Cover not available
Part of
Austronesian Undressed: How and why languages become isolating
Edited by David Gil and Antoinette Schapper
[Typological Studies in Language 129] 2020
► pp. 213–252

Chapter 4
Voice and bare verbs in Colloquial Minangkabau

| The University of Western Australia
Minangkabau is an Austronesian language spoken primarily in West Sumatra. Previous studies of voice and morphosyntax, which have largely relied on elicitation-based methodology, suggest that Minangkabau can be characterised as an Indonesian-type language since its active/passive voice system resembles that of Malay/Indonesian. This study, which makes use of a corpus of naturalistic Minangkabau data, finds that the use of bare verbs (i.e. verbs that are unmarked for voice) is pervasive in informal and conversational contexts. Morphological underspecification for voice in the naturalistic data suggests that Colloquial Minangkabau is a distinct variety. The apparent optional nature of voice marking in Colloquial Minangkabau indicates that its function is primarily semantic and conceptual, and that Colloquial Minangkabau is better characterised as having a Sundic-type voice system.
Keywords: Minangkabau, voice, bare verbs, Sundic-type voice system, Indonesian-type voice system
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Standard Minangkabau and Colloquial Minangkabau
    • 2.1A focus on the standard
    • 2.2A new focus: Naturalistic data
    • 2.3Standard and Colloquial Minangkabau: Formal and functional differences
  • 3.Voice in Standard Minangkabau
    • 3.1An Indonesian-type language with a pivot function
    • 3.2Active voice
      • 3.2.1Canonical maN- clauses
      • 3.2.2Non-canonical maN clauses
    • 3.3Passive voice
      • 3.3.1Canonical di clauses
      • 3.3.2Non-canonical di clauses
    • 3.4The P2 construction
      • 3.4.1The Standard Minangkabau P2 construction
      • 3.4.2Bare verbs and the P2 construction
  • 4.Voice in Colloquial Minangkabau
    • 4.1‘Sundic-type’ voice
    • 4.2Bare verbs
    • 4.3Bare verbs: Problems and explanations
      • 4.3.1What is the function of voice marking in Colloquial Minangkabau?
      • 4.3.2How are semantic roles determined?
      • 4.3.3Associational semantics
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.129.04cro
References (76)
References
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 1992a. Proto-Malayic: The Reconstruction of its Phonology and Parts of its Lexicon and Morphology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1992b. The relevance of Salako for Proto-Malayic and for Old Malay epigraphy. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 148: 381–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Minangkabau. In Comparative Austronesian Dictionary: An Introduction to Austronesian Studies, Part 1: Fascile 1, Darrell T. Tyron, Malcolm D. Ross, Charles E. Grimes, Adrian Clynes & K. Alexander Adelaar (eds), 433–441. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2005. Much ado about di- . Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 161: 127–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Yet Another Explanation of the Passive Prefix di- . Paper presented at the Twelfth International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics , 26th-27th June, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Adnani, Dahnil. 1971. Minangkabau Sentences and Their Constituents: An Exploration in Semantically Based Grammatical Analysis. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Ansjar, Mohammad. 1971. An Introduction to Minangkabau Morphology. MA thesis, IKIP Malang.Google Scholar
Anwar, Khaidir. 1992. Semantik Bahasa Minang. Padang: Yayasan Pengkajian Kebudayaan Minang.Google Scholar
Arifin, Syamsir et al. 1979. Kata Tugas Bahasa Minangkabau (Minangkabau Function Words). Padang: Pusat Pembihaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa – Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.Google Scholar
Arka, I. Wayan. 2003. Voice systems in the Austronesian languages of Nusantara: Typology, symmetricality and undergoer orientation. Linguistik Indonesia 21: 113–139.Google Scholar
Arka, I. Wayan & Manning, Christopher D. 2008. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new perspective. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, Peter Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds), 45–69. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Be, Kim Hoa Nio. 1978/1979. Morfologi dan Sintaksis Bahasa Minangkabau (Minangkabau Morphology and Syntax). Padang: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Padang, IKIP Padang.Google Scholar
. 1984. Sistem Morfologi Kata Benda dan Kata Sifat Bahasa Minangkabau (The Morphology of Nouns and Adjectives in Minangkabau). Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Geoffrey. 1993. Grammar and polity: The cultural and political background to Standard Malay. In The Role of Theory in Language Description, William Foley (ed.), 341–392. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2000. Investigating language use through corpus-based analyses of association patterns. In Usage Based Models of Language, Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 287–313. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan & Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2013. The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Brodkin, Dan & Fortin, Catherine. 2017. Minangkabau -i: A locative, transitivizing, iterative, adversative suffix. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 42(2): 1–12.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds), 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1976. On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 57–98. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella & Tjung, Yassir. 2006. Is there pasif semu in Jakartan Indonesian? Oceanic Linguistics 45: 64–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon & Yanti. 2007. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118: 15–53.Google Scholar
Conners, Thomas. 2008. Tengger Javanese Morphosyntax. PhD dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Conners, Thomas J. & Brugman, Claudia. 2013. The event semantic role of the nasal prefix in Jakarta Indonesian. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, I. Wayan Arka and N. L. K. Mas Indrawati (eds), 213–225. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Conners, Thomas, Bowden, John & Gil, David. 2015. Valency classes in Jakarta Indonesian. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 941–986. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crouch, Sophie. 2009. Voice and Verb Morphology in Minangkabau, a Language of West Sumatra, Indonesia. MA thesis, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono. 1978. The Sentence Patterns of Indonesian. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Davies, William D. 2005. The richness of Madurese voice. In The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems, I. Wayan Arka & Malcolm D. Ross (eds), 197–220. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Drakard, Jane. 1999. A Kingdom of Words: Language and Power in Sumatra. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fadlul Rahman, Fitri, Kurniati, Santi, Prima Putri, Yessy & Gil, David. 2013. Word-internal language mixing: Borrowing, code-switching or register-switching? Paper presented at Seventeenth International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics , 8th-9th June, Padang, Sumatra Barat, Indonesia.
Foley, William & Van Valin Jr., Robert. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1985. Information packaging in the clause. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 282–364. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fortin, Catherine R. 2001. A Descriptive Study of Minangkabau, with an Emphasis on Verbal Morphology. MA thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
2004. Syntactic and semantic valence: Morphosyntactic evidence from Minangkabau. BLS 29: 137–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, Gil. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar: Principles, methods and examples. In Corpus Linguistics: Readings in a Widening Discipline, Geoffrey Sampson & Diana McCarthy (eds), 198–211. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Genta, Sakti. 1999. Turn-taking in the Minangkabau Language: A Case Study of a Television Chat Show. MA thesis, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1994. The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17: 179–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Syntactic categories, cross-linguistic variation and Universal Grammar. In Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes, Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds), 173–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Creoles, complexity and Riau Indonesian. Linguistic Typology 5: 325–371.Google Scholar
. 2002. The prefixes di- and N- in Malay/Indonesian dialects. In The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, Fay Wouk & Malcolm D. Ross (eds), 241–283. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2006. Intonation and thematic roles in Indonesian. In Topic and Focus, Cross Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, Chungmin M. Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Buring (eds), 41–68. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2007. Creoles, complexity and associational semantics. In Deconstructing Creole: New Horizons in Language Creation [Typological Studies in Language 73], Umberto Ansaldo & Stephen J. Matthews (eds), 67–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. So where are all those Indonesian-type voice systems? An exploration of clause structure in Mentawai. Paper presented at International Workshop on Minority Languages in the Malay/Indonesian Speaking World , 28th June, Leiden, The Netherlands.
. 2015a. The Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area. In Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia, The State of the Art, Nicholas J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds), 266–355. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Malayic languages of Sumatra. A joint project of the Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and Universitas Bung Hatta, Padang.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, Elisabeth & Paauw, Scott. 2010. Verbal aspect in Colloquial Jakarta Indonesian. Paper presented at ISLOJ 2 : Lombok, Indonesia.
Gordon Jr., Raymond G. (ed.). 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 15th edn. Dallas TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Hardjadibrata, R. Rabinranat. 1985. Sundanese: A Syntactical Analysis. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hidayat, Lanny. 2011. The analysis of the semantic function of the prefix N- in Basilectal Jakarta Indonesian. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Tense, Aspect, Mood and Evidentiality in Indonesian Languages, Asako Shiohara, Anthony Jukes, Atsuko Utsumi, Antonia Soriente (eds), 173–182. Tokyo: ILCAA.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological overview. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Karl Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 110–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, Peter K. Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds), 247–293. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 1999. Review of The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology , Carson T. Schütze. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8: 114–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 1996. Voice in Austronesian [NUSA 39]. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya.Google Scholar
Medan, Tamsin. n.d. Dialek-dialek Minangkabau di Daerah Minangkabau/Sumatera Barat (suatu pemerian dialektologis). (Minangkabau Dialects in the Minangkabau Region/West Sumatra (a dialectological description)). Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa.
Mosel, Ulrike. 2006. Fieldwork and community language work. In Essentials of Language Documentation, Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel (eds), 67–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moussay, Gérard. 1995. Dictionnaire Minangkabau, Indonesien, Français. Paris: Harmattan, Association Archipel.Google Scholar
. 1998. Tata Bahasa Minangkabau (Minangkabau Grammar). Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Simon. 2000. Pronouns and morphology: Undergoer subject clauses in Indonesian. In Yearbook of Morphology, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 155–186. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nadra. 2006. Rekonstruksi Bahasa Minangkabau (A Reconstruction of Minangkabau). Padang: Andalas University Press.Google Scholar
Nadra, Reniwati & Yades, Efri. 2008. Daerah asal dan arah migrasi orang Minangkabau di Provinsi Jambi berdasarkan kajian variasi dialectal. (The origin and direction of the migration of Minangkabau people in Jambi Province based on a study of dialectal variation). Makara, Sosial Humanoria 12: 1–8.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John (ed.). 1998. Linguistic Databases. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Noviatri, Reniwati & Asnan, Gusti. 2017. Affixes of Minangkabau in the origin and Rantau area: Study of morphological variation. Jurnal Arbitrer (The Arbitrary Journal) 4: 86–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puspawati. 1997. Aspek Semantis Modalitas Bahasa Minangkabau: Suatu Kajian Deskriptif: Laporan Penelitian (Semantic Aspects of Modality in Minangkabau: A Descriptive Study: Research Results). Padang: Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat.Google Scholar
Ramadian. 1992. Adverbia Penanda Modalitas Bahasa Minangkabau (Adverbial Modality Markers in Minangkabau). Padang: Angkasa Raya.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D. 2002. The history and transitivity of Western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, Fay Wouk & Malcolm D. Ross (eds), 17–63. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgements and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masoyoshi. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics 44: 217–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, James Neil. 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tanner, N. 1972. Minangkabau Disputes. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra & Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45], Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds), 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Toorn, Johannes L. 1899. Minangkabausche Spraakkunst. S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voorhoeve, Petrus. 1955. Critical Survey of Studies on the Language of Sumatra. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Gerald E. 1961. Colloquial Minangkabau: A Description of Phonological and Morphological Structure. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Wouk, Fay. 1989. The Impact of Discourse on Grammar: Verb Morphology in Spoken Jakarta Indonesian. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
. 1999. Sasak is different: A discourse perspective on voice. Oceanic Linguistics 38: 91–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Transitive bare verb stems in Spoken Jakarta Indonesian. Nusa 53: 29–46.Google Scholar