Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T19:14:27.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure of Riau Indonesian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

David Gil
David Gil
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 0511. Email [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article is concerned with the basic syntactic and semantic structure of Riau Indonesian, a hitherto undescribed dialect differing in many respects from standard Indonesian and Malay. Riau Indonesian appears to exhibit an abundance of zero-markings of various kinds, in which a wide variety of syntactic constructions and semantic categories lack overt morphosyntactic expression. Two alternative descriptions are provided: an “easy” description, couched in traditional grammatical terminology and a Eurocentric perspective, and a “simple” description, positing a single open syntactic category, and unconstrained rules of semantic interpretation. The latter, simple description, is argued to be superior.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Special Issue 2: Special issue on LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY , December 1994 , pp. 179 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alsagoff, L. 1991. The Notions of Topic and Subject in Malay. In Sutton, L. A. & Johnson, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Bird, C. 1968. Relative Clauses in Bambara. Journal of West African Languages 5, 35–47.Google Scholar
Cole, P. 1982. lmbabura Quechua, Lingua Descriptive Studies 5. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cole, P. 1987. The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. T. 1983. Syntactic Change in Ambonese Malay: The Possessive Construction. In Collins, J. T. (ed.), Studies in Malay Dialects, Part II. Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya, pp. 28–41.Google Scholar
Culy, C. 1990. The Syntax and Semantics of Internally-Headed Relatiùe Clauses. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
Cumming, S. 1991. Functional Change, The Case of Malay Constituent Order. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Heer, G. K. 1975. Indonesian Syntax. PhD Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithica.Google Scholar
Downing, B. T. 1978. Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Volume 4, Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 375–418.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. 1976. Comparative Syntax in Austronesian. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1987. Definiteness, Noun-Phrase Configurationality, and the Count-Mass Distinction. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B. (eds.), The Representation of (In) definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 254–269.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1992. Syntactic Categories in Universal Grammar. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of The Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, Ramat Gan, Israel, 10 06 1992.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1993a. Parts of Speech in Tagalog. Paper presented at the Third Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Honolulu, HI, USA, 8 05 1993.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1993b. Syntactic Categories in Tagalog. In Luksaneeyanawin, S. (ed.), Pan-Asiatic Linguistics, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Language and Linguistics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 8–10 01 1992, Volume 3, 1136–1150.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1993c. Tagalog Semantics. In Guenter, J. S., Kaiser, B. A. & Zoll, C. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12–15 February 1993. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 390–403.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1994a. Indonesian lagi: A Unified Semantic Analysis. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, Bangkok, Thailand, 24 06 1994.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1994b. Multiple (In)definiteness Marking in Hebrew, Mandarin, Tagalog, Indonesian and Singlish. In Plank, F. (ed.), Overdetermination, EUROTYP Working Papers, Series 7. The European Science Foundation, EUROTYP Programme, Berlin.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1994c. The Maltese “Collective”: A Typological Perspective. In Borg, A. & Plank, F. (eds.), The Maltese Noun Phrase Meets Typology. EUROTYP Working Papers, Series 7, The European Science Foundation, EUROTYP Programme, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56, 251–299.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition, Current Studies in Linguistics 8. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1990. Semantic Structures, Current Studies in Linguistics 18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Justus, C. 1976. Relativization and Topicalization in Hittite. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 213–245.Google Scholar
Karim, N. S. 1978. Bahasa Malaysia Syntax, Some Aspects of Its Standardization. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. 1987. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. In Keenan, E. L., Universal Grammar: 15 Essays. London: Croom Helm, pp. 3–45.Google Scholar
Klokeid, T. J. 1970. Research on Mabuiag. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. 1976. Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language.Google Scholar
In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 457–489.Google Scholar
Lombard, D. 1977. Introduction a Vlndonésien. Guéret: SECMI.Google Scholar
Macdonald, R. R. & Darjowidjojo, S. 1967. A Student's Reference Grammar of Modern Formal Indonesian. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, U. 1994. Saliba. Munich and Newcastle: Languages of the World/Materials, Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Pakir, A. G.-I. S. 1986. A Linguistic Investigation of Baba Malay. PhD Dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Platero, P. R. 1974. The Navajo Relative Clause. International Journal of American Linguistics 40, 202–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddle, E. & Stahlke, H. 1992. Linguistic Typology and Sinospheric Languages. In Ratliff, M. & Schiller, E. (eds.), Papers from the First Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 1991. Tempe: Arizona State University, pp. 351–366.Google Scholar
Simin, A. M. 1988. Discourse-Syntax of “Yang” in Malay (Bahasa Malaysia). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. C. 1965. A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Verhaar, J. W. M. 1988. Phrase Syntax in Contemporary Indonesian: Noun Phrases. In Purwo, B. K. (ed.), Towards a Description of Contemporary Indonesian: Preliminary Studies, Part III, Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
Winstedt, R. O. 1913. Malay Grammar. Oxford: Clarion Press.Google Scholar
Yeoh, C. K. 1979. Interaction of Rules in Bahasa Malaysia. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.Google Scholar