Linguistic and Computational Analysis of Applicative -i in Indonesian

1. A linguistic and computational morphosyntacticanalysis for the applicative -i in Indonesian Wayan Arka, Mary Dalrymple, MeladelMistica, SurielMofu , Avery Andrews, and Jane SimpsonAustralian National University, Oxford University, The University of Sydney Funded by :ARC Discovery Grant DP0877595 (Australia)ESRC Small Grant RES-000-22-3063 (UK) LFG09 Cambridge University

2. Outline of the talk • Introduction • Preliminaries: Indonesian verbal morphology • Previous studies on –i • Our present study: issues & challenges • Basic properties of –i and the analysis • Proposal & claims • Implementation • Conclusion and further research LFG09 Cambridge University

3. Introduction: verbal morphology • Indonesian: rich verbal morphology (1) a. datang ‘come’ datang-i ‘come to X[go/loc]’ (applicative) datang-kan ‘make X[pt/th] come’ , or (causative) ‘come with X[com]’ (comitative appl.) men-datang-i ‘AV-come-i’ di-datang-i ‘PASS-come-i’ men-datang-kan ‘AV-come-kan’ di-datang-kan ‘PASS-come-kan’ • Merekamendatang-ipolisic. Polisidi-datang-i3p AV.come-i police police PASS-come-i‘They came to/approached the police’ ‘The police were approached.’ (2) air ‘water’  air-i ‘irrigate/flood X (with water)’ (causative) ?*air-kan (not attested) (3) takut ‘afraid’  takut-ii) ‘X makes Y afraid (of something)’ (causative) ii) ‘Y is afraid of X’ (applicative) takut-kan (same as takut-i) LFG09 Cambridge University

4. Introduction: verbal morphology (cont’d) (4) a kirim‘send X[theme] to Y[goal]’ (root: Vtr)kirim(-kan) ‘send X[theme] to Y[goal]’ (derived Vtr) kirim-i ‘send Y[goal] X[theme]’ (derived Vdtr) b. Ayah mengirim(-kan) uangkepadadia father AV.send(-kan) money to 3s ‘Father sent money to him/her.’ c. Ayah mengirim-idiauang father AV.send-i 3s money ‘Father sent her/him money.’ d. * Ayah mengirimdiauang e. * Ayah mengirim-iuangkepadadia f. * Ayah mengirimuangdia LFG09 Cambridge University

5. Indonesian Pargram Project & Previous studies of -i • Our present project on Indonesian Grammar development • Requires a precise (formal) linguistic and computational analysis of –i(and other verbal morphology): a clear gap in the previous studies of Indonesian (Chung 1976; Musgrave 2001; Myhill 1988; Purwo 1989, 1995; Macdonald 2001, among others) • Previous studies: • –ihas been given less attention than its –kan counterpart: often regarded as ‘simpler’ than –kan(Vamarasi 1999). • Traditional grammars simply list the uses of the suffixes (Moeliono and Dardjowidjojo 1988; Sneddon 1996, among others) without explicit analysis of the morphosyntactic and semantic constraints • Kroeger (2007) claims that there are two kinds of –kan. However, -iis only mentioned in relation to –kan/-ialternation (cf. ex.(4)) LFG09 Cambridge University

6. Issues & challenges • Linguistic issues in the analysis of -i • applicative and causative polysemy/homonymy (cf. (1)-(3)): • The same affix expresses causative/applicative function (Austin 2005) • precise morphosyntactic & semantic constraints on -i • Morphology: verbal/adjectival/noun roots • Syntax: derived structures • Valence-changing effect: i) monotransitive (with an oblique), ii) ditransitive • No valence-changing effect • Semantics: locative applicative/causative, progressive/iterative aspect, events with displaced themes • acceptable/unacceptable –i verbs • its possible alternation with –kan verbs • Challenges in computational (XLE) implementation • how to enable our system to recognize the suffix –i as a distinct morphological unit, as part of a larger system of verb formation in Indonesian. • how to capture syntactic/semantic properties of –iso that our electronic grammar can produce correct parses of sentences headed by verbs with -i. LFG09 Cambridge University

7. Proposal & claims • An a-str-based analysis with the following key points: (5) a. polysemous–i: a transitive head PRED taking the PRED of the root as its argument (predicate composition: Alsina 1993, Butt 1995, Butt/King/Maxwell 2003): -i< ARG1 , ARG2 , PRED < __ , …>> | U:goal/source/loc • ARG1 is thematically higher than ARG2, not necessarily an agent b. (underspecified) argument fusion, constrained by the semantics of the roots, possibly with lexicalisation for certain verbs • Possibilities of fusion: single or double • Arguments of thematically similar types are fused: • ARG1 tends to fuse with an actor-like argument of the embedded PRED • ARG2 fuses with Goal/Source/Loc of the embedded PRED (if any) , otherwise with Theme c. the derived a-str is constrained by the a-str properties: -i-kanalternation • Core arguments outrank non-Core arguments, and within these groups arguments are ordered thematically (Manning 1996, Arka 2003): -kan -i-i / -kan • Transitive: • <<ARG1, ARG2> (< _ >)> (A:agt) (U:th) (go/src/loc) NP NP PP • Transitive: • <<ARG1, ARG2> (< _ >)> (A:agt) (U:go/src/loc) (inst) NP NP PP • ditransitive: • <<ARG1, ARG2, ARG3>> (A:agt) (U:ben/go/loc) (th) NP NPNP LFG09 Cambridge University

8. Proposal & claims (cont’d) • Given this analysis, different types of –iresult from different possibilities for argument fusion (6) a. Double fusion: • ARG1 is fused with an actor-like ARG of the embedded PRED whereas ARG2 is fused with another argument • The derived structure: applicative (valence-changing), or simply additional aspectual meaning (no valence-changing) b. Single fusion: • Only ARG2 is fused with the Goal/Loc argument of the embedded PRED • The derived structure: causative (valence-changing) • -i <ARG1, ARG2 PRED < _ , …. > (U:go/src/loc) • -i <ARG1, ARG2 PRED < ( _ ,) go/loc > (U:go/src/loc) • -i <ARG1, ARG2 PRED < _ > (U:Loc) pt/th LFG09 Cambridge University

9. Double fusion • Types 1 & 2 • the goal/loc is an Oblique argument in the a-str of the root predicate • Free intransitive roots: jatuh ‘fall’, datang ‘come’ (ex. (1)), … • Free transitive roots: kirim ‘send’, lempar ‘throw/pelt’, … • Bound roots: -kunjung ‘visit’, … • Type 1: intransitive roots  derived transitive –iverbs (7) a. men-jatuh-i ‘AV-fall-i’: b. Mangga yang besar men-jatuh-irumah-nya(*menjatuhkan) mango REL big AV-fall-i house-3s ‘A big mango fell onto his house.’ c. Rumah-nyadi-jatuh-imangga yang besar(*dijatuhkan) house-3s PASS-fall-imanggo REL big ‘His house was fell onto by a big mango’ • ‘mango’ ‘house’ • SUBJ OBJ • -i<ARG1 , ARG2 jatuh ‘fall’ < _ > (< loc>) (U:go/loc) LFG09 Cambridge University

10. Double fusion (cont’d) • Type 2: three-place roots with OBJ understood as a ‘displaced theme’  Type 2a: derived ditransitive–iverbs; e.g. kirim ‘send’, serah- ‘transfer’, sodor- ‘offer’, suguh- ‘serve’, … Type 2b: derived transitive -iverbs with the underlying displaced theme realised as Instr (OBL); e.g. lempar ‘throw’, … (8) a. Ayah SUBJmengirim-idiaOBJuangOBJ father AV.send-i 3s moneyi) ‘Father sent her/him money.’ ii) *’Father sent money for her/her’ b. Ayah mengirim(-kan) uang [kepadadia]OBL father AV.send(-kan) money to 3s ‘Father sent money to him/her.’ c. Ayah SUBJmengirim-kandiaOBJuangOBJ father AV.send-kan 3s money * i) ‘Father sent her/him money.’ ii) ‘Father sent money for him/her.’ • ‘father’ ‘him/her’ ‘money’ • SUBJ OBJ OBJ2 | | | • -i<ARG1 , ARG2 kirim ‘send’ < _ , _ > < _ > > (U:go/loc) (ag) (th) (goal) LFG09 Cambridge University

11. Double fusion (cont’d) • Examples of Type 2blempar ‘throw’<(agt), (th)>(<goal>) lempar-i <(agt), (goal)> <(instr)> (9) a. Massa melempar batu pada polisi crowd AV.thow stone to police ‘the crowd threw stones to the police’ b. Massa melempar-i polisi dengan batu… crowd AV.thow-I police with stone ‘the crowd pelted the police with stones’ • ‘crowd’ ‘police’ ‘stone’ • SUBJ OBJ OBL | | | • -i<ARG1 , ARG2 lempar ‘throw’ < _ , _ > < _ > > (U:go/loc) (ag) (th) (goal) LFG09 Cambridge University

12. Double fusion (cont’d) • Type 3: • Based on transitive roots whose OBJ is understood as a ‘goal/patient’, not a ‘displaced theme’; e.g. pukul ‘hit’, tendang ‘kick’, … • Derived transitive –i verbs: • no valence change; only aspectual meaning (PROG, iterative) is added (10) a. Iamemukulsaya 3s AV.hit 1s ‘S/he hit me’ b. Iamemukul-isaya c. * Iamemukul-kansaya 3s AV.hit-i 1s 3s AV.hit-kan 1s ‘S/he was hitting me’ (this makes no sense!) • SUBJ OBJ | | • -i<ARG1 , ARG2 pukul ‘hit’ < _ , _ > > (U:go) (ag) (pt> LFG09 Cambridge University

13. Single fusion • SUBJ OBJ (OBL) | | | • -i <ARG1, ARG2 PRED < ( _ ) go/loc > (U:go/src/loc) th • Type 4: • Bound roots; e.g. alir- ‘flow’, tumpuk- ‘pile up’ • noun roots; sinar ‘light’, air ‘water’, kutu ‘louse’, buku (>*buku-i, buku-kan‘record in a book’), surat ‘letter’ (>surat-i‘send X a letter’, *suratkan), *langit-i /langit-kan (langit ‘sky’). (11) a. Buku-nyabertumpuk book-3s ber.pile.up ‘the books piled up’ b. Merekamenumpuk-imejaitudenganbuku. 3p AV.pile.up-I table that with book ‘They piled the table with books.’ c. Bukuitumenumpuk-imejaitu(Double fusion: Pattern 1) book that AV.pile.up-i table that ‘the books are piling up on the table.’ LFG09 Cambridge University

14. Single fusion (cont’d) (12) The N root is understood as the (displaced) theme a. Sungai inimembatas-i Malang danLumajangriver this AV.border-i Malang and Lumajang‘This river becomes the border of Malang and Lumajang.’ • Merekamengair-isawah-nya.3p AV.water-i rice.field-3s‘They were flooding their rice-field.’ c. Diamengulit-ipisangitu.3 AV.skin-i banana that‘He peeled the bananas (Lit. removed the skin from the bananas) d. Diamengulit-ibukuitu. 3s AV.skin-i book that‘He added a cover to the book.’ • ‘s/he’ ‘banana’ • SUBJ OBJ | | • -i <ARG1, ARG2 ‘BE.AT’< [SKIN], loc > (U:loc/goal/source) LFG09 Cambridge University

15. Single fusion (cont’d) • -i <ARG1, ARG2 PRED < _ > (U:goal/loc) pt • Type 4: causative -i • Adjective roots expressing patientive state predicates; typically associated surfaces/locatives; e.g. sakit ‘painful’, panas ‘hot’, kotor ‘dirty’, penuh ‘full’, … • Roots expressing colours: hitam ‘black’, putih ‘white’, … (13) a. Jangankotor-i /?*kotor-kanjalanitu! NEG dirty-I / dirty-kan road that ‘Don’t make the (surface of the) road dirty’ b. Rakitusayapenuh-i/?*penuh-kandenganbuku shelf that 1s UV.full-I UV.full-kan with bool ‘I made the shelf full of books’ c. Sayamemanasi / memanas-kan air 1s AV.hot-iAV.hot-kan water ‘I was heating up/heated up the water’ d. Sayamemanasi / ?memanas-kanruangan. 1s AV.hot-I AV.hot-kan room ‘I was heating up/heated up the room.’ LFG09 Cambridge University

16. Implementation • Implemented in XLE (http://www2.parc.com/isl/groups/nltt/xle/), using the restriction operator (Kaplan and Wedekind 1993; Butt, King, and Maxwell 2003; Butt and King 2006) (14) APPL_I = {( PRED) = ‘V_Appl_i <( SUBJ) ( OBJ) %PRED3>’\PRED\GF = \PRED\GF { ( SUBJ) = ( SUBJ) ( OBL-LOC)=( OBJ) | ( SUBJ) = ( SUBJ) ( OBL-LOC) = ( OBJ) ( OBJ)= ( OBL-INST) ( OBL-INST CASE)=c obl-inst | ( SUBJ) = ( SUBJ) ( OBJ)=( OBJ) ( TNS-ASP PROG)=+ ~( OBL-INST) "just for the iterative meaning of –i” } ( PRED)=( PRED ARG3) | (^ PRED) = ‘V_Appl_i<( SUBJ)( OBJ) ( OBJ2) %PRED4>'  \PRED\GF=  \PRED\GF ( SUBJ) = ( OBJ) ( OBL-LOC) = ( OBJ) ( OBJ)= ( OBJ2) ( PRED)=( PRED ARG4) } ( APPLICATIVE)= +. Type 1: IntRoot. -> Vtr Type 2b: TrRoot. -> Vtr. Type 3: TrRoot. -> Vtr. Type 2a: TrRoot. -> Vdtr. LFG09 Cambridge University

17. Sublexical tree (15) partial sublexical c-str tree for duduk-i‘sit-i= sit on X’ LFG09 Cambridge University

18. The -i verb with a N root • Certain N roots of the sublexical rule of –i are annotated with a two-place locative predicate: ‘BE_AT< (theme), (loc) >’ • The PRED of the N is typically associated with the theme (becoming a constant in the verb semantic structure) and the locative argument fuses with ARG2 of -i. (16) Partial sublexical tree for air-i ‘water-i X = irrigate/flood X with water’ LFG09 Cambridge University

19. Sample parses (cont’d) (17) a. dia men-duduk-ikursi 3s AV- sit -i chair ‘s/he is sitting on a chair’ b. c-str and f-str of (17a) LFG09 Cambridge University

20. Sample parses (cont’d) (18) a. Mereka memukul-i kami 3p AV. hit -i 1p.ex ‘They were hitting us’ b. c-str and f-str of (18a) LFG09 Cambridge University

21. Sample parses (19) a. Ayah meng- air -isawah Father AV- water -irice.field ‘Father flooded/irrigated the rice field.’ b. C-str and f-str of (19) LFG09 Cambridge University

22. Conclusions & future research • Promising progress in the precise analysis of locative –iin Indonesian and its implementation • predicate composition (with verbal and non-verbal roots) • polysemous–i: a-str with underspecified argument fusion with ARG2 being locked to LOC related properties where possible. • Double or single fusion gives rise to different derived structures: mainly applicativisation, but causativisation is expected. • Event structures (states, actions, etc.) and certain attributes of things associated with the lexical item of the base appear to constrain possible –iderivation (and its possible –kan alternation) • This needs further research • Linguistic analysis and XLE implementation • XLE’s current set-up: • not all ideas can be easily implemented; e.g., linking & diathesis • Voice alternations use classic lexical rules in Indonesian Pargram at the moment • consistency in the sublexical structure is not strictly imposed • Future research: • More on –iand -kanalternations, in particular their event/Qualia structures constraints (cf. Pustejovsky 1991). • the colloquial locative -in, whose functions cover –iand –kan. LFG09 Cambridge University

23. References Arka, I Wayan. 2003. Balinese morphosyntax: a lexical-functional approach. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Arka, I Wayan, and Christopher Manning. 2008. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: a new perspective. In Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian Languages, edited by P. K. Austin and S. Musgrave. Stanford: CSLI. Austin, P. 2005 [1996]. Causatives and applicatives in Australian Aboriginal languages, edited by K. Matsumura. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Chung, Sandra. 1976. On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. In Subject and topic, edited by C. N. Li. NewYork: Academic Press. Butt, Miriam, and Tracy Holloway King. 2006 Restriction for morphological valency alternations: the Urdu causative. In Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes. , edited by R. M. Kaplan. Stanford: CSLI. Butt, Miriam, Tracy Holloway King King, and John T Maxwell III. 2003. Complex predicates via restrictions. Kaplan, Ronald M., and Jürgen Wedekind. 1993. Restriction and correspondence-based translation. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 193-2002 Kroeger, Paul. 2007. Morphosyntactic vs. morphosemantic functions of Indonesian -kan. In In Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes of Joan Bresnan, edited by A. Zaenen, J. Simpson, T. H. King, J. Grimshaw, J. Maling and C. Manning. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. LFG09 Cambridge University

24. Macdonald, R. Ross and Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono. 2001. A student's reference grammar of modern formal Indonesian. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford: CSLI. Moeliono, Anton M, and Soenjono Dardjowidjojo, eds. 1988. Tata bahasa baku Bahasa Indonesia Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Musgrave, S. 2001. Non-subject arguments in Indonesian. PhD thesis, Melbourne University. Myhill, J. 1988. Agent incorporation in Indonesian. Journal of Linguistics 24 (1):111-136. Purwo, Bambang Kaswanti. 1989. Voice in Indonesian : A Discourse Study. In Serpih -serpih telaah pasif bahasa Indonesia, edited by B. K. Purwo. Jogyakarta: Kanisius. ———. 1995. The Two Proto-types of Ditransitive Verbs: The Indonesian Evidence. In Discourse grammar and typology, edited by W. Abraham, T. Givon and S. A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sneddon, James. 2006. Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Sneddon, James N. 1996. Indonesian reference grammar. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin. Vamarasi, Marit Kana. 1999. Grammatical relations in Bahasa Indonesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. LFG09 Cambridge University