Cover not available
Article published In:
Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki
[Studies in Language 43:2] 2019
► pp. 402–443

The predicate as a locus of grammar and interaction in colloquial Indonesian

ORCID logo | University of Melbourne
Descriptions of Indonesian usually take the clause as the starting point for analysing grammatical structure and rely on the notion of ellipsis to account for the way speakers actually use language in everyday conversational interaction. This study challenges the status of “clause” by investigating the structures actually used by Indonesian speakers in informal conversation and it demonstrates that the predicate, rather than the clause, plays a central role in the grammar of Indonesian conversation. The preponderance of predicates in the data that do not have explicit arguments suggests that this format is best viewed as the default. When a predicate is produced without overt arguments, reconstructing what arguments may have been elided is often ambiguous or indeterminate and seems to be irrelevant to speakers. An examination of turn-taking, overlap and incrementing in conversation also shows that predicates, rather than full clauses, are the grammatical format participants regularly orient to.
Keywords: Interactional Linguistics, linguistic units, Indonesian, conversation, predicate, clause
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Predicate configurations in conversational Indonesian
    • 2.1Verbal predicates
    • 2.2Non-verbal predicates
    • 2.3When there are no explicit arguments
  • 3.Frequency and distribution of predicate configurations in conversation
  • 4.Predicates in interaction
    • 4.1Turn constructions and predicates
    • 4.2Participant orientation and predicates
      • 4.2.1Next turn onset
      • 4.2.2Joint utterance completion
      • 4.2.3Turn continuations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Glosses
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17062.ewi
References (54)
References
Auer, Peter. 1996. On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds.), Prosody in Conversation, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1). 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79(4). 708–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2012. Turn-constructional units and the transition relevance place. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of Conversation Analysis, 150–166. Malden MA: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Čmejrková, Světla & Carlo L. Prevignano. 2003. On conversation analysis: An interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff. In Carlo L. Prevignano & Paul J. Thibault (eds.), Discussing conversation analysis: The work of Emanuel A. Schegloff, 11–55. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon & Yassir Tjung. 2006. Is There Pasif Semu in Jakarta Indonesian? Oceanic Linguistics 45(1). 64–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2007. ‘Incrementing’ in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics 17(4). 513–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, Susanna. 1991. Functional change: The case of Malay constituent order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Heer, Gerrit Koenraad. 1975. Indonesian syntax. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner (eds.). 2015. Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Djenar, Dwi Noverini. 2014. Nih and tuh as spatial deixis in imagined interaction. In Anthony Jukes (ed.), Deixis and spatial expressions in languages of Indonesia. NUSA 561. 27–46.Google Scholar
. 2015. Pronouns and sociospatial ordering in conversation and fiction. In Laure Gardelle & Sandrine Sorlin (eds.), The pragmatics of personal pronouns, 195–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Djenar, Dwi Noverini, Michael C. Ewing & Howard Manns. 2018. Style and intersubjectivity in youth interaction. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4). 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. & Elise Kärkkäinen. 2012. Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk 32(4). 433–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Stephen Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cumming. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick. 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jacob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 285–312. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Grammatical resources for social purposes: Some aspects of stancetaking in colloquial Indonesian conversation. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 69–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. From subordinate clause to noun-phrase: Yang constructions in colloquial Indonesian. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ewing, Michael C. 2005a. Colloquial Indonesian. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 227–258. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2015a. Localising person reference among Indonesian youth. In Zane Goebel, Deborah Cole & Howard Manns (eds.), Margins, hubs, and peripheries in a decentralizing Indonesia. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies Special Issue 1621: 26–41.Google Scholar
2015b. The kalau framing construction in Indonesian comics. In Dwi Noverini Djenar (ed.), Youth language in Indonesia and Malaysia. NUSA 581. 51–72Google Scholar
In press. Features of Indonesian in Bandung. NUSA.
Ewing, Michael C. & Susanna Cumming. 1998. Relative clauses in Indonesian discourse: Face to face and cyberspace interaction. In Shobhana L. Chelliah & Willem J. de Reuse (eds.), Papers from the fifth annual meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 79–96. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Program for Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1982. The focus systems in Old Javanese, Tagalog and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian. [Unpublished ms.].Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin, Paul Law & Joachim Sabel. 2006. Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages: A critical introductory survey. In Hans-Martin Gärtner, Paul Law & Joachim Sabel (eds.), Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages, 1–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Volume II1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1995. Sentence construction within interaction. In Uta M. Quasthoff (ed.), Aspects of oral communication, 198–219. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics, 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: typological perspectives. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso & P. Leonardi (eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetoric, 11–38. Padua: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language in Society 20(3). 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, R. Ross & Soenjono Darjowidjojo. 1967. A student’s reference grammar of modern formal Indonesian. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan. 2015. Information Structure in Linguistics. In James D. Wright (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral Sciences, Volume 121, 2nd edn., 95–99. Elsevier: Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson. 1994. Unattached NPs in English conversation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 201. 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2015. Sentences and clauses – from the perspective of Interactional Linguistics. In Christa Dürscheid & Jan Georg Schneider (eds.), Handbuch Satz, Äußerung, Schema, 180–204. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, James N. 2006. Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sneddon, James N., Alexander Adelaar, Dwi N. Djenar & Michael C. Ewing. 2010. Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4–5). 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, John U. 1986. Formal Indonesian, 2nd edn. Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wouk, Fay. 1984. Scalar transitivity and trigger choice in Toba Batak. In Paul Schachter (ed.), Studies in the structure of Toba Batak, 195–219. Los Angeles: UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1999. Dialect contact and koineization in Jakarta, Indonesia. Language Sciences 21(1). 61–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ewing, Michael C.
2024. Chapter 2. Elusive referentiality and allusive reference in Indonesian conversation. In (Non)referentiality in Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 344], ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
2024. Chapter 7. The indeterminacy and fluidity of reference in everyday conversation. In (Non)referentiality in Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 344], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Mushin, Ilana & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Linguistic structures in social interaction. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.