Volume 48, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1810-7478
  • E-ISSN: 2589-5230
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



For Malay, when no contextual clues are given, a lexical form can be confusing because sometimes it can have more than one meaning. We postulated that most confusing meanings can be disambiguated through observing their morphosyntactic and morphosemantic structures. We used corpus data and analyzed the possible features of ‘fear’ that can help decide which form of in Malay to choose. If a default lexical verb meaning is intended (i.e., the original meaning), the feature [Experiencer-(Stimulus)] is needed and the form is used. If a causative meaning is intended, the form is used. If a passive meaning is intended, there are some possibilities, as the choice could depend on the syntax of the passive form, such as whether the [Experiencer] is a first- or second-person pronoun (e.g., ‘the thing feared by me’) or other pronouns (e.g., ‘that thing feared most by him/her’) or whether an adversative meaning is intended ([] form). We propose that both the morphosyntactic and morphosemantic structures of need to be considered to better understand the use of the different meanings of Malay derived and inflected forms.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anthony, Laurence
    2020AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benjamin, Geoffrey
    2009 Affixes, Austronesian and iconicity in Malay. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde165(2–3):291–323. 10.1163/22134379‑90003637
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22134379-90003637 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cheung, Candice Chi-Hang, and Richard K. Larson
    2015 Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory331:127–189. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9259‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9259-3 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chung, Siaw-Fong
    2005Kena as a third type of Malay passive. Oceanic Linguistics44.1:194–214. 10.1353/ol.2005.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2005.0017 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2011 Uses of ter- in Malay: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics43.3:799–813. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2022 Emotion terms in Malay: Patterns in [meN-], [meN- -i], [meN- -kan], and [-kan]-only forms. Language and Linguistics23.2:147–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chung, Siaw-Fong. and Meng-Hsien Shih
    2019 An annotated news corpus of Malaysian Malay. NUSA: Linguistic Studies of Languages in and around Indonesia671:7–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Denistia, Karlina, and R. Harald Baayen
    2019 The Indonesian prefixes PE- and PEN-: A study in productivity and allomorphy. Morphology29.3:385–407. 10.1007/s11525‑019‑09340‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-019-09340-7 [Google Scholar]
  9. Diller, Anne-Marie
    1991 The conceptual structure of linguistic action verbs in Bahasa Indonesia. Cognitive Linguistics2–31:225–245. 10.1515/cogl.1991.2.3.225
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1991.2.3.225 [Google Scholar]
  10. Foley, William A.
    1974 Notes towards a comparative syntax of Austronesian, or whatever happened to Malay?Paper presented at the1st International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Hawaii, USA
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gil, David
    1994 The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics171:179–200. 10.1017/S0332586500003000
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500003000 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goddard, Cliff
    2005 The “social emotions” of Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Ethos24.3:426–464. 10.1525/eth.1996.24.3.02a00020
    https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1996.24.3.02a00020 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kaufman, Daniel
    2009 Austronesian typology and the nominalist hypothesis. Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, ed. byAlexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, 187–215. Canberra: ANU Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kibrik, Alexandr E.
    1997 Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology11:279–346. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.3.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.3.279 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kroeger, Paul
    2007 Morphosyntactic vs. morphosemantic functions of Indonesian –kan. Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes of Joan Bresnan, ed. byAnnie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, and Chris Manning. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lai, Wei-jong
    2004 Chinese Psychological Predicates: Interactions Between Constructions and Semantics. MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1988 A view of linguistic semantics. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBrygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 49–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.04lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.04lan [Google Scholar]
  18. Larasati, Septina Dian, Vladislav Kuboň and Daniel Zeman
    2011 Indonesian morphology tool (MorphInd): Towards an Indonesian corpus. Systems and Frameworks for Computational Morphology (Proceedings of the Second International Workshop, vol. 100), ed. byCerstin Mahlow and Michael Piotrowski, 119–129. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑23138‑4_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23138-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  19. Musgrave, Simon
    2001 Non-subject Arguments in Indonesian. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  20. Wu, Xiu-Zhi Zoe
    1993 Psychological Predicates in Chinese. MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error