Passive and medial constructions in Pakpak Dairi: A linguistic typological study
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the passive and medial diathesis in Batak Pakpak Dairi (BPD), a lesser- studied language of Indonesia, to uncover its unique morphological, syntactic, and pragmatic characteristics. As an accusative language, BPD employs a tripartite system for passive constructions, marked by i- (general passive), ter- (accidental passive), and ni- (agentless passive), each serving distinct semantic and pragmatic functions. These markers highlight the language’s focus on outcomes and thematic prominence, distinguishing BPD from related Austronesian languages. Medial diathesis in BPD encompasses reflexive and reciprocal constructions, marked by zero prefixes, mer-, and mersi-en. Reflexive constructions rely on zero prefixes to denote actions confined to the subject, while reciprocal constructions employ mer- for simpler mutual actions and mersi-en for complex or sequential reciprocity. BPD’s predominant Verb-Object-Subject (VOS) word order exhibits flexibility, allowing for topicalization to foreground specific elements, reflecting the language’s pragmatic adaptability. The findings enrich typological discussions on voice and diathesis in Austronesian languages, demonstrating how BPD integrates morphology, syntax, and pragmatics to express complex grammatical relationships. This study contributes to the documentation of BPD and underscores its importance in Indonesia’s rich linguistic diversity. Future research is encouraged to explore BPD’s diachronic development and its connections with other Batak languages.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
Share
References
Alwi, H., Dardjowidjojo, S., Lapoliwa, H., & Moeliono, A. M. (2008). Tata bahasa baku bahasa Indonesia (3rd edition). Balai Pustaka.
Artawa, I. K., & Jufrizal. (2018). Tipologi linguistik: Konsep dasar dan aplikasinya. Pustaka Larasan.
Basaria, I. (2018). Relasi gramatikal subjek bahasa Pakpak Dairi: Kajian tipologi. LWSA Conference Series 01, pp. 49-58.
Besnier, N. (1987). An autosegmental approach to metathesis in Rotuman. Lingua, 73, 201-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(87)90008-8
Bril, I. (2007). Reciprocal constructions in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia). In V. P. Nedjalkov, E. Geniušienė, & Z. Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions (pp.1479-1509). Benjamins.
Chung, S. (1976). On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. In C. Li (ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 57-98). Academic Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
Evans, N. (2003). Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 13-40. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093137
Foley, W., & Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Himmelmann, N. P. (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. Routledge. Jufrizal. (2007). Tipologi gramatikal bahasa Minangkabau: Tataran morfosintaksis. Universitas Negeri Padang Press.
Kridalaksana, H. (1993). Kamus linguistik. Gramedia.
Mallinson, G., & Blake, B. J. (1981). Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax. North- Holland Publishing Company.
Mekarini, N. W. (2000). Diatesis dan pengikatan dalam bahasa Dawan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitas Udayana.
Mosel, U., & Hovdhaugen, E. (1992). Samoan Reference Grammar. Scandinavian University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1994). Grammatical roles and relation. Cambridge University Press.
Paul, I, M. (2000). Malagasy clause structure (Unpublished Ph.D thesis). McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Rafael, R. P. (2018). Revisiting word structure in Tagalog. Diliman Review, 62(2), 42-64. https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/dilimanreview/article/view/7401
Reid, L. A., & Liao, H. C. (2004). A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 433–490.
Sauppe, S. (2017). Symmetrical and asymmetrical voice systems and processing load: Pupillometric evidence from sentence production in Tagalog and German. Language, 93(2), 288-313. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0015
Sibarani, R. (2002). Introduction to morphology. Poda.
Shibatani, M. (Ed.). (1988). Passive and voice. John Benjamins Publishing.
Sudaryanto, Suhardi, R., Hadi, S., & Yuliasih. (1991). Diatesis dalam bahasa Jawa. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Indonesia.
Tarigan, B., Sofyan, R., Zein, T. T., & Rosa, R. N. (2022). Cultural values associated with the use of ecolexicon “bamboo” in Karonese proverbs. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(10), 2106-2116. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1210.18
Zaim, M. (2014). Metode penelitian bahasa: Pendekatan struktural. FBS UNP Press.