Cognition in Grammar: The Problem of Verbal Prefixation in Malay by Hock Ann Lionel Wee B.A.(Hons) (National University of Singapore) 1988 M.A. (National University of Singapore) 1991 M.A. (University of California at Berkeley) 1993 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA at BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor George P. Lakoff, Co-Chair Professor Eve E. Sweetser, Co-Chair Professor Gary B. Holland Professor Johanna B. Nichols 1995 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The dissertation jr tn a c k Ann Lionel Wee is approved: " Date ______________ Co-Chair Date ______________ 5^.™ /.?^". Date h/bt4 ft # (U> CCtdLo__________ \J **— *}( ( ? f J Date University of California at Berkeley 1995 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CONTENTS Malay Spelling Conventions ix A bbreviations xi Acknowledgements xii C hapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1. The problem of verbal prefixation in Malay 3 1.2. The nature of categorization 12 1.3. Theory and description 17 1.4. Grammar and lexicon 19 1.5. Grammaticalization 20 1.6. Summary 23 PART ONE: FOUR VERBAL PREFIXES 25 C hapter 2 Voice, Volitionality, And Perfectivity 26 2.1. Meeting the prefixes 26 2.2. Some questions about the prefixes 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.3. A volitionality system 38 2.4. Summary 46 C hapter 3 The Verbal Paradigm 48 3.1. Two recent versions 48 3.1.1. Hassan 1974 48 3.1.2. Benjamin 1993 51 3.2. Three construction types 55 PART TWO: UNDERSTANDING THE PREFIXES 59 C hapter 4 The View From Above: Reconfiguring The Paradigm 60 4.1. Introduction 60 4.2. Lexical semantics of the stems 61 4.3. Adverbial modification 65 4.4. The three construction types 69 4.4.1. The Initiator/Endpoint Subject Construction 69 4.4.2. The Initiator Subject Construction 71 4.4.3. The Initiator Oblique/Absent Construction 74 4.5. Summarizing the volitionality system 78 4.6. A possible objection 80 4.7. The development of the system of prefixation 85 4.8. Conclusion 90 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C h ap ter 5 The View From Below: Properties Of The Individual Prefixes 92 5.1. Introduction 92 5.2. Ber- 92 5.2.1. Defining the middle 94 5.2.2. Some ber- sentences 98 5.2.3. Relating the different uses of ber- 104 5.2.3.1. ‘Reflexive’ a n d ‘reciprocal’ actions 105 5.2.3.2. ‘Collective’ actions 107 5.2.3.3. ‘Mental events’ 108 5.2.3.4. ‘(Auto)locomotion’ 109 5.2.3.5. ‘Natural events’ 114 5.2.3.6. ‘Active’ a n d ‘passive’ uses 116 5.2.3.7. A schematic representation of the polysemy of ber- 117 5.2.4. Further notes on the semantics of ber- 120 5.2.4.1. Level of transitivity 120 5.3. Ter- 122 5.3.1. Ter- and perfectivity 122 5.3.2. The scope of non-volitionality 126 5.3.3. Representing the ter- radial category 131 5.4. MeN- and di- 133 5.4.1. More on adverbial modification 139 5.5. Conclusion 141 v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C hapter 6 Back To The Paradigm: Some F u rth e r Issues 144 6.1. Ber- and restricted transitivity 144 6.2. Default vs. marked volitionality 146 6.3. Conclusion 150 PART THREE: PREFIX-STEM COMPOSITES 154 C hapter 7 Outside The Verbal Paradigm 155 7.1. Introduction 155 7.2. ‘Intensifier’ ter- 157 7.3. Tidak and ter-: ‘Lack of capacity’ 164 7.4. ‘Possession’ ber- 180 7.5. Why these are outside the verbal paradigm 184 C hapter 8 Converted Stems 188 8.1. Introduction 188 8.2. Systematically monvalent and divalent stems 190 8.3. Two hypotheses about conversion 198 8.4. Constraints governing the co-occurrence of converted stems and prefixes 203 8.4.1. Incompatibility in volitionality 203 8.4.2. Incompatibility in valence 204 8.4.3. Semantic specificity: An Elsewhere condition 205 vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8.4.4. Conflicting transitivity levels 208 8.5. Ranking the constraints 209 8.6. An overview 211 8.7. Summary 216 C hapter 9 Suffixed Stem s 217 9.1. Introduction 217 9.2. The verbal suffixes -i and -kan 218 9.2.1. Source domain-i: Profiling the location 224 9.2.2. Target domain: -I as a causative 226 9.2.3. Source domain -kan: Profiling either the transferred entity or the recipient 229 9.2.4. -Kan as a causative 232 9.2.4.1. Mapping no. 1: Transferred entity as causee 233 9.2.4.2. Mapping no. 2: Recipient as causee 234 9.2.5. Ter- and the suffixes: Conflicting volitionality values ? 237 9.2.5.1. Why is -i less preferred than -kan ? 240 9.2.5.2. Why can’t the Initiator be the subject ? 243 9.2.6. Ber- and the suffixes: Conflicting transitivity levels ? 245 9.2.7. The nominalizing suffix -an 250 9.2.8. Summary 254 vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C hapter 10 Some Idiomatic Prefix-Stern Composites 258 10.1. Introduction 258 10.2. Motion 259 10.3. Anger 263 10.4. Death 266 10.5. Pregnancy and birth 270 10.6. What about di- and ter- ? 272 10.7. Summary 278 C hapter 11 Concluding Remarks 279 11.1. Introduction 279 11.2. The voice/focus debate 279 11.3. The Topicalization Construction 283 11.4. The Generativistic Fallacy 292 11.5. Conclusion 297 B ibliography 301 viii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MALAY SPELLING CONVENTIONS Phoneme Grapheme P P t t c c k k ? k (if syllable-final), - (if syllable-initial) b b d d j j g g m m n n n n n ng f f s s s s x kh h h v v z z ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w w (if syllable-initial), u (if syllable-final) y y (if syllable-initial), i (if syllable-final) a a e e i i o o u u ai ai au au oi oi x Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABBREVIATIONS USED IN GLOSSES 1 1st Person 2 2nd Person 3 3rd Person CL Classifier EMPH Emphasis/Contrastive Marker LOC Locative MED Middle NEG Negative NOM Nominalizer PL Plural PROG Progressive REL Relative Clause Marker REFL Reflexive SG Singular ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REFERENCING CLASSICAL MALAY TEXTS HT Hikayat Hang Tuah (Bakar Hamid, A. 1979) SM Sejarah Melayu (Shellabear, W. G. 1967) xi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Before coming to Berkeley, friends who had previously been here were praising its intellectual environment, talking about how dynamic and stimulating it was. Such high praise usually needs to be taken with a pinch of salt since there is always the danger of being let down by reality. However, Berkeley has more than lived up to my expectations. In particular, I am privileged to have been part of the Department of Linguistics, where the community of faculty and graduate students has made my stay a truly enriching experience. My deepest thanks go to George Lakoff and Eve Sweetser, who co-chaired this dissertation. As mentors and friends, they have been encouraging, critical, and inspiring. I was drawn to Berkeley because of George’s work on cognitive linguistics. The best compliment I can offer him is to say that I leave Berkeley even more convinced that I made the right decision. Eve’s influence is more specific and perhaps all the more remarkable given that I originally had very little inte -est in grammaticalization. But because of her, the subject has now become an indispensable part of my linguistic thinking. Many thanks also to Gary Holland and Johanna Nichols, whose interest in transitivity and alignment made working on this dissertation both fun and challenging. The biggest tribute I can offer to all four members of my committee is this: it was a great experience, and if I had to do it all again, I would hope to work with the very same individuals. xii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thanks also to Jocelyn Ahlers, Leela Bilmes, Chung Yoon-Suk, Andy Dolbey, Chuck Fillmore, Belen Flores, Joe Grady, Kyoko Hirose, Larry Hyman, Sharon Inkelas, Matt Juge, Barbara Kaiser, Paul Kay, Jim Matisoff, Sam Mchombo, Kevin Moore, Pamela Morgan, Orhan Orgun, David Peterson, Sarah Taub, Teo Kok Seong, Elisa Trucco, Nancy Urban, Esther Weiss, Cheryl Zoll, and Wen Hsu, for enlightening discussions, good meals, and pleasant memories. A special note of gratitude to Bill Weigel whose encyclopedic knowledge and good humor make for conversations that are always educational and entertaining. Finally, I’d like to thank the National University of Singapore whose financial support made it possible for me to concentrate on my studies. xt it Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CH A PTER 1 INTRODUCTION Is there a specific language faculty that exists independently of other aspects of human cognition ? Is grammar a self-contained ‘module’ that can be understood without appealing to general cognitive processes such as prototype categorization, metaphor, metonymy, and idealized cognitive models ? The kind of answer given to these questions constitutes one of main characteristics that distinguishes cognitive linguists from generative linguists: the former tend to reject the notion of a separate grammatical component while the latter tend to assume its existence.