The Formation of Relative Clauses in Colloquial Indonesian: Evidence for NonSubject Relativization J

1
The Formation of Relative Clauses in Colloquial
IndonesianEvidence for Non-Subject
RelativizationJanuary 28, 2004

• Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and Yassir Tjung
• University of Delaware

2
Goals of the Talk

• To investigate which grammatical position(s) can
  be relativized in the restrictive relative clause
  (RC) in Indonesian. Specifically, is
  relativization restricted to subject position?
• Naturalistic and experimental data from adults
  and children speaking colloquial Indonesian
  indicate that the subject constraint on
  relativization is not operative in colloquial
  Indonesian to the same extent as in the standard
  variety.

3
Relative Clauses (RCs)

• The RC construction consists of two components
• a. The head noun
• b. The restricting clause
• The semantic function of the head noun is to
  establish a set of entities or the domain of
  relativization.
• The semantic function of the restricting clause
  is to identify a subset of the domain.
• (Keenan and Comrie 1977)

4
Example (1) The girl that John loves __ is
the governors daughter. The NP the girl
represents the domain of the relativization,
which is then narrowed down to the only entity
that can satisfy the condition expressed by the
restricting clause that John loves. We shall
refer to the NP the girl as the head and to
the (empty) position following the verb loves as
the relativized NP.
5
Indonesian We shall regard the RC construction
in Indonesian to be one involving a. head
noun (overt or non-overt) b. yang-restricting
clause c. a missing (relativized NP) inside the
RC
6

• Example of RC with an overt head
• Orang yang nyium Siti (itu) ditangkap
  polisi.
• person COMP N-kiss Siti that DI-arrest
  police
• The person that kissed Siti was arrested
  by the police
• The NP orang represents the domain of
  relativization, and the restricting clause yang
  nyium Siti identifies the subset of the domain.
• Example of RC without an overt head
• yang nyium Siti (itu) ditangkap polisi.
• COMP N-kiss Siti that DI-arrest
  police
• The one that kissed Siti was arrested by
  the police.

7

• The standard analysis for the RC
  construction
• The head noun, orang, is base-generated in the
  matrix clause
• The relativized NP (what Comrie 2003 calls the
  notional head and others label a GAP) which is
  coreferential with the head noun is missing.
• (4) Orang CP yang IP __ nyium Siti (itu)
• ditangkap polisi.

8

• Two views regarding which grammatical (argument)
  positions can be relativized
• a. The subject-only view (e.g. Dardjowidjojo
  1973, Sie 1988, Sneddon 1996) The strategy of
  relativizing with a gap is only available for the
  subject position.
• b. The non-subject view (e.g. Chung 1976, Cole
  and Hermon 1998, Musgrave 2001) Gap is not
  restricted solely to the subject position inside
  the yang-clause.
• These two views seem contradictory.

9

• Our claim
• The apparent contradiction in the literature is
  due to various authors examining different
  registers of the language.
• The subject only constraint holds in formal
  Indonesian, especially in the written language.
• The constraint has been relaxed in colloquial
  Indonesian, which has a more liberal
  grammar.Our data come from the colloquial
  variety spoken in the Jakarta and its surrounding
  area (CJI). In this dialect, both subjects and
  non-subjects can be relativized. However, even
  in CJI there is a strong preference for
  relativizing subjects.

10
Relativization on subject position is OK in
Formal Indonesian (FI) (5) RC with meng-prefix
and missing subject Orang yang __ mencium
dia (itu) ditangkap polisi. person
COMP MENG-kiss 3SG that DI-arrest police
The person that kissed her was arrested by
the police. (6) RC with di-prefix and
missing subject Orang yang __ dicium (oleh)
dia (itu) ditangkap polisi. person
COMP DI-kiss by 3SG that DI-arrest
police The person that was kissed by
her was arrested by the police.
11

• (7) RC with bare verb (passive Semu) and missing
  subject
• Orang yang __ akan dia cium (itu)
  ditangkap polisi.
• person COMP will 3SG kiss that
  DI-arrest police
• The person that she kissed was arrested by
  the police.
• Relativization on direct objects is ungrammatical
  in FI
• Orang yang dia mencium __ (itu)
  ditangkap polisi.
• person COMP 3SG MENG-kiss that
  DI-arrest police
• The person that she kissed was arrested by
  the police.

12
The Accessibility Hierarchy (Keenan and Comrie
1977) (9) Subject gt Direct Object gt Indirect
Object gt Object of Preposition gt Possessor If
DO relativization is ungrammatical in a certain
language, then relativization on lower positions
(such as IO or possessor) will also be
ungrammatical.
13
Do examples (6 -7) both involve relativization
on subjects? (6) Orang yang dicium (oleh)
dia (itu) ditangkap polisi. person COMP
DI-kiss by 3SG that DI-arrest police
The person that was kissed by her was arrested
by the police. (7) Orang yang dia
cium (itu) ditangkap polisi. person COMP
3SG kiss that DI-arrest police The
person that she kissed was arrested by the
police.
14

• Bare verbs in FI are usually analyzed as
  passive Semu.
• In CJI the nasal prefix is often omitted, as
  described in Chung (1978) and Kaswanti Purwo
  (2003).
• Unclear whether the bare verb is passive or
  active verb

15

• (10) a. Passive Semu Derivation
• Orang itusubj dia cium.
  
• person that 3SG kiss
• That person was kissed by him.
• b. Base Generated Stem Sentence
• Dia cium orang ituobj.
  
• 3SG kiss person that
• He kissed that person.

16
Based on (10), there are two possible derivations
for (7) (11) a. The relativized NP is the
subject of a Passive Semu Orang CP
yang IP __ dia cium (itu) ditangkap
polisi. b. The relativized NP is the
object of a stem sentence Orang
CP yang IP dia cium __ (itu) ditangkap
polisi.
17

• The two derivations can be distinguished by
  syntactic tests.
• Test 1 for Passive Semu
• In Passive Semu nothing can occur between the
  agent and the verb.
• All negative, aspectual, and AUX elements must
  precede the agent
• the negative marker nggak not
• modals like boleh can, bakal(an) will
• aspectual/temporal markers like (s)udah
  already, lagi in
• progress

18

• a. Orang itu dia nggak/udah cium.
• person that 3SG not already kiss
• That person was not/has already
  been kissed by him.
• b. Orang itu nggak/udah dia cium.
• person that not already 3SG kiss
• That person was not/has already been
  kissed by him.

19

• In stem sentences, elements like nggak/udah CAN
  occur between the agent and the verb
• a. Dia nggak/udah cium orang itu.
• 3SG not already kiss person that
• He did not kiss/has already kissed
  that person.
• b. Nggak/udah dia cium orang itu.
• not already 3SG kiss person
  that
• He did not kiss/has already kissed
  that person.

20

• Predictions of the Two Views
• Each analysis predicts a different word order in
  relative clauses.
• (14) a. Passive Semu Extraction
• Orang yang __ nggak/udah dia
  cium (itu)
• person COMP not already 3SG
  kiss that
• ditangkap polisi.
• DI-arrest police
• The person that was not/has already
  been kissed by
• him was arrested by the police.

21
b. Direct Object Extraction Orang yang
dia nggak/udah cium __ (itu)
person COMP 3SG not already kiss
that ditangkap polisi. DI-arrest
police The person that he did not
kiss/has already kissed was arrested by
the police.
22

• Only sentence (14a) is predicted to be possible
  by the subject-only view (since 14b) is not an
  example of Passive Semu.
• Both sentences in (14) are predicted to be
  grammatical by the non-subject view. (14a) is
  relativization on subject (14b) is
  relativization on
• object position.

23
Test 2 for Passive Semu For most people, full
NPs (like gadis ini) cannot be agents in the
Passive Semu construction. The agent in Passive
Semu is required to be a personal pronoun. (15)
Orang itu gadis ini cium. (Passive Semu)
person that girl this kiss That
person was kissed by this girl.
24

• Predictions of the Two Views
• The subject-only view predicts (16) to be
  ungrammatical,
• since it would be derived from (17)
• Orang yang gadis ini cium (itu)
  ditangkap polisi.
• person COMP girl this kiss that
  DI-arrest police
• The person that was kissed by this girl
  was arrested by
• the police.
• (17) Orang CP yang IP __ gadis ini cium itu
  ditangkap
• polisi

25
The non-subject view, however, predicts (16) to
be grammatical. According to this view, (16) has
the derivation in (18), in which the DO was
relativized directly. (18) Orang CP yang IP
gadis ini cium __ (itu) ditangkap
polisi. Based on (18), the NP that is
relativized is the direct object of the verb cium
in a stem sentence like (19).
26
(19) Gadis ini cium orang ituobj . (Stem
sentence) girl this kiss person
that This girl kissed that person. To
summarize, the subject-only and the non-subject
views make different predictions with respect to
sentences like (14) and (16), repeated
below. (14) a. Orang yang nggak/udah dia
cium (itu) person COMP not
already 3SG kiss that ditangkap
polisi. DI-arrest police
The person that was not/has already been kissed
by him was arrested by the police.
27
b. Orang yang dia nggak/udah cium
(itu) person COMP 3SG not already
kiss that ditangkap polisi.
DI-arrest police The person that he did
not kiss/has already kissed was arrested
by the police. (16) Orang yang gadis ini
cium (itu) ditangkap polisi. person
COMP girl this kiss that DI-arrest police
The person that was kissed by this girl was
arrested by the police.
28
The three sentences above are predicted to be
grammatical by the non-subject hypothesis, while
only (14a) is predicted to be grammatical by the
subject-only view. We shall show next that data
from adults and children speaking CJI support the
non-subject view.
29

• Data
• a. Adults
• Sources of Data for CJI
• Database of adult-to-adult speech collected by
  Yassir Tjung
• MPI database of adult-to-child speech

30

• Coding System
• RCs preceded by the complementizer yang were
  extracted and coded as having either a subject
  gap or a (potential) non-subject gap.
• RCs coded as having (potential) non-subject
  gaps were subdivided into four types
• Indeterminate
• Compatible with the word order of the Passive
  Semu construction
• Incompatible with the word order of the Passive
  Semu construction
• Adjunct relativization

31
(20) Indeterminate yang saya hubungi
mungkin bangsa koperasi- COMP 1SG connect-I
perhaps kind cooperative koperasi
gitu. cooperative like.that The ones that I
contacted are some sort of cooperatives. (21)
Compatible with the word order of the Passive
Semu construction Tarolah sahabat cewek yang
udah elu kenal baek put-LAH friend
girl COMP already 2SG know well Say, for
instance, the girl friend that you have already
known well.
32
(22) Incompatible with the word order of the
Passive Semu construction Pasti ada sesuatu
dalam diri dia yang gua certain exist
something in self 3SG COMP 1SG nggak
punya not have There must something in
her that I dont have (23) Adjunct
relativization Foto yang kita jalan-jalan
di Semarang mana? photo COMP 1PL walk-walk in
Semarang where Where is the picture of when
we went sightseeing in Semarang?
33
Figure 1 Subject versus Non-subject
Relativization
34
Figure 2 Non-subject Relativization
35

• Adults overwhelmingly use subject gaps and have
  few object gaps (fig 1).
• The majority of examples of (potential)
  non-subject gaps (67) are sentences which could
  be examples of either direct relativization on
  object position or relativization on a subject in
  the Passive Semu construction (fig 2).

36
(24) a. Cewek yang elu mau kayak apa?
girl COMP 2SG want like what
What kind of girl would you like?
b. Bisa aja kan cewek itu termasuk
can only KAN girl that TER-include
yang dia idamkan.
COMP 3SG yearn-KAN That girl could be
the one that he longs for.
37
The word order of the following examples (21)
are also compatible with the Passive Semu
construction. (25) a. Banyak yang bisa kita
buat ... much COMP can 1PL
make There is much that we can do
b. ... Cewek yang udah elu kenal
baek ... girl COMP already
2SG know well The girl that youve
already known well
38

• However, the following examples (11) do not
  have the characteristics of Passive Semu word
  order and are cases of direct relativization from
  object position.
• a. ... yang gua bisa jalanin, ya gua
  jalanin.
• COMP 1SG can walk-IN, yes 1SG
  walk-IN
• The one that I can do, well I do
  it.
• b. ... the dark side of Yuli yang
  banyak
• the dark side of Yuli COMP much
• orang nggak tau
• The dark side of Yuli that many
  people
• dont know

39

• Adjunct relativization is also attested,
  although it is extremely rare in our data.
• Conclusion Adults in CJI allow relativization on
  non-subject positions.

40

• b. Children
• Sources of Data
• MPI database of the speech of three children
  (from the age 20 to 52)
• Coding System (same as for adults)

41
Figure 3 Subject versus non-subject
relativization
42
Figure 4 Non-subject relativization
43

• As seen in Figure 3, children use many more
  subject gaps than do adults (about 99).
• In Figure 4, the majority of examples of
  (potential) non-subject gaps (80) are sentences
  which could be examples of either direct
  relativization on object position or
  relativization on a subject in the Passive Semu
  construction

44
(27) a. Ini yang aku cari
This COMP 1SG look.for This is the
one that Im looking for. b. ... yang
Mama beli COMP mother buy
The one that Mother bought. Only two
examples out of 30 (potential) non-subject gaps
are clearly compatible with the Passive Semu
construction (given our strict criteria).
45
(28) a. Anjing yang pernah Ica liat
dog COMP ever Ica see
The dog that Ica once saw b. Tante
yang udah Ica kasih, ininya.
aunt COMP already Ica give this-NYA
Auntie, the one that Ica gave, here it
is. Recall earlier that we found 11 of cases
of clear non-subject gap relativization in adult
speech, which led us to conclude that the
non-subject-gap-relativization strategy is an
option available in the grammars of adult
speakers of CJI.
46
We would like to argue that similar cases also
occur in childrens speech even though they are
much less frequent than with adults (only two
instances) (29) a. Soalnya kan ada
yang Ca belom ... question-NYA
KAN exist COMP Ca not.yet The
question is that there is something that Ca
has not yet b. ... itu yang,
yang Pak Polisi lagi ... that
COMP COMP Mr. Police in.progress That
is the one that Mr. Policeman is
47
Why do children have very few object gaps? 1)
Frequency Children can only relativize on
subjects because this is the most frequent
pattern in the input. They ignore infrequent
input patterns. Prediction Indonesian children
will differ radically from English children in
terms of positions that can be relativized. 2)
The Subset Principle and the Accessibility
Hierarchy The AH is a guiding principle and the
various settings in the AH stand in a subset
relation. Prediction children universally start
out with the most restrictive setting supported
by the data. Subject-only is the most
restrictive setting.
48
Why do children have very few object gaps? 3)
Processing rather than competence The low
frequency of object gaps is due to a processing
effect subject relativization imposes a lighter
processing load than object relativization, since
the gap is easier to recover. (Diessel (2002),
Diessel and Tomasello (2000), Hawkins
(2000). Prediction children in all languages
will exhibit a preference for subject gaps at a
early age. This is true even if object
relativization is quite frequent in the adult
language (English). Thus, English and Indonesian
children may not differ in terms of their
grammatical competence.
49
What do the data show? A comparison of RCs in
English child language and Indonesian child
language
50
(No Transcript)
51

52

• By comparing RCs in English and Indonesian child
  language we conclude that
• Object gaps in both English and Indonesian are
  less frequent than subject gaps, but are
  available. This argues against the subset view
  and against discontinuity in the grammar.
• Since in both languages subject gaps are much
  more frequent, the shared preference for subjects
  is probably not due to the grammar but due to
  processing.

53

• Indonesian children have a much lower
  percentage of object RCs than English children.
  Therefore, frequency of input may play a role (in
  addition to difficulty of processing).
• Since relativization on object position is
  extremely rare in the Indonesian naturalistic
  child corpus, this may be an effect of how the
  data was collected. Even at age 502 (an age when
  English children exibit robust object gaps),
  Indonesian children have almost 100 subject
  gaps. Perhaps if we put children in a situation
  in which object gaps are more natural, they
  would relativize on objects with greater ease.

54

• Experimental Data
• The task for the children in this experiment is
  to convey to an uninformed listener one of the
  two objects/characters whose identity is most
  felicitously expressible by an RC.
• The design of the experiment is based on
  Zukowskis (2001) pictorial RC experiment.
• Subjects 20 kindergarten children aged between
  50 and 60
• Materials 8 base pictures (4 used to elicit
  subject gap RCs and 4 object gap RCs) and four
  types of changes applied to each of the 8
  pictures.

55
An Example of Base Picture Experimenter Nah,
ini kan ada dua anak, satu lagi ngegambar, satu
lagi nyanyi. Coba ini dipencet.
56
An Example of Changed Picture Experimenter
Ada tikusnya, ya? Tikus liat anak perempuan mana,
ayo? Child Anak yang lagi nyanyi
57

• The 8 base pictures are manipulated to create 4
  stimuli
• NP-only response to a matrix subject question
• NP-only response to a matrix object question
• Full-sentence response with the RC modifying the
  matrix subject
• Full-sentence response with the RC modifying the
  matrix object
• The 8 base pictures X 4 manipulations result in
  32 trials for each child 16 with NP-only targets
  and 16 with full-sentence targets. Since the full
  sentence trials yield opportunities for 2 RCs,
  this results in 48 total opportunities for RCs
  per child.

58

• Result
• Each child is presented with 24 sentences
  requiring RCs with subject gap and 24 sentences
  requiring RCs with object gap
• 48 sentences X 20 children 960 sentences

59

• Examples from the childrens responses
• RC with subject gap
• The verbs inside the yang-clauses are either
  bare verbs or verbs with the nasal prefix
  NG-/MENG-
• (31) a. orang yang lempar bola
• The person that is throwing the
  ball
• b. yang lagi lempar bola warna pink yang
  lagi nendang bola warna
• biru
• The one that is throwing the ball is
  pink the one that is kicking
• the ball is blue.

60
c. orang yang lagi nendang bola The person
that is kicking the ball. d. tikus liat
orang yang lagi nendang bola kalo burung liat
orang yang lagi lempar bola The mouse is
looking at the person that is kicking the ball
the bird is looking at the person that is
throwing the ball. (CHI-HW)
61

• The verbs in the yang-clauses are verbs with the
  passive prefix DI-.
• (32) a. kucing yang dikejar sama orang
• The cat that is being chased by the
  person
• b. bebek ngeliat kucing yang dikejar sama
  orang terus tikusnya liat
• kucing yang dikejar sama anjing
• The duck is looking at the cat that
  is being chased by the person,
• and the mouse is looking at the cat
  that is being chased by the dog.
• c. yang dikejar sama anjing
• The one that is being chased by the
  dog.
• d. kucingnya yang dikejar sama anjing jadi
  ungu yang dikejar sama
• orang jadi coklat
• The cat that is being chased by the
  dog becomes purple the one
• that is being chased by the person
  becomes brown.
• (CHI-PL)

62

• RC with object gap
• The verbs inside the yang-clauses are mostly
  bare verbs.
• (33) a. yang anak perempuan lagi dudukin
• The one that the girl is sitting on
• b. mobil-mobilan yang perempuannya lagi
  loncatin
• The toy car that the girl is jumping
  over

63
c. bebek lagi liat mobil-mobilan yang perempuan
lagi dudukin tikus liat mobil-mobilan yang
perempuannya lagi loncatin The duck is
looking at the toy car that the girl is sitting
on the mouse is looking at the toy car
that the girl is jumping over d. mobil-mobilan
yang anak perempuan lagi dudukin jadi biru yang
ungu yang anak perempuan lagi loncatin
The toy car that the girl is sitting on becomes
blue the purple one is the one that the
girl is jumping over (CHI-MF)
64

• (34) a. yang anjing lagi kejar (CHI-VG)
• The one that the dog is chasing
• b. tikus liat kucing yang anjing pengen
  nangkep burung liat kucing
• yang orang pengen nangkep (CHI-ML)
• The mouse is looking at the cat that
  the dog is going to catch the bird is
• looking at the cat that the person is
  going to catch
• RC with unclear gap
• missing verb
• (35) a. tikus liat TV yang perempuan
• The mouse is looking at the girls
  TV

65

• b. yang perempuan TV-nya jadi merah
• As for the girl, her TV becomes
  red.
• (CHI-PC)
• no gap
• (36) a. yang anjing ngejar-ngejar kucing jadi
  ungu
• The one in which the dog is chasing
  the cat becomes purple
• b. liat yang kucing lagi ngelompatin orang
• Looking at the one in which the cat
  is jumping over the person
• (CHI-PC)

66

• Non-RCs
• (37) Child uses simple sentences
• a. anjing lagi ngejar kucing
• The dog is chasing the cat
• b. orang lagi ngelompatin orang
• The person is jumping over the person
• (CHI-KL)
• (38) Child uses simple NPs
• a. TV cowok
• The boys TV
• b. TV cewek
• The girls TV
• (CHI-KL)

67
(39) Child uses VPs a. nunjuk sapi
Pointing at the cow b. ngejar kelinci
Chasing the rabbit (CHI-KL) (40)
Child uses complex predicates a. bebek lagi
liatin orang lagi tunjuk kuda (CHI-MF)
The duck sees the person pointing at the
horse b. lagi ngeliatin orang dudukin
mobil (CHI-VG) Seeing the
person sitting on the car
68
Table 5. Target Subject Gap
69
Table 6. Target Object Gap
70

• What Do The Data Show?
• Children do not have trouble with RCs with
  subject gap they successfully produce 448 out of
  480 opportunities (more than 93). This mirrors
  the English experimental data.
• They appear to have more trouble with RCs with
  object gap. Children easily convert objects to
  subjects (by using the DI-verb), 319/480
  opportunities (about 66.5) .
• Many children produce non-RCs (about 12.7) and
  RCs which have unclear gap (about 17) in this
  condition. Again, this mirrors the English data
  and must therefore be due to processing
  constraints.

71

• However, the subject-only view would have
  difficulty
• explaining the existence of RCs with clear object
  gap
• (18 cases, 3.8).
• The experimental data indicate that while
  children are very sensitive to frequencies, they
  do allow object gaps in their grammar. The
  percentage is less than the percentage in the
  adult input due to additional processing
  restrictions (the same restrictions which are at
  work in English).

72
Why does CJI diverge from FI? Comrie ( 2003)
notes that often languages in which only the
subject can be relativized have a rich voice
system that permits non-subjects to be presented
as subjects. The subject constraint may then
hold for FI since it has a rich voice system.
This constraint, however, might be ignored in
CJI since CJI permits constructions with bare
verbs (stem sentences).
73

• One Possible Scenario
• In CJI stem sentences and passive Semu are
  collapsed into a single construction. Not only
  are verbs bare in both constructions, but the
  word order constraints and the pronoun constraint
  on agents in Passive Semu have also been lost.
• Since Passive Semu is not a separate
  construction, the evidence for a subject only
  constraint on relativization is lost.

74
Two grammars now compete in the acquisition of
CJI a. A grammar which limits gaps to
subjectsb. A grammar which allows both subject
and object gapsEach time sentences like (25)
or (26) are heard, Grammar B is supported (and
eventually will win out).
75
(25) a. Banyak yang bisa kita buat ...
much COMP can 1PL make
There is much that we can do b. ...
Cewek yang udah elu kenal baek ...
girl COMP already 2SG know
well The girl that youve already
known well
76

• (26). a. ... yang gua bisa jalanin, ya gua
  jalanin.
• COMP 1SG can walk-IN, yes 1SG
  walk-IN
• The one that I can do, well I do
  it.
• b. ... the dark side of Yuli yang
  banyak
• the dark side of Yuli COMP much
• orang nggak tau
• The dark side of Yuli that many
  people
• dont know
• This scenario follows the computational
  principles of acquisition and diachronic change
  described in the work of Yang (2003).

77
References Keenan, E. and Bernard Comrie.
1977. Comrie, Bernard. 2003. Dardjowidjojo,
Soenjono. 1973. Chung, Sandra. 1976. Chung,
Sandra. 1978. Cole, Peter and Gabriella Hermon.
1998. Diesel, H. 2002. Diessel, H. and M.
Tomasello. 2000. Hawkins, John. 2000. Kaswanti
Purwo, Bambang. 2003 Musgrave, Simon. 2001. Sie,
Ing Djiang. 1988. Sneddon, James. 1996. Zukowski,
Andrea. 2001. Yang, Charles. 2003