1887
Volume 43, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Descriptions of Indonesian usually take the clause as the starting point for analysing grammatical structure and rely on the notion of ellipsis to account for the way speakers actually use language in everyday conversational interaction. This study challenges the status of “clause” by investigating the structures actually used by Indonesian speakers in informal conversation and it demonstrates that the predicate, rather than the clause, plays a central role in the grammar of Indonesian conversation. The preponderance of predicates in the data that do not have explicit arguments suggests that this format is best viewed as the default. When a predicate is produced without overt arguments, reconstructing what arguments may have been elided is often ambiguous or indeterminate and seems to be irrelevant to speakers. An examination of turn-taking, overlap and incrementing in conversation also shows that predicates, rather than full clauses, are the grammatical format participants regularly orient to.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17062.ewi
2019-11-13
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    1996 On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. InElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds.), Prosody in Conversation, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25(1). 7–36. 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel, Balthasar
    2003 Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language79(4). 708–736. 10.1353/lan.2003.0205
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0205 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clayman, Steven E.
    2012 Turn-constructional units and the transition relevance place. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of Conversation Analysis, 150–166. Malden MA: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch8
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Čmejrková, Světla & Carlo L. Prevignano
    2003 On conversation analysis: An interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff. InCarlo L. Prevignano & Paul J. Thibault (eds.), Discussing conversation analysis: The work of Emanuel A. Schegloff, 11–55. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.118.03cme
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.118.03cme [Google Scholar]
  6. Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon & Yassir Tjung
    2006 Is There Pasif Semu in Jakarta Indonesian?Oceanic Linguistics45(1). 64–90. 10.1353/ol.2006.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2006.0009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Comrie, Bernard
    1989Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edn.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2007 ‘Incrementing’ in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics17(4). 513–552. 10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  9. Cumming, Susanna
    1991Functional change: The case of Malay constituent order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110864540
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110864540 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Heer, Gerrit Koenraad
    1975 Indonesian syntax. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPhD thesis.
  11. Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner
    (eds.) 2015Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27 [Google Scholar]
  12. Djenar, Dwi Noverini
    2014Nih and tuh as spatial deixis in imagined interaction. InAnthony Jukes (ed.), Deixis and spatial expressions in languages of Indonesia. NUSA56. 27–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2015 Pronouns and sociospatial ordering in conversation and fiction. InLaure Gardelle & Sandrine Sorlin (eds.), The pragmatics of personal pronouns, 195–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.171.10dje
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.171.10dje [Google Scholar]
  14. Djenar, Dwi Noverini, Michael C. Ewing & Howard Manns
    2018Style and intersubjectivity in youth interaction. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614516439
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516439 [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63(4). 805–855. 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2014 Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics25(3). 359–410. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  17. Du Bois, John W. & Elise Kärkkäinen
    2012 Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk32(4). 433–51. 10.1515/text‑2012‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021 [Google Scholar]
  18. Du Bois, John W., Stephen Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cumming
    1993 Outline of discourse transcription. InJane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Enfield, Nick
    2011 Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. InTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jacob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 285–312. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013 [Google Scholar]
  20. Englebretson, Robert
    2003Searching for structure: The problem of complementation in colloquial Indonesian conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.13 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2007 Grammatical resources for social purposes: Some aspects of stancetaking in colloquial Indonesian conversation. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 69–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.05eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.05eng [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008 From subordinate clause to noun-phrase: Yang constructions in colloquial Indonesian. InRitva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.03eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.03eng [Google Scholar]
  23. Ewing, Michael C.
    2005a Colloquial Indonesian. InAlexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 227–258. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2005bGrammar and inference in conversation: Identifying clause structure in spoken Javanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.18 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2015a Localising person reference among Indonesian youth. InZane Goebel, Deborah Cole & Howard Manns (eds.), Margins, hubs, and peripheries in a decentralizing Indonesia. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies Special Issue162: 26–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2015b The kalau framing construction in Indonesian comics. InDwi Noverini Djenar (ed.), Youth language in Indonesia and Malaysia. NUSA58. 51–72
    [Google Scholar]
  27. In press. Features of Indonesian in Bandung. NUSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ewing, Michael C. & Susanna Cumming
    1998 Relative clauses in Indonesian discourse: Face to face and cyberspace interaction. InShobhana L. Chelliah & Willem J. de Reuse (eds.), Papers from the fifth annual meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 79–96. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Program for Southeast Asian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson
    2002 Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. InCecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fox, Barbara A.
    1982 The focus systems in Old Javanese, Tagalog and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian. [Unpublished ms.].
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gärtner, Hans-Martin, Paul Law & Joachim Sabel
    2006 Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages: A critical introductory survey. InHans-Martin Gärtner, Paul Law & Joachim Sabel (eds.), Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages, 1–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110922974.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922974.1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Givón, Talmy
    2001Syntax: An introduction, VolumeII. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Goodwin, Charles
    1995 Sentence construction within interaction. InUta M. Quasthoff (ed.), Aspects of oral communication, 198–219. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110879032.198
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879032.198 [Google Scholar]
  34. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
    2001 Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. InMargret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics, 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.04hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.04hel [Google Scholar]
  35. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2005 The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: typological perspectives. InAlexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–181. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. InV. D’Urso & P. Leonardi (eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetoric, 11–38. Padua: Cleup Editore.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lerner, Gene H.
    1991 On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language in Society20(3). 441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  39. Macdonald, R. Ross & Soenjono Darjowidjojo
    1967A student’s reference grammar of modern formal Indonesian. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Matić, Dejan
    2015 Information Structure in Linguistics. InJames D. Wright (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral Sciences, Volume12, 2nd edn., 95–99. Elsevier: Amsterdam. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.53013‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.53013-X [Google Scholar]
  41. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
    1994 Unattached NPs in English conversation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society20. 402–419. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sapir, Edward
    1921Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. InElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  45. Selting, Margret
    2015 Sentences and clauses – from the perspective of Interactional Linguistics. InChrista Dürscheid & Jan Georg Schneider (eds.), Handbuch Satz, Äußerung, Schema, 180–204. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110296037‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110296037-009 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sneddon, James N.
    2006Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sneddon, James N., Alexander Adelaar, Dwi N. Djenar & Michael C. Ewing
    2010Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar, 2nd edn.London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Stassen, Leon
    1997Intransitive Predication. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tao, Hongyin
    1996Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.5 [Google Scholar]
  50. Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies7(4–5). 481–505. 10.1177/1461445605054403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  51. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wolff, John U.
    1986Formal Indonesian, 2nd edn.Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wouk, Fay
    1984 Scalar transitivity and trigger choice in Toba Batak. InPaul Schachter (ed.), Studies in the structure of Toba Batak, 195–219. Los Angeles: UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 1999 Dialect contact and koineization in Jakarta, Indonesia. Language Sciences21(1). 61–86. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(98)00013‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(98)00013-8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17062.ewi
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17062.ewi
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): clause , conversation , Indonesian , Interactional Linguistics , linguistic units and predicate
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