THE SEMANTIC OF INDONESIAN DATIVE ALTERNATION : A CASE STUDY IN JAWA POS NEWSPAPER.

THE SEMANTIC OF INDONESIAN DATIVE ALTERNATION

A Case Study in

Jawa Pos

_Newspaper

THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya

ENGLISH DEPARTMENTFACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SUNAN AMPEL

SURABAYA

2016

By:

ERMINIA UTARI Reg. Number: A03212037

SEMANTIC CONDITION OF INDONESIAN DATIVE ALTERNATION

A Case Study in Jawa Pos Newspaper

Erminia Utari

A03212037

Thesis Advisor

Endartno Pilih Suwasono M.Pd.

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITYSUNAN AMPEL

SURABAYA

2016

ABSTRACT

Utari, Erminia. 2016. The Semantic of Indonesian Dative Alternation (A Case Study in Jawa Pos Newspaper). English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, State Islamic University Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Advisor : Endratno Pilih Swasono, M.Pd

Key Terms : Indonesian, Dative Alternation, and Semantic

Dative alternation refers to the alternation of the double object in ditransitive sentence. The different position of objects evokes two variants which called as prepositional object and double object. In this study, I analyzed Indonesian dative alternation in Jawa Pos; 23 and 24 September 2015 as my scope. The limitation of this study is give-types verbs and send-types verb. This study investigates whether Indonesian dative alternation has one meaning or two meaning and the characteristics which restrict dative variant. The data are presented descriptively because it describes and explains the meaning of Indonesian dative alternation used. The findings show that there are give-types verb has both variants, but has caused possession meaning only. Meanwhile, send-types verb has to-variant only, but has caused motion meaning and may have caused possession meaning based on the context. This study also found the characteristic which restrict each variant. Those are suffixes (suffix me-kan in to-variant and suffix me-i in double object), hidden Agent in passive form in to-variant, and short noun phrase or clitic after give-types verb in double object. It is hoped that this research contributes important information for the next researcher who is interested in doing the same kind of study. However, it is suggested for further researchers to use other event types of dative to develop this finding and uses other theory.

ABSTRAK

Utari, Erminia. 2016. The Semantic of Indonesian Dative Alternation (A Case Study in Jawa Pos Newspaper). English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, State Islamic University Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Pembimbing : Endratno Pilih Swasono, M.Pd

Kata Kunci : Indonesian, Dative Alternation, and Semantic

Dative alternation adalah pertukaran dua objek yang ada pada kalimat ditransitif. Perbedaaan posisi objek tersebut memunculkan dua bentuk yakni to-variant object (kepada-varian) dan double object(objek langsung). Penelitian ini menganalisis dative alternation yang ada pada bahasa Indonesia. Jangkuan penelitian ini ialah media cetak Jawa Pos pada 23 dan 24 September 2015. Batasan penelitian ini adalah give-types verbs and send-types verb. Penelitian ini mengamati apakah dative alternation yang ada pada bahasa Indonesia mempunyai satu arti atau dua arti, serta ciri-ciri pada kedua bentuk yang membatasi setiap bentuk dative alternation. Data disajikan secara deskriptif karena penelitian ini mendeskripsikan dan menjelaskan makna atau arti dari penggunaan dative alternation yang ada pada bahasa Indonesia. Hasil temuan menunjukkan bahwa give-types verb mempunyai dua bentuk, tetapi hanya mempunyai satu arti yaitu makna kepunyaan. Namun, kirim-types verb hanya mempunyai kepada-varian saja, tetapi mempunyai perpindahan makna dan mungkin juga mempunyai makna kepunnyaan sesuai dengan konteksnya. Penelitian ini juga menemukan ciri-ciri yang membatasi setiap varian dari dative alternation yang ada pada bahasa Indonesia. Ciri-ciri itu adalah imbuhan (imbuhan me-kan pada kepada-varian and imbuhan me-i pada objek langsung), pelaku tersembunyi pada kalimat pasif dalam kepada-varian, and frase kata benda pendek atau klitik setelah give-types verb dalam objek langsung. Hasil temuan ini diharpakan bahwa penelitian ini berkontribusi dalam memberikan informasi penting untuk para peneliti selanjutnya yang tertarik pada dative alternation. Bagaimanapun penelitian ini perlu untuk diperdalam dengan berbagai tipe kata kerja dative, maupun diperdalam dengan teori yang lain.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL SHEET I ... ii

APPROVAL SHHET II ... iii

DECLARATION ... iv

MOTTO ... v

PREFACE ... vi

ABSTRACT ... vii

ABSTRAK ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix

TABLE OF DIAGRAMS, FIGURES, AND TABLES ... xi

CHAPTER I 1.1 Background of Study ... 1

1.2 Statement of the problems ... 6

1.3 Objectives of the Study ... 6

1.4 Significance of the Study ... 7

1.5 Scope and Limitations ... 8

1.6 Definition of Key Terms ... 8

CHAPTER II 2.1 Dative Alternation ... 10

2.1.1 Polysemy Approach ... 10

2.1.2 Monosemy Approach ... 12

2.2 Semantic ... 16

2.2.2 The Kind of Meaning ... 16

2.2.3 Thematic Roles ... 18

CHAPTER III 3.1 Research Design ... 21

3.2 Research Approach ... 21

3.3 Object of the Reseach ... 21

3.4 Data Source ... 22

3.5 Procedure of Analysis ... 22

3.5.1 Data Collection ... 22

3.5.1 Data Analysis ... 23

CHAPTER IV 4.1 Semantic Aspects of Indonesian Dative Alternation ... 25

4.2 The Characteristics of Indonesian Dative Alternation ... 49

4.2.1. The Characteristics of To-Variant ... 50

4.2.2. The Characteristics of Double Object ... 60

CHAPTER V 5.1 Conclusion ... 64

5.2 Suggestion ... 68 REFERENCES

TABLE OF DIAGRAMS, FIGURES, AND TABLES

List of Table

Table 2.1.2.1 Dative Verb Having Only A Caused Possession Meaning ... 13 Table 2.1.2.2 Dative Verb Having both caused motion and possession meaning 13 Table 2.1.2.3 A Summary of the Verb-Sensitive Approach ... 14 Table 4.1.1 For-dative verbs ... 39 Table 4.1.2 Passive form of Give-types verb in Indonesian Dative Alternation 40 Table 4.1.3 Passive form of English Dative Alternation ... 43 Table 4.1.4 Passive form of Send-types verb in Indonesian Dative Alternation 47 Table 5.1.1 The differences between this study and previous studies ... 65 Table 5.1.2 The similarities between Indonesian Dative Alternation and English Dative Alternation ... 66 Table 5.1.3 The differences between Indonesian Dative Alternation and English Dative Alternation ... 66

List of Diagram

Diagram 4.1.1 The differences between Goal and Recipient... 31

List of Figure

Figure 4.2.1 Lexical definition of ‘ke’ ... 49 Figure 4.2.2 Illustration of Give-types verb ... 51 Figure 4.2.3 Schema of affix me-kan which entails express deed meaning .... 57

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Every language has properties including syntactic properties, phonological properties, morphological properties, semantic properties, and others. These properties can give us the primary data of linguistic. These have been discussed, analyzed and studied by many linguists in different discipline of linguistic theory. One of the topics which discuss overseas is dative alternation. Dative alternation has been discussed in many kinds of linguistics property. The prominent study about dative alternation is about its meaning which is not only studied in English but also has been studied in a lot of languages. For example, Tobias Bernaisch, Stefan Th. Gries, and Joybroto Mukherjee (2014) has studied The Dative

Alternation in South Asian English(es); Jorge Vega Vilanova (2012) has studied

Dative Experiencers in Catalan: Argument Structure, Thematic Roles, and their

Relation with Clitic Doubling; Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2008)

have studied about English ‘dative’ verbs and their counterparts in other languages including Russian, Hebrew, Dutch, Warlpiri, Icelandic, Mandarin, Yaqui and Fongebe; the thesis of master’s degree of Justin Rill (2011) by the title Unified Analysis of Dative Shift in English and the Applicative Construction in Chichewa; Joan Maling (2001) also has studied dative alternation in Germanic languages (English, German and Icelandic); Demonte (1995) also studied Dative Alternation in Spanish; then Givón (1984) citing evidence from several languages

2

Nevertheless, the study about dative alternation in Indonesian language is lack to observe. However, Indonesian language has been studied overseas including China, Japan, Philippine, Vietnam and so on. Regarding of that reasons, this study may help them to understand more about the characteristic of Indonesian, especially in dative alternation.

The reasons why I chose semantic as my theory to discuss dative alternation in Indonesian language are influenced by the early studies. Many studies of dative alternation have different point of views where double object (sometime called direct object) and prepositional object (sometime called indirect object: to-variant and for-variant) have different meaning. The point of view which argues the both variant has same meaning uses monosemy approach (sometime called Dative Shift). Monosemy approach linguists argue that the alternation which happens in all dative verbs does not influence the truth meaning. The important studies arguing for monosemy approach are Hall (1965), Emonds (1972), Baker (1988 & 1996), Larson (1988 & 1990) and den Dikken (1995), Kiparsky (1985), Dryer (1986) and Aoun & Li (1989). The contrast one uses polysemy approach (sometime called Dative Alternation). Polysemy approach linguists argue that all prepositional object has caused motion meaning. Meanwhile, all double object has caused possession meaning. The important studies arguing for polysemy are Green (1974), Oehrle (1976), Pinker (1990), Jackendoff (1990), Hale & Keyser (1996), Arad (1998), Speas (1990) and Krifka (1999 & 2003).

Richard Thomas Oehrle (1976) in his dissertation studied about The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. In his dissertation seems

3

that he uses polysemy where he is able to explain which one is acceptable and which one is not acceptable in both variants; double object and prepositional object. He proposes that a semantic criterion for dative verbs: the first object of double object verbs must be a possessor and second object in the prepositional must be goal (it also proposed by Green 1974, Goldsmith 1980 and Stowell 1981). Nevertheless, in his study, he cannot provide insight into the problem of why some verbs occur in the both double object and prepositional object and why some verbs occur in only one of those variants. Regarding of this niche, I am inspired to give the reason the restriction in Indonesian dative alternation to make clear understanding.

Jess Gropen, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Gorldberg and Ronald Wilson (1989) have studied about the learnability and acquisition applied in 5 children. The children has different ages and the duration of recorded is range. They used polysemy approach to found that (i) conservative usage of prepositional and double object variant precedes the productive application of a dative rule to new verbs that could not have been learned from the input, (ii) children’s use of the dative rule appears to follow board-range constraints pertaining to causation of possession at all stages, (iii) children can be productive depend on their background tendency, and (iv) the reason of over generalize dative verb is (1) the verb meaning of children are imperfect, (2) children do not differ from adult. The third point of their finding shows that dative alternation is one of conservatism. It means that most dative variants in children’s speech reflect their parents used. Therefore, in this study simply means there are no differences

4

of children and adult utterance. Both adult and children rarely obey some version of possession-change constraint. Yet, there is a few children’s utterance which over generalize that must be consideration to sum up this study although it is low frequency. This study does not answer: how can restriction to dative alternation be learned? It is very important to answer why it is acceptable and vice versa. Actually, it has answered by Manfred Krifka (2003) that lexical verb for dative alternation can restrict the objects. He divided lexical restrictions into 6 root meaning (possession, movement, continuous imparting of force, communication verbs, verbs of prevention of possession and morphological restrictions). With great regards, he missed the root meanings themselves. He argues that in the Double Object, the basic meaning is change of possession, yet in Prepositional case, it is movement to goal. Moreover, Malka Rappaport Hovav’s and Beth Levin’s (2008) answer it in The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity. They propose that every lexical have a root/base meaning (e.g. verb give only has possession meaning). So, the resections depend on verb lexical meaning. It explained in English, Russian, Dutch and German. How about in Indonesian language? Do Indonesian verb lexical meaning can restrict the Indonesian dative alternation? I will explain in Chapter IV.

Related to learnability and acquisition of dative alternation in English, in 1994, William D. Davies studied English Dative Alternation and Evidance for Thematic Strategy in Adult SLA. This study involved learnability and acquisition also, where they acquire and learn English as second language. The subject of this research included intermediate and advance learners (37) who come from

5

Indonesia, Italian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, Thai, Farsi, Frensh, and Greek. William used polysemy approach of Pinker (1984) is that bootstrapping hypothesis to know SLA’s ability in the restriction of dative alternation. But, only 5 learners (Chinese and Farsi) who can determine or give respond about dative alternation same or as the native English judgment. Two of them are advanced level and three of them are intermediate level. It shows that the level of learners do not influence the ability of SLA in English dative alternation. Indonesian learners include in the ‘prepositional and double object construction acceptable for all verbs’ category and ‘double object construction acceptable for governed subset of verbs’ category. This shows that Indonesian learners do not know well about dative alternation, especially in English. Therefore, by this study, I hope I can give knowledge about dative alternation, especially Indonesian dative alternation.

The recently study about dative alternation in children speech came from Erin Conwell, Timothy J. O’Donnell, and Jesse Snedeker (2011). They found that early emergence of double object form in the children’s early speech may be largely based on highly frequent. It is same as adult behavior where double object is preferred. It also happened in the usage of dative alternation in South Asian English (see Bernaisch and friends, 2014, 18). I think that Indonesian language does not so. Nonetheless, my hypothesis is that Indonesian language prefers to use propositional object where the Goal or Recipient as the second object.

Indeed, there are many studies about dative alternation in overseas. Nevertheless, the study about Indonesian dative alternation is limited. A bit of

6

Indonesian students know that Indonesian has dative alternation. Concerning of these reasons, Indonesian students and foreign learners do not know whether Indonesian dative alternation has one meaning or two meaning. To give them reference, I wanted to study about Indonesian dative alternation.

To get a focus discussion, I take Jawa Pos newspaper as my object of study because this newspaper is popular in all groups of people. Therefore, I took ‘The Semantic of Indonesian Dative Alternation: A Case Study in Jawa Pos Newspaper’ as my title of study to know the meaning of both variants of dative alternation in Indonesian language.

1.2. Statement of the Problems

Based on the background of the study above, this research is conducted to answer the following questions:

1. How do semantic aspects of dative alternation apply in Indonesian language?

2. What are the characteristics of Indonesian double object and Indonesian prepositional object?

1.3. Objectives of the Study

Regarding the statement of the problems, this research has two aims. Those are:

7

1. To describe and explain semantic aspects of Indonesian dative alternation.

2. To describe the characteristics of Indonesian double object and Indonesian prepositional object.

1.4. Significance of the Study

The significant of this study is classified into two significant. Those are theoretical and practical significant:

1.4.1. Theoretically

a. Academically, the result of this study, hopefully can give contribution in cross-linguistic discipline, especially in semantic field.

b. This study will be expected to increase the knowledge of language for the reader including Indonesian native students, foreign students who learn Indonesian language, and linguistic linguists.

1.4.2. Practically

a. In the globalization era, each people learn other language. In order to help them, this study is going to be conducted to give understanding of Indonesian dative alternation.

8

b. By this study, hopefully, can minimize misunderstanding in reading comprehension Indonesian text and listening comprehension Indonesian speech.

c. This study is expected to be reference to the next researchers. d. This study is expected can develop previous studies.

1.5. Scope and Limitations

To get a focused discussion, this study concern to dative alternation in Indonesian language. The scope of this study is dative alternation concerning to two kinds predominant views in Jawa Pos newspaper by the date 23 and 24 September 2015. First is a caused possession meaning realized by the double object variant. The second is a caused motion meaning realized by prepositional object or to-variant. This limitation of this study in two verb cases in active and passive sentence. Those are give (beri)-type verbs and send (kirim)-type verbs.

1.6. Definition of Key Terms

In this study, I give some definition related to the language terms and Indonesian language to support the title and also to avoid misunderstanding. 1.Dative Alternation.

The term ‘dative’ refers to object. Meanwhile, alternation refers to movement. So, dative alternation is used to refer to the alternation of the double

9

object. It can be happened in ditransitive sentence only. The different position of objects evokes two variants which called as a prepositional object and a double object. The prepositional object structure is also referred to as NP PP structure as it consists of a Noun Phrase (NP) and a prepositional phrase (PP). The double object structure is referred to as NP NP structure as it consists of two noun phrases.

2. Semantic

Semantic is a part of linguistics that refers to the study of meaning changes in meaning and the relationship between sentences or words and their meaning. In another words, semantics is a study of the linguistic meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences.

3. Indonesian Language

Indonesian language is a language which used by Indonesian people. Indonesia is settled in South-East of Asia. Approximately 242 billion people use Indonesian language.

10

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Dative Alternation

Dative alternation refers to the movement of the two objects. The position of objects cause there are a prepositional object variant and a double objectvariant. The both variants evoke different point of views. The first point of view is polysemy approach which argues that those variants have different meaning. The second point of view is monosemy approach which argues that those variant have same meaning.

2.1.1 Polysemy Approach

One of the polysemy approach linguists is Richard Thomas Oehrle. He has studied dative in his dissertation by the title ‘The Grammatical Status English Dative Alternation’. In his dissertation, Oehrle (1976) discuss two aspects (semantic and syntax). Nevertheless, in this study I focus on semantic aspect only. Oehrle began his analysis by a sentence which is multiply ambiguous as following.

(1) Nixon gave Mailer a book.

This sentence has several probably meanings. One the first reading, it may be stated that the possession of the book pass from Nixon to Mailer. The second reading is appropriate for a situation in which Nixon merely handed the book to Mailer, and the possession meaning is not relevant. The third

11

reading is acceptable for a situation in which Mailer wrote a book which he would not have been able to write if it had not been for Nixon.

By his explanations above shows the verb give does not always have meaning of possession or ownership. However, every lexical verb have inherent or root meaning as listed in the dictionary. Therefore, lexical verb of give naturally have inherent meaning. It can be changed by several reasons, one of them is situation. Study about language which is related to situation it automatically talks about pragmatic in a discourse.

The uniform polysemy approach proposes that all dative verbs in to-variant form have caused motion meaning and double object to-variant has caused possession. It is consistently with the other polysemy approach linguist, Manfred Krifka.

By looking at the verbs that can be used in the double object and prepositional object, we can learn something about structural semantics of these verbs: in the double object case, the basic meaning is change of possession, in the prepositional object case, it is movement to a goal.

(Krifka, 2003)

He has point of view in which the dative verbs can apply in two variant (double object and prepositional object). He argued that the usage of those variants make different meaning between those variants. For example: (2a) I gave a gift to my best friend. (3a) I sent a gift to my best friend. (2b) I gave my best friend a give (3b) I sent my best friend a gift

12

(2a) and (3a) are prepositional variant which have caused motion meaning. Meanwhile, (2b) and (3b) are double object variant which have caused possession meaning. It can be design as following:

a. Caused Possession : ‘X cause Y to have Z’ (Y is recipient) b. Caused Motion : ‘X cause Z to be at Y’ (Y is spatial goal) In addition, Oehrle’s proposal seems to correlate the meaning depend on the situation and condition (context). Therefore, in this study I am going to involve contextual meaning in my analysis because someone cannot judge the meaning of sentence without knowing to whom, to what the end, when and where the utterance produces.

2.1.2 Monosemy Approach

Mark C. Baker (1996) in his Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure stated that dative alternation do not have different meaning. He argued that there is no so clear result which show the clear differences between to-variant and double object. However, Malka Rappaport Hovav and Beth Levin (RH&L) (2008) who use verb-sensitive approach quoted previous studies, especially Pinker (1989) about the nature of verb meaning and the dative alternation through a closer look at the semantic classes of alternating verbs. Those classes whose members are associated only with a caused possession meaning, listed in table 2.1.2.1.

13

Dative Verb Kind of verbs

Verbs that inherently signify acts of giving (give-type verbs)

give, hand, lend, loan, pass, rent, sell, etc.

Verbs of future having allocate, allow, bequeath, grant, o_ffer, owe, promise, etc

Verbs of communication tell, show, ask, teach, read, write, quote, cite, etc.

Table 2.1.2.1

Dative Verb Having Only A Caused Possession Meaning

From the table above, I provide the following examples. (4a) My mother gave a new bag to me.

(4b) My mother gave me a new bag.

(5a) The manager offered a job vocation to Nia. (5b) The manager offered Nia a job vocation.

He proposed that all sentences; (4a), (4b), (5a), and (5b) have caused possession meaning, in which the subject caused the Recipient/Goal have the Theme. Then, from those whose members may be associated with either a caused motion or a caused possession meaning can be seen in table 2.1.2.2.

Dative Verb Kind of verbs

Verbs of sending (send-type verbs) forward, mail, send, ship, etc. Verbs of instantaneous causation of fling, flip, kick, lob, slap, shoot,

14

ballistic motion throw, toss, etc

Verbs of causation of accompanied motion in a deictically specified direction

bring, take, etc

Verbs of instrument of communication e-mail, fax, radio, wire, telegraph, telephone, etc. Table 2.1.2.2

Dative Verb Having both caused motion and possession meaning

RH&L’s approach to dative alternation is like Jackendoff’s in treatment in verb case (1990). Give-type verbs different from throw-type verbs, with the former having only a caused possession analysis and the latter having both caused motion and caused possession analyses. Send-type verbs have same possession as throw-type possession. To make easily understanding about that classification, I put those in the following table:

To-Variant/ Prepositional Object

Double Object Variant /direct Object

Give-type Verbs Caused possession Caused possession

Throw-type Verbs Caused motion or caused

possession

Caused possession

Send-type verbs Caused motion or caused

possession

Caused possession

Table 2.1.2.3

15

But, RH&L analysis differ from Jakendoff’s (1990) in two aspects. The first is that semantic representation of caused possession does not involve a path conceptual constituent. The second is that they do not ascribe two lexical entries, differing on the action tier, to give-type verbs. It means that they do not treat give-type differently at all semantically. In spite of the attributes distinct meaning to the two variant (prepositional object and double object), give-type verbs are often equivalent in truth condition by uniform multiple meaning approach (Goldberg 1995: 91, Krifka 2004: 11, Pinker 1989: 83). They also argue that, when, inherent meaning of the verb is joined to the meaning of the caused motion variant it gives rise to exactly the same meaning as when the inherent meaning of such verb is joined to the meaning of double object.

Regarding of this, hopefully this study can answer what Indonesian dative alternation category includes in. Language is dynamic (change over times) and has creativity feature (as Chomsky idea in Jean Atchison’s book, 2008). Therefore, in this research, I treat dative verb flexibly depend on the context of the discourse to know whether Indonesian dative alternation has two or one meaning.

16

2.2. Semantic

The study of the linguistic meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences is called semantics. Subfields of semantics are lexical semantics, which is concerned with the meanings of words, and the meaning relationships among words; and phrasal or sentential semantics, which is concerned with the meaning of syntactic units larger than the word.

2.2.1 Systematic Study of Meaning

Semantic is the systematic study of meaning and linguistic semantic is the study of how languages organize and express meanings. Its means that, meaning in linguistic semantic was very needed for us to limit ourselves to the expression of meanings in a single language. Charles W. Kreidler (1998: 3) said there were three disciplines were concerned with the systematic study of meaning: psychology, philosophy and linguistics.

The first is psychologist which was interest in how individual humans learn, how they retain, recall or loss information. The second is philosophies of language which were concerned with how we know how any particular fact that we know or accept as true was related to other possible facts. Then, the last systematic study of meaning is about linguistic, linguistics want to understand how language works.

2.2.2 The Kind of Meaning

According to Abdul Chaer (2007: 289) the kind of meaning consist of a lexical, grammatical and contextual meaning, referential and non referential

17

meaning, denotative and connotative meaning, conceptual and associative meaning, and lexeme. Meanwhile, according to Charles W. Kreidler (1998:41) the dimensions of meaning include reference and denotation, connotation, sense relations, lexical and grammatical meaning, morphemes, homonymy, polysemy, lexical ambiguity, sentence and meaning. Nevertheless, this study uses lexical meaning and contextual meaning to treat dative verbs. For contextual meaning would be helped by pragmatic study.

a. Lexical Meaning

Lexical meaning is the smallest meaning unit in the meaning system of language that could be distinguished from other similar units. It can occur in many different forms of actual spoken or written sentences. Lexical meaning refers to the real meaning. Therefore, many people who say that the lexical meaning is the meaning in the dictionary or that of the lexeme meaning even without any contexts.

b. Contextual Meaning

Contextual meaning is the meaning of a lexeme or word inside a context. A contextual definition is also a definition in which the term is used by embedding it in a larger expression containing its explanation. However, the contextual meaning could be regarded to the situation, where the time, the language usage environment.

18

2.2.3. Thematic Roles

Thematic Roles (or Theta-Roles) are theoretical constructs that account for a variety of well known, more or less clearly delimited empirical facts. In other words, Theta-Roles are not directly observable, but they do have content that is open to empirical observation. The concept of thematic roles is a means of accounting for the functions of arguments in respect to the predicate; thematic roles are the “grammatically relevant semantic relations between predicates and arguments” (Frawley 1992: 201 in Brinton 2000). This approach was proposed firstly by Charles Fillmore (1968, 1977) and was originally known as case grammar. To define the roles of arguments, Fillmore borrows the notion of case from traditional grammar, but uses the term in a slightly different way. Traditionally, nouns may be inflected for case, for nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and so on. The fact that determination of thematic roles is described by one linguist as “intuitionism run wild” (Dillon 1977: 73), the following as a list of some of the possible thematic roles served by arguments in a sentence:

1. Agent (also called “actor”): the animate initiator, causer, doer, or instigator of an action who acts by will or volition, takes responsibility for the action, and is its direct cause;

2. Force (also “author”): the inanimate cause of an action, which does not act by will or volition;

3. Instrument (also “means”): the means by which an event is caused, or the tool, generally inanimate, used to carry out an action; an

19

instrument does not act but is acted upon; (Agent, Force, and Instrument together could be considered “Cause”.)

4. Experiencer: the animate being affected inwardly by a state or action;

5. Source: the place-from-which or person-from-whom an action emanates;

6. Goal: the place-to-which or person-to-whom an action is directed; 7. Recipient: a special kind of goal associated with verbs expressing a

change in ownership, possession.

8. Path: the path taken in moving from one place to another in the course of an action;

9. Location (also “place”): the place-at/in-which or the time-at-which an action occurs (also “temporal”);

10.Possessor: the possessor of a thing, really a special kind of locative, since the thing and the possessor must coincide; there are two kinds of possession, depending on whether the possessor and the thing possessed are inherently connected, such as Judy’s head (inalienable possession) or not, such as Judy’s car (alienable possession);

11.Benefactive: the person or thing for which an action is performed or the person who derives something from the actions of another;

20

12.Factitive (also “result” or “effected”): the object resulting from an action or state, having no prior existence but coming about by virtue of the action or state;

13.Patient: the person or thing affected by an action, or the entity undergoing a change;

14.Theme: the person or thing which undergoes an action, or that which is transferred or moved by an event but otherwise unchanged;

15.Neutral: the person or thing which is not changed or even acted upon, but simply present at an action:

16.Range (also “extent”): the specification or limitation of an action; and

21

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Research Design

This study is qualitative research. Consequently, this study is intended as a more descriptive and interpretations under study rather than judging or evaluating them (Stainback, 1998: 22). It means that qualitative inquiry is process the understanding of problem rather than to determine its value on the appropriate subject for the qualitative research is linguistics.

3.2. Research Approach

This study does not use polysemy approach. This study uses verb-sensitive approach which produces meaning based on the verb event of the dative verbs. Unlike much previous study, this approach does not take all dative verbs. This study takes two dative verbs which at least representative caused possession and caused motion.

3.3. Object of the Research

The object of this study is Indonesian language in Jawa Pos newspaper by the date 23 and 24 September 2015. Jawa Pos newspaper is Indonesian newspaper which disseminated in Java Island.

22

3.4. Data Source

The primary data of this study is taken from Jawa Pos newspaper edition 23 and 24 September 2015. The data sources are Indonesian dative alternation. I chose Jawa Pos newspaper because it can easily be gotten. Not only that, Jawa Pos language style approximately can be received all the level of citizens. It means can high class people, educated people, bourgeois, middle-low class people and proletariat in Indonesia can understand Jawa Pos language.

3.5. Procedure of Analysis

3.5.1. Data Collection

In this study, I followed some steps in collecting the data. First, I read the whole of Jawa Pos newspapers (September 23th 2015). While I was reading I selected sentences which have dative verbs (give-types verb and send-type verbs) by underlining the sentences. I did it twice to avoid the missed dative verbs. Second, after selecting the sentences, I listed dative verbs (send-types and give-types) by typing in Microsoft word in order to make easily classification. Third, I separated those sentences based on variant of dative alternation (a prepositional object and a double object). Then, I also applied those steps for Jawa Pos September 24th 2015 edition.

23

3.5.1. Data Analysis

The data compiled from what mention in data collection, analyzed by verb-sensitive approach in both variants (to-variant and double object) of dative alternation. In order to answer research question number one, I follow these steps. Firstly, I begin my analysis by active form sentence of give-types verb of Indonesian dative alternation. The analysis used polysemy approach firstly which helped by thematic rules; consequently, it might produce two meanings. Secondly, the meanings are distinguished by the thematic rules: Recipient and Goal. After that, it was tested by a lexical verb analysis or verb-sensitive approach to know whether the two meanings still arise or not. Then, ensure them whether the two meanings still arise or not, I related them in the context of the discourse. After the discussion of active form of Indonesian give-types verb finished, I continued to the passive form of Indonesian give¬-types dative. After that, I made a table as following to show that Indonesian the passive form

of to-variant and double object are available which has specific

characteristics.

Number Passive Active

24

To answer research question number two, the analysis was begun from the differences between both variant; to-variant and double object. Secondly, from the differences, the characteristics are analyzed one by one based on variant and event types. Finally, from those characteristics, the alternation of object which happened in Indonesian language are known.

25

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter presents the analysis of the findings. I focus on the differences of variants of Indonesian dative alternation. The variants of dative alternation are prepositional object or to-variant and double object or indirect object which analyzed by verb-sensitive approach. Then, I compare Indonesian dative alternation with English dative alternation. The data are collected through “Jawa Pos Newspaper” by the date 23 and 24 September 2015. Based on the founded data, Indonesian dative alternation has two meanings in semantic view by thematic rules. But, it does not always have two meanings in pragmatic view. Moreover, after knowing whether the sentence of Indonesian dative alternation posses one or two meaning, the next analysis is that compare them to English dative alternation. It is reviewed and explained in each section below.

From 185 dative verbs found (send-types verb and give-type verb), there are 70 ditransitive sentences. Those ditransitive consist of 37 to-variant, 18 for-variant and 2 double object or direct object in give-types verb. Then, there are 9 to-variant in send-types.

4.1. Semantic Aspects of Indonesian Dative Alternation

In English dative alternation there are restrictions either in using double object or to-variant. The restriction is based on the syntactic realization factors. Moreover, in Indonesian dative alternation is influenced by morphology and

26

syntactic factor. To know whether morphology and syntactic influence the meaning of Indonesian dative alternation or not, I begin this analysis by the simplest data which I found.

(1a) Ronny Arnaz memberikan sapi kepada yayasan pendidikan Islam. [Ronny Arnaz gave cow to Islamic school institute]

Agent Theme Recipient

(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 6)

According to Oehrle (1976: 19), for in such a case in English, it is perhaps simplest to see the necessity for sharply separating the semantic properties of each reading. It can apply in Indonesian dative alternation. On first reading, (1a) may be stated that the possession of cow pass from Arnaz to Islamic school institute. It means Arnaz owned a certain cow, then Arnaz acts in such a way as to transfer the ownership of the book to Islamic school institute. The second reading, (1a) may be appropriate for a situation in which Arnaz merely conveyed the cow to Islamic school institute and the possession meaning is not relevant. It means that the cow changes hands without the ownership being affected. (1a) may mean that Arnaz got mandate to consign the cow to Islamic school institute for dispensing to others. On the third reading, (1a) may be acceptable for a situation in which Islamic school institute owed some money which they would not have been gotten or bought cow if they had not gotten loan from bank in which Arnaz warrant it. However, it may be stated that Arnaz gives inspiration, motivation and suggestion to Islamic school institute in which they could not buy the cow if Arnaz did not do it. It means that there is no relationship between subject (Arnaz) and first object (cow).

27

In English, (1a) cannot be applied on first reading, second reading and third reading. Nevertheless, English can apply those readings if (1a) changed to be double object variant. It means the ambiguity arise in double object only. Yet, all sentence, either Indonesian or English can be define the meaning based on the context.

Regarding of this reason, I believe that (1a) has only one meaning. We can know it by pragmatic study, instantly we can choose one of those reading by understanding context of the discourse and the situational context (Fromkin and friends, 2011). The truth of (1a) is that a caption, while the title of the article is ‘Kasus Crane, Trafik Voice Meningkat 673%’ [Crane Case, Traffic Voice increases 673%]. The linguistic context of this discourse is about the traffic voice progress of Telkomsel (one of the Indonesia’s cellular telephone communication companies) in Idhul Adha and the peak of this increase is Crane tragedy in Makkah. Moreover, based on the situational context, Arnaz is delegation of Telkomsel to cede that cow to Islamic school institute for Idhul Adha moment (sacrificial animal). It shows by the picture of the caption. Arnaz and his friend were wearing Telkomsel uniform and there was Telkomsel banner behind them which written ‘Telkomsel peduli dan berbagi untuk negeri [Telkomsel care and share for country]’. It means that, the first reading, the possession of cow pass from Arnaz to Islamic school institute is not acceptable because that cow is not owned by Arnaz. The second reading seems more appropriate to (1a) sentence, where the cow changes hands without the ownership being affected. It is more crucial case, in which second reading may have several probably meanings which

28

focus on the ownership between subject (Arnaz) and second object (Islamic school institute) is not being affected. Sentence (1a) may have meaning Arnaz consigned Islamic school institute the cow to share to the members of Islamic school institute as meat (it means the name of sacrifice is Telkomsel and Rony Arnaz is the first mediator and Islamic school institute is the second mediator mediator); or (1a) may have meaning Arnaz consigned the cow to Islamic school institute and at that time, the cow is owned by Islamic school institute which would be shared for the members of Islamic school institute as meat (it means the mane of sacrifice is Islamic school institute)

I found in tribunnews that he said that “… The national total, we donate 653 sacrificial animals.” ‘We’ refers to Telkomsel, in which represented by Arnaz. So, Telkomsel donated the cows to Islamic school institute. It means that the name of sacrifice is Islamic school institute; Arnaz consigned the cow to Islamic school institute and at that time, the cow is owned by Islamic school institute which would be shared for the members of Islamic school institute as meat. Absolutely, the third reading is not appropriate in this situational context because there is relationship between subject and second object. (1a) is to-variant and (1b) is double object. To know they have single meaning or not, I use thematic roles as in Chapter II.

(1b)*Ronny Arnaz memberikan yayasan pendidikan Islam sapi. [Ronny Arnaz gave Islamic school institute cow]

Agent Goal Theme

In cursory reading, these sentences ((1a) and (1b)) seem having same meaning. Nevertheless, many linguists debate about those. It naturally happens in

29

every study. In my first hypothesis, (1a) and (1b) have same meaning. Yet, if (1a) has same meaning with (1b), why is the usage of to-variant or prepositional phrases is preferred (see in appendix). It discusses further in 4.2.

What have been debated on (1a) and (1b) by many linguists are their differences in acceptability and semantic between these two contractions which arise from the profiling relationship between the thematic roles of Goal and Recipient, in which caused different entailment meaning: caused possession meaning and coursed motion meaning. By seeing the differences thematic roles of the both variant of dative alternation; prepositional object which represented by sentence (1a) and double object which represented by sentence (1b).

Regarding of (1a) and (1b) meaning, Pinker (1989) in Krifka (2003) propose as following

DO: [EVENT give [Ann Beth [STATE HAVE Beth the car]]]

PO: [EVENT give [Ann the car [EVENT GO the car [PATH to [PLACE Beth]]]]]

In English, DO (double object) and PO (prepositional object) are different, in which those proposal may be interpreted as:

1. Pinker assumes that ‘Ann gave Beth the car’ express the meaning: Ann caused Beth have the car.

2. Pinker assumes that ‘Ann gave the car to Beth express the meaning: Ann caused the car to go to Beth (or rather, to Beth’s possession).

30

He states that the meanings (DO nad PO) can be very closed indeed, nut in certain contexts meaning differences appear, and certain verbs may be compatible only with one meaning.

That proposal can be applied in Indonesian dative alternation also. Based on Pinker’s proposal, Indonesian dative alternation in (1a) means that Arnaz caused the cow to go to Islamic school institute, whereas sentence (1b) express the meaning that Arnaz caused Islamic school institute to have the cow. In (1a) seems there is spatial entailment indicate by prepositional to which is interpreted as ‘to go to’. Meanwhile, (1b) involves caused possession meaning only. It seems there is caused motion meaning in sentence (1a). Hence, sentence (1a) may be interpreted as caused possession: ‘ARNAZ cause ISLAMIC SCHOOL INSTITUTE to have COW’ (Islamic school institute is recipient) and caused motion: ‘ARNAZ cause COW to be at ISLAMIC SCHOOL INSTITUTE’ (Islamic school institute is spatial goal). So, the semantic interpretation in this case that the cow becomes Islamic school institute. Based on my data collection, there is no (mem+root+kan in double object) variant like sentence (1b) in Indonesian language. It will be discussed further in 4.2.

To know whether give-types verb has caused motion meaning or not, firstly, let’s focus on the differences between Recipient and Goal. According to Dillon (1977) Goal is the place-to-which or person-to-whom an action is directed. Meanwhile, according to Jackendoff (1990), Recipient is a special kind of goal associated with verbs expressing a change in ownership or possession. It means

31

that the general event type is Goal and the special of Goal is Recipient. I try to illustrate it in the following diagram.

Diagram 4.1.1

The differences between Goal and Recipient

It is clearly that Goal (in Double object) is an objective of the agent to do event verb at the time. Meanwhile, Recipient (in to-variant) is someone who receives a theme from the agent. Nevertheless, I found in my data a sentence like (2).

(2)*Tiongkok meminjamkan sepasang panda ke Malaysia. [Chinese loaned a couple of panda to Malaysia]

Agent Theme Recipient

(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 7)

32

office (e.g., RH&L 2008; 138, Krifka 2003; 2). Therefore, I treat the Agent same as Recipient, in which Tiongkok refers to the organization in China.

I agree with RH&L definition in which all dative verbs involves an alternate realization of recipient, where a ‘recipient’ is generally an animate entity capable of possession, with corporations, governments and other organization qualifying as ‘extended’ animated. It is also consistently with Goldberg 1995, Green 1974 and Pinker 1989, in which the prototypical recipient is animate because the prototypical relation of possession involves an animate possessor and an inanimate possessum. However, possessors and thus recipients can be inanimate in certain instances of inalienable possession, as in our god, Allah SWT gives our face two eyes or the students give the page a number.

Sentence (2) includes in give-types verb where meminjamkan (loan) has meaning temporally giving. ‘meminjamkan’ describes a more specific type of possession, encoded in the possession type. It means that Tiongkok gave the two pandas temporarily to Malaysia. By reading the discourse of sentence (2), I know that it is not complimentary. It means that Malaysia must pay it by a particular term.

Concerning the meaning of loan in Indonesian is meminjami or meminjamkan which comes from the root pinjam (borrow). It is complicated case, in which the affixes influence the meaning. It means pinjam or meminjam is not ‘loan’. The root is same, but they have different meaning. The event type of ‘loan’ include in give-types verb. Meanwhile, the event type of ‘borrow’ does not

33

include in dative verb criterion. To make easy understanding, I put them in following example:

(2b) Tia meminjam sebuah buku. (Tia borrowed a book) (2c) *Tia meminjami Tio. (Tia lent Tio)

(2d) Tia meminjami Tio sebuah buku. (Tia lent Tio a book) (2e) Tia meminjamkan sebuah buku. (Tia lent a book)

(2f) Tia meminjamkan sebuah buku kepada Tio. (Tia lent a book to Tio) (2g) Tia meminjamkan sebuah buku untuk Tio. (Tia lent a book for Tio)

Those sentences come from the same root; it is pinjam (borrow, loan, lend). Based on contextual meaning, (2b) means that Tia did not have a book then she borrowed a book (from her friend). Meanwhile, sentence (2c) means that Tia had something and there was Tio who asked to borrow it, consequently, Tia lent Tio X. This sentence is imperfect because (2c) need more complement. So, (2d) is prefect form of (2c), in which Tia had a book and Tio asked to borrow it; consequently Tia lent Tio a book. However, (2e) means that Tia had a book (or more) and there was someone who asked to borrow Tia’s book; consequently, Tia lent a book. (2f) means that someone in (2e) is Tio. Meanwhile, (2g) means that Tio asked Tia to borrow a book from someone or Tia borrow a book in which the book is for Tio. (2g) has benefactive meaning. From those sentences, I can conclude that affixes (morphology) can influence and change the meaning of Indonesian word. It will discuss further in (4.2).

34

The Theme of (1a) and (2) are concrete or physical noun. However, in English, there is abstract noun which settle as Theme. Consider the following sentence:

(3a) I give a good time to all who come.

(clubtrentino.freewebspase.com/calendar_for_club_trentino.html, cited by RH & L, 2008) This sentence describes event of caused possession but do not involve transfer of possession. (3a) states that all who come will have a good time. Although give-type verbs sometimes may be understood as a source, giving the impression that the verb’s meaning does involve transfer of possession. Yet, this impression follows from the nature of this form of possession.

Regarding abstract Theme in English dative alternation, I found Theme which is not physical noun in my data collection. To know they have same treatment as (1a) and (2) here is my analysis.

(3a)Saya harus memberikan kesempatan kepada semua pemain.

I must give opportunity to all players.

Agent Theme Recipient

(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 19)

(3b)FSG dikabarkan bersedia memberikan lebih banyak-

FSG was announced (that) ready give more

waktu dan kesempatan kepada Rodgers.

times and opportunity to Rodgers.

(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 15)

The important consideration in finding the acceptable meaning is knowing the relationship between the arguments. Sentence (3b) means that saya caused the opportunity to be at all players. Naturally ‘give’ or ‘beri’ is verb event which will

35

often appear to involve transfer of possession from a source to a recipient, because in the real world people assume that ‘A’ cannot cause ‘B’ to have possession of a physical object unless A has possession of it first (Beth Levin: 2005). Nevertheless, ‘A’ represented by ‘saya’ does not need to have ‘an opportunity’ to cause ‘B’ which is represented by ‘all players’ to have an opportunity. Situationally, ‘saya’ (coach) gave an opportunity to all players to be starter in playing soccer. It means that ‘saya’ does not need opportunity to take a role as starter in soccer. Regarding of that reason, caused motion meaning is not acceptable in give-types verb.

The second reading, in which (3b) is not acceptable because saya can not merely handed the opportunity to all players. The verb ‘hand’ cannot apply for abstract theme whether in alienable or inalienable possession (Oehrle, 1976: 33). Meanwhile, the third reading is not compatible with this context. Oehrle (1976: 67) state that the third reading of English sentences with give is that the prepositional dative construction is not available or if so only in certain rather special cases. He also emphasizes that in all cases in which the third reading is available; the double object construction is base-generated (1976: 68). It means that if give-types dative verb categorize in the third reading, the sentence will use double object variant. It will discuss further in 4.2. Come back to the first reading, RH & L have propose it as following:

“Physical control of an entity can only be directly caused by someone who originally has physical control of that entity through physical manipulation. As the result, there is an impression that the meaning of ‘give’ involves the physical transfer of possession from a source to a goal (the recipient). But, this is illusory when possession involves an abstract entity and

36

thus cannot involve physical control, someone can bring a change of possession without being the original prosessor.”

(RH & L, 2008: 140) Indeed, that quotation means that there is no caused motion in English to-variant of give-types verb. It happens as the physical manipulation of being different processor. It also happens in Indonesian prepositional object of give-types verb. So, the meaning of sentence (3b) is that saya (coach) has authority as his obligation to give opportunity to all players. It means that the theme become an obligation for the subject and the theme become entitlement for the recipient. In another words, sentence (3b) means that saya does not have opportunity to give to the all players but saya has authority to do it.

The treatment of (3b) also applies in (3c) in which FGS (Fenway Sports Group) is name of an organization. It is not inanimate subject. But, it is metonymically Agent like the Agent of (2). FSG does not need to have more times and opportunity firstly to have an ability to give them to Rodgers.

Regarding of abstract noun or abstract entity, which should not be posses firstly to give to the recipient. It means that authority, ability, skill and experience of the agent can give abstract noun to the recipient. Then, is there any recipient does not receive or own although they had received the theme? Here, it is the data which I collect.

(4a)Sebegitu cepatnya Anda menyerahkan segala-galanya kepada

How fast you relinquished everything to

Adv of manner Agent verb Theme Pre

seseorang lelaki yang baru ketemu sekali. a man who new meet once. Recipient

37

(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 19)

In this case, the context of the word ‘segala-galanya’ refers to virginity. So, ‘Anda’ refers to the woman. When a woman gave her virginity to a man, the man does not have virginity. It is similar to (4b) which proposed by Oehrle (1976: 22).

(4b) Nia gave John her telephone number.

(4a) and (4b) are same in which the recipient does not get the theme. However, there are distinctions between them. The agent of (4a) lost her possession (virginity). Nonetheless, probably, the agent of (4b) still has her number in which the reading is ‘Nia dictated John her telephone number’. The other reading is ‘Nia gave a scrap of paper which written her telephone number to John’. Therefore, this case emphasizes that give-types verb do not involve caused motion because there is no path from the source to the recipient or goal. The presence of prepositional (to) does not mean the path exist in give—types verb in dative alternation sentence.

I have discussed dative verb in which the theme are physical entity and abstract noun. Absolutely, something that would be given is a noun whether it is physical noun or abstract noun. The subjects of all data above are physical noun which is Agent. Nevertheless, I found in my data collection that there are subjects which are not physical entity. Davies (1994: 72) stated that give-types verb takes tree arguments which can be thematically designated as AGENT, THEME, and GOAL. I found in my data collection the sentence like (5a)

38

(5a)Kehadiran Aremania memberikan ketenangan kepada pemain.

Aremania’s attendance gave calm to player.

Subject Verb NP2 Pre NP1

(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 27) ‘kehadiran Aremania’ is not agent because it is not animate. It is causative or force which caused an action mindlessly. Moreover, NP2 (calm) is predicational noun; nominalization of a verb (see Oehrle 1976: 46). There is no ambiguity in (5a). Nevertheless, if dative alternation consists of predicational noun and it is double object, the ambiguity will arise. The ambiguity comes from the thematic relation of NP1 (player). It may be theme of calm if the reading is ‘Aremania’s attendance calm player’ in which subject caused player to be calm. The second reading, NP1 may be agent if ‘Aremania’s attendance let player calm’ in which the subject gave opportunity to calm. Yet, in the to-variant, the second reading is not available. So, the proposal of Davies (1994) is not totally right. Subject is not always an agent. There are several inanimate subjects in my data collection as following:

(5b) Pengalaman pahit bisa memberikan inspirasi bagi seseorang. (Bitter experience can give inspiration for someone.)

(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 16) (5c) Panjatan doa Nabi Ibrahim tersebut memberikan pelajaran bagi kita…

(That spate of Prophet Ibrahim’s prayer gives a course for us)

(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 2)

Pengalaman pahait and panjatan doa Nabi Ibrahim are inanimate subject. Not

only that, but also there are many examples which propose by some linguists such as the explosion gave me headache; interviewing Nixon gave an idea for a boot to

39

every journalist living in New York in the 1970s. I suggest that agent can be replaced by causative or force. Therefore, I believe that there is no path from a giver to the recipient/goal because inanimate subjects cannot possess noun (theme), so that they cannot transfer it to the other. They can cause only without responsibility.

In (5b) and (5c) do not use to as prepositional. Meanwhile, they use for as prepositional variant. I already stated that in this study, I focus in double object variant and to-variant only. Yet, I want to allude it at glance. Actually, in English dative alternation there is no give-types verb classification of for-dative verbs. It is consistent with Green (1974) in Oehrle (1976: 110). He classified for-dative verbs into five classes as follow:

Classification Example

1 Verbs denoting creative acts in which an object is created or transfer to produce a certain effect

Make, cook, boil, roast, fry, sew, knit, paint, draw, etc.

2 Verbs denoting activities involving selection

Buy, purchase, find, get, choose, pick out, gather, save, take, etc. 3 Verbs denoting performance

considered artistic

Sing, chant, recite, play (instrument and composition), dance, etc.

4 Verbs that express a kind of obtaining

Earn, gain, win, etc. 5 Benefactive construction Rob me a bank

Table 4.1.1. For-dative verbs

Therefore, in this case, Indonesian dative alternation differs to English dative alternation. It may be caused the suffix kan which discuss further in 4.2.

40

All data above is active voice (active sentence). In English, dative alternation is available in active and passive. Indonesian language also has dative alternation in active voice and passive voice. I found some passive form of dative alternation in my source of data. I put them in the following table to show the differences and similarities between passive forms of dative alternation and active forms of dative alternation.

Indonesian

Passive Active

6a Kepala sekolah itu telah diberi

sanksi teguran oleh Dinas

Pendidikan kota Mojokerto. (That headmaster had been given rebuke by Mojokerto educational government)

(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 13)

*Dinas Pendidikan Kota

Mojokerto memberi Kepala

Sekolah itu teguran. (Mojokerto

educational government had given that headmaster rebuke)

6b Detektif cilik sering diberi cemilan

oleh Pak Kadir. (Kid detective

used to be given snack by Mr. Kadir)

(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 21)

*Pak Kadir sering memberi detektif cilik cemilan. (Mr. Kadir used to give kid detective snack)

6c Rapel gaji diberikan secara

langsung kepada tenaga honorer

K-2. (overdue salary was given directly to K-2 honorary worker) (Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 39)

… memberikan rapel gaji secara

langsung kepada tenaga honorer

K-2. (….gave overdue salary

directly to K-2 honorary worker)

6d tulisan tangan Buyung di secarik

kertas yang diserahkan kepada

Todung tadi. (Butung hand writing on a peach of paper which was

… menyerahkan tulisan tangan

Buyung kepada Todung tadi.

(….forfeited Buyung hand writing on a peach of paper to

41

forfeited to Todung)

(Jawa Pos, September 24, 2015, page 11)

Todung)

Table 4.1.2.

Passive form of Give-types verb in Indonesian Dative Alternation

Passive form of Indonesian dative alternation can be identified by several points. First are affixes. The passive form of to-variant can be seen in (6c) and (6d). In to-variant the root beri added by prefix di to show passive verb form of sentence (Warsiman, 2012: 13) and suffix kan to show that is prepositional object in which be followed by preposition kepada, then followed by Recipient . In contrast, (6a) and (6b) are double object which do not added by suffix kan. Therefore, they are not followed by proposition, but followed by theme. The second differences are hidden Agent. In to-variant the Agent is hidden. The reason why does it is hidden will explain further in 4.2.

Related to table 4.1.2, if Indonesian double objects passive forms ((6a) and (6b)) changed into the active form it seems like strange sentence. The reason is that I did not find give-types verb in double object variant like them in my source of data. The double object variant which I found is like (7a) and (7b)

(7a)Terima kasih telah memberiku kesempatan mengajar.

Thank you already given me opportunity instructing. Goal Theme

42

(7b) Sang ayah kerap memberinya tugas mengocok adaonan. Respectful father often give her task mixing dough.

Agent Goal Theme

(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 23) Both of these sentences followed by pronoun after give. However, the pronoun in (7a) and (7b) stick to the event type verb; give. It means that those pronouns use their short forms; -ku, the short form of aku which has meaning ‘me’; -nya the short form of dia which has meaning ‘his/her’. Absolutely, (7a) and (7b) have possession meaning only because there is no prepositional to which manipulate the reading to guess these sentences have caused motion meaning. (7a) means that me has the opportunity to teach. Here, the agent is not mentioned. So, I do know exactly whose have the opportunity firstly. Based on explanation above, opportunity includes in abstract entity which must not be transferred from A to B. Then, (7b) means the father has a task to mix the dough in which the father caused his daughter does his task. In short words, the daughter have the task because of her father gave it.

Back to the passive form of Indonesian give-types verb, I guess that it is similar to the passive form of English give-types verb. To make clear cut understanding, I already put the passive form of English give-types verb in the table below. Now, let’s compare passive form of Indonesian dative alternation in table 4.1.2 above to passive form of English dative alternation in table 4.1.3.

43

Code English

Active Passive

8a … gave a book to me A book was given to me 8b (He) gave me a book I was given a book (by him)

Table 4.1.3.

Passive form of English Dative Alternation (taken from One-Soon Her’s ‘Lexical Mapping Theory Revisited’)

According to the both tables, there is no tight difference between English and Indonesian dative alternation in passive form. Nevertheless, in English passive form of double object variant, adding Theme is optional, yet in Indonesian does not so. Then, in English passive form, there is no change in the verb form whether in prepositional object or double object.

To entrust that give-types verb do not have path or caused motion meaning, for instance the to phrase with give-type verb cannot be questioned by the locative wh-word; where (di mana) (Levinson 2005 in RH&L 2008), but the to phrase with send-types verb. It can be seen as follow:

(9a) * Where did you give those animals?

(9b) Where did you send those animals? To the jungle/To zoo

The answer of (9b) is ‘I send the animals to the jungle’. Related to this case, (9a) can be answer if the wh-question by TO WHOM. So, the answer may be ‘To Ermi/To zoo keeper’. Absolutely, ‘to whom’ refers to the animate. Meanwhile, send-types verb can be followed by inanimate complement after prepositional to, such as ‘jungle’ in (9b), yet, it does not apply in give-types verb (except metonym).

44

Knowing that give-types verb cannot be questioned by where, send-types verb can be questioned by both of them.

(9c) To whom did you send the package? To my mother / to Julian

(9b) Where did you send the package? To Tuban / to Madiun / to Surabaya Implicitly, give-types verb can be questioned by TO WHOM only, but send-types verb can be questioned by both (TO WHOME and WHERE). It implies that give-types verb have one entailed meaning only; it is caused possession meaning. Meanwhile, send-types verb may have two entail meanings; it is caused possession meaning and caused motion meaning.

RH&L proposal can be applied in Indonesian also, like the following: (9e) *Kemana kamu memberi surat itu?

(9f) Kepada siapa kamu memberi surat itu? Kepada pamanku

(9c) is not correct grammar and the correct one is (9f). But, kemana and kepada siapa can apply in Indonesian send-types verb.

Concerning to send-types verb can accept inanimate and animate recipient or goal; it intends that in thematic role, send-types verb apply Goal. The following data are the kinds of Indonesian send-types verb sentence in different recipient. (10a) Sapi akan dikirim ke rumah pemotongan hewan…

Cow will was sent to house slaughtering animal… THEME Mod V Pre GOAL

45

(10b) Kami tidak mengirim surat ke walikota … We not sent letter to mayor

AGENT Neg. V THEME Pre RECIPIENT

(Jawa Pos, September 23, 2015, page 30) After prepositional to, sentence (10a) followed by inanimate NP, the place of slaughtering animal. Not only inanimate, after prepositional to, send-types verb in (10b) followed by animate. It is clearly show that give-types verb is not same as send-types verb which has motion meaning (See the differences illustration of give-types verb and send-types verb in appendix). To know whether send-types verb has caused possession meaning RH&L argued as following.

When send-type verb is used to describe an instance of caused motion that does not also involve a transfer of possession, it has a purely spatial goal, and it is only found in the to variant. The consequence is the well-known observation that the double object variant typically arises with animates, since they are typical potential recipients (e.g., Green 1974 : 103, Oehrle 1976).

(RH&, 2008: 144)

By above quotation, it shows that English send-types may have two caused meanings (motion and possession) in double object variant. It can apply in Indonesian dative alternation also but there are some differences.

In English dative alternation, send-types verb Sentence (10a) and (10b) are to-variant of send-datives verb, of course, they had motion meaning if there was no negation. The Goal of (10a) is inanimate in which (10a) cannot have possession meaning. It support by the pragmatic context of (10a) in which based on the discourse ‘the cow sent to sell for stabilizing sacrificial animals’. So, situationally, (10a) has caused motion only because the place of sacrificial is not

46

possible to posses the cow. (10a) will be possible has possession meaning in double object variant and if the cow has been sold out. But, it is better to use verb sell, in which sell include in give-type verb. So, (10a) does not involve cause possession meaning.

If (10b) change to the double object and the negation is removed become the following:

(10c) Kami mengirim walikota surat We sent mayor letter

AGENT V RECIPIENT THEME

I think (10b) and (10c) have same truth value. Although (10c) is double object variant, (10c) still has caused motion meaning form the event type itself. (10c) has caused possession is in the question. To answer this question, RH&L propose these following sentences as the differences between double object and to-variant in English send-types verb.

(11a) Lewis sent/shipped a bicycle to Sam, but it never arrived.

(RH&L 2008: 145) (11b) *Lewis sent/shipped Sam a bicycle, but it never arrived.

(RH&L 2008: 145)

Sentence (11a) is acceptable in which one month ago Lewis sent/shipped a bicycle to Sam, but until today the bicycle does not arrive. Meanwhile, (11b) is not acceptable because in this reading Lewis has already sent/shipped Sam, it is bicycle; and Sam got it. It is not impossible that the bicycle never arrived because Sam handed it. It means that to-variant emphasizes the path transferred of event type of send. Meanwhile, the double object emphasizes the result (Otsuka, 2005: 262). Therefore, (10c) has caused possession meaning. Let’s take look at the

The data which found in Jawa Pos (23th and 24th September 2015). The bold word is prepositional (to); the underlined word is object. The blue word is give-types verb.

Give-types verb

No. To-variant Double object

23 September 2015

1. …, kami percaya Great New Xenia mampu meneruskan keberhasilan

generasi sebelumnya dengan memberikan

kepuasan yang lebih kepada para pelanggan.

Terima kasih telah memberiku kesempatan mengajar.

2 Dinas pertanian mengucurkan dana Rp 180 miliar untuk memberikan benih jagung hibrida gratis kepada petani.

Sang ayah kerap memberinya tugas mengocok adaonan wafel atau pancake.

3. ..., pihaknya telah memberikan sanksi

kepada kepala sekolah SMPN yang

memukul siswanya tersebut.

Kepala sekolah itu diberi sanksi teguran oleh Dinas Pendidikan kota Mojokerto.

4. Bulog bekerja sama dengan Kemanten untuk menyediakan bahan pokok yang didistribusikan ke sejumlah pasar tradisional.

5. Asian handicap memberikan voor ¼

kepada tuan rumah Tottenham Hotspur.

6. ..., William Hill yang memberikan selisih kompensasi kepada petaruh Arsenal 2,4 kali lipat, sedangkan kepada Tottenham 2,9 kali lipat yang besar.

7. ..., pihaknya tidak memberikan

rekomendasi kepada semua operator kompetisi....

8. Kenapa pelatih Rudi Garcia memberikan

kesempatan kepada Maicon untuk menjadi starter?

9. Saya harus memberikan kesempatan

kepada semua pemain.

10. Dia pun memesan dan memberikan kue tersebut kepada pacarnya.

11. ..., beberapa pemain bagus yang seharusnya dapat memberikan motivasi APPENDIX I

kepada pemain lain justru asyik bermain

sendiri.

12. Okto menyetorkan 93 nama kepada Satlak Prima.

13. Kehadiran Aremania memberikan

ketenangan kepada pemain.

14. Saya akan memberikan apresiasi kepada perusahaan (dagang dan industri, termasuk UKM) berupa piagam sebagai salah satu syarat prioritas untuk

mengajukan kredit pada perbankan.... 15. Rela memberikan pelayanan kepada

sesama.

16. Rapel gaji diberikan secara langsung

kepada tenaga honorer K-2 melalui

rekening.

17. Skrining atau tes pendengaran akan lebih baik jika diberikanpada bayi-bayi yang memiliki risiko.

24 September 2015

18. Dua tahun lalu MK mengeluarkan putusan yang memberikan kewenangan legilasi kepada DPD.

Detektif cilik sering diberi

cemilan oleh pak kadir saat bermain

19. Ronny Arnaz memberikan sapi kepada yaysan pendidikanIslam di Surabaya.

Total ada 18 negara yang

dipinjami panda oleh Tiongkok

untuk dikembangkan. 20. CSR dilakukan dengan membagikan

seribu buku pengetahuan umum kepada tiga sekolah.

21. Demikian isi tulisan tangan Buyung di secarik kertas yang diserahkankepada Todung tadi.

22. Ada gagasan-gagasan almarhum yang

diwariskankepada semua penegak

hukum.

23. Tentu, mandat yang akan kami berikan

harus kepada orang yang tepat. 24. Wanger masih rutin memberikan

kebutuhan finansial kepada Annie. 25. ...., dirinya siap memberikan makanan

kepada para pengungsi secara berkala.

26. Pada menit ke-36 giliran De Bruyne yang

memberikan through pass kepada

Sterling...

lebih banyak waktu dan kesempatan

kepada Rodgers.

28. Dean lalu memberikan kartu merah

kepada Gabriel ....

29. ... pihaknya sengaja memberikan Balo ke Milan supaya mereka terbebas dari gangguan bursa transfer.

30 Sebegitu cepatnya Anda menyerahkan

segala-galanya kepada seseorang lelaki yang baru ketemu sekali.

31. Dia memberikan apresiasi kepada Risma

yang mempelopori program reaktivasi trem.

32. Pihaknya belum bisa memberikan saran dan rekomendasi tertulis kepada pemkot untuk menyikapi persoalan itu.

33. Kami akan memberikan fasilitas kepada sekolah yang mengurusi itu.

34. Tiongkok meminjamkan sepasang panda ke Malaysia 21 Mei tahun lalu.

35. Memiliki kondotel yang menawarkan keindahan serta keelokan Kota Batu bisa

memberikan nilai tinggi pada properti

The data which found in Jawa Pos (23th and 24th September 2015). The bold word is prepositional (for); the underlined word is object. The blue word is give-types verb.

Give-types in for-variant.

No. for-variant

23 September 2015

1. Industry otomotif telah menyediakan lapangan pekerjaan bagi sekitar 1,3 juta putra bangsa.

2. … belum mundurnya Puan dan Tjahhjo memberikan kerugian bagi masyarakat.

4. Dalam promo September Ceria, HSC juga memberikan free kaca film V-kool atau Huper Optik untuk pembelian semua varian mobil Honda.

5. Kali ini, HSC memberikan free paket Cermat1 untuk setiap pembelian New Honda Jazz dalam promo September Ceria.

6. ..., Tata motors memberikan promo tambahan hadiah hiburan lain bagi konsumen yang melakukan Surat Pemesanan Kendaraan on the spot di SAE.

7. memberi kejutan untuk para gadis di rockit dance studio hari ini!

8. Pengalaman pahit bisa memberikan inspirasi bagi seseorang.

9. Hidup akan lebih bermakna jika bisa memberikan manfaat untuk banyak orang,

10. Ibu Menlu ingin memastikan bahwa kunjungan Jokowi ke Amerika

memberikan manfaat yang sebesar-besarnya bagi kemakmuran rakyat, ...

11. Neti berharap dirinya dan suaminya tetap bisa memberikan pelayanan bagi orang yang membutuhkan.

12. ..., dia ingin memberi kenyamanan bagi penggunanya. 24 September 2015

13 Panjatan doa Nabi Ibrahim tersebut memberikan pelajaran bagi kita... 14. Brand asal Hongkong tersebut tengah memberikan diskon untuk seluruh

item.

15. Diberi nama batu berdoa karena di batu itu terukir doa-doa para nabi yang dipercaya memberikan keberuntungan bagi pemakainya.

16. PT United Indopratama VW memberikan penawaran istimewa bagi pengunjung yang deal di pameran....

17. Setneg memberikan green light bagi rencana renovasi GBR.

18 Holland Park memberikan special gift bagi Anda yang membeli unit kondotel selama pameran diadakan di Ciputra World.

19 Setidaknya sekitar 485.697 suara dibidik mereka untuk disumbangkan bagi pasangan incumbent tersebut.

20 Paket special yang diberikan Llumar untuk berbagai mobil jenis kendaraan roda empat.

21 Best Denki memberikan special price untuk produk terbaru. APPENDIX II

The data which found in Jawa Pos (23th and 24th September 2015). The bold word is prepositional (to); the underlined word is object. The blue word is send-types verb.

Send-types verb

No. To-variant

1. “suratnya sudah kami kirimke KPU agar segera ditindaklanjuti,” 2. ..., ibu dua anak itu segera mengunggah foto sesi latihan ke instagram

@britneyspears.

3. ..., Spears juga mengunggah tiga video sesi latihan ke instagram.

4. Bulog bekerja sama dengan Kemanten untuk menyediakan bahan pokok yang

didistribusikanke sejumlah pasar tradisional.

5. Truk 140 ton beras akan kami sebarke pasar-pasar tradisional DKI serta Pasar Induk Beras Cipinang.

6. Sapi hidup akan dikirimke rumah pemotongan hewan di Cibitung.

7. Mereka biasa mengambil foto, lalu mengirimkannya ke perusahaan Freitag. 8. Sebelumnya, kami harus kirim reviewproduk yang dijual di ORE kepada

manajemen Freitag.

9. Surat juga dikirimkanke Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla dan pimpinan DPRD Jatim.

10 Kami tidak mengirim surat ke walikota …

11 Jika prosesnya sudah selesai, hasilnya segera dikirmkanke Kejati Jatim 12 Mahasiswa peserta program tersebut harus dipindahkanke jurasan yang

reguler. APPENDIX III

The Differences Illustration in give-types verb and send-types verb

Send-types verb illustration

Give-types verb illustration APPENDIX IV