Typical Features of Austronesian Languages in Central/Eastern Indonesia

Klamer, Marian

doi:10.1353/ol.2002.0007

Cited by 26 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ru w -klwaro- n ruon3 sg.f 3 sg.f .-deceive-3 sg.m 3 sg.m ‘She deceived him.’ (B&D, ex. (8b))According to Klamer (2002: 378), such a pattern of agreement is a common feature in languages in central and eastern Indonesia, and indeed, some dialects of Lamaholot also show this pattern (Arndt 1937: 67). However, as far as the dialect in question (the Lewoingu dialect, see footnote 2 above) is concerned, the pattern in (25) does not hold: a verb never agrees with the object in this dialect 15 .…”

Section: Comparison With Walman Conjunctive Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conjunctive agreement in Lamaholot

Nishiyama

2010

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a description and a theoretical analysis of agreement within coordination in Lamaholot (Austronesian), where the first conjunct agrees with the conjunction ‘and’. Conjunctive agreement is obligatory in the subject position but is optional in the object position. The analysis is couched in terms of markedness of case and proposes that the case of the subject (nominative) is unmarked compared to the case of the object (accusative), and that only unmarked case enables phi-features of the agreement control to be copied onto the agreement host. Apparent optionality is accounted for by manners of case spreading in coordination. Conjunctive agreement is also reported in the genetically unrelated but areally related language of Walman. Although conjunctive agreement originates in verbal agreement with the comitative function in both languages, it is shown that grammaticalization from the comitative to the conjunction is more advanced in Lamaholot, at least in terms of syntax and morphology.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Walman Conjunctive Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conjunctive agreement in Lamaholot

Nishiyama

2010

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Reesink, 1999: 148) Sougb (Reesink, 2002: 209-10) has complex predicates with direct objects and with prepositional objects. Klamer (2002) argues that the absence of prepositional complements with emotion predicates in the languages of Eastern Indonesia is a typical feature of the area. I have argued elsewhere (Musgrave, 2002a;ch.…”

Section: (21) Burumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, scholars who have studied this area intensively regard this construction as a feature typical of the area (Klamer, 2002;G. Reesink, personal communication).…”

Section: Quantitative Evidence For Contact-induced Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Areas

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both found that the Manggarai language has 18 consonant phonemes, nine prenasal stop phonemes that can appear in initial and final positions, and six vowel phonemes. The distinctive features of the Manggarai language are prenasal stops (Klamer, 2002), fricative sounds (Verheijen & Grimes, 1995), and implosive sounds ɓ, ɗ, and ɠ (Walker, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Imperative Clauses in Manggarai

Salahuddin¹

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manggarai is one of the languages in West Flores studied by many researchers, either native or non-native speakers. Nevertheless, only a few describe the sound system in the imperative clauses of the Manggarai language. Imperative clauses are speech acts intended to influence the interlocutor to take specific actions and aim to give orders (commands), requests, requests, suggestions (advice), warnings, instructions, and hopes. Some researchers who briefly describe imperative clauses have failed to formulate case markers in imperative clauses. Thus, this study aims to formulate case markings in imperative clauses comprehensively. Researchers as native speakers of the Manggarai language in the Kempo dialect use familiar examples. The data used in this study are examples of imperative clauses that are often found and assessed based on the author's intuition as a native dialect speaker. This study also tested several formulas of imperative clause rules in previous research, which distinguished the use of gi and ga, and neka marker in negative imperative clauses. Some critical findings in this research are, firstly, the markers gi and ga are not an enclitic attached to the word they follow; secondly, the articles gi and ga are not specific markers for imperative clauses because they can also appear in other clause forms (e.g., declarative clauses); and third, the words neka and asi in the negative imperative clauses of the Manggarai language can be used interchangeably and do not change the meaning of the clause. Thus, this proves that there are no unique markers in the imperative clauses of the Manggarai language because the form varies relatively depending on the context with whom one is talking.

show abstract

Typical Features of Austronesian Languages in Central/Eastern Indonesia

Cited by 26 publications

References 27 publications

Conjunctive agreement in Lamaholot

Conjunctive agreement in Lamaholot

Linguistic Areas

Examining the Imperative Clauses in Manggarai

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About