang basah
c. {me- -kan} + Adverb as basic
belakang
membelakangkan
‘to make something (X) to become delayed’
Mereka sepakat untuk membelakangkan acara
dansa.
d. {me- -kan} + Number as basic
satu
menyatukan
‘to make something (X) to become united’
Kita harus menyatukan pendapat.
Kepala suku telah menyatukan pimpinan di daerah
itu.
e. {me- -i} + Noun as basic
beban
membebani
‘to make something (X) to become burdened’
Jangan kamu membebani dia dengan pekerjaan
yang lain.
f. {me- -i} + Verb as basic
lepas
melepasi
‘to make something (X) to become loose’
Ia melepasi kancing bajunya.
g. {me- -i} + Adjective as basic
benar
membenari
‘to make something (X) to become corrected’
Orang itu membenari anaknya.
basah
membasahi
‘to make something (X) to become wetted’
Air hujan membasahi kebun kami.
berat
memberati
‘to make something (X) to become heavy’
Mereka memberati perahu itu dengan barangbarang bawaan.
h. {per- } + Adjective as basic
besar
‘to make something (X) to become widen’
perbesar
Perbesar gambar itu.
i. {- kan} + Adjective as basic
bersih
‘to make something (X) menjadi cleaned’
bersihkan
Bersihkan ruangan kelas ini.
j. {-kan } + Number as basic
satu
‘to make something (X) to become united’
satukan
Satukan pendapat kalian.
k. {me-} + Adjective as basic
Consider the following data.
9.
9a
Pagar itu
roboh.
Pagar Def
roboh
Ayah
roboh
me
Ayah Kaus roboh
10.
10a
10b
kan
Kaus
Risa
mem beli
baju
Risa
Act
baju
beli
Risa
mem
beli
Risa
Kaus
beli Kaus
Ayah membuat Risa
Ayah
Kaus
kan
pagar itu.
pagar Def
Dina baju.
ben
mem beli baju.
Risa Act
beli baju.
There is an explanation of data (9) that the causative marker which is attached to
intransitive verb changes the verb into causative construction. The attachment of causative
marker causes the addition of causer argument of Ayah who is doing something to make the
fence roboh. On the other hand, the addition of marker {- kan} on transitive verb membeli does
not make any causer argument but the existence of the benefited argument Dina in data (10a).
The addition of marker {- kan} on transitive verb has an impact of changing the verb into
benefactive applicative verb. Unlike the formation of morphological causative affixation in data
(10b) which shows non causative construction with transitive verb has possibility to be changed
into causative construction using causative verb membuat and in this case analytical causative is
formed. Another thing that can be observed is the ease to describe micro situation in both
constructions. In the analytical causative micro situations are easier to be described rather than
the micro situations in the morphological causative. Here are some examples of the data:
11.
Cat lukisan itu tebal.
11a
Saya membuat cat lukisan itu tebal.
Kaus
11b
Saya
me
nebal kan
cat lukisan itu.
Kaus tebal Kaus
12.
Kakak men cabut
Kaus cabut
12a
i
rumput.
Kaus
Ibu membuat kakak men cabut
Kaus
Kaus cabut
i
rumput.
Kaus
Components of cause and effect in data (11a) are easier to be described because of the
presence of two predicates on the data. The two predicates are membuat as the causative verb
and tebal as the predicate of data (11). The cause component is characterized by the verb
membuat that explicitly explains the causee Saya is doing something about lukisan and the
effect component explicitly marked by the predicate tebal in cat lukisan itu tebal. In contrast to
data ( 11b) cause component does not appear explicitly. The only component that seems to exist
is the component cause in Saya membuat cat lukisan itu tebal, while the effect component which
is already in causative predicate menebalkan itself does not appear in the structure. From the
description it can be concluded that the events which become components of cause and effect in
the analytical causative can be illustrated separately, while the events of the components cause
and
effect
in
morphological
causative
are
merged
into
one
event.
If the structure of both causatives is described through logical structure proposed by Van Valin
and La Polla (1997:102-113), then the logical structure of each causative construction can be
elaborated as follows.
a. Analytical causative construction in Indonesian Language is: [do(X)] CAUSE
BECOME predicate (Y), if the predicate of non causative is categorized adjective and
intransitive verb.
b. Analytical construction in Indonesian Language is [do] (X) CAUSE [do (Y) BECOME
predicate (Z)], if the predicate of the non causative construction is a transitive verb.
c. Causative construction in Indonesian Language is [do (X)] CAUSE [BECOME
predicate (Y)].
The component structure of cause is shown by component [do (X)], while the component
of effect is shown by [BECOME predicate (Y) or [do (Y) BECOME predicate (Z)]. The presence
of effect in the causative construction with or without structure [do (Y)] indicates that the
causative construction argument (Y) can be causee only or be the cause as well as causee.
Argument (Y) will be causee only on morphological causative construction (lukisan on data 11b)
and analytical causative with basic predicate which is categorized as intransitive verb and
adjective (lukisan on data 11a). While the argument (Y) appears as the cause in the analytical
causative with basic predicate which is categorized as transitif verb. (Kakak in data 12a) as an
argument (Y) is said as cause since Kakak causes arguments (Z) grass to become removed or
extracted and on the contrary Kakak is also said as causee because of his activity is triggered by
the presence of the argument (X) Ibu.
3.1.1.3 Resultative Causative
A number of causative marker affixes in Indonesian language are {me-} and {ter-}.
These affixes are able to attach to pre categorial words or even categorized words such as
adjective, noun, verb, and number. In Indonesian language examples of categorized words which
have causative meaning among others are membeku, memerah, membatu, terbuka, menyatu.
Please note the following data.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Air
itu
mem- beku.
Air
itu
Kaus
Padi
me - nguning.
Padi
Kaus
kuning
Kue ketannya
sudah
mem - batu.
Kue ketannya
sudah
Kaus
Pintu
itu
ter -
buka.
Pintu
itu
Kaus buka.
The four numbers of the above data can be explained that the causative markers {me-}
and {ter-} which are attached to the verbs have the ability to change the verb construction to
become resultative causative construction. The attachment of the causative marker causes
causative meaning that emphasizes the result. This construction can not be pacified and the
subject of this sentence is a causer, while causer never appears explicitly. The addition of the
markers {me-} and {ter-} on verbs cause the verbs change into resultatifve causative verb.
3.1.1.4 Lexical Causative
Micro situations in lexical causative construction are delivered in one event and the same
thing also happens on the morphological causative. The interpretation of cause and effect
components can be done from the lexical causative verb itself. Membuka, menutup, membunuh,
membersihkan, and mengotori, are some of the lexical causative verbs. Consider the example of
the following data.
17.
Ibu
mem
bersih
kan
sayuran.
Ibu
Kaus
bersih
Kaus sayuran
Two events that occur in data (17) are Ibu membersihkan sayuran as the component of
causer which is performed explicitly and sayur menjadi dalam keadaan bersih can be understood
as the component of effect, although this component is not mentioned explicitly. Having a look
at the micro situation in lexical causative construction which is also performed in one event thus
it is definite that the logical structure of the lexical causative construction is the same as the
logical structure of the morphological causative construction [do (X)] CAUSE [ BECOME
predicate (Y)]
3.2. Causative Based on Semantic Parameter
Causative analysis based on the semantic parameters is necessary to be done because of
the result of the causative constructions either with affixation or causative verbs, semantically
performs a similar meaning. Similarly, the verbs roboh and merobohkan perform the same
meaning that is roboh, but if it is traced roboh and merobohkan have different semantic features.
The semantic feature meant here is the element of intent. This intentional semantic feature can be
measured by adding the adverb ‘intentionally' on the causative construction. The addition of the
adverb on causative construction which has the meaning unintentionally will cause causative
construction itself either ungrammatical or unacceptable. Please consider the data below.
18.
Budi
18a
Kakak
men
Kakak
Kaus
18b
18c
tertawa.
tertawa
tertawa
kan
Budi.
Kaus
Budi.
*Kakak mentertawakan Budi dengan sengaja.
Kakak sengaja mentertawakan Budi.
The addition of adverb intentionally in data (18a) makes the sentence to become
unacceptable (18b). Whereas the same treatment is applied to data (18c) causes the acceptance
and what also occurs is emphasis on meaning. The difference of intentional feature besides
through the affixation process is also demonstrated through analytical causative construction and
morphological causative. Let us consider the following data.
19.
Ibu
itu
mem
buka
Ibu
Def
Kaus buka
kan
pakaian anaknya yang basah.
Kaus
19a
Ibu membuat pakaian anaknya yang basah terbuka.
20.
Kebakaran itu membunuh Budi.
Def
Kaus
20a
Kebakaran itu membuat Budi tewas.
21.
Kamu telah me
Kaus
21a
noda
noda
i
upacara ini.
Kaus
Kamu telah membuat upacara ini ternoda.
Def
22.
Para polisi terpaksa meng
Kaus
habis i
penjahat
habis Kaus
Def
22a
Para polisi telah membuat penjahat itu tewas.
23.
Para petani berhasil mem
Kaus
binasa kan
itu.
hama tikus.
binasa Kaus
23a
Para petani berhasil membuat hama tikus mati.
24.
Amukan badai sedikitnya telah me
rusak kan sepuluh rumah penduduk.
Kaus rusak Kaus
24a
Amukan badai sedikitnya telah membuat sepuluh rumah penduduk rusak.
25.
Keadaan ekonomi keluarganya mem
berantak
kan
Kaus
berantak
Kaus
25a
kuliahnya.
Keadaan ekonomi keluarganya membuat kuliahnya berantakan.
From the two data (19) and (19a) can be noticed that there is a meaning of intentional in
the first data (19) (morphological causative) and unintentional meaning in the second data (19a)
(analytical causative). Whereas in data (20) and (20a) it is noticed that a cause which means
unintentional caused by accidental fire is acceptable in the analytical causative construction (21a)
and unacceptable in the morphological causative (21). Explanation that can be given to this
phenomenon is animate or not the cause. Animate cause, is the cause with its capability to
control the cause, will be acceptable in the morphological causative but unacceptable in the
analytical causative. On the contrary, inanimate cause is acceptable in the analytical causative
but unacceptable in morphological causative. In addition to [+ animate], other semantic feature
of the cause of the morphological causative is [+human]. The exception seems to object [-
animate, - human], amukan badai and kuliahnya in data (24) and (25) are treated the same as the
object [+ animate, + human] since it has natural strength to become causer. In addition to the
unintentional feature the involvement of a causer in causative construction in Indonesian
language also makes the difference between one causative construction and the other. Whereas in
the morphological causative construction with affixes {me- -kan} and {me- -i} the difference of
causer involvement, either directly or indirectly can be found in the example of data below.
26. Bunyi senapan itu meng - gugup - kan kami.
Kaus
27. Ia me
Kaus
gugup
- nguning - kan
nguning
nasi dengan kunyit.
Kaus
28. Adik sedang me - runcing - kan
Kaus
runcing
29. Ia men - cedera - i
Kaus
Kaus
pensilnya.
Kaus
istrinya.
cedera Kaus
In terms of the involvement of causer in causative with affixes {me- -kan} dan {me- -i}
can be direct or indirect. If it is direct it means the activity which is carried out by the causer will
directly happen to the causee physically such as the actions of menguningkan, meruncingkan,
and mencederai (data 27, 28, and 29). While the sound of gun (data 26) does not touch us
physically, but is able to make us nervous.
Other semantic feature that needs to be considered in this analysis is the range of duration
between effect and cause since it has been tested with some basic verbs (with categories of
circumstances, activities, and processes). The division of these three types of verbs done by
Chafe (1970), range of duration between cause and effect in a causative construction can not be
absolutely concluded. Sometimes range of duration of cause and effect components is a causative
construction derives from state basic verbs is faster than causative which derives from activity
verb and this condition occurs on the contrary. Consider the following data.
30.
Es cair. (state verb)
30a
Ibu melelehkan/mencairkan es.
31.
Kakak mandi. (activity verb)
31a
Kakak memandikan adik.
32.
Doni jatuh dari tangga. (activity verb)
32a
Dona menjatuhkan Doni dari tangga.
33.
Almari bersih. (state verb)
33a
Rina membersihkan alamarinya.
The length of process of cause until the ice melts or becomes liquid requires a longer time
than the process of bathing the younger brother. On the contrary dropping someone off a ladder
requires a much shorter time than cleaning the cupboard. Comparison of duration between cause
and effect in causative constructions of Indonesian language can also be observed through a
causative verb form used (with affixation or the causative verb). Consider the data below.
34.
Adik mandi.
34a
Kakak me
Kaus
34b
- mandi- kan
adik.
mandi kaus
Kakak membuat adik mandi.
The effect of Adik mandi in data (34) occur simultaneously (directly) that is when Kakak
is doing the activity of bathing adik. Meanwhile the effect of Adik mandi in data (34b) does not
occur immediately as the effect in data (34a). In this test case with adverbs may help the
understanding of direct and indirect consequences caused by both forms of the causative
construction. Adverb that can be used is adverb with the meaning of how. By using this adverb
can be clearly observed that the effect of the morphological causative is direct (can be seen from
that data 34c is not acceptable), while the effect of the analytical causative is indirect (can be
proved from the acceptance of data 34d).
34c
Kakak me
Kaus
34d
mandi kan
adik dengan menariknya.
mandi kaus
Kakak membuat adik mandi dengan menariknya.
By comparing the features and the parameters of semantic Comrie (1989) offers, thus it
can be said that feature of intentional can be put in line with the parameter of level of control
accepted by causee. The real causative is parallel to the unintentional causative, whereas
permissive causative is parallel to intentional causative. Semantic features in the form of causer
involvement, either directly or indirectly, in Indonesian language can also be interpreted as the
real causative and causative permissive. It is called the real causative if the causer of action is not
directly happen to the causee physically and it is called permissive causative if the causer and the
cause do not involve physically. While the feature of duration between the appearance of cause
and effect components is parallel to the closeness of the relationship between the component
parameters cause and effect. If the range of duration is short then direct causative is formed.
Conversely, if the range of duration is long indirect causative is formed.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the analyses in this research causative construction can be formed through
several ways with its meaning. Causative construction in this research is Indonesian language
which has been analyzed from two view points with its parameter, (1) morphosyntax parameter
and (2) semantic parameter. Based on morphosyntax parameter
there are four types of
causatives in Indonesian language namely analytical causative, morphological causative,
lexical causative, and resultative causative. Based on semantic features there are two types of
causative in Indonesian language namely the controlling level accepted by causee and the
closeness of relationship between cause and effect components.
(Ni Wayan Sukarini, graduated from Udayana University for her S1,S2 and S3)
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alwi, Hasan, dkk. 2003. Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Edisi ketiga. Jakarta: Balai
Pustaka.
Bungin, Burhan. 2008. Penelitian Kualitatif: Komunikasi, Ekonomi, Kebijakan Publik, dan Ilmu
Sosial Lainnya. Cetakan kedua. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Second Edition.
Publisher: University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals, Linguistic Typology, Syntax and Morphology.
Second Edition. Publisher: University of Chicago Press.
Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. 2005. Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Edisi
ketiga. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka .
Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia. 1976. Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa. Cetakan
kelima. Jakarta: PN Balai Pustaka.
Sudaryanto.1993. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana
University Press.